NPD July 2018

[djskribbles]

Leaked NPD July numbers:

NSW: 262K (-19% MOM, +18% YOY)
PS4: 187K (-50% MOM, -14% YOY)
XB1: 152K (-41% MOM, +16% YOY)

Things to note:
-June was 5 weeks vs 4 weeks in July, which explains the MOM decreases across the board.
-There were amazon prime deals in July for NSW and XB1, which is a sale that runs for 1.5 days. PS4s weren't even in stock at amazon, let alone having any prime deals.
-NSW also had a major software release in Octopath that apparently sold very well.
-According to Aquamarine, there were nationwide PS4 Pro shortages, and according to benji (retailer insider) there are still supply issues. Pro probably still makes up for ~20-25% of PS4 sales, so my guess is PS4 would've been pretty much flat YOY if it weren't for the shortages (edit: Aquamarine seems to think PS4 would be up YOY if it weren't for the Pro shortages).

Prime day gave the NSW a good boost as I expected. Hard to tell how it affected XB1 since it has been seeing YOY increases since XB1X released. But here are previous July numbers for XB1:

July 2014: 131K
July 2015: 188K
July 2016: 171K
July 2017: 131K
July 2018: 152K

(credit to magicpork at Era for the leaked percentages, and Welfare for the numbers)

 

[Rangers]

One took a huge hit this month vs the corresponding month for 360 which was July 2010. In July 2010 360 did 443k! So gen over gen One lost 443-152=291k off it's dwindling lead this month alone!

Of course for those unaware it's basically 360 had a fantastic year 5 and 6 (2010 and 11).

I have the One's gen over gen lead down to 662k after this month.

The comparisons stay pretty brutal for many months now. Next month, in August 2010 360 did 357k. Then in September 2010 484k.

It's exciting to see the month 360 overtakes One get narrowed down. It's probably going to be October or November. Certainly no later than December at this point where 360 knocked out over >1.8 million.

And I guess at the same point boring, because once the changeover occurs it will be anti climactic.

 

[Rangers]

About One X sales, I'm pretty sure 2-3 months ago Mat Piscettalla (NPD) hinted they are a similar percentage of Xbox as Pro is to PS4.

That was a bit disappointing to me, I'd assumed it was higher.

Then again I guess the price differential is much greater as well. But the power differential is greater, too.

YoY Xbox

          2017   2018   % difference
Jan       158k   235k     +48.7
Feb       215    310      +44.2
March     244    299      +22.5
Apr       110    132      +20.0
May       109    145      +33.0
Jun       153    256      +67.3
July      131    152      +16.0

Total   1,120  1,529      +36.5%

A pretty substantial increase, more than X alone should account for even if you erroneously assume there's no substitution effect going on with X (IE every X sale is simply extra). And this is of course as we know with no exclusives to speak of.

There have been a lot of sales on the S as well, I think cheap (relatively) DDR4 RAM vs GDDR probably helps there.

Still on the whole it's not too impressive, it's just One sales were so paltry many months of 2017, it's hard to do worse. OTOH being up in year 5 is good.

Edit: Even using code tags I can never get things to format exactly correct but, good enough.

When I have more time I'd like to look at the first 7 months of the year for Xbox every year to date. People keep saying this is it's best year ever.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Edit: Even using code tags I can never get things to format exactly correct but, good enough.

You need to edit them in a fixed-size font (Courier). I always type such things in Notepad and copy-paste into code tags.

The XB1X sales look, from what little we're given, to give a real view what mid-gen refreshes are worth. If XB1X doesn't become the base platform for a two-console next-generation, I'll question if the investment was worth it. MS probably lost more money designing and building the thing then they'll get back from it. Neither mid-gen refresh was as simple a machine as perhaps we imagined it'd be.

 

[djskribbles]

You need to edit them in a fixed-size font (Courier). I always type such things in Notepad and copy-paste into code tags.

The XB1X sales look, from what little we're given, to give a real view what mid-gen refreshes are worth. If XB1X doesn't become the base platform for a two-console next-generation, I'll question if the investment was worth it. MS probably lost more money designing and building the thing then they'll get back from it. Neither mid-gen refresh was as simple a machine as perhaps we imagined it'd be.

I don't see X becoming the base system. I don't think they can bring the price down low enough for it to be viable. MS is probably aiming for a $399 price for XB2 within 2-3 years, so IMO they're better off either discontinuing XB1X and just go with XB1S, or forget about XB1 completely. Or discontinue both X and S and offer a considerably cut-down version of XB1X for ~250 (XB1U? ).

I could see how some may think that X wasn't worthwhile. MS put more effort and money into X compared to what Sony did with Pro and probably aren't seeing as much of a return. Pro is selling significantly more units globally and is probably profitable, or at least more so than X.

But I think X was a necessary product to release in their rebuild. They needed to release a significant piece of HW to show their fanbase/gamers that they're going to improve. Had they released something more inline with Pro, it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact.

I think both mid-gen consoles are successful and doing what they were intended to do. For Sony, that is simply to extend the life of this gen. For MS, it's the same, but also to improve their image.
As I believe iroboto pointed out elsewhere, the fact that both X and Pro account for roughly the same amount of overall sales for their respective platform, and that they're both selling relatively well, shows that they're priced right and doing their job.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't see X becoming the base system. I don't think they can bring the price down low enough for it to be viable. MS is probably aiming for a $399 price for XB2 within 2-3 years, so IMO they're better off either discontinuing XB1X and just go with XB1S, or forget about XB1 completely. Or discontinue both X and S and offer a considerably cut-down version of XB1X for ~250 (XB1U? ).

The cost of technology (licensing) and CE production generally drops over time, as does shipping in higher volume but it does seem doubtful that Microsoft can get X down to what S sells for now, let alone what S may sell for in 12 months time. But perhaps cost of entry into the next Xbox generation isn't something Microsoft is worried about.

 

[djskribbles]

The cost of technology (licensing) and CE production generally drops over time, as does shipping in higher volume but it does seem doubtful that Microsoft can get X down to what S sells for now, let alone what S may sell for in 12 months time. But perhaps cost of entry into the next Xbox generation isn't something Microsoft is worried about.

I think it should be in MS' best interest to guide people into next-gen/XB2 as soon as possible. I don't see the purpose of XB1X when XB2 exists. You're also competing with yourself... it gives people less reason to buy an XB2 because it's a smaller jump in HW. But if you price it too close to XB2, then no one's gonna buy it.

To me anyway, it makes more sense to just have XB1S + XB2.

 

[Entropy]

I think it should be in MS' best interest to guide people into next-gen/XB2 as soon as possible. I don't see the purpose of XB1X when XB2 exists. You're also competing with yourself... it gives people less reason to buy an XB2 because it's a smaller jump in HW.

I think there is a real possibility Sony and Microsoft may have shot themselves in the foot with these mid-gen upgrades. It will be that much harder for them to provide a meaningful generational bump, which in turn is bound to lower interest in early uptake of the new systems until they have a reasonable library of games exclusive to the new generation. And that could take time, particularly as it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
There is a risk that their mid gen spec bumps will cost them more than they gained - particularly as they don't seem to have gained a whole lot.

 

[Xbat]

X was all about Xbox getting good mindshare again and it worked I think.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is a risk that their mid gen spec bumps will cost them more than they gained - particularly as they don't seem to have gained a whole lot.

Most people will compare the new machines they have. And those who bought mid-gens despite their marginal improvement won't be averse to buying next-gen for a marginal improvement - they'll get far more for than their money than they did with the mid-gens.

X was all about Xbox getting good mindshare again and it worked I think.

Well, yeah, non-fiscal returns are going to be hard to measure. It'd be nice to know how much Xb1X cost MS to consider whatever other mindshare options they had (exclusives!).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

To me anyway, it makes more sense to just have XB1S + XB2.

If games for next the next Xbox and PlayStation 5 are also expected to run on 2013 era hardware, developers will be not be able to take full advantage of the new hardware. Imagine if GTA IV was constrained by the CPU power of PS2/Xbox.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Most people will compare the new machines they have. And those who bought mid-gens despite their marginal improvement won't be averse to buying next-gen for a marginal improvement - they'll get far more for than their money than they did with the mid-gens.

Agreed. I have a Pro, which I consider worth the money, given that I've had to replace my console half way through each generation, but this time, the replacement has better performance.

I'm still going to be ready on day 1 for the PS5, because I'm looking forward to a generational leap, rather than just supersampling, a more stable framerate, and improved ambient occlusion.

 

[Entropy]

Most people will compare the new machines they have. And those who bought mid-gens despite their marginal improvement won't be averse to buying next-gen for a marginal improvement - they'll get far more for than their money than they did with the mid-gens.

Well, yeah, non-fiscal returns are going to be hard to measure. It'd be nice to know how much Xb1X cost MS to consider whatever other mindshare options they had (exclusives!).

True all. Early adopters will adopt early.
But that will put a lot of very decent XB1Xs and PS4Ps on the second hand market. Momentum once the early adopters have grabbed theirs is the tricky question. We’ve never been in this situation before, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If games for next the next Xbox and PlayStation 5 are also expected to run on 2013 era hardware, developers will be not be able to take full advantage of the new hardware. Imagine if GTA IV was constrained by the CPU power of PS2/Xbox.

While dramatic that isn't terribly applicable to the state of technology now. PS2/Xbox came out when there was still rapid advancement in CPU technology. That has basically slowed to a crawl for the past 15+ years except in the mobile space where they were just basically catching up to where Intel were. As they are now also hitting that silicon wall, I expect even the mobile space to start slowing dramatically.

Reduced settings can go a long way towards making things run acceptably on lower end machines. While some visual aspects may be significantly impacted (NPC crowd size, number of NPC AI in the world, physics simulations, etc.) the base gameplay loop will still basically be the same.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

While dramatic that isn't terribly applicable to the state of technology now.

The Jaguar part in PS4/Xbox One is a five year-old, low-clocked, low-power processor designed to power five year-old, cheap, low-end laptops and tablets. In both real and relative terms, it's a slow-arse underpowered dinosaur and you definitely do not want to limit a console launching in 2019/20/21, itself with a five-plus year lifetime, to that 2013 CPU baseline by virtue of the PS4/Xbox One being the low performance tier of your generation-less platform strategy.

Frankly, even a PS4 Pro / Xbox One X baseline is going to hold some devs back if that have to support that level of hardware in 2024/25.

 

[iroboto]

It would be ideal if Pro and X users could skip the base model and migrate to PS5 Pro and X2X respectively.

How reasonable or feasible that is seems to really depend on the developer and what the platform owners policies will be.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It would be ideal if Pro and X users could skip the base model and migrate to PS5 Pro and X2X respectively. How reasonable or feasible that is seems to really depend on the developer and what the platform owners policies will be.

It's not feasible because both Pro and One X leveraged experience, technology improvements and manufacturing advances that occurred in the 3-4 years after the launch of the original consoles. Sony's 4.2Tf Pro may, just may, have been technically possible in 2013, albeit costing a ludicrous price. Xbox One X? No way.

The same constraints will be in play when the next consoles launch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It would be ideal if Pro and X users could skip the base model and migrate to PS5 Pro and X2X respectively.

How reasonable or feasible that is seems to really depend on the developer and what the platform owners policies will be.

You mean at launch? What kind of price are you going to ask of these upgraders and how much better is the hardware going to be? There's a lengthy discussion on a two-tier launch in the prediction thread.

 

[iroboto]

You mean at launch? What kind of price are you going to ask of these upgraders and how much better is the hardware going to be? There's a lengthy discussion on a two-tier launch in the prediction thread.

3 years after launch. I guess. Another mid gen jump. Sort of like iPhone and iPhone S models.

That’s really sort of the crux of it for me. How long will it take developers to fully leverage the hardware such that last gen is completely ruled out. If it takes day 1 full wave, 3 years, then, that would be on track for another mid gen refresh.

Platform owners can take advantage here if the situation imo. As it has been for many generations, just because the next generation console is now on sale, doesn’t mean last generation consoles cease sales immediately. If I recall correctly there PS3 manufacturing did not end until 3 years into PS4 lifetime.

Full circle, an announcement on such a type of thing could change predictable/historical sales trends.

As in the longer the hardware is supported and sold, we could be seeing a larger spread of console sales over time as opposed to being overly front loaded.

 

[Entropy]

3 years after launch. I guess. Another mid gen jump. Sort of like iPhone and iPhone S models.

That’s really sort of the crux of it for me. How long will it take developers to fully leverage the hardware such that last gen is completely ruled out. If it takes day 1 full wave, 3 years, then, that would be on track for another mid gen refresh.

Platform owners can take advantage here if the situation imo. As it has been for many generations, just because the next generation console is now on sale, doesn’t mean last generation consoles cease sales immediately. If I recall correctly there PS3 manufacturing did not end until 3 years into PS4 lifetime.

Full circle, an announcement on such a type of thing could change predictable/historical sales trends.

As in the longer the hardware is supported and sold, we could be seeing a larger spread of console sales over time as opposed to being overly front loaded.

But console sales have never been front loaded! They tend to peak around year four on the market (where's Rangers when you need him?). And as you say, the older generation console has already typically stayed in production for a good while after the next has been released, without mid-gen spec bumps.
We are in a bit uncharted waters here, indeed.