NPD January 2010

[Silent_Buddha]

You're missing the point. A chart that adds an outlier like MW2 to third party sales is no more indicative of the real performance of third party titles than a chart showing overall Wii software sales that includes Nintendo titles. No one complains when comparisons suddenly switch and go 'Well, only third party counts', but when they do it to MW2 people are going 'hold on, MW2 sales don't happen in a vacuum'. Well, guess what? Nintendo first party sales don't happen in a vacuum either; the software landscape without Nintendo third parties would be vastly different, for better or for worse, far more than if MW2 didn't exist.

I'm not sure if they are missing the point or you are. If that's targeted at 3rd party publishers/developers, then MW2 is a very critical data point.

It shows very clearly that non-first party pubs can hit it huge, especially on X360 where first party and second party games have already established themselves as big sellers. And it's not in Nintendo's best interest to show that 3rd parties can have blockbusters when I don't think there's been a 3rd party blockbuster on the Wii.

So instead they want to focus on the fact that non-blockbuster (well runaway blockbuster) 3rd party sales can be viewed as relatively equal (well except for the obvious numbers manipulation elucidated below). But that does 3rd party pubs a diservice, as again, MW2 is a prime example of what is possible on X360/PS3 for 3rd party's. Something Nintendo can't address.

Anyways, this whole line of discussion is a whole lot about nothing. Nintendo also included a chart that included MW2.

What I find far more objectionable is the calculation used in generating the charts in the first place. Taking unit sales of a 1 or 3 month period and dividing it by all titles released for the life of the console. Something that deliberately rewards newer consoles while handicapping older consoles. Which shouldn't be a surprise as I think Nintendo currently views MS as a more dangerous competitor than Sony worldwide. And before someone (not you Obonicus, but another poster here) starts asking for proof, it's obviously just an opinion as to who Nintendo thinks is the more dangerous competitor.

Regards,
SB

 

[Richard]

They already did that, that's the point. People are going 'wah, no fair, no call of duty skews the numbers', but so does removing 1st party Nintendo stuff. When one of the main complaints from 3rd parties is how Nintendo stuff overshadows everyone else, you can't pretend like removing Call of Duty is the only way the numbers are skewed.

But the chart is exactly about third-party releases, not first party. You'd be right if there was another chart for first-party games and Mario Galaxy or whatever was removed. The graph is showing overall third-party profits on all three platforms. We could argue the utility of such data, but removing a third-party game because it has a big influence when a lot of games were pushed into 2010 and those that weren't probably sold less is skewing the data. Dollars were spent, they should be accounted for. So what if it shows the PS360 being a better third-party platform than the Wii?

 

[obonicus]

But the chart is exactly about third-party releases, not first party.

No, the chart is about third party releases without Modern Warfare 2. Just how 'third party sales' charts are about the software sales ecosystem without first-parties.

You'd be right if there was another chart for first-party games and Mario Galaxy or whatever was removed. The graph is showing overall third-party profits on all three platforms.

No it's not. Read the caption again. People are instead arguing about the validity of the data itself. And I'm saying it's hypocritical to claim that excluding MW2 makes the data less valid than all the '3rd party charts' that exclude the single biggest publisher from the picture.

We could argue the utility of such data, but removing a third-party game because it has a big influence when a lot of games were pushed into 2010 and those that weren't probably sold less is skewing the data.

The only thing we can discuss is the utility of the data. Again, it's utter hypocrisy to say that MW2 reshaped the software landscape when, if not for Nintendo first party we'd be seeing this generation play out in an entirely different way. We don't bat an eye about removing Nintendo from sales charts when it supports our point, but when Nintendo does it to an HD platform people are suddenly going 'well, wait a second'?

Dollars were spent, they should be accounted for. So what if it shows the PS360 being a better third-party platform than the Wii?

Yes, so what? The data shows what it shows; if we're going to say that Nintendo's chart is invalid, then we have to apply that same logic whenever we talk about 3rd parties as if they exist isolated from first party, particularly where it involves Nintendo.

 

[obonicus]

I'm not sure if they are missing the point or you are. If that's targeted at 3rd party publishers/developers, then MW2 is a very critical data point.

It shows very clearly that non-first party pubs can hit it huge, especially on X360 where first party and second party games have already established themselves as big sellers. And it's not in Nintendo's best interest to show that 3rd parties can have blockbusters when I don't think there's been a 3rd party blockbuster on the Wii.

Guitar Hero, while already on decline, was definitely a blockbuster on Wii. A previously-existing IP, sure, but we probably don't want to make that distinction, since that chart would look a lot more bleak if you exclude last-gen IP.


Here's a question to you: how many blockbusters of the scale of MW have the HD consoles had this gen? What precise brand of science tells you that third parties can create MW-level blockbusters, but are somehow prevented from having significant success on Wii? Let's move away from 'hardcore' games, because that's an entirely different discussion. Instead, look at the games that have already sold on Wii. Quite a few of those minigame ripoffs we hate so much have sold multiple millions on the Wii.

If you bring up real problems with the Wii, I'd probably agree with you. But the fable that publishers see MW2, move their titles so as not to be destroyed, and still somehow see it as an edifying story of plucky third party success is just patently absurd.

So instead they want to focus on the fact that non-blockbuster (well runaway blockbuster) 3rd party sales can be viewed as relatively equal (well except for the obvious numbers manipulation elucidated below). But that does 3rd party pubs a diservice, as again, MW2 is a prime example of what is possible on X360/PS3 for 3rd party's. Something Nintendo can't address.

MW2 is an outlier. It's like we're trying to calculate average height of the Canadian adult male, spot Paul Bunyan walking by and then come to the conclusion that the average Canadian will grow to a few dozen feet in height (my apologies to Scott_Arm and AlStrong if that's actually accurate).

What I find far more objectionable is the calculation used in generating the charts in the first place. Taking unit sales of a 1 or 3 month period and dividing it by all titles released for the life of the console. Something that deliberately rewards newer consoles while handicapping older consoles. Which shouldn't be a surprise as I think Nintendo currently views MS as a more dangerous competitor than Sony worldwide. And before someone (not you Obonicus, but another poster here) starts asking for proof, it's obviously just an opinion as to who Nintendo thinks is the more dangerous competitor.

I'm not sure what Nintendo did is kosher, but also realize that Nintendo has far more titles than the other two. What they did also doesn't favor platforms with a flood of low-selling, low-budget shovelware. Though really, if you take into account the fact that PS3 and 360 titles are often developed together, as others have pointed out, I think Nintendo's figures backfire on them.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think the point obonicus is making with regards to that 3rd party chart is good. Essentially MW2 sabotaged the sales of other third parties as much as those Nintendo first party titles, which naturally were also excluded from the chart. Making the chart relatively accurate in that sense.

The thing is though, that this three month timeframe is so exceptional in itself that it shouldn't be used, and it does favour Nintendo. MW2 only heavily supressed other 3rd party sales during few months, whereas Nintendo's first party supresses the third party sales every month from the launch of the console till the end.

I still would like to see months, where there isn't any altering done or new CoD game either, but I think that combining all the charts, we can have a pretty good picture of the situation.

 

[Acert93]

I think the point obonicus is making with regards to that 3rd party chart is good. Essentially MW2 sabotaged the sales of other third parties as much as those Nintendo first party titles, which naturally were also excluded from the chart. Making the chart relatively accurate in that sense.

Except MW2 isn't the only great selling 3rd party game and Wii exclusives weren't the only great selling exclusives.

 

[obonicus]

I think the point obonicus is making with regards to that 3rd party chart is good. Essentially MW2 sabotaged the sales of other third parties as much as those Nintendo first party titles, which naturally were also excluded from the chart. Making the chart relatively accurate in that sense.

Actually, I'm not sure it's accurate. I just disagree that it's more inaccurate than other charts we take for granted. In particular, the '3rd parties' chart I think would be vastly different if not for the presence of Nintendo first party, far more than MS first party or MW2 shape their respective ecosystems.

I think 3rd parties would actually be down on the Wii without Nintendo first party, for what it's worth.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think the point obonicus is making with regards to that 3rd party chart is good. Essentially MW2 sabotaged the sales of other third parties as much as those Nintendo first party titles, which naturally were also excluded from the chart. Making the chart relatively accurate in that sense.

The thing is though, that this three month timeframe is so exceptional in itself that it shouldn't be used, and it does favour Nintendo. MW2 only heavily supressed other 3rd party sales during few months, whereas Nintendo's first party supresses the third party sales every month from the launch of the console till the end.

I still would like to see months, where there isn't any altering done or new CoD game either, but I think that combining all the charts, we can have a pretty good picture of the situation.

I'm not entirely convinced that it supresses sales to nearly the extent of an MW2 or Halo title on X360 for example.

Nintendo's first party sales are a lot. No two ways about that. But as a percentage of install base is it on the level of MW2?

On X360 MW2 did considerably better than NSMB for instance. 5.83 million versus 4.21 million for Nov - Dec on a far far smaller install base. Throw in Wii Fit Plus, Wii Sports, and Wii play (9.81 million) and you still don't have the same impact per install base.

And again, as I said before, everyone is arguing over nothing. It's a PR generated number to put Wii in the best light possible. And even with that they also provided numbers including 1st party and 3rd party with MW2 numbers.

So I don't really have a problem with it. If it was just that one chart then it'd be more of an issue.

As I said the issue I have is more to do with the way the numbers were calculated in the first place. Deliberately done in such a way as to put the X360 in as bad a light as possible by taking the unit sales of 1 or 3 months and then dividing it by sales of LTD releases.

Wii and PS3 basically launched about the same time with the X360 being on the market 32% longer than either of those and thus having significantly more 3rd party titles to divide by. With probably 20-25% of X360's titles being released before either of those and even less likely to be a factor in sales during those 1-3 months.

Take those out of the equation making for titles released during the same timeframe and reduce X360's titles from 554 to 415-440. And Unit sales per title jumps up to 47k-49k compared to 37k from before. Or compared to 29k for Wii and 34k for PS3.

Things look a WHOLE lot different when you do that. 3rd party numbers without MW2 would also have a similar jump going from ~27k for X360 to 34k-36k.

Suddenly even without MW2, Wii goes from being in a slight lead (29k versus 27k) to being farther behind (29k versus 34k-36k).

Also one reason I have my opinion that Nintendo views MS as a more dangerous competitor. Wii is hands down the best when it comes to moving consoles and first party titles, and also doing the best in terms of profit.

However, X360 is the king when it comes to moving software (1st and 3rd combined) and accessories. As one of the first examples I could find was in Sept. 09 where X360 pulled in 32% of ALL console (including handhelds) related revenue for the month. So in competition with Wii, PS3, PS, DS, PSP it still managed to grab 32% of ALL console related revenue. And I'm sure Nintendo would love to sway more 3rd parties to invest more in Wii despite those numbers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Teasy]

Not quite. 753 Wii titles versus a combined 925. That's almost 23% more. But that doesn't address the situation, after all, Nintendo isn't comparing to combined numbers. And we still have 1 extra year of 3rd party releases supressing the Unit sales per title number for X360 for no other reason than marketing.

Now compare Wii versus X360. 753 vs 554. And that's with one year extra releases. In relation to Wii, X360 has been on the market over 25% longer, and while I'm sure released 3rd party titles isn't linear that's still a significant number of titles. Remove that year of releases and suddenly Unit sales per Title suddenly shoots up over 40k. Even removing MW2, X360 will end up with higher Unit Sales per Title thus spoiling somewhat the point Nintendo is making that 3rd party titles sell as well or better on Wii.

Now further restrict Unit sales per title to titles that only sold during Oct. - Dec. and you'll further erode the point they are making.

As I said, it's all marketing finding interesting ways to play with numbers to try to show their product in the best light possible.

Regards,
SB

Removing the games released in 360's first year of release doesn't make the whole thing that much more accurate. Surely we can find out how many games were released for each consoles during the three month period that this data was collected? Or even just how many were released in December to compare with that data. Were third party game releases for Wii/360 and PS3 really higher then 45%/33%/22% in Wii's favour? I just can't see that being the case.

Looking at gamerankings for the number of third party games reviewed in the last 6 months on all three consoles it comes out as 50 for 360, 48 for PS3 and 34 for Wii.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Wii and PS3 basically launched about the same time with the X360 being on the market 32% longer than either of those and thus having significantly more 3rd party titles to divide by.

Wii has more 3rd party titles than either the PS3 or the 360.

Also one reason I have my opinion that Nintendo views MS as a more dangerous competitor.

While this is true, it's not for the reason you stated (MS has no inherent skill in moving software or hardware; they are simply winning by default from Sony's mistakes with PS3). MS is very good at co-opting an attacker's innovations (either by mimicry or outright acquisition), introducing a new brand, and fighting back on the competitor's terms. They're also very persistent, tweaking things for years and years before finally crushing the upstart competitor. Nintendo's not worried about how much money Activision is making by selling Modern Warfare on the Xbox. It's worried about MS releasing a rebranded 360 with Wii-like controls, Wii-like games, and a Wii-like ad campaign, and dumping billion after billion into the project until there's one in everyone's hands.

MW2 is a prime example of what is possible on X360/PS3 for 3rd party's.

No, it's not. MW2 was possible for one and only one company: Activision. You're right that other companies will be inspired by that, but their attempt to turn MW in a formula will backfire (especially as Activision milks any formula for all it's worth as fast as it can). EA's Modern Warfare ripoff is not going to move 10m units. I think Nintendo is correct in looking at Modern Warfare as a "lightning strike" entertainment phenomenon on the order of Super Mario Bros.

Of course, 3rd parties are already trying to turn it into a formula.

 

[obonicus]

Looking at gamerankings for the number of third party games reviewed in the last 6 months on all three consoles it comes out as 50 for 360, 48 for PS3 and 34 for Wii.

That's probably not accurate, outlets don't review a lot of the stuff that comes out for Wii, particularly the low-budget stuff.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

While this is true, it's not for the reason you stated (MS has no inherent skill in moving software or hardware; they are simply winning by default from Sony's mistakes with PS3). MS is very good at co-opting an attacker's innovations (either by mimicry or outright acquisition), introducing a new brand, and fighting back on the competitor's terms. They're also very persistent, tweaking things for years and years before finally crushing the upstart competitor. Nintendo's not worried about how much money Activision is making by selling Modern Warfare on the Xbox. It's worried about MS releasing a rebranded 360 with Wii-like controls, Wii-like games, and a Wii-like ad campaign, and dumping billion after billion into the project until there's one in everyone's hands.

You can claim MS has no skill with regards to moving software all you want, however the fact remains that MS moves by far more software and accessories than either of the other consoles, especially when you start considering the install base where MS distances itself even farther from Wii. It's obviously different in Japan and might even be different in the EU, however this particular thread is about NA, hence reliance on NPD stats.

All companies are copying each other. I'm not exactly sure who MS was copying for Live, but it's certain that both Nintendo and Sony are following MS's lead there. It's a bit of a no-brainer that if a competitor is doing something successful it is in your best interest to implement something similar. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all do it. I'm not sure why you single out MS implying they are the major ones doing it, other than for a sense of self validation for hating MS?

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

You can claim MS has no skill with regards to moving software all you want, however the fact remains that MS moves by far more software and accessories than either of the other consoles,

How do you figure accessories? Half the time people complain about Wii Play being included in NPD, and it's up there in the top 10 practically every month. Also, how do you figure software? Call of Duty isn't MS moving software, it's Activision, while the brunt of Nintendo's software sales is all Nintendo. You're not even saying in relation to install-base.

especially when you start considering the install base where MS distances itself even farther from Wii.

It doesn't really, though. Halo sells really well, but Nintendo has a handful of titles that outsell it.

All companies are copying each other. I'm not exactly sure who MS was copying for Live, but it's certain that both Nintendo and Sony are following MS's lead there.

Sony I'll grant you. But what is Nintendo doing that is copying Live?

Seriously, I understand disliking Nintendo, because I don't like them much at all, but behaving as if Nintendo's success isn't as big as it is is just denial. We need to stick to reality here.

 

[obonicus]

I'm not entirely convinced that it supresses sales to nearly the extent of an MW2 or Halo title on X360 for example.

Nintendo's first party sales are a lot. No two ways about that. But as a percentage of install base is it on the level of MW2?

On X360 MW2 did considerably better than NSMB for instance. 5.83 million versus 4.21 million for Nov - Dec on a far far smaller install base. Throw in Wii Fit Plus, Wii Sports, and Wii play (9.81 million) and you still don't have the same impact per install base.

I think you're clinging to install-base because it supports your platform of choice, though I don't think it colors the data the way you think it does, at least where it comes to the relative importance of Nintendo first party versus MW2 impacts.

Let's run a thought experiment: pure speculation, I know, but what happens if MW2 didn't come out? How different would the software ecosystem be? A bunch of 2010 games would be back in 2009, there'd be more competition between different publishers. Maybe games sales would be down, overall. I imagine it'd be pretty significant, sure.

Okay, let's remove Nintendo first party. How different is the landscape now? Is the Wii even in first place, still? Would it even exist? Nintendo's first-party defines the entire platform, for better or for worse. Note that I'm not saying that without Nintendo first party 3rd parties would sell more. In fact, I believe the opposite, that without the Nintendo draw they'd sell worse.

My point, rather, is that if (note the conditional) we're questioning the accuracy of a chart that excludes a single outlier, then any 'sales chart' that talks about 3rd parties as isolated from 1st parties on a Nintendo system is so meaningless that it might as well be drafted from an astrological chart.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How do you figure accessories? Half the time people complain about Wii Play being included in NPD, and it's up there in the top 10 practically every month. Also, how do you figure software? Call of Duty isn't MS moving software, it's Activision, while the brunt of Nintendo's software sales is all Nintendo. You're not even saying in relation to install-base.

This is with regards to NPD numbers. And pointing to the easiest data point I could find which was Sept. 09 where total console related revenue (hardware + software + accessories) had MS with 32% of the market. Wii, PS3, PS2, DS, PSP, and X360 were the main consoles tracked. Without knowing the breakdown between software and accessories it's easier to just say "software and accessories" as I don't think the majority of that is going to be console hardware sales. Also note, this is before the launch of MW2 which hit in Nov. 09.

It doesn't really, though. Halo sells really well, but Nintendo has a handful of titles that outsell it.

Eh? I never said Nintendo doesn't have titles that outsell Halo.

Sony I'll grant you. But what is Nintendo doing that is copying Live?

While not nearly on the level of X360 or PS3, Nintendo is also taking steps with online services and integration.

Seriously, I understand disliking Nintendo, because I don't like them much at all, but behaving as if Nintendo's success isn't as big as it is is just denial. We need to stick to reality here.

I don't know where I expressed any hate for Nintendo? I admire what they have done. I have a Wii and games. I've constantly expressed my utter amazement that they managed to move the Wii into FAD territory, which is absolutely mind bogglingly good.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to close my eyes and pretend that third party software sales are less than stellar. Especially in comparison with X360. Where Nintendo must come up with creative ways to using the numbers to show themselves in a good light.

I think you're clinging to install-base because it supports your platform of choice, though I don't think it colors the data the way you think it does, at least where it comes to the relative importance of Nintendo first party versus MW2 impacts.

This is amusing. When you and others continue to cling to install base to explain how well PS3 is doing. It is or isn't important. I threw that bit about comparison for install base purely for those that insist that larger install base does not impact title adoption.

But even then with regards to MW2 in particular it's hard to discount the effect of that magnitutude of sales on the size of the X360 install base. I don't remember the numbers for NA install base but that's easily 1/3-1/4 (assuming between 18-24 million install base in NA) of potential buyers.

As to the thought experiment, I could easily see Halo: ODST and L4D 2 having better sales if MW2 didn't exist. Likewise, with other titles that weren't moved out of the Nov-Dec. timeframe to avoid direct competition with MW2.

Okay, let's remove Nintendo first party. How different is the landscape now? Is the Wii even in first place, still? Would it even exist? Nintendo's first-party defines the entire platform, for better or for worse. Note that I'm not saying that without Nintendo first party 3rd parties would sell more. In fact, I believe the opposite, that without the Nintendo draw they'd sell worse.

I'm the wrong guy to preach to there, I don't see much of a point removing 1st party titles from the equation in the first place.

My point, rather, is that if (note the conditional) we're questioning the accuracy of a chart that excludes a single outlier, then any 'sales chart' that talks about 3rd parties as isolated from 1st parties on a Nintendo system is so meaningless that it might as well be drafted from an astrological chart.

Again wrong person to debate that point with. I have no problems with them leaving MW2 off the chart as they also provide charts that include MW2 as well as 1st parties. If there is something I have problem with in regards to that chart is that people are focusing on it WAAAY too much. I understand your point that it should be removed, I also understand other people's points that it should be included. And what do you know, Nintendo included charts with and without it. It is NOT a big deal.

The only thing I have a problem with, was the way the numbers were generated for those charts by using Unit sales of a 1 and 3 month period in relation to total titles released during the life of a console. It deliberately handicaps consoles that have been on the market longer as is reduces quite significantly the impact of sales of any given time period.

Both lifetime unit sales compared to lifetime title releases and Unit sales of X period compared to same time frame releases puts MS quite well in the lead of average unit sales per title released.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

This is with regards to NPD numbers. And pointing to the easiest data point I could find which was Sept. 09 where total console related revenue (hardware + software + accessories) had MS with 32% of the market. Wii, PS3, PS2, DS, PSP, and X360 were the main consoles tracked. Without knowing the breakdown between software and accessories it's easier to just say "software and accessories" as I don't think the majority of that is going to be console hardware sales. Also note, this is before the launch of MW2 which hit in Nov. 09.

That includes games by other publishers. It's not MS that is moving that software, it's the 3rd party publishers. This is about first-party, as per your response to fearsomepirate.

Eh? I never said Nintendo doesn't have titles that outsell Halo.

You said that it moves more software than Nintendo, for chrissakes. No, it doesn't. Not absolutely, not relatively. Maybe the 360 platform as a whole might, but not Microsoft, no way, no how.

While not nearly on the level of X360 or PS3, Nintendo is also taking steps with online services and integration.

Please elaborate. The next Wii will have more robust online, but what sort of expansion of the Wii's capabilities have we seen? Playing games off SD charts? The DSi at best matches the Wii's featureset.

I don't know where I expressed any hate for Nintendo? I admire what they have done. I have a Wii and games. I've constantly expressed my utter amazement that they managed to move the Wii into FAD territory, which is absolutely mind bogglingly good.

Not hate; but you do seem to want to deny them any real credit (though you're not alone). I mean, you just called the Wii a fad.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to close my eyes and pretend that third party software sales are less than stellar. Especially in comparison with X360. Where Nintendo must come up with creative ways to using the numbers to show themselves in a good light.

They all use numbers creatively to show themselves in a good light. Every single one of the BSes about online subscriptions or attach rate or first to 10 million.

When it comes to these numbers, because we have a personal problem with the way Nintendo is pushing the industry, we react poorly to their figures. So far, it's gone like this:
Nintendo: We sell way more software than anyone else.
Others: No fair, you're counting first party, you're Nintendo.
Nintendo: Okay, we'll exclude first party. We sell more third party software than anyone else.
Others: Sure, but with all the shovelware, the sales per game is really low!
Nintendo: Okay, if you'll grant us the concession of removing this outlier from the figures, we'll show that per title we sell about as well as everyone else.
Others: We grant no such concession! Plus, the months are wonky! And multiplatform development!

This is amusing. When you and others continue to cling to install base to explain how well PS3 is doing. It is or isn't important.

Yes, precisely. You're always the one to mention how install base isn't important. All of a sudden, because you want the data to behave the way you expect, you're back to saying it's important. Not to mention that when I speak of install-base it's in terms of ROI of a game on the PS3 when compared to the 360, when you're so diligently lamenting the fate of the poor PS3 games. That's not even what you're doing here; you're trying to use it absolutely, trying to paint MW2 as a more crucial piece of software than Wii first party, when the Wii's hardware sales often depend overly on their first party efforts.

As to the thought experiment, I could easily see Halo: ODST and L4D 2 having better sales if MW2 didn't exist. Likewise, with other titles that weren't moved out of the Nov-Dec. timeframe to avoid direct competition with MW2.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It'd be significant. Now look at the alternative, with Nintendo first party out of the picture. Which is the bigger deal? Which has a greater impact?

I'm the wrong guy to preach to there, I don't see much of a point removing 1st party titles from the equation in the first place.

Terrific, so next time this discussion comes up I can expect you to agree with me on the validity of these charts.

Again wrong person to debate that point with. I have no problems with them leaving MW2 off the chart as they also provide charts that include MW2 as well as 1st parties. If there is something I have problem with in regards to that chart is that people are focusing on it WAAAY too much. I understand your point that it should be removed, I also understand other people's points that it should be included. And what do you know, Nintendo included charts with and without it. It is NOT a big deal.

I don't say it should be removed; I'm saying that if removing it taints the data and makes it invalid, then we have to do the same when we arbitrarily choose to remove 1st party Nintendo from comparisons. We can't have it both ways; either a huge title perturbs the entire system or it doesn't. We can't choose to complain about data purity only when it's about a game that supports HD development.

The only thing I have a problem with, was the way the numbers were generated for those charts by using Unit sales of a 1 and 3 month period in relation to total titles released during the life of a console. It deliberately handicaps consoles that have been on the market longer as is reduces quite significantly the impact of sales of any given time period.

But this isn't a situation that helps Nintendo. We all know that these shovelware games rarely show up even in NPD top 20 and we know that Nintendo has almost an exclusivity on that sort of low-budget game. Those games will generally sell poorly and throw the average per game way down. The only one that seems to be getting a actual advantage out of it is the PS3, with its shorter life and relatively large percentage of high-profile games.

 

[fearsomepirate]

You can claim MS has no skill with regards to moving software all you want, however the fact remains that MS moves by far more software and accessories than either of the other consoles

This statement is completely false unless you're talking about Windows. But in terms of video games? Nintendo's the #1 publisher in the world, not Microsoft. 3rd party publishers on the 360 live and die by their own merits; they don't tap into a power emanating from Redmond any more than last gen, they could tap into power emanating from Japan. Also, revenue != units.

All companies are copying each other. I'm not exactly sure who MS was copying for Live

Live is an amalgamation of things that have been on the PC for years into a single software package. See also: Dreamcast.

but it's certain that both Nintendo and Sony are following MS's lead there.

MS didn't invent online gaming, and the Xbox wasn't even the first console with online gaming. PSN is a little bit like Live, and Wii's online service is nothing at all like Live.

When it comes to these numbers, because we have a personal problem with the way Nintendo is pushing the industry, we react poorly to their figures. So far, it's gone like this:
Nintendo: We sell way more software than anyone else.
Others: No fair, you're counting first party, you're Nintendo.
Nintendo: Okay, we'll exclude first party. We sell more third party software than anyone else.
Others: Sure, but with all the shovelware, the sales per game is really low!
Nintendo: Okay, if you'll grant us the concession of removing this outlier from the figures, we'll show that per title we sell about as well as everyone else.
Others: We grant no such concession! Plus, the months are wonky! And multiplatform development!

I lol'd. That's about how any argument with an industry fan goes. The bizarre contortions they have to go through to prove that the Wii is a failure are really funny. The important thing is that Modern Warfare 2 outsold MadWorld, so Nintendo is doomed.

 

[dobwal]

Taking 1-3 months sales data.

Taking total library.

Removing first party significance while also removing the significance of MW2.

Dividing sales data by total library and dividing third party sales minus MW2 by total third party library minus MW2.

Equals junk.

Nintendo uses the total library, which is problematic. Why? The total library of titles for each console is not available for the time period in which sales are recorded and even for those that were a big majority produce insignificant level of sales.

Basically, while removing MW2 as an outlier is fine, Nintendo makes their data worthless by adding about 1000-2000 additional outliers.

EA states in their earnings that in fiscal year 2009 that out of 54 full packaged releases the top 20 generated 76% of total revenue from full packaged sales. In fiscal year 2011 the top 20 releases (out of 36 total) are projected to generate over 80% of total packaged revenue. I think this is a pretty common phenemnom for every third party publishers. If 45-70% games only generate 20-25% of a big pubs revenue in release years, whats does that says about the 45-70% games that are between 1-4 years old.

It means a vast majority of the games that inclusive in Nintendo's charts are irrelevant because they don't have any statistically significant influence on sales between Oct 09-Dec 09. It like adding every living human being's age together and then dividing by the number of every human being that ever lived on earth in last 10 million years. What can you say about the age of people in holiday 2009 when 99% of people included in your data are dead during that time period?

 

[thop]

The total library of titles for each console is not available for the time period in which sales are recorded and even for those that were a big majority produce insignificant level of sales.

Nintendo only used titles with at least one recorded sale during that quarter.

 

[dobwal]

Nintendo only used titles with at least one recorded sale during that quarter.

With off on tangent without reading. However, this is still problematic because the vast majority of titles included would be closer to one sale versus 30-50K. In all probabilty, 70-80% of the third party sales are recorded by titles released in the last year.

You have Nintendo or who ever produce this graph skewing the data on both ends. Removing the biggest generator of third party sales on the PS3 and 360 while adding a slew of titles that have very little impact on total sales.

Basically they gimping the dividend and pumping up the divisor to basically narrow the quotient to produce data in their favors.

If the purpose of the chart was to produce the central tendency of each console in relation to sales of your average third party title then they would of removed MW2 as well as the 80% of years old titles that aren't generating significant amount of sales.