NPD February 2010

[Rolf N]

Exactly. Past gen, we had some of the X360 users, all of the PS3 users, and a lot of the Wii users all on the PS2.

But I don't really agree with the PS3/X360 users being essentially the same. I think the Xbox has more ex-PC gamers, and obviously far less of the Sony enthusiasts. It's a very rare case when someone who enjoyed KZ, GOW1-2, MGS and FF on the PS2 decides not to buy a new Playstation. These people are less likely to be interested in multiplatform titles IMHO, especially now that they're 5-8 years older and haven't got as much time to spend with games.
Also, a lot of them probably only got a PS3 when the slim was released because most of their favorite games weren't released before that and the console was quite expensive.

If you're a PC gamer, and happy with the experience, would you get a console?

If you're a PC gamer and frustrated with the experience, would you get a console from the same company that made the gaming PC's OS?

I used to be a PC gamer. Now I run Ubuntu and play on consoles only. And I like it that way.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I like having access to the kind of games that I've liked on the PC, without the need to upgrade, and being generally more comfortable in front of the TV. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Halo were the ones I've been mostly interested in, but GTA, COD and Gears were a nice bonus. Although I'll probably get a PS3 after the next price cut for the media capabilities and some of its own exclusives, too.

 

[woundingchaney]

If you're a PC gamer, and happy with the experience, would you get a console?

If you're a PC gamer and frustrated with the experience, would you get a console from the same company that made the gaming PC's OS?

I used to be a PC gamer. Now I run Ubuntu and play on consoles only. And I like it that way.

I am and will always be a pc gamer and I also own a PS3 (and formerly 360). I mainly do this to pick up the high profile titles that never see a pc release (or a delayed pc release of 6-12 months).

 

[mrcorbo]

I agree with you to an extent. But IMHO, the 360's install base isn't as diverse as the PS2's was and they cannot be directly compared, not to mention the PS2's install base is much bigger. The PS2 was essentially THE console that everyone had, so the demographic was quite varied. Probably a large percentage of PS3, 360 AND Wii owners own (or have owned) a PS2 at one point. Now we essentially have two nearly identical platforms, and the Wii. Hell, the games released on both the PS3 and 360 are nearly identical... the demographics between the two are essentially the same, which is why I personally think that this generation (especially in the US) install base IS definitely something to consider when comparing multiplatform sales performance.

There is a consistent overall trend that larger userbases lead to lower tie ratios. Also, I've personally documented how the purchase rate of a console's userbase declines as that userbase "ages". Both of these factors should be considered when comparing sales on two different platforms. You can choose to ignore them, but any conclusions you draw while doing so are inherently flawed.

Unless your number crunching somehow includes data from the PS3 and 360.

He has done this with a couple of annual titles, yes. (Madden and NCAA football IIRC).

 

[djskribbles]

There is a consistent overall trend that larger userbases lead to lower tie ratios. Also, I've personally documented how the purchase rate of a console's userbase declines as that userbase "ages". Both of these factors should be considered when comparing sales on two different platforms. You can choose to ignore them, but any conclusions you draw while doing so are inherently flawed.



He has done this with a couple of annual titles, yes. (Madden and NCAA football IIRC).

And I didn't disagree with that. But the 360 and PS3 mainly catering to the hardcore gamer, their demographics as a whole are at least very similar to the point where it should at least be noted when comparing MP performance (again, IMHO). I could say the same thing... If people are comparing MP performance, how could you ignore this? How can you say the performance of MP titles on the PS3 are poor without considering install base? That's the only reason why I brought it up. The original discussion was about why BioShock 2 performed so poorly, not MP games in general. There's a reason why BS2 performed poorly, though (compared to other MP games).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And I didn't disagree with that. But the 360 and PS3 mainly catering to the hardcore gamer, their demographics are at least very similar to the point where it should at least be noted when comparing MP performance (again, IMHO). If people are comparing MP performance, how could you ignore this? How can you say the performance of MP titles on the PS3 are poor without considering install base?

It's the direct corrolation of install base to title purchase that is in dispute.

IE - X title is doing just as well if not better on the console with the lower install base because the ratio of software sales matches almost exactly the ratio of console install base. That would be incorrect. The title on the lower install base console should almost always have a higher attach ratio for multiplatform titles unless a title has a deep attachment to one console or the other. Street Fighter on PS3 or Bioshock on X360 for example.

We're seeing that in Feb sales charts for CoD: MW2. That's closer to what the difference in install base should be showing. With PS3 version having a far higher attach rate for the month versus X360. Unfortunately the overall comparison for that is a bit tainted due to past month sales for MW2. With MW2 having quite a bit lower first month performance for the title on PS3, it would have a greater potential for latent demand to catch up over the next few months. So there's a greater number of people that didn't buy in the first month that will be buying in the following months.

If titles sold purely based on install base, then PS2 should have had some titles selling over 40 million units. As early in a console's lifetime it's relatively easier for a title to sell to close to half the install base.

Speaking of which. MW2 is shaping up to be an absolute monster outlier. It has the potential to sell to nearly half the X360 install base. However, I think it's going to end up falling well short due to the release of BF:BC2.

Regards,
SB

 

[djskribbles]

It's the direct corrolation of install base to title purchase that is in dispute.

IE - X title is doing just as well if not better on the console with the lower install base because the ratio of software sales matches almost exactly the ratio of console install base. That would be incorrect. The title on the lower install base console should almost always have a higher attach ratio for multiplatform titles unless a title has a deep attachment to one console or the other. Street Fighter on PS3 or Bioshock on X360 for example.

We're seeing that in Feb sales charts for CoD: MW2. That's closer to what the difference in install base should be showing. With PS3 version having a far higher attach rate for the month versus X360. Unfortunately the overall comparison for that is a bit tainted due to past month sales for MW2. With MW2 having quite a bit lower first month performance for the title on PS3, it would have a greater potential for latent demand to catch up over the next few months. So there's a greater number of people that didn't buy in the first month that will be buying in the following months.

If titles sold purely based on install base, then PS2 should have had some titles selling over 40 million units. As early in a console's lifetime it's relatively easier for a title to sell to close to half the install base.

Speaking of which. MW2 is shaping up to be an absolute monster outlier. It has the potential to sell to nearly half the X360 install base. However, I think it's going to end up falling well short due to the release of BF:BC2.

Regards,
SB

Well, we already went over that one. The PS2 cannot be compared to this generation because the PS2's install base was much more diverse as pretty much everyone had one. This generation is a lot more categorized if you will. Of the PS2's install base, most of the hardcore gamers went with the PS3 or 360, and most of the casual gamers went with the Wii.

All I'm saying is, I don't see how people can question the performance of MP titles on PS3. It was my reply to Asher's post that caused all of this discussion. I brought up install base size simply because he seems to think the performance of PS3 MP games is weak in general.

 

[Rolf N]

X360: 164 M games / 1,799 M weeks ownership = 0.091 games/week
PS3: 73.6 M games / 762 M weeks ownership = 0.097 games/week
Wii: 178 M games / 1,844 M weeks ownership = 0.097 games/week

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19543681&postcount=2493

Everyone in the US buys games at the same rate, no matter what platform(s) they own.

This is from total platform software shipments divided by cumulative NPD hardware sales.

 

[zed]

I think its really comes down to the demographic difference between the two userbases. I think the PS3 userbase is more strongly populated with gamers who used to be part of the core gaming crowd in previous gens but are more casual in their gaming habits this gen. A population of users where gaming isn't as an attractive hobby as it once were in years past.

As I mentioned before ps3 owners are typically older than other console owners

(btw the cash is per household)
I believe the latest figures show something similar, though it might be ps3 most popular with 18-24 but the other 2 consoles stay the same age brackets

@Zed do you happen to have anything on some of the major 1st party titles? Perhaps the answer to some of the difference is that Xbox 360 exclusives have a higher attach rate than PS3 exclusives?

no I havent done it but had a quick look at halo3, which nearly sold to just under 49% of the user base at launch. Ild say that was easily the highest ratio ever this gen

 

[mrcorbo]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19543681&postcount=2493

Everyone in the US buys games at the same rate, no matter what platform(s) they own.

This is from total platform software shipments divided by cumulative NPD hardware sales.

That's just a snapshot, though. Those numbers can and do change over time.

 

[mrcorbo]

And I didn't disagree with that. But the 360 and PS3 mainly catering to the hardcore gamer, their demographics as a whole are at least very similar to the point where it should at least be noted when comparing MP performance (again, IMHO). I could say the same thing... If people are comparing MP performance, how could you ignore this? How can you say the performance of MP titles on the PS3 are poor without considering install base? That's the only reason why I brought it up. The original discussion was about why BioShock 2 performed so poorly, not MP games in general. There's a reason why BS2 performed poorly, though (compared to other MP games).

I don't believe the userbases of the consoles are as monolithic as you seem to think they are. In the US the 360 has been out a year longer, has a significantly larger userbase and has been at consistently lower price points than the PS3. All these differences effect the composition of their userbases. The 400,000+ people who bought the 360 last month are going to be different types of consumers than any selected group of 400,000+ people who bought it 4,3 or even 1 year ago.

It's probable that the effects we are talking about are not happening to the degree that they did on the PS2, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Let's be clear here; when comparing relative sales between 360 and PS3 you should definitely adjust for the size of the userbase FIRST. But then, you should further adjust for the fact that you would also (in general) expect any given MP title on PS3 to perform relatively better in terms of tie ratio because of the 360's older, larger userbase. How much better, though, is certainly up for debate.

 

[Rolf N]

That's just a snapshot, though. Those numbers can and do change over time.

Judging by other snapshots, they really don't.

 

[AntShaw]

As I mentioned before ps3 owners are typically older than other console owners

(btw the cash is per household)
I believe the latest figures show something similar, though it might be ps3 most popular with 18-24 but the other 2 consoles stay the same age brackets

no I havent done it but had a quick look at halo3, which nearly sold to just under 49% of the user base at launch. Ild say that was easily the highest ratio ever this gen

Funny that household median is so skewed. You can take those numbers as you wish but if that median says anything is that it's not representative of the buying public.

 

[obonicus]

NPD analysis is up.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4299/npd_behind_the_numbers_february_.php

Interestingly, they're estimating that the Arcade sold slightly more than the Elite this month, based on average price.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If you're a PC gamer, and happy with the experience, would you get a console?

If you're a PC gamer and frustrated with the experience, would you get a console from the same company that made the gaming PC's OS?

I used to be a PC gamer. Now I run Ubuntu and play on consoles only. And I like it that way.

Meh, I play on both, so I can make sure I can play whichever games I'm inetersted in.

The problems I see on PC related to gaming have absolutely nothing to do with the OS, they are usually hardware related (lack of cooling, insufficient power supply). Windows 7 is a rock solid gaming platform btw.

 

[zed]

NPD analysis is up.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4299/npd_behind_the_numbers_february_.php

Interestingly, they're estimating that the Arcade sold slightly more than the Elite this month, based on average price.

what I find more surprising is the 120gb ps3 outsold the 250 model by so much, considering the 120gb is practically out of stock
just checked amazon+bestbuy still no 120gbs!!, even 250gbs were scarce
Considering the ps3s recent and upcoming titles this is a huge cock up from sony

 

[Rangers]

My brother recently bought a PS3, and specifically sought out the 120GB. I thought his reasoning was interesting, something along the lines of there being no way in hell he ever sees himself needing 250GB of storage. He's a gamer, but not much of a console gamer.

I dunno, so maybe this says to me the hard drive arms race is beginning to be not very relevant to more people. I always kind of wondered if dumb casuals might just always want that bigger number.

Also, so the Arcade sold more than Elite? Interesting.

 

[obonicus]

Close to 50/50, though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My brother recently bought a PS3, and specifically sought out the 120GB. I thought his reasoning was interesting, something along the lines of there being no way in hell he ever sees himself needing 250GB of storage. He's a gamer, but not much of a console gamer.

If you don't horde stuff, there's no need for massive capacity. I have plenty of room on my 40GB, deleting games and demos I'm finished with. If I wanted movies and pictures, I'd look to external shared storage.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If you don't horde stuff, there's no need for massive capacity. I have plenty of room on my 40GB, deleting games and demos I'm finished with. If I wanted movies and pictures, I'd look to external shared storage.

Added to that, I have some friends with the arcade that aren't even thinking of getting a HD. But they don't play games much, they use it mostly to watch media. Usually movies/music/pictures off the home network or USB drive. As well Netflix streaming is the main reason a lot of them got the arcade in the first place. So HD capacity was never a consideration, only price.

Regards,
SB