Xbox 360 attach rate and the HD effect.

[dobwal]

This is my point. The really good AAA games didn't happen till late in the year. In the beginning of the year new releases were few and far between. Those early owners are the ones who are contributing to the high attach rate. Not the owners who bought after August or September. They had to agonize through periods of drought(spring and summer) of very little games to play. And the games they did get weren't great ones. Look at the sales figures for Xbox 360 games as the year progresses. You can definitely see a trend where basically 360 owners went from title to title as the year progressed. I mean, who would have expected Dead Rising to do the numbers they did?

Anyway, I expect 360's attach rate to decline, but we probably won't notice it right away. Might take 2 or 3 months for a drop to a 4.

BTW, how do I explain the low PS3 and Wii numbers? Same way we explained the 360 numbers last year: launch system. The majority of the people buying at launch are either not buying a game(to sell on eBay) or just buying one game.

Tommy McClain

GRAW, Oblivion and FN3 all dropped in the spring with DR and Saints Row dropping in August. What you are describing is typical of all consoles. Most games are targetted to drop around the winter holiday day season with a good portion trickling into the spring because of delays. Summer is always slow.

You are basically saying the crappier your game lineup for your console the more games your console will sell.

Wasn't the 360 attached rate unusually high during launch and that was attributed to most the 360s being only available in bundles from most retail shops? Nothing about the 360 launch explains the low number seen with the PS3 in relation to attached rates.

 

[AzBat]

Seeing that these consoles would be resold within a short period of time, can that really be a factor? Add to that, the ones buying and paying a premium for them, I would assume to be more inclined to be hard core gamers and or have more disposable income to buy games.

I agree to a certain extent. Bad thing about systems at a premium is that they they did pay so much for the system that sometimes they can't afford to get many more games. That's how it is for me right now. Even with my system costing me $400 with 2 games. I'm not going to be spending any more money on 360 games for at least a month or so. That's one of the reasons for buying some AAA games to start with. They'll last me longer.

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

As a publisher: the latter.
As a platform holder where the console price is at break-even or profitable: the latter.
As a platform holder who loses a significant amount of money on every unit: the former.

Agreed. Great points.

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

GRAW, Oblivion and FN3 all dropped in the spring with DR and Saints Row dropping in August. What you are describing is typical of all consoles. Most games are targetted to drop around the winter holiday day season with a good portion trickling into the spring because of delays. Summer is always slow.

You are basically saying the crappier your game lineup for your console the more games your console will sell.

To a certain extent yeah. There's a point where the games are too bad that nobody wants to buy them and the system quits selling. The 360 is a special case because there's a lot of excitement and optimism for the system and future games(Halo3,etc). Early adopters are very hardcore and they want something to play, almost anything until the AAA titles get here.

Wasn't the 360 attached rate unusually high during launch and that was attributed to most the 360s being only available in bundles from most retail shops? Nothing about the 360 launch explains the low number seen with the PS3 in relation to attached rates.

I had thought the attach rate was low at launch. Anybody got any numbers?

Tommy McClain

 

[dobwal]

I think one could make a argument that the attached rate is a function of the 360 having more hardcore gamers.

The 360 launch was a worldwide launch which ensured that all the hardcore gamers from the three major regions had opportunity to purchase the system from its inception. Couple this with the higher than normal price tag (at least for the US) and one can see why there might be an unusually high proportion of hardcore gamers and thus lead to the attachment rate being is so high.

 

[Dave Baumann]

As a publisher: the latter.

I'm not necessarily convinced that is solely the case. If you have 2m consoles with an attach rate of 1 or 1m consoles with an attach rate of 2 is there much difference between the market opportunities?

 

[Geo]

I think it depends a bit on what you are about to publish. If you're middle-of-the-road genre title guys, probably not. If you're about to publish a AAA title that is going to get talked up for GotY, etc, then the more units out there even in the hands of casual gamers is expanding your sales opportunity significantly, because there are a lot of casual gamers who will buy that kind of title just to see what all the shouting is about. Look how fantastically GoW is doing --yet I suspect if there'd been a few million more XB360 out there already they'd have done even better.

We figure something north of 25% of all XB360 owners have a copy of GoW now?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't know about that. I guess it's a subjective thing.

There's nothing subjective at all about the first two questions, only the conclusion is subjective. I don't believe there's been a console with as high of an attach rate for the first year of its launch, and I don't believe there's been a console with as many highly rated games during its first year as the 360.

Yes, why not? I played Halo and Halo 2 constantly for months. I didn't buy anything till I was done with them.

And I own an Xbox and also played Halo and Halo 2 constantly for months. But guess what? The only games I've got for my Xbox are Halo, Halo 2, Fable, and Madden games. The reason isn't because Halo was so great (although that might have some effect), the reason is because there weren't any games of interest available.

That isn't the case with the 360. There's loads of great games to play. That isn't a reflection of a lack of AAA titles, it's a reflection of the abundance of AA titles. I find it difficult to believe that if Halo 3 were released at launch, the attach rate would be significantly lower because everybody would have spent the last year playing Halo 3 at the expense of Dead Rising, GRAW, COD, etc...

I doubt that. Nice things about bargain bins and renting.

You doubt it? I obviously don't. I think in another year's time, the games that are released on the system will make GRAW, Gears, Dead Rising, etc.. Look like garbage in comparison.

 

[Silenti]

Well, since I was dubbed a "casual" gamer, indicative of the masses, and I purchased a 360 in June, I believe it was, perhaps my game purchasing habits are of interest here. I've actually been examining them myself for some time now. I would have to consider myself atypical for any label of hardcore or casual, but you decide.

I was hard pressed to pay the 400$ for the 360. Eventually I caved in June. Bought the premium, with an extra controller and GRAW. I now own GRAW, Viva Pinata and Gears. The list of games I cannot wait for include: Halo 3, Halo Wars, Assassin's Creed, GRAW2, Mass Effect, Forza 2, Bioshock and Army of Two (which would be the first EA game I have purchased in many a year, just don't much care for them as a company and try to avoid their products for a host of reasons already heavily mentioned elsewhere here.)

Viva is so out of the realm of my normal purchases that I'm not even sure what to attribute it to. Lack of other titles interesting me? Certainly to some extent. 1up's reviews, really about the first time I have ever been affected by a game review that I can recall, played a large role in my decision. Someone describes a game and uses a line like "My whirlm concentration camp", well, it got my attention. It seems to be quite well thought of overall, so I guess I'm not to far from the mainstream there. The game has some serious issues, however, it is extremely popular in this household. The two females love that game and the guys mostly see it as a chance to finally rack up some achievement points that don't have ridiculous multiplayer requirements like "host 1000" ranked matches for 20 points. It's fun, but a bit quirky and has some serious interface issues. Really serious issues. Worst menu system I have ever used. Slow, annoying and inconsistent. No regrets on the purchase overall though.

GRAW is one of the best "hardcore" games I have ever played. That game is a bitch and a half on hard. Tried multiplayer with a bunch of guys on Arstechnica and, for the first time I can recall, got my ass handed to me left and right. It was terrible. Fun, but daaaamn! That is not a game I would even consider having a casual, my definition, try without a lot of help in coop. I bought this because I wanted an FPS to play besides Halo 1,2 and it looked beautiful. This was my first pick and I haven't regretted it in the slightest.

Gears? Bought it because of the overall scores it was receiving on gamerankings and the talk of GOTY awards. No regrets so far. It is a lot of fun, lots of cursing and yelling at the screen in coop. Plenty of flaws in the game, not very inventive boss wise certainly, and boss fights in general turn me off (in FPS's anyway.) Plenty of flaws as well, but hey, what game doesn't have them? It overcomes them, it's fun.

60$/game is what holds me back on plenty of purchases. Especially after paying 400$ for the console, what? - 50$ for another wireless controller and having to get a recharger and rechargeable batteries. (Note: Not the MS version, just 8 AA's and a recharger after going through a huge pack of AA's in a short period of time.) I would like to try Dead Rising, I'm not paying 60$ for a zombie smashing game. Oblivion? I don't care for First Person RPG's as a rule. Turn based, or pause features and a top down or 3rd person views are required for me in RPG's. I'm still tempted, but just waiting at the moment. Tried the Blood Money Demo and there is no way in hell I would pay for that game. It's impossible for me to aim in that thing. I'm assuming it is a direct port from the PC and that epitomizes what I hate about ports (Deeper explanations are possible, but unnecessary here.) Same for FEAR, which I would really like to play, and PD Zero was a travesty, IMHO. No racing games to interst me, not in the style I prefer, and I don't really buy sports games anymore. Certainly not EA sports games. Far Cry? I was a little tempted, but not after the Demo. It's muliplayer only(the demo, not the game) and has many of the same problems as FEAR, Hitman AND PD Zero. I'm only marginally interested in the multiplayer and have no idea what playing the singe player campaign is like since the demo lacks this material. So no purchase there. RB6: Vegas has a bit of my attention, but the demo was so frustrating for me that I deleted it and haven't gone back yet.

There's plenty of reasons for my purchases, only 3 so far. Lack of titles I want? Somewhat. Price, certainly. Let's be clear here, I have extra money for entertainment purchases. Enough that 60$ isn't really a big deal. I'm still put off by that price, and the lack of price drops. I'll gladly pay 60, or more for a game I love (I'll pay the 100$ for the Legendary Edition of Halo 3, not for the helmet but for the extra content), but the price tag is curtailing my purchases of more "casual" titles on principle alone. I just won't pay that for a game that is iffy, and the "dearth" of titles that I want isn't enough to overcome that price tag. By the time a price drop hits for some of the titles, when they hit a price of 20-30$, I will long since have moved on to bigger and better things. Really, paying 60$ for moderate titles is just too much for me. I cannot justify it even though I have plenty of disposable income right now.

 

[Rolf N]

I'm not necessarily convinced that is solely the case. If you have 2m consoles with an attach rate of 1 or 1m consoles with an attach rate of 2 is there much difference between the market opportunities?

I think the higher total volume is what matters, as it counts the statistical/expected opportunities to make a sale. Going with Azbat's example figures, one platform moves 40M games and the other 50M~75M.
It doesn't matter if your product is the customer's second or tenth game as long as you're selling. Higher AR with a lower base (and a lower product) doesn't bring you any closer to a guaranteed success.

It can obviously get a lot more complex when you draw in other statistics (age profile, genre preferences, online penetration, competition and synergies etc) but going only by the raw install base vs attachment rate you want to be going for both, for max volume. This is just an element of attraction on that side of the fence though. There's little a single publisher can do to influence the values specifically in that way.

There's no clear advantage to either platform in your example. One could argue it either way.

 

[Dave Baumann]

We figure something north of 25% of all XB360 owners have a copy of GoW now?

Thats the point - even the AAA titles don't achieve 100% saturation, nothing like it at all, so there is still plenty of potential opportunity there - if there was a higher attach rate then its like that the penetration within the userbase is also likely to be higher as well.

 

[AzBat]

There's nothing subjective at all about the first two questions, only the conclusion is subjective. I don't believe there's been a console with as high of an attach rate for the first year of its launch, and I don't believe there's been a console with as many highly rated games during its first year as the 360.

I was replying to your Xbox 360 games are "vastly superior" to original Xbox comment.

And I own an Xbox and also played Halo and Halo 2 constantly for months. But guess what? The only games I've got for my Xbox are Halo, Halo 2, Fable, and Madden games. The reason isn't because Halo was so great (although that might have some effect), the reason is because there weren't any games of interest available.

That isn't the case with the 360. There's loads of great games to play. That isn't a reflection of a lack of AAA titles, it's a reflection of the abundance of AA titles. I find it difficult to believe that if Halo 3 were released at launch, the attach rate would be significantly lower because everybody would have spent the last year playing Halo 3 at the expense of Dead Rising, GRAW, COD, etc...

I could see it happening. We're talking about an attach rate here. This is the average number of different games bought per system. How many people would just buy the system for that one game? A lot I would think. Didn't that happen for Halo 2? Now, don't get me wrong, the attach rate would go down, but instead of 5, it might be 3 or 4. But you also have to realize that the number of systems sold would have gone up too. Remember, attach rate doesn't equate directly with the total number of games sold for the system.

You doubt it? I obviously don't. I think in another year's time, the games that are released on the system will make GRAW, Gears, Dead Rising, etc.. Look like garbage in comparison.

Might, but a good game is a good game no matter if it came out the first year or if it came out 2 years later(ex: Halo). You should still be able to enjoy them provided you have the time of course.

Tommy McClain

 

[dobwal]

I'm not necessarily convinced that is solely the case. If you have 2m consoles with an attach rate of 1 or 1m consoles with an attach rate of 2 is there much difference between the market opportunities?

I think for your well known franchises or new franchise backed with large amounts of marketing resources then you go for the higher install base.

That attachment rate of 1 would be largely composed of well known franchise be it Madden in the US or FF in japan, so picking a higher userbase makes since for those type of franchises.

Smaller franchises or new franchises without the resources of an Epic or a MS (Halo-Xbox launch) might choose the console with the higher attachment rate. A higher attachment rate would seem to indicate increased amount of purchases outside the typical well known and high selling franchises.

 

[hongcho]

I know I am the person who's holding down the Xbox 360 game attachment rate... Except for PGR3 that was bundled with my Costco Xbox 360, I have not bought any other packaged game.

Hong.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

And I would disagree... I would STRENUOUSLY disagree, as Demi Moore said in a Few Good Men.

I would say that there isn't a SINGLE gamer that bought a system for a single game. People didn't buy the Xbox because they could play Halo. They bought the Xbox because they could play Halo, but they could ALSO play all the other games they were interested in (such as EA Sports Games), AND get Halo. As opposed to buying the PS2 and NOT getting Halo.

Didn't that happen for Halo 2? Now, don't get me wrong, the attach rate would go down, but instead of 5, it might be 3 or 4. But you also have to realize that the number of systems sold would have gone up too.

Huh? What? No, it didn't happen. Halo2 sold systems only to those people who had already played Halo. If they didn't own an Xbox, and they played Halo on their friends' system, and went out and bought an Xbox to buy Halo2, that's a totally different dynamic.

Remember, attach rate doesn't equate directly with the total number of games sold for the system.

WHAT? Explain yourself, please. Attach rate is a pretty straight forward metric. How many copies of games are sold compared to how many systems are sold. How is that not a directly proportional metric?

Might, but a good game is a good game no matter if it came out the first year or if it came out 2 years later(ex: Halo). You should still be able to enjoy them provided you have the time of course.

Well, that makes no sense at all, and is rather retarded. A game might sell millions in year 2 of a console because it provides great graphics for its time, but in year five of the console, that same game might have subpar graphics and not sell out at all.

I don't understand how that's difficult to understand.

Do you really believe that GRAW and GEARS are the BEST that the 360 has to offer in terms of graphics? If you do, I don't have any idea where you are coming from. Two years from now, Ghost Recon XXVIII SUPER STELLAR SPACE WARRIOR for the 360 will have graphics that will put GRAW to shame.

When that happens, do you think I'll enjoy GRAW as much as I'll enjoy GRXXVIIISSW?

No... I won't. In fact, I won't even buy GRAW.... I'll never even play it. That was my point.


Tommy McClain

 

[AW0L]

i have to be added to this high xbox attach rate.
ive noticed ive bought more games for my xbox and 360 then my ps2 or ps1.
this is mostly due to online and multiplay games. while ps2 and ps1 games concentrated more on the single play ive tended to rent more ps2/ps1 games becuase most of them can be beaten n a good weekend and my gamecube (mario kart!!) libary is about the same size as my ps2

plus im now actually making anuff to afford more luxurys now that i rented out the remaining rooms in my house to a couple of friends.

currently for my xbox 360
got 4 controllers (2xWireless 2xWired) and one charger

GOW
FN3
Ghost Recon
lego star wars (wife)
chrome hounds
viva pinata (wife)
madden
oblivion

gonna buy
forza 2, MLB, halo, culdacept, fn4, cnc3

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Hey! Where do you live?

How do you have two wired controllers? Did you buy the Core, or is there another reason why you would buy two wired controllers?

I have never, ever, had a wireless console controller. (I don't own any current gen consoles). I never bought 3rd party wireless controllers because I always thought (maybe for no good reason), that they would be inferior to the 1st party wired controllers.

Is there an advantage to the wired controllers? Why do you own two of them?

 

[ninzel]

Sales rates are helpful in prediction,but in the end it comes down to overall sales numbers. 1 million games sold is better than 500,000 game sold no matter how you spin it.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Sales rates are helpful in prediction,but in the end it comes down to overall sales numbers. 1 million games sold is better than 500,000 game sold no matter how you spin it.

Well... That's obviously true, if you only sell 500 units, who cares if you sold 2M games for those 500 units?

But, I don't really think that's the case here. The 360 isn't a system that will only sell a few units and only appeal to a select group. Which is why any pessimistic talk of the incredibly high attach rate is absurd, IMO.

The 360 has such a great attach rate because it launched first and was the first HD console, and because it was able to put out huge numbers of AA games in its first year. It might not have put out any AAA games (GEARS would argue with that, but I won't), but it was able to put out games that were far superior to the Last-Gen games they were competing with.

Once again... it all comes back to when MS drops the price on the console. Right now, MS is in the Cat bird's seat. They've got a great product and the only thing that is holding them back right now is the price of entry.

 

[ninzel]

Well... That's obviously true, if you only sell 500 units, who cares if you sold 2M games for those 500 units?

But, I don't really think that's the case here. The 360 isn't a system that will only sell a few units and only appeal to a select group. Which is why any pessimistic talk of the incredibly high attach rate is absurd, IMO.

The 360 has such a great attach rate because it launched first and was the first HD console, and because it was able to put out huge numbers of AA games in its first year. It might not have put out any AAA games (GEARS would argue with that, but I won't), but it was able to put out games that were far superior to the Last-Gen games they were competing with.

Once again... it all comes back to when MS drops the price on the console. Right now, MS is in the Cat bird's seat. They've got a great product and the only thing that is holding them back right now is the price of entry.

I think the 360 is doing more than fine,I wasn't trying to imply anythig else.