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.
My response to him was not about 1st party, it was about the platform as a whole. Deny it as much as people want but their platform moves more "software and accessories" in total than any of the other platforms. Although to be fair Wii + DS "software and accessories is probably larger on a per unit basis as the software titles are cheaper, yes? I haven't really looked at DS title prices.
Come up with any reasons you'd like but the 3rd party publishers generally push titles equally on each platform. Sometimes the marketing push is focused on PS3, sometimes on X360, but it generally doesn't matter. The only outlier here is with regards to Wii, where I rarely see commercials for 3rd party titles.
At the end of the day, for whatever reasons, MS has cultivated an audience on X360 that thus far is willing to spend more per person than the other consoles.
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.
Yes, the X360 as a platform, I thought I was obvious about that, but I guess I should have gone into more detail. And Microsoft plays a hand quite often in cross-promotion with 3rd party publishers just like Sony does. Each of the platform holders generally plays an active party in promoting not only their first party titles but also their third party titles. Although I oddly enough don't see as much of that from Nintendo, at least with regards to TV advertising campaigns.
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.
The fact that the Wii has them in the first place. I haven't been paying to much attention to that part of the Wii but I thought they were also selling old titles to download an play on Wii, or is that DS only? There's also been an increased push on Wii for online integration for games as well as some rudimentary multiplayer aspects (at least this is the perception I get watching Wii TV adverts in Japan the last time I was there).
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.
I have no clue why people think FAD is a bad thing. Tamagotchi was a FAD. Cabbage Patch kids was a FAD. Every single one of those was an absolutely amazing financial success. I don't how anyone could take a fad as being even remotely a bad thing. Especially when you take into account by being a fad it rapidly launched the Wii into a commanding lead with regards to install base.
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.
I've said that. Multiple times... No debate there. I understand why they do it, it doesn't mean I have to agree with how they used the numbers.
When it comes to these numbers, -snip-
I agree, I don't particularly like that... I have no problem with what's called shovelware. It may dilute the offerings, but if someone somewhere finds value in them, then no skin off my back. And again I have no problems with their charts, only the way the numbers were generated. Not sure why you keep bringing that up. For me it's a non-issue.
They included a chart with All titles, Only 3rd party, and 3rd party without MW2. Anyone that has a problem with the chart without MW2 can just look at their chart with Only 3rd party. Have a problem with that, then look at All titles.
I understood the reasoning for all the charts, but everyone was arguing over the one chart, and some people couldn't seem to understand why some people would prefer the chart that has all 3rd party titles.
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.
Yes, it was probably a mistake not to put some kind of notation in there (/sarcasm) perhaps to illustrate just how ridulous things can become when you try to justify equality through install base. I suppose I was waiting to see what kind of reaction there would be to that from people who continue to deny that increased install base will not have some kind of linear relationship with increased unit sales of any given title. Although as I pointed out below unit sales for all titles released in a given time frame should grow in a closer relationship to install base. Thus unit sales per title should go up faster as there's less of a supressing effect by any one big selling title.
That still doesn't discount the fact that with such a huge outlier like MW2 which constitues 1/3-1/4 of the entire install base buying one game, it's going to have a huge impact on sales of other games.
With regards to PS3 games, that wasn't anywhere in my initial postings, but for myself. I'm still trying to figure out the PS3 userbase, it is not purchasing games in any way, shape, or form of what I'm expecting. Yes, the console was expensive that depressed unit sales and overall numbers for titles. But PS3 "should" have a higher unit sales per console than X360 but doesn't. I'm far more interested in reasons why it isn't doing as well as I expect, rather than trying to claim they are better due to install base ratios.
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?
On a per title basis it should have less of an overall impact. While increased install base does not lead to sales of any One game rising in a linear relationship, it does allow for more concurrent high selling titles. Larger install bases will be able to support larger divergent tastes. And total unit sales will scale far better with regards to install base.
PS2 showed this behavior, fairly normal. NES had similar behavior. Wii thus far hasn't really. Even in months without a big Wii title, 3rd party sales are still less than expected. Although with presumably lower developement costs, you don't need as many unit sales to recoup costs either.
Terrific, so next time this discussion comes up I can expect you to agree with me on the validity of these charts.
Well, I'll agree that there isn't anything wrong with the MW2-less chart as there is a chart that includes MW2. As to the validity of the charts themselves, probably not as I don't particularly agree with how the numbers were used.
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.
Yes, I agree here, I far prefer all titles to be shown rather than picking and choosing any particular subset for PR reasons. While I may disagree as to the extent removing such and such title may have, I don't disagree with that fact that whether it is first party or 3rd party a large selling title will have some kind of trickle down effect on other titles sold in the same month.
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.
Yes, but it's still Nintendo's decision to allow them to be published. Just like MS and Sony, Nintendo has the ability to veto any game being released on their system if they feel it would negatively impact perception of their console.
And yes, I'd agree that PS3 gets the most advantage out of that comparison. But as I said, I think Nintendo are far more concerned with perception versus MS, at least for the time being...
It would be interesting to see XBLA and PSN games included in such a chart. As I'm sure many of the titles on XBLA and PSN could be considered shovelware. Then again the nature of XBLA and PSN actually facilitates the release of shovelware as then you aren't even concerned with the prospect of trying to recoup duplication costs, especially if you duplicate too many copies.
Regards,
SB
