Recent Console Attach Rates
- Thread starter paawl
- Start date
I don't usually reference VGChartz because I don't trust their internal data, but in this case the source data for this article comes from the financial reports of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=4601
Pulling the relevant data shows:
LTD Hardware (This quarter)
X360 – 31.40m (1.2m)
PS3 – 23.83m (1.1m)
Difference 7.57 Million vs. 7.1 Million at PS3's launch i.e. the 360 has sold more than the PS3 worldwide since the PS3 launched. Given what we know about the pace of sales prior to the 360's price cut last fall, I would say that since then the 360 has been kicking the PS3's arse wordwide.
It helps to have accurate numbers when trying to draw a conclusion. For the article in your link to assume "over 30 Million" to mean less than 31 Million is pretty silly when the actual numbers were so easy to come by. And as for the "shipped", "sold" issue I expect it was just an issue with verbiage in the article that the blog post referenced. The original article really just threw the 360 and Wii LTD numbers in for context so it can be excused that they were a little imprecise.
Software (Units) This Quarter:
X360 ~19.4m (Calculated from (attach rate this quarter X LTD Hardware this quarter) - (attach rate last quarter X LTD Hardware last quarter))
PS3 – 14.8m
No domination here. The numbers are in line with both the difference in install base and the premises put forth in this very thread.
It helps to use a broader sample than a single publisher when trying to assess software sales.
There is a reason why EA provides non-GAAP numbers for revenue and thats because its GAAP revenue isn't produce by looking at total revenue generated throughout the quarter.
EA's amortizes revenue generated by games that have an online component over period of time. Basically when you buy a game like Madden, you are buying the software and the associated online service for a certain time period. However, since EA structure their sales in such manner, GAAP rules don't allow EA to book the total revenue generated during the month of the initial point of sales because EA can only book revenue for product delivered and/or services rendered.
Whatever portion of revenue EA's stipulates is for online service from the software sale has to amortize over the time period stipulated by EA which is 6 months. EA's non GAAP revenue numbers are produced by adding change of deferred revenue from that quarter and adding it the GAAP figure. The non GAAP figure is simply more indicative of the revenue generated strictly during that quarter.
The PS3 GAAP figure is bigger because its recording revenue from the previous two quarters, which included this past holiday season. EA didn't start deferring the 360's revenue until this year and so it doesn't benefit from deferred holiday revenue. Non GAAP revenue will show that the 360 still generates more revenue for EA but YOY EA's 360 business has only grown 1-2% while EA's PS3 business has grown ~20%.
Last edited by a moderator:
This doesn't tally with the figures for the last two quarters, just the (holiday) quarter immediately after the price drop (Oct-Dec 08).
EDIT From 1 Jan 2008 (calendar quarters):
Code:
360 PS3
Q108 1.3 2.32
Q208 1.3 1.56
Q308 2.2 2.43
[B]Q408 6.0 4.46[/B]
Q109 1.7 1.61
Q209 1.2 1.1
Tot 13.7 13.48220,000 difference over the past 18 months would suggest that the March 08 and September 08 360 price cuts have merely kept it broadly on pace with PS3 fixed price sales worldwide.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
The games EA released in that quarter were:
-Fight Night Round 4
-Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
-The Godfather 2
-Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 10
We already knew that Fight Night sold pretty good on PS3, whereas 360 owners were spending their money on UFC Undisputed. In general that line up is something that I would't use as a proof of pretty much anything. It's interesting to see what happens when EA releases their bigger franchises.
-Fight Night Round 4
-Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
-The Godfather 2
-Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 10
We already knew that Fight Night sold pretty good on PS3, whereas 360 owners were spending their money on UFC Undisputed. In general that line up is something that I would't use as a proof of pretty much anything. It's interesting to see what happens when EA releases their bigger franchises.
I'm not sure why the two time periods you are focusing on omit the immediately preceding holiday sales. They're important. MS has seemed to be very focused on maximizing their holiday performance and their success in doing so is probably why PS3 can't gain any ground in the long run. Any gains they get in the beginning of the year are eliminated (or exceeded) by the 360 sales over the final 3 months.
Interestingly enough, the PS3 edge over the 360 in hardware sales in Japan in this last quarter actually exceeded the 360's advantage over the PS3 in the US by over 20,000 units (PS3 had a strong April in Japan). Since the shipment numbers ended up favoring the 360 by 100,000 overall it looks like the 360 outsold the PS3 by a significant amount in the rest of the world. There's no way to be sure by how much, though, because of the lack of a direct relationship between shipped and sold numbers. It could be by 100,000 units or even more.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because the first 2008 360 price cut was at the end of calendar Q1 2008, so the first two quarters in the list are effectively before and after that cut. The two events I was discussing occurred in 2008 so I didn't include 2007 data.
PS3 stock may be in deliberate depletion to prepare the channel for the slim launch, distorting the comparison. It's unfortunate we so rarely get consumer sales data from Europe.
Thanks again to Matt Matthews over at Gamasutra updated attach rate numbers for 360, PS3 and Wii are now available to go along with September '09's NPDs. So, once again, I have updated the Attach Rate, Average Time of Ownership, and Yearly Purchase Rate of those 3 consoles.
The Attach Rate of the 3 consoles as of Sep '09
360 8.8 up 0.2 games since Jun '09
PS3 6.8 flat since Jun '09
Wii 6.5 up 0.1 games since Jun '09
The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:
360 - 22.2 months, up 1.9 months since Jun '09
PS3 - 16.7 months, up 1.4 months since Jun '09
Wii - 16.4 months, up 2.3 months since Jun '09
The Yearly Purchase Rate (YPR) for the 3 consoles is now:
360 - 4.8 games, down 0.3 games since Jun '09
PS3 - 4.9 games, down 0.4 games since Jun '09
Wii - 4.8 games, down 0.6 games since Jun '09
The Attach Rate of the 3 consoles as of Sep '09
360 8.8 up 0.2 games since Jun '09
PS3 6.8 flat since Jun '09
Wii 6.5 up 0.1 games since Jun '09
The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:
360 - 22.2 months, up 1.9 months since Jun '09
PS3 - 16.7 months, up 1.4 months since Jun '09
Wii - 16.4 months, up 2.3 months since Jun '09
The Yearly Purchase Rate (YPR) for the 3 consoles is now:
360 - 4.8 games, down 0.3 games since Jun '09
PS3 - 4.9 games, down 0.4 games since Jun '09
Wii - 4.8 games, down 0.6 games since Jun '09
I have every NPD month's results listed from the time the 360 launched. Each month's sales total for each console is multiplied by a "T" value that starts at 0.5 months for the latest month (a compromise value since setting it to 0 would assume that everyone bought their console on the last day of the month and setting it to 1 would assume that everyone bought their console on the first day of the month). Going backwards, for each month prior to the latest month you add 1 to the "T" value that is to be multiplied by that month's sales totals going all the way back to the launch month. You then sum the total of the products from each month's sales and "T" values and divide it by the sum of the monthly sales alone. This extracts a "T" value that is the weighted average of all the "T" values (the weight being the number of consoles sold at each "T" value).
This matches up nicely with JoshuaJSlone's numbers as seen on GAF:
I think he somehow factors in the NPD distinction between four-week months and five-week months. Just multiplying by 52 immediately puts them in the same ballpark though, so it's probably not making much difference.
JJS said:
I think he somehow factors in the NPD distinction between four-week months and five-week months. Just multiplying by 52 immediately puts them in the same ballpark though, so it's probably not making much difference.
