Recent Console Attach Rates

[dobwal]

@ dobwal - My initial calculations set the "# of months" value of the latest hardware sales as zero. Yours set it as 1. The former implies all hardware sales took place on the last day of the month and the latter implies that they all took place on the first day of the month. That's why there is a discrepancy between our calculations. Your numbers would put the ATO at 13.3 months, which naturally, if you took more time to reach the same attach rate would result in a lower purchase rate. Neither value makes sense, actually. paawl made the reasonable suggestion to use 0.5 months as a starting value, instead, so latest month would be 0.5 next would be 1.5, etc.

New numbers based on this change (and I also did less rounding this time, only rounding the final figure) come up as:

ATO:

360 - 12.8
PS3 - 7.5
Wii - 7.5

Purchase Rate:

360 - 0.59 games per month, 7.1 games per year
PS3 - 0.61 gpm, 7.4 gpy
Wii - 0.70 gpm, 8.5 gpy



This is the point. All of my initial posts were a response to the OP, which was attempting to show that MS's claims didn't hold up. My initial problem was with the OP trying to normalize the attach rates of the 3 consoles by time since launch. So I came up with the Attach Rate/ATO calculation as a better alternative. Next, I wanted to see if there was some statistical backup for points made by other posters that new console buyers show higher purchase rates and by extension as the console owner poulation increases you would see a decline in purchase rate.

Hence the initial buy rate calculation and the subsequent attempts to make what I thought was a more valid comparison by attempting to show what the 360's purchase rate was when it was in a similar position to where the other 2 consoles are now in ATO. I even showed what the purchase rate of the other 2 consoles would be if they followed a similar trend when they got to the point where the 360 is now. This satisfies me, at least, that MS's claims do hold up and the conventional wisdom that the 360 is selling software at an unusually high rate is not just based on succesful PR.

LOL my bad.

 

[paawl]

Even though I disagree with mrcorbo's conclusion, he was doing such a
great job with the numbers, which no one can dispute, I didn't feel
the need to post again until now. While mrcorbo interprets the
earlier ~10 game per year (hence, gpy) average purchase rate (hence, apr) of the
Xbox 360, compared to the ~7 gpy apr (hence, GA ) of the 360 now,
as reason to believe that the 7-8 GA of the PS3 and Wii will decline as
the installed base ages, I argue differently. I suggest that since
the PS3's GA has actually been increasing lately, that we cannot
predict that it will decline as the 360's has. (Note that I'm not
suggesting that the 360's decline is some sort of trend that will
continue, either, I'm just suggesting that the 360's early high GA may
have been an anomaly or a natural fluctuation resulting from the
abundance of quality games available during the period.)

Anyway, my prime motivation to resurrect this thread was to offer what
I thought was interesting (and surprising) new information from EA's
quarterly report:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10457&Itemid=2

EA's software net revenues for Q4 were:
PS2 - $166M
PS3 - $152M
360 - $128M
Wii - $ 75M
PSP - $ 69M
NDS - $ 36M

I'm somewhat surprised that the PS2 is still on top; the install base
advantage is huge, but I'm surprised that many PS2 owners are still
buying games at all. (Other than Persona FES, I've got to try that
. . . just as soon as I've finished FFXII.)

But what I find really surprising is that PS3 software sales (at least
for Ubisoft, and now EA) are about the same as 360. That's
unexpected, given the relative size of the install bases. If
anything, I think that this provides evidence that new console owners
*do* purchase games at a higher rate than older owners.

Any other theories?

 

[mrcorbo]

Even though I disagree with mrcorbo's conclusion, he was doing such a
great job with the numbers, which no one can dispute, I didn't feel
the need to post again until now. While mrcorbo interprets the
earlier ~10 game per year (hence, gpy) average purchase rate (hence, apr) of the
Xbox 360, compared to the ~7 gpy apr (hence, GA ) of the 360 now,
as reason to believe that the 7-8 GA of the PS3 and Wii will decline as
the installed base ages, I argue differently. I suggest that since
the PS3's GA has actually been increasing lately, that we cannot
predict that it will decline as the 360's has. (Note that I'm not
suggesting that the 360's decline is some sort of trend that will
continue, either, I'm just suggesting that the 360's early high GA may
have been an anomaly or a natural fluctuation resulting from the
abundance of quality games available during the period.)

Anyway, my prime motivation to resurrect this thread was to offer what
I thought was interesting (and surprising) new information from EA's
quarterly report:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10457&Itemid=2

EA's software net revenues for Q4 were:
PS2 - $166M
PS3 - $152M
360 - $128M
Wii - $ 75M
PSP - $ 69M
NDS - $ 36M

I'm somewhat surprised that the PS2 is still on top; the install base
advantage is huge, but I'm surprised that many PS2 owners are still
buying games at all. (Other than Persona FES, I've got to try that
. . . just as soon as I've finished FFXII.)

But what I find really surprising is that PS3 software sales (at least
for Ubisoft, and now EA) are about the same as 360. That's
unexpected, given the relative size of the install bases. If
anything, I think that this provides evidence that new console owners
*do* purchase games at a higher rate than older owners.

Any other theories?

IMO GA of the PS3 is going up because of a combination of the factor you just referenced (relatively more new console owners in it's population because of the recent greatly increased sales who tend to buy games at a relatively high rate) and the fact that we just passed a holiday season during which people also tend to buy games at a higher rate. This last provides a greater boost to the PS3 than it does to the 360 because of the relatively short sales history of the PS3. There's less "normal" sales data to moderate the spike. If we have data available in the early fall, that seems to me to be a better time to try to gauge how the GA is trending.

As for the EA numbers I do find them a bit surprising, even allowing for the factors I just mentioned and the fact that these are likely the result of worldwide sales where the PS3 is closer to the install base of the 360 than it is in the US alone. Especially since EA had a successful 360 exclusive in Mass Effect. There was speculation that EA actually lost money on Rock Band sales (hoping to make it up over time via DLC sales). I wonder if the better Rock Band sales on the 360 actually hurt these numbers. Otherwise, I have to admit I'm at a loss to explain them since we see time and time again how multiplatform titles sell better on 360. And not only in the US.

 

[one]

Especially since EA had a successful 360 exclusive in Mass Effect. There was speculation that EA actually lost money on Rock Band sales (hoping to make it up over time via DLC sales). I wonder if the better Rock Band sales on the 360 actually hurt these numbers. Otherwise, I have to admit I'm at a loss to explain them since we see time and time again how multiplatform titles sell better on 360. And not only in the US.

These EA figures are revenue, not profit. Also, isn't Mass Effect (360 version) sold by MS?

 

[Mr Deap]

Variable are missing indeed.

The attach ratio rate represent the total number of software sold divided by the total number of hardware sold.

Newcomer have less games & old timer have more games obviously.

To discover the average number of software per month in average by person, you can't use the attach ratio rate number.

You actually need the real number of total software sales & hardware sales to be able to find the result as average per month per person.

Total Softwares/Total Months/Total Hardware=Result of software per month ratio rate.

The attach ratio rate difference between each system should technically represent a same difference between the system when it's about the number of games bought per person monthly.

 

[mrcorbo]

These EA figures are revenue, not profit. Also, isn't Mass Effect (360 version) sold by MS?

It's net revenue, actually. But I'm not sure whether losses on Rock Band would have effected that number as I described. I was just speculating. What's your explanation for the higher PS3 number given what we have seen on the sales charts worldwide?

And MS published Mass Effect, yes. But BioWare (and through them EA) are still getting money from those sales.

 

[mrcorbo]

Variable are missing indeed.

The attach ratio rate represent the total number of software sold divided by the total number of hardware sold.

Newcomer have less games & old timer have more games obviously.

To discover the average number of software per month in average by person, you can't use the attach ratio rate number.

You actually need the real number of total software sales & hardware sales to be able to find the result as average per month per person.

Total Softwares/Total Months/Total Hardware=Result of software per month ratio rate.

The attach ratio rate difference between each system should technically represent a same difference between the system when it's about the number of games bought per person monthly.

You might want to go back and read the whole thread....

 

[one]

It's net revenue, actually. But I'm not sure whether losses on Rock Band would have effected that number as I described. I was just speculating. What's your explanation for the higher PS3 number given what we have seen on the sales charts worldwide?

And MS published Mass Effect, yes. But BioWare (and through them EA) are still getting money from those sales.

OK I stand corrected about net revenue. However, selling more copies of software doesn't make a loss bigger unlike selling hardware at loss, this is a simple fact. As for Mass Effect, I don't think a developer can gain more than an investor (publisher = risk taker).

 

[AlphaWolf]

The bioware acquisition wasn't finalized till January in any event.

 

[mrcorbo]

OK I stand corrected about net revenue. However, selling more copies of software doesn't make a loss bigger unlike selling hardware at loss, this is a simple fact. As for Mass Effect, I don't think a developer can gain more than an investor (publisher = risk taker).

Rock Band is hardware and software. It is when the bundled hardware is figured in that they were (are?) selling at a loss.

The bioware acquisition wasn't finalized till January in any event.

Thanks.

 

[one]

Rock Band is hardware and software. It is when the bundled hardware is figured in that they were (are?) selling at a loss.

Oh how did I miss that Did EA believe that much in DLC sales alone? Guitar Hero is relatively cheap but Rock Band is $169 w/ hardware and also available at $59.99 w/o hardware.

 

[mrcorbo]

Some updates based on the currently released numbers

ATO:

360 - 13.5 months
PS3 - 8.1 months
Wii - 7.9 months

Based on the 7.6 attach rate figure from MS the 360's current YPR is 6.7 down from 7.1 just last month. This value is obviously still very fluid at this point in the console's lifecycle.

I can't update the other 2 console's YPR unless someone releases updated attach rates.

 

[mrcorbo]

*New numbers based on Oct '08 NPD and most current Attach Rate info*

The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 17.3 months, up 4.5 months since April '08
PS3 - 11.4 months, up 3.9 months since April '08
Wii - 10.8 months, up 3.3 months since Apr '08

The Yearly Purchase Rate (YPR) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 5.6 games, down 1.5 games since Apr '08
PS3 - 5.6 games, down 1.8 games since Apr '08
Wii - 6.2 games, down 3.3 games since Apr '08

For some context, in Sep '07 the 360 has an ATO of 11.1 months which was approximately where the PS3 and Wii are now. At that time the 360 was showing a YPR of 7.1 games per year.

The trend of YPR decreasing with increases in ATO continues. There are so many other factors involved, there's no way to prove a direct relationship. but there is a statistical correlation.

 

[mrcorbo]

Thanks to Matt Matthews of Gamasutra there are updated Tie Ratio numbers for the 3 7th-Gen consoles as of the March '09 NPD. So here's the updated ATOs and YPRs.


The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 18.0 months, up 0.7 months since Oct '08
PS3 - 13.1 months, up 1.7 months since Oct '08
Wii - 11.8 months, up 1.0 months since Oct '08

The Yearly Purchase Rate (YPR) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 5.5 games, down 0.1 games since Oct '08
PS3 - 5.9 games, up 0.3 games since Oct '08
Wii - 6.3 games, up 0.1 games since Oct '08

Some thoughts:

360 is holding fast at around 5.5 games purchased per year despite the recent holiday period (which usually skews this metric upward for some months) . I think the combination of a deeper dataset (12 more months of sales) preventing the holiday sales from having as much of an effect and the aggresive pricing attracting more budget gamers (who buy fewer games and are more likely to buy used games) are factors here.

PS3 saw the largest increase in ATO and the largest increase in YPR. This shows that software sales over the holiday and early 1st quarter period have been very good for the PS3. I think some of the dynamics causing this trend is that the people buying the PS3 are hardly going to be budget gamers and the percentage of people buying it primarily as a BR player has probably fallen off to indsignificance. For context, though, here's where the 360 was at similar ATO (which was also at a similar time of year): APR '08 - 13.5 ATO, 6.7 APR.

Wii numbers are right where I would expect, actually. Highest APR for the console with the lowest ATO. Comparison 360 numbers at similar ATO: I actually have two, one is at a slightly lower ATO, but pre-holiday and the other is at a slightly higher ATO, but post-holiday - Sep '07, 11.1 ATO, 7.1 YPR and Mar '08, 12.8 ATO and 7.1 YPR also.

 

[catisfit]

mrcorbo, thanks for keeping these figures updated.

 

[dobwal]

The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 18.0 months, up 0.7 months since Oct '08
PS3 - 13.1 months, up 1.7 months since Oct '08
Wii - 11.8 months, up 1.0 months since Oct '08

The increases in ATO relative to each other seems odd to me.

The 360 having a smaller increase in ATO in comparsion to the PS3 makes sense since the 360 has been outselling the PS3 for quite a while. It adding more new gamers every month, which suppresses the average time of ownership.

360's ATO increase in comparsion to the Wii's ATO increase seems out of whack. The Wii userbase and 360 userbase are only a few million apart but the Wii has gotten there in less time and maintains a higher sales pace. The Wii adds about twice as many new gamers a month than the 360. So why is the Wii userbase getting older faster?

 

[Crossbar]

So why is the Wii userbase getting older faster?

Its userbase is pretty young from the start and sales are no longer accelerating as it did before, hence the early buyers start to make more impact.

 

[StefanS]

Its userbase is pretty young from the start and sales are no longer accelerating as it did before, hence the early buyers start to make more impact.

Indeed, it means that that there's more early Wii buyers than late Wii buyers, compared to the X360. I.e. the early adopter / late buyer ratio on Wii is bigger relative to the early 360 buyers / late buyers ratio.

 

[mrcorbo]

The increases in ATO relative to each other seems odd to me.

The 360 having a smaller increase in ATO in comparsion to the PS3 makes sense since the 360 has been outselling the PS3 for quite a while. It adding more new gamers every month, which suppresses the average time of ownership.

360's ATO increase in comparsion to the Wii's ATO increase seems out of whack. The Wii userbase and 360 userbase are only a few million apart but the Wii has gotten there in less time and maintains a higher sales pace. The Wii adds about twice as many new gamers a month than the 360. So why is the Wii userbase getting older faster?

As Crossbar and StefanS have pointed out it has to do with the very different sales curve of the 360 vs. the Wii. The 360 started slowly due to supply problems caused by their manufacturing difficulties. The Wii sold a lot more early in its life and while it was supply limited as well, this was because of high demand instead of manufacturing issues.

The 360 having a smaller userbase (even by just a "few million") helps, too. Keep in mind, the difference in aging between the two is only 1/3 of a month.

 

[mrcorbo]

Courtesy of this interview with Aaron Greenberg at PCWorld we have new attach rate info for the 3 consoles and therefore updated YPRs.

The Attach Rate of the 3 consoles as of Jun '09

360 8.6 up 0.3 games since Mar '09
PS3 6.8 up 0.3 games since Mar '09
Wii 6.4 up 0.2 games since Mar '09

The Average Time of Ownership (ATO) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 20.3 months, up 2.3 months since Mar '09
PS3 - 15.3 months, up 2.2 months since Mar '09
Wii - 14.1 months, up 2.3 months since Mar '09

The Yearly Purchase Rate (YPR) for the 3 consoles is now:

360 - 5.1 games, down 0.4 games since Mar '09
PS3 - 5.3 games, down 0.6 games since Mar '09
Wii - 5.4 games, down 0.9 games since Mar '09

Some thoughts:

The slow sales overall over the measured period are reflected pretty clearly all around. Condole ATO aging at close to realtime, YPRs down across the board (especially the Wii).

TBH not too much to say here. The numbers speak for themselves and anyone who follows NPD should be able to see the reasons for them.

The overall trend of falling YPR as ATO increases continues, though.