Xbox 360 attach rate and the HD effect.

[nelg]

Xbox 360 attach rate and the HD effect.

The attach rate for the xbox 360 has been remarkably high. Are the games that compelling, or do you think that it could be a result of owners looking to put their HDTV's to good use.

To elaborate, as a recent recent participant to the world of HDTV, I find my viewing habits heavily influenced by the availability of programming in HDTV. If two shows are on simultaneously, one in SD and one in HD, even if I have a reasonable preference for the SD one, I find myself choosing to watch the one in HD. I understand the novelty of the newness to HDTV for me, but the image quality really does make it more enjoyable. I have noticed this with my daughter and son as well. They have Discovery HD on all the time now. HD has made watching TV more enjoyable for me. Do you think that this 'HD effect' could also explain the high attachment rate for the 360? Seeing that HD programming is limited, could the high attachment rate be a result of 360 users looking for material to utilize their HD displays.



NB. I will leave the PS3 out of the discussion as it is in its infancy, but I expect the same for it.

 

[BrianWebDev]

Attachment.

I personally feel that the high attachment rate is due to achievement system. I think this makes is possible for people to buy more games because you usually can't get all achievements by just renting for a day. This addes replayablility into the game.

Although, most won't admit it, I thinkk alot of times people continue to play games (and or keep a game they might otherwise sell) so that they can get the achievments.

I also think online has alot to do with attachment rates. Alot of games have a online componet where if they want to play with friends they must own a copy. Before online, you just had a single player component that you could complete on a rent. Now, you need to own the games to play online with friends and others.

Just my thoughts.

Have fun with your HDTV, get yourself a HD-DVD drive and watch some movies. They look great.

 

[AzBat]

The guys on the 1up Yours podcast have discussed this alot and have to agree with their reasoning. The high attach rate is probably more simplified: lack of games. Take a look of the past year and you'll see that 360 owners gobbled up games from release date to release date. There was hardly anything for 360 owners to play the 1st 3 months or so of 2006. Plus, the fact of the lack of 1st party games in general. I agree HD, online support and achievements all have an effect on attach rate, but I think the strongest reason has been the lack of games itself.

Tommy McClain

 

[jamesnmandy]

Xbox 360 attach rate and the HD effect.

The attach rate for the xbox 360 has been remarkably high. Are the games that compelling, or do you think that it could be a result of owners looking to put their HDTV's to good use.

To elaborate, as a recent recent participant to the world of HDTV, I find my viewing habits heavily influenced by the availability of programming in HDTV. If two shows are on simultaneously, one in SD and one in HD, even if I have a reasonable preference for the SD one, I find myself choosing to watch the one in HD. I understand the novelty of the newness to HDTV for me, but the image quality really does make it more enjoyable. I have noticed this with my daughter and son as well. They have Discovery HD on all the time now. HD has made watching TV more enjoyable for me. Do you think that this 'HD effect' could also explain the high attachment rate for the 360? Seeing that HD programming is limited, could the high attachment rate be a result of 360 users looking for material to utilize their HD displays.



NB. I will leave the PS3 out of the discussion as it is in its infancy, but I expect the same for it.

agreed, i go for HD any time i can, sheesh......i'll watch grass grow if it's in HD instead of watching any other program in SD

 

[Tap In]

The guys on the 1up Yours podcast have discussed this alot and have to agree with their reasoning. The high attach rate is probably more simplified: lack of games. Take a look of the past year and you'll see that 360 owners gobbled up games from release date to release date. There was hardly anything for 360 owners to play the 1st 3 months or so of 2006. Plus, the fact of the lack of 1st party games in general. I agree HD, online support and achievements all have an effect on attach rate, but I think the strongest reason has been the lack of games itself.

Tommy McClain

wait... let me get this straight.

the reason that you think 360 owners are buying so many different games to enjoy on their system is due to the fact that there is a lack of games?

 

[AzBat]

wait... let me get this straight.

the reason that you think 360 owners are buying so many different games to enjoy on their system is due to the fact that there is a lack of games?

Let me see if I can explain it a little better. Let's say the Xbox 360 only had 12 games come out this past year. So that's one a month. Most people finish a game in less than 2 weeks(excluding multiplayer games). Now you can see how the attach rate in this make-believe scenario could reach 12 by the end of the year. The Xbox 360 owners are hungry to play games. They spent $300-$400 on a new system and they're having to go through periods of glut where there are no games available. Microsoft's first game of the year was Gears of War in November. Anyway, when a game does come out they jump on it even if it's not a quality game or if it's something they're usually interested in. When the rate of the games increases(and particularly quality games) people will be more picky with how they spend their money and then will buy less games and the attach rate will get back down where it normally should be(3). That make much more sense?

BTW, the attach rate does not say anything about whether those gamers are still playing all those games. Or whether or not they played them 5 mins or 5 weeks. It just says that the average 360 gamer _bought_ 5 games on average.

Tommy McClain

 

[ERP]

We've discussed this at work a fair amount and none of us can remember buying as many games for a system in its first year....

I honestly believe that looking at the quality of the first year titles X360 is hard to beat. It may not have had much in the way of the killer app but overall qulity has been very high. I also believe that demos on live have made a huge difference, people play them then buy rather than rent.

 

[knitecrow]

I disagree with the HD effect. HD movies/shows look far more impressive than just playing games in HD and i would indulge in those actives if i wanted to enjoy my very expensive plasma. I feel attach rate is high because the xbox 360 has attracted a large number of hard core gamers. The reasons are debatable.

I know a lot of people who have picked up a PS2 because it is cool, bought one game and never touched the system again. Who knows, may be the $399.99 price point of the 360 deters such casual buyers from picking up the system.

 

[dobwal]

Let me see if I can explain it a little better. Let's say the Xbox 360 only had 12 games come out this past year. So that's one a month. Most people finish a game in less than 2 weeks(excluding multiplayer games). Now you can see how the attach rate in this make-believe scenario could reach 12 by the end of the year. The Xbox 360 owners are hungry to play games. They spent $300-$400 on a new system and they're having to go through periods of glut where there are no games available. Microsoft's first game of the year was Gears of War in November. Anyway, when a game does come out they jump on it even if it's not a quality game or if it's something they're usually interested in. When the rate of the games increases(and particularly quality games) people will be more picky with how they spend their money and then will buy less games and the attach rate will get back down where it normally should be(3). That make much more sense?

BTW, the attach rate does not say anything about whether those gamers are still playing all those games. Or whether or not they played them 5 mins or 5 weeks. It just says that the average 360 gamer _bought_ 5 games on average.

Tommy McClain

I find this very implausible. I agree with ERP. There are alot of quality games coming out for the 360. I've purchased FN3, Graw, Oblivion, GOW, Saints Row, NCAA College Football and SCA (WTH!!! SC: DoubleAgent). Yet there are at least a dozen quality games still available for me to purchase. COD2, COD3, Rainbow6:Vegas, Dead Rising, FEAR, PDZ, Kameo, DOA4, PGR and Viva Pinata represents a large quantity games I have yet to entertain whether they deserve purchasing.

 

[PARANOiA]

I bought a 360 about a month and a half ago, and I've picked up six games (!) It seems like a lot, but really, the games are there to be played. I'm not a victim of "starving for games", but there's just a nice diverse selection of good games out there. The 360 is IMO doing well at catering for a decent variety of game styles. Sure, there's proportionally more "shooters", but I don't care about percentage breakdowns of categories ("only 3% RPG? only 9% family titles?"). I care about being able to pick up a great game in a different genre, and the 360 offers that today.

I will say that there's few "system sellers" other than, say, GoW. Lots of excellent games (games I'd rate 85%+) and at the end of the day, those games are really worth the time and effort.

FYI I've picked up:

• PGR3
• DOA4
• Kameo
• Enchanted Arm
• Viva Pinata
• Gears of War

I also won a copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance which hasn't arrived, and have picked up two arcade games.

 

[one]

FWIW, another view angle
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35967
with the newer figures (Michael Pachter)
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061219/wen_01.shtml

EDIT: A bit overlapping with the other thread
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=896419#post896419

 

[GwymWeepa]

The kids who grew up on the 32 bit and last generation games have gotten jobs and can afford more games. Slowly over the years seniors will have grown up during the videogame era and consoles will have massive attach rates since every age group will be able to afford, and very much want new games.

 

[Acert93]

We've discussed this at work a fair amount and none of us can remember buying as many games for a system in its first year....

I honestly believe that looking at the quality of the first year titles X360 is hard to beat. It may not have had much in the way of the killer app but overall qulity has been very high. I also believe that demos on live have made a huge difference, people play them then buy rather than rent.

100% agree, and to this I would add the 360 launch was supply limited plus had a high cost of entry ($400). The high price limited the console to a) people with money and b) diehard, devoted gamers; the limited supply ment less "holiday season" toss ins, so the majority of customers were very, very devoted to gaming. Those who picked up a 360 after the launch in 2006 were people who either could not get one at launch or found a game they really wanted (GRAW, Oblivion, FNR3, Dead Rising, GOW) and got a system due to the games.

I think it is a number of factors all converging, like you noted, generally high quality of software as well as exposure.

On that last point I thought that if MS was savvy enough that a bundled HDD could pay for itself through the lifespan. BIG If, and relies on excellent Live penetration. But I think Live + Storage medium allows gamers to get exposed to games they typically may not. People are trying games they would not spend $5 to rent. It also is giving the "little guys" a chance, games that get overlooked typically. DLC and trailers also help keep consumers aware of the product.

Perfect point: my best friend is just now picking up a 360. He loves Halo blah blah blah. Got an Xbox at launch. Anyhow, I talked to him 2 weeks ago and he had yet to hear about Gears of War Why not? No demo in kiosks (just small trailer) and the fact he doesn't visit IGN, Gamespot, or game forums. He works and plays his Xbox. Now if he had an Xbox 360 already, he would have been more exposed and over time he would have maybe even seen a demo and/or more trailers. The traditional media had not reached him.

The high attach rate is probably more simplified: lack of games.

I think the general arguement is the reverse: More games, more options / variety, hence appealing to more customers = more sales. While games may benefit from build up and hype in a vacuum, I think overall the answer is more along the lines of what ERP said.

And while there has not been a sales "killer app" I think it is fair to say that many Xbox 360 games are at the top of their genres: Gears of War, PGR3, Oblivion, FNR3, GRAW, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Splinter Cell Double Agent, Dead Rising, Kameo, and so forth. It also has some good ports (like Burnout). Maybe no single standout "killer app" besides GOW, but pick a genre and the Xbox 360 has usually filled it in with a nice title or two. For the first year of a new generation I think MS did a pretty good job of getting quality software out. Although that won't stop me from bickering about their overuse of UE3 and lack of sponsored titles pushing their hardware

 

[zed]

Originally Posted by AzBat View Post
The high attach rate is probably more simplified: lack of games.

no i dont believe its that, i believe its due to being only picked up by hardcore gamers whom tend to buy lots of games ( this was mentioned in gamasutra a month or so ago )
this is MSs number one problem with the xb360 the punters are not buying it for some reason ( in the 12 months after launch it is performing worse than the original xbox + ps2, gamecube )

btw saw this today on gamasutra, as ppl have mentioned over the course of the last year, the xb360 is in danger of being stuck between a rock + a hardplace

So who, at the end of the day, will be the also-ran in this generation of consoles? On the global scale, I’d say it could well be neither the PS3 or the Wii, but the Xbox 360. The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available. The Wii will skim off the younger players and those who don’t have as much money to spend.

Both have the advantage of being made in Japan, so they’ll crowd the Xbox right out of that market. In the US and Europe, it’s harder to say, but I see the Xbox’s early start as more of a liability than a benefit. They’ve racked up several million sales, but they can no longer claim to be the latest, greatest thing – especially as the PS3 plays Blu-Ray disks out of the box, but HD-DVD is only available for the Xbox as an add-on. The Dreamcast got an early start too, and look how that ended.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061222/adams_02.shtml

personally i previously was very sceptical about the viability of the wii. i believed it had one gimicky thing the wiimote, whilst great would not outweigh its other failings but i admit now perhaps i was wrong perhaps it is enuf, im coming round to the opinion that the wii actually has a good chance of challenging the ps3 for top honours in console sales this generation. itll be nice to see a olddog become topdog again

 

[archie4oz]

Actually IIRC there's been less that 100 different titles released worldwide for the 360, which is quite low for a year-old system. So I'd sorta go with AzBat's position, to some degree. I'd say also have to say, there hasn't been any comparable gen systems to compete with it. IMO the DS, PSP, and PS2 have also been absorbing a lot of the casual and budget gamers enough to keep the 360 market rather more hardcore gamer centric (who are more likely to be buying up more titles per platform) for the time being.

 

[damisa]

Let me see if I can explain it a little better. Let's say the Xbox 360 only had 12 games come out this past year. So that's one a month. Most people finish a game in less than 2 weeks(excluding multiplayer games). Now you can see how the attach rate in this make-believe scenario could reach 12 by the end of the year. The Xbox 360 owners are hungry to play games. They spent $300-$400 on a new system and they're having to go through periods of glut where there are no games available. Microsoft's first game of the year was Gears of War in November. Anyway, when a game does come out they jump on it even if it's not a quality game or if it's something they're usually interested in. When the rate of the games increases(and particularly quality games) people will be more picky with how they spend their money and then will buy less games and the attach rate will get back down where it normally should be(3). That make much more sense?

BTW, the attach rate does not say anything about whether those gamers are still playing all those games. Or whether or not they played them 5 mins or 5 weeks. It just says that the average 360 gamer _bought_ 5 games on average.

Tommy McClain

That makes no sense. The more games available, the more likely someone finds a game they find appealing. If a gamer buys 12 titles a year when there are only 12 (because he needs games to play), why would he buy less than 12 if there were more games available to choose from?

 

[3dcgi]

I think I have 7 games and 3 or 4 of them I bought because friends convinced me to so we could play online. Some of them I might have bought otherwise, but I definitely wouldn't have bought them all yet.

 

[vazel]

I did get my X360 because I wanted an HD console. I would've preferred the PS3 but it was still a ways off to be released and it's a tad too expensive. Out of all the consoles I've owned I would have to say the X360 game library is the weakest I've experienced but I seem to prefer Japanese developed games and the X360 doesn't have strong support there.

 

[nelg]

Azbat,

The only way I could agree with you is if one was to factor in the (un)availability of games to rent. With out as many games to try/rent, the idea of renting the same few games over and over makes buying the ones you like instead more compelling.

Knitecrow,

The comparison to HD was not meant to be a literal comparison to HDTV, merely a parallel jump in IQ.

ERP,

When you say quality, are you referring strictly to the visual experience?

Archie4oz,

Wow, naive I must be. I would have thought that 100 games in the first year was good. What would be the norm?

 

[archie4oz]

Wow, naive I must be. I would have thought that 100 games in the first year was good. What would be the norm?

Well it's actually it's more like 80-90, which is about what the PSP managed in North America and Europe in it's first year (Japan had *WAY* more). And the PSP is generally considered a rather barren platform as far as releases go...