Recent Console Attach Rates
- Thread starter paawl
- Start date
Am I interpreting this right despite the lack of column headings? Date and year in Column 1, Title in column 2, %age attach rate for XB360 next, then for PS3, and finally the ratio of the greater selling platform to the lesser. If so, then for these titles, PS3 is on average selling about 1.4 times (non calculated mean average based on a brief galnce at the figures!) as many discs as consoles versus XB360. And when XB360 does outsell PS3 (1 in 3 games), it's by a much smaller margin of ~11:10. Right?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The console with lower userbase should always have a higher attach unless something is drastically wrong.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
Well yes, one would assume that a larger install base means a broader audience means low percentage interest in any particular title, but still, these figures seem to overturn any arguments that PS3 owners aren't unterested in buying games. It seems a normal console market, where the right game makes the good sales, but no-one knows what the right game ever is before making and selling it 
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Although I would argue that with almost twice the install base it should be virtually impossible for the X360 to have a higher attach rate for any title if titles sold as expected for both consoles.
The fact that it does indicates that either X360 is performing above expectations or that PS3 is performing below expectations.
Taking the whole software catalog into account rather than just specific titles and the situation gets even more skewed.
Referring to Mr. Corbo's post above with X360 having an 8.6 attach rate versus the PS3's 6.8. That should NOT be happening.
X360 and Wii are relatively normal with regards to each other. Wii having a bit less attach rate but also having a greater install base.
Basically when compared to the X360, the PS3 attach rate is acting like what it should be if the PS3 had the larger install base.
Regards,
SB
The fact that it does indicates that either X360 is performing above expectations or that PS3 is performing below expectations.
Taking the whole software catalog into account rather than just specific titles and the situation gets even more skewed.
Referring to Mr. Corbo's post above with X360 having an 8.6 attach rate versus the PS3's 6.8. That should NOT be happening.
X360 and Wii are relatively normal with regards to each other. Wii having a bit less attach rate but also having a greater install base.
Basically when compared to the X360, the PS3 attach rate is acting like what it should be if the PS3 had the larger install base.
Regards,
SB
I think you're taking the observed trend that 'attach rates go down as the userbase goes up' and are basing a few too many conclusions off it. Why do attach rates typically go down? Do they always?
For one, I think that we have too few data points to conclude anything; there've only been a handful of generations and of those, we don't really have the numbers for more than what, 3 at best? I don't think even that. Most of what we know is from looking at the PS2, and the PS2's generation was pretty different from this one.
Now, why would the attach rates go down? It's probably a truism to say that it's because the console's userbase is adding on users with differing tastes: not everyone is interested in every game. It seemed to be true for the PS2.
So that's my hypothesis: the attach rate goes down if the userbase increases only if there's diversification of the userbase. Otherwise you have an expanding homogeneous audience who will all buy the same games at the same rate.
But are we seeing any real diversification on the PS3 or 360? I'm not so sure. Have we seen anything to suggest that these consoles aren't picking up the same sort of gamers, the same market, over and over? The games we're seeing succeed seem to be all aimed at the same demographic. A lot of shooters, sports games, a couple of racing games. Tons of sequels, though even the new IP that succeeds is in the same sort of genre. I certainly think that the, let's call it 'not-core' market on the PS2 either is still on the PS2, or very likely, has moved to the Wii. My belief is that, by segmenting the market the console manufacturers have ensured that they won't reach the same sort of diversity the PS2 had. And therefore, any sort of trend that we saw in the PS2's days probably won't apply to this generation.
Note: I'm not saying there is no diversity, nor that the userbases of the PS3 and the 360 are the same. There seem to be differences, but I'd say that largely we're talking about very similar types of gamers.
here are the NPD attachrates of the crossplatform games (both must have actual numbers to make the list)
xvox360 does seem to do better with FPS shooters the ps3 with the rest
To put these numbers in context, by being forced to limit the selections to numbers that have been released by NPD you are effectively making a chart that only includes multiplatform titles that are popular on PS3 since any titles that really underperformed on PS3 wouldn't chart and we seldom get numbers for anything other than the top 10. So we're seeing best case scenario here for PS3.
That understood, what I make of this chart is:
Shooters sell exceptionally well on 360. This is not to be confused with the PS3 audience not liking them as they are among the most popular titles on that platform as well. It's just that the 360 owners REALLY like them. Not very surprising, but it's always nice to have some reasonable statistical proof.
Fighting games sell exceptionally well on the PS3. Is it all about the D-pad?
This chart does seem to reinforce the idea that the typical PS3 owner is interested in franchises that were popular on the PS2. The fact that 3rd party franchises from last gen pretty much had to be popular on the PS2 to be popular at all, though, muddies the waters and I don't see these numbers as solid proof of that theory. OTOH, the relative lack of success Sony has had with it's new IPs this gen compared to these franchises, does lend some support to that theory IMO.
Other than that, unless you refuse to believe that smaller userbases=higher attach rates (despite all the evidence that supports it), these numbers are pretty much what you'd expect. The only outlier not covered by one of the the above is Assassin's Creed - a new IP that sold exceptionally well on PS3.
Actually, yes it should. The average 360 owner has owned their console about 5 months longer, so has had more opportunity to buy games. This is the point of trying to normalize the attach rate using the average time of ownership - to come up with a yearly purchase rate that should be more comparable. The caveat is that this number appears to drop with increased ATO putting the 360 at a disadvantage when making a direct comparision.
In case it was missed, here's the point of all this. from earlier in the thread. So far, my premises are holding up.
Ultimately, until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm going to accept what the facts I do have are indicating. Again, while you can make a alternate case for why an individual title may be showing a smaller attach rate compared to a prequel or otherwise similar title released earlier to a smaller userbase, you see it consistently across multiple titles in different genres on the current platforms and on the prior gen as well. There are exceptions, but they are relatively few.
A good and relevant point I hadn't considered. So the better performing titles perform better on average on PS3, but quite possibly the lower performing titles perform worse, making PS3 more of a 'boom or bust' console. But we'd need extended figures to confirm that.
I've been arguing this til I'm blue in the face for over a year now! Imagine that, a console has been out longer and has sold more titles - who'd thunk it!?
BTW, don't forget the X360 had ~a years headstart in Europe...and as you say recent stats show attach rates lower on X360 vs PS3 but all consoles are performing roughly the same.
EAs results pretty much confirm the PS3s dominace in game sales.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/35278/PS3-outperforms-Xbox-360-for-EA
Could this be because on the 360 there is a way to pirate games while on the PS3 it is still pretty much impossible to do so?
Regarding consoles sales, the PS3 is catching up worldwide, so while the 360 kicks it's arse in America it's not doing as well globally.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/08/04/ps3-closes-gap-between-xbox-360-in-2009-surprisingly/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/35278/PS3-outperforms-Xbox-360-for-EA
Could this be because on the 360 there is a way to pirate games while on the PS3 it is still pretty much impossible to do so?
Regarding consoles sales, the PS3 is catching up worldwide, so while the 360 kicks it's arse in America it's not doing as well globally.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/08/04/ps3-closes-gap-between-xbox-360-in-2009-surprisingly/
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be curious to know what EA released on both platforms during that quarter. If it was only multiplatform titles, I'd be really surprised by that number.
I hate sales arguments, but is the shipped vs sold argument true in the second link? I'd thought it was known that Sony had sold around 23-24 million where Microsoft had sold, not shipped, over 30 million?
I hate sales arguments, but is the shipped vs sold argument true in the second link? I'd thought it was known that Sony had sold around 23-24 million where Microsoft had sold, not shipped, over 30 million?
That last source is doing a lot of spinning IMO. Although Sony now claims to be doing sold to consumers, I'm not sure how they gather this data. I'm still taking them as shipped. What advantage would they have for listing sold rather than shipped anyway?
And the PS3 sold 0.1 less WW in the last quarter...so I'd say the gap has been static, rather than growing wider or shrinking. IMO
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=401109
I don't understand enough about financial reporting to figure this one out. PS3 leads in GAAP revenue, and 360 leads in non-GAAP. Both PS3 and 360 had the same titles released over that period. There is a little section at the bottom that shows which titles were released on each platform. My understanding is that they're counting money from dlc and micro transactions.
It looks like most of their revenue comes from North American (GAAP and no-GAAP, whatever that means). With most of their titles released over that period selling better on the 360 in NA, how could the PS3 have higher revenues over the same period?
I'm sure there's someone here that understands GAAP and non-GAAP reporting.
I don't understand enough about financial reporting to figure this one out. PS3 leads in GAAP revenue, and 360 leads in non-GAAP. Both PS3 and 360 had the same titles released over that period. There is a little section at the bottom that shows which titles were released on each platform. My understanding is that they're counting money from dlc and micro transactions.
It looks like most of their revenue comes from North American (GAAP and no-GAAP, whatever that means). With most of their titles released over that period selling better on the 360 in NA, how could the PS3 have higher revenues over the same period?
I'm sure there's someone here that understands GAAP and non-GAAP reporting.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_non-GAAP_mean
I'm sure it's not, but non-GAAP sounds like "dodgy" accounting whereas GAAP is all above board.
I'm sure it's not, but non-GAAP sounds like "dodgy" accounting whereas GAAP is all above board.
Does it really matter? The numbers for shipped and sold must be within several millions at most.
Also, how does any company know what was sold to consumers?
The npd company has to actively get this data from retailers and even then, walmart and some others don't give out this info.
I suppose console makers have more leverage, and maybe they can get this information from the retailers?
Well, I know what the acronym meant, I just don't understand the difference in the reporting. They include the non-GAAP numbers for one reason or another, I just can't make any sense of it. I'm curious to know what each set of numbers is supposed to be telling me, and how they relate.
This is where Ostepop should make an appearance...
