Support NeoGAF

[gundamkyoukai]

That graph is worldwide, not USA. And comparing them in the US is equally pointless.

To quote myself from several pages back

They did not disappeared they went to mobile .
A lot of the big 3rd party devs also have mobile stuff .
Of course they not as big on mobile as console but they are there.

One has to wonder what is going to happen to those comparisons when Kinect boost kicks in in X360 sales. What about demographics then?

And that would be, to me, the ultimate reason comparisons should *always* include Wii.

Nothing really changes even with Kinect .
Both Sony and MS cameras from the start of the gen plus later on when system get cheaper they add more stuff like that .
Just look at Sony and the party games they bring out that you can use you cell phone.

 

[Shin-Ra]

First I'm seeing of that (not) Xbox France pic, that's real dedication to propaganda.

 

[KillerMan91]

One has to wonder what is going to happen to those comparisons when Kinect boost kicks in in X360 sales.

And that would be, to me, the ultimate demonstration comparisons should *always* include Wii.

Xbone definitely falls of the pace of X360 after Kinect boost but it will still be over a year before that starts to happen (launch aligned 2017 Xbone is 2009 X360). Also PS4 will start to narrow the gap to Wii this year if Sony hits their forecast. Wii shipped 15.08 million in FY2010 and Sony forecasts 18 million PS4s this FY. Last FY already was basically even between the two with Wii shipping 20.58 million in FY2009 and PS4 20 million this past FY.

 

[D.Lo]

Xbone definitely falls of the pace of X360 after Kinect boost but it will still be over a year before that starts to happen (launch aligned 2017 Xbone is 2009 X360). Also PS4 will start to narrow the gap to Wii this year if Sony hits their forecast. Wii shipped 15.08 million in FY2010 and Sony forecasts 18 million PS4s this FY. Last FY already was basically even between the two with Wii shipping 20.58 million in FY2009 and PS4 20 million this past FY.

Ironically that's probably how the comparisons will play. As soon as the PS4 starts to rival the Wii in the race too 100 million, launch aligned, comparisons with the Wii will all of a sudden not be 'irrelevant because its a different market'. Graphs will start to be made.

 

[LordRaptor]

I mean, if you really want to make hardware comparisons, looking at the entire market is more useful than just saying PS360 vs PS4X1 because if you look at May 2009 "Playstation family" consoles were selling ~350k per month in NA, but May 2016 "Playstation family" for all intents and purposes consists of only the PS4 at ~210k

 

[KillerMan91]

Ironically that's probably how the comparisons will play. As soon as the PS4 starts to rival the Wii in the race too 100 million, launch aligned, comparisons with the Wii will all of a sudden not be 'irrelevant because its a different market'. Graphs will start to be made.

Eh. Personally I have seen plenty of charts that include Wii and PS2 too but I really don't see problem with that chart either. Also I don't see why saying Wii had largely different audience is so controversial. When EA or Activision plan to invest to new AAA franchise Wii market existing or not existing has pretty much zero effect on that decision. Wii sold software and made plenty of money for different publishers but it also got largely different games. That market has pretty much vanished to mobile and publishers have adjusted to that.

I mean, if you really want to make hardware comparisons, looking at the entire market is more useful than just saying PS360 vs PS4X1 because if you look at May 2009 "Playstation family" consoles were selling ~350k per month in NA, but May 2016 "Playstation family" for all intents and purposes consists of only the PS4 at ~210k

While that is true at the same time every sold unit makes a lot more revenue for Sony. Gaming division has had record revenue for past few fiscal years despite selling way less units compared to last gen.

 

[Turrican3]

Nothing really changes even with Kinect .
Both Sony and MS cameras from the start of the gen plus later on when system get cheaper they add more stuff like that .

This is NPD X360 according to my database starting from november 2010 (Kinect launch)

1.37 Million (+68%)
1.86 Million (+42%, best ever sales by 420k units)
381k (+15%) [Only console platform to see year over year growth]
535k (+27%) [Top Console, 360's Best Non-Holiday Month Ever]
433k (Top Selling Console)
297K (+60%) - Top Selling Console
270K (+39%) [Best Selling Console]

It seems to me Kinect gave a significantly boost to X360 sales.

Not sure what you mean with the second sentence though. *shrugs*

 

[LordRaptor]

While that is true at the same time every sold unit makes a lot more revenue for Sony. Gaming division has had record revenue for past few fiscal years despite selling way less units compared to last gen.

I mean... console games revenue is ultimately dependent upon console hardware sold; if modern digital purchasing infrastructure had been standardised in the PS2 era I think it would be fair to say that PS2 era titles would also have seen greater revenue as you could have sold SOCOM loot crates, Twisted Metal new vehciles+character packs, Liberty City Stories as GTA3 DLC, FIFA Ultimate Team booster packs etc etc etc.

Increasing average earnings per title is offsetting a decline in hardware sales, not wholly a solution for it. Having said that, its very arguable if modern solutions like loot crates, season passes, online fees et al would have been introduced if sales volumes had exceeded rising development costs.

 

[D.Lo]

While that is true at the same time every sold unit makes a lot more revenue for Sony. Gaming division has had record revenue for past few fiscal years despite selling way less units compared to last gen.

Sony, who went from distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen, though they were still getting some smaller revenue from cheap/legacy platforms PS2 and PSP) to dominant first position, is up in revenue. I mean, surely going from distant third to dominant first it would be expected you'd be up? Console industry as a whole is way down. I mean look at that May 2009 NPD, Wii+DS basically sold double everything else combined.

This is NPD X360 according to my database starting from november 2010 (Kinect launch)

1.37 Million (+68%)
1.86 Million (+42%, best ever sales by 420k units)
381k (+15%) [Only console platform to see year over year growth]
535k (+27%) [Top Console, 360's Best Non-Holiday Month Ever]
433k (Top Selling Console)
297K (+60%) - Top Selling Console
270K (+39%) [Best Selling Console]

It seems to me Kinect gave a significantly boost to X360 sales.

Not sure what you mean with the second sentence though. *shrugs*

That poster didn't know what they were talking about. With Kinect, Microsoft ate up a huge chunk of the wii audience and took over the top position for at least two years. Sony's Wii answer was a mess and they only stayed competitive worldwide because of Japan.

 

[Nirolak]

But sales performance of single player games is very different now than what it used to be.

If you're going to compare performance of a single-player game with some benchmark from 4-10 years ago and base it only on units sold, well then they're all likely to "underperform".

But a ton of $ are being generated outside of the game sale, making $ per unit sold far better than it used to be.

So it would be very silly to do this, as it tells you nothing of actual performance, especially as monetization gets more complex.

The only real way to judge if a title underperformed is to look at the operating contribution of a title, something that is, obviously, very difficult to do.

In any case, just looking at units sold really tells you nothing about a title under or over performing in a vast majority of cases.

I guess my issue with Assassin's Creed is that it's not clear to me how they actually intend to significantly raise ARPU given they've been selling tons of special editions, season passes, hardware bundles, and microtransactions already. It was also a series that was selling a tremendous amount upfront at full price, so the route to raising ASP isn't great either.

I guess there's the lift in digital percentage (though I think they were already in the 25%+ range when the series was doing well), and the hypothetical potential to sell an even larger season pass, but it feels very different than going from Final Fantasy XIII to Final Fantasy XV where you had basically zero avenues for extra monetization or higher ASP to having lots of them.

I agree that unit sales are far from a be all end all, but in this particular case, they were already doing so much that they seem notably more prominent.

It's possible I'm missing something here.

 

[AmFreak]

Ironically that's probably how the comparisons will play. As soon as the PS4 starts to rival the Wii in the race too 100 million, launch aligned, comparisons with the Wii will all of a sudden not be 'irrelevant because its a different market'. Graphs will start to be made.

Ofc, you only have to look at comparisons last gen (vs the PS2 gen).
Strangely everybody counted Wii back then.

 

[Turrican3]

That poster didn't know what they were talking about. With Kinect, Microsoft ate up a huge chunk of the wii audience

To be fair, Wii was already losing steam in 2010, but yes I believe Kinect was also a major factor.

 

[dracula_x]

Sony, who went from distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen, though they were still getting some smaller revenue from cheap/legacy platforms PS2 and PSP) to dominant first position, is up in revenue. I mean, surely going from distant third to dominant first it would be expected you'd be up? Console industry as a whole is way down. I mean look at that May 2009 NPD, Wii+DS basically sold double everything else combined.

That poster didn't know what they were talking about. With Kinect, Microsoft ate up a huge chunk of the wii audience and took over the top position for at least two years. Sony's Wii answer was a mess and they only stayed competitive worldwide because of Japan.

I wouldn't call 20% difference "distant".

"3rd" is also debatable, because:

80 million
(as of November 2, 2013)

You know, it could be 90 million by now – who knows.

 

[Shiggy]

Sony, who went from distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen, though they were still getting some smaller revenue from cheap/legacy platforms PS2 and PSP) to dominant first position, is up in revenue. I mean, surely going from distant third to dominant first it would be expected you'd be up? Console industry as a whole is way down. I mean look at that May 2009 NPD, Wii+DS basically sold double everything else combined.

That poster didn't know what they were talking about. With Kinect, Microsoft ate up a huge chunk of the wii audience and took over the top position for at least two years. Sony's Wii answer was a mess and they only stayed competitive worldwide because of Japan.

This chart might be more to your liking, if you want to see all data at once:

Same source: https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/793662249407746048

 

[D.Lo]

I wouldn't call 20% difference "distant".

"3rd" is also debatable, because:

Read my post again more carefully.

distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen

Defining the start of the gen at the point all three consoles had launched, this point last gen, PS3 was at 35million, 360 at ~40 million (launch aligned it was 5M behind PS3, but it launched a year earlier), and Wii was at over 70 million. Wii had almost outsold both competitors combined. At this point, PS3 was distant third, and 360 was distant second.

Yet everyone seems to be comparing PS4 to PS3 and calling it a 'beast'. PS3 was still considered a disaster at this point in its life.

This chart might be more to your liking, if you want to see all data at once:

Same source: https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/793662249407746048

Thanks, we need one with an appropriate axis so the Wii sales actually fit...

 

[Omnistalgic]

Read by post again more carefully.

Defining the start of the gen at the point all three consoles had launched, this point last gen, PS3 was at 35million, 360 at ~40 million (launch aligned it was 5M behind PS3, but it launched a year earlier), and Wii was at over 70 million. Wii had almost outsold both competitors combined. At this point, PS3 was distant third, and 360 was distant second.

I get your points, but you seem like you're being a bit dogmatic about Wii being included, it did sell to a largely different audience that is gobbled up by mobile now.

Switch for example, is probably not another Wii like success for Nintendo for example. I don't see anything wrong with Daniel's tweet.

I think PS4 will surpass Wii btw, Sony needs a few casual hits and more evergreen titles (evidence from E3 they are doing just this) and I can see PS4 selling well for the next 3 years, especially at $199. Should hit 115-120 million when it's all wrapped up.

Still, MS isn't going anywhere after that Minecraft buy and securing its foothold in the U.S while Nintendo has the most valuable IP. I do hope the next Xbox is just a PC though, I think Sony/MS doing pretty much the same things every gen stagnates the industry somewhat. 3 gens in a row now Playstation and Xbox have just been too similar, I would love if the successor to X1 is truly a Windows platform device. Then I would finally be in all three ecosystems.

 

[D.Lo]

I get your points, but you seem like you're being a bit dogmatic about Wii being included, it did sell to a largely different audience that is gobbled up by mobile now.

Switch for example, is probably not another Wii like success for Nintendo for example. I don't see anything wrong with Daniel's tweet.

I think PS4 will surpass Wii btw, Sony needs a few casual hits and more evergreen titles (evidence from E3 they are doing just this) and I can see PS4 selling well for the next 3 years, especially at $199. Should hit 115-120 million when it's all wrapped up.

Still, MS isn't going anywhere after that Minecraft buy and securing its foothold in the U.S while Nintendo has the most valuable IP. I do hope the next Xbox is just a PC though, I think Sony/MS doing pretty much the same things every gen stagnates the industry somewhat. 3 gens in a row now Playstation and Xbox have just been too similar, I would love if the successor to X1 is truly a Windows platform device. Then I would finally be in all three ecosystems.

Absolutely, I'm simply arguing that it is disingenuous to compare PS4 sales to PS3, (or PS360 to PS4Bone) see that it's beating it, and conclude 'see look at all that growth wow so healthy!' Or say things like the PS4 sales are 'crazy' and it's 'a beast' when PS3 had a disaster launch, cost far too much for too long, and there was a phenomenally selling competitor around eating everyone's lunch back then. PS4 launched at a good price, against an already dead WU and a weaker, more expensive Xbox that people thought couldn't play used games. PS4 does indeed have a chance to surpass the Wii, but primarily because it has had little genuine competition. It borderline IS the industry now to a certain extent, you'd want to hope at least one console this gen can outsell at least one from last gen.

 

[MatPiscatella]

It's possible I'm missing something here.

It's very possible we're all missing something on what the AC offering will be. I just don't know. Given what they've said regarding live services in all future titles, maybe there's still more to this story?

In any case, I've worked on games that "underperformed" despite having 20% sales growth over a prior franchise installment and games that "overperformed" despite a sales decline.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the terms under and over performed.

If we're just talking units, I really don't know how the market will react. It wouldn't surprise me for ACO to jump into the top 5 best-selling games of Q4, it wouldn't surprise me if it missed the top 10.

Having said that, its very arguable if modern solutions like loot crates, season passes, online fees et al would have been introduced if sales volumes had exceeded rising development costs.

Many of these initiatives were indeed conceptualized as trying anything that could be thought of to grow revenues as the packaged market contracted and dev costs started rising following the 2008 sales peak. The fact consumers have embraced these things so strongly is what I think is the real surprise though. People are eating this stuff up.

One has to wonder what is going to happen to those comparisons when Kinect boost kicks in in X360 sales. What about demographics then?

PSVR could be a surrogate for Move, and Xbox One X could be a surrogate for Kinect. We also have the iterative models already in market that should offset some of that comp as well.

And that would be, to me, the ultimate reason comparisons should *always* include Wii.

No one's stopping you from making your own charts. Go for it. I've made those charts, and the only conclusion that can be drawn for them is "hmmm... I need more detail to understand what was really going on". So then I made by platform charts, the Wii U was way down versus Wii, and PS4/Xone better than PS3/X360. Everyone "knows" the first bit, few knew the extent of the PS4/Xone lead over PS3/X360. That's interesting, so that's a comp I run with.

If the story changes, the comparisons change. It's not some huge conspiracy.

There is nothing misleading about it .
Some people and companies don't see Nintendo the same as Sony and MS systems.

Because they aren't the same. Nintendo is the only company significantly impacted postitively or negatively by the performance of Nintendo systems. Just about all others are impacted by performance of PS/Xbox systems. Sales curves are different, price sensitivities are different, lifecycles are different. Always adding them all together doesn't make any sense at all.

However, saying that it "really tells you nothing" is a huge overstatement. If the series sells lesser and lesser base units over time, there's only so much you can squeeze from the whales before the series just isn't profitable anymore. In terms of profit, it's not a pure units sold to units sold comparison, but that still tells you quite a bit in terms of if your marketable audience is shrinking for the series or not to decide future planning for the company's resources.

Erm, you cut off the last part of the satement: "In any case, just looking at units sold really tells you nothing about a title under or over performing in a vast majority of cases." You're arguing against a point I was not making.

 

[dracula_x]

Read my post again more carefully.

distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen

Defining the start of the gen at the point all three consoles had launched, this point last gen, PS3 was at 35million, 360 at ~40 million (launch aligned it was 5M behind PS3, but it launched a year earlier), and Wii was at over 70 million. Wii had almost outsold both competitors combined. At this point, PS3 was distant third, and 360 was distant second.

Yet everyone seems to be comparing PS4 to PS3 and calling it a 'beast'. PS3 was still considered a disaster at this point in its life.

Thanks, we need one with an appropriate axis so the Wii sales actually fit...

One question – why Sony's executives would be bothered by that fact? It's not like they look at the numbers and think "oh god, we're losing the main game to Wii".

 

[gtj1092]

The graph is indeed fine, but relatively pointless. It's comparing the two losing consoles of last gen to the winning console of this gen. Did anybody do comparison graphics between Wii and GC/Xbox to try and prove anything? Or PS2 to N64/Saturn?

The one point it could be making is that the PS360 style 3rd party ecosystem is doing better this gen. But then it should have included Xbone too.

But that doesn't appear to be the point of the graph, and it is certainly being used here to show 'PS4 is a beast' etc. But PS4 is significantly behind the winner of last gen, launch aligned.

True I was one quarter on.

But I haven't seen you call out anyone comparing Switch sales to Wii U to make the switch sales seem "unprecedented". Seems your problem is ps4/X1 being seen in a positive manner.

 

[Nirolak]

It's very possible we're all missing something on what the AC offering will be. I just don't know. Given what they've said regarding live services in all future titles, maybe there's still more to this story?

In any case, I've worked on games that "underperformed" despite having 20% sales growth over a prior franchise installment and games that "overperformed" despite a sales decline.

Maybe I'm focusing too much on the terms under and over performed.

If we're just talking units, I really don't know how the market will react. It wouldn't surprise me for ACO to jump into the top 5 best-selling games of Q4, it wouldn't surprise me if it missed the top 10.

I totally get what you mean.

I guess what really stood out to me about this product is that they stated they started it after Assassin's Creed 4 released in 2013, but carved off the multiplayer team to make Steep, and the naval combat team to make Skull & Bones.

Now we've hit 2017 where these kinds of features are seen as big boons to games - and judging by social media impressions, interest in the return of Assassin's Creed is very high - but the product feels like it's at least a year or two out of tune with the market. The actual core game itself looks pretty competent, so I'm curious to see if that can carry the product.

The purported service angle is pretty interesting too. On that front I mainly wonder if the game is actually a service, or if Ubisoft is trying to make a slightly-out-of-time game sound more in sync with market to help fend off Vivendi's hostile takeover.

The overall result though is quite possibly the last AAA game of this kind that Ubisoft ever makes, at least in terms of lacking these kinds of extra online centric features, so it's interesting to speculate about.

Of course, we likely don't actually known enough about the product yet to give it a good assessment, so these are more just some initial musing.

 

[MatPiscatella]

these are more just some initial musing.

It's a tough one to nail expectations down on, that's for sure. It's the one big wild card of the mega-franchise games coming out this year. Fun to think about though. Lots of ways this could go.

the chart being discussed was worldwide shipments

Ah. Gotcha.

 

[D.Lo]

One question – why Sony's executives would be bothered by that fact? It's not like they look at the numbers and think "oh god, we're losing the main game to Wii".

So, you didn't read my previous post, and rather than address your error you have changed argument altogether?

Yes I'm sure Sony is happy they have gone from, launch aligned, last place to first place across generations. They played a basic hand well. But Sony doing better than they did with the PS3 disaster does not make it some kind of 'beast' success, especially in an environment where both competitors shat the bed pretty badly. Sony basically won by default and got all the benefits that come from winning for free.

But I haven't seen you call out anyone comparing Switch sales to Wii U to make the switch sales seem "unprecedented". Seems your problem is ps4/X1 being seen in a positive manner.

Show me the receipts. Please show me a single person who has called Switch sales "unprecedented".

Switch (or anything) outselling Wii U just brings it up to 'not a disaster' level.

By "winner of last gen" you mean Xbox 360, right?

The chart being discussed was worldwide shipments, and the winner of last gen worldwide was the Wii, Xbox 360 came last.

No one's stopping you from making your own charts. Go for it. I've made those charts, and the only conclusion that can be drawn for them is "hmmm... I need more detail to understand what was really going on". So then I made by platform charts, the Wii U was way down versus Wii, and PS4/Xone better than PS3/X360. Everyone "knows" the first bit, few knew the extent of the PS4/Xone lead over PS3/X360. That's interesting, so that's a comp I run with.

If the story changes, the comparisons change. It's not some huge conspiracy.

There really is no available direct comparison. None of the products from this gen were really iterative products, all thee companies changed tactics signifigantly. PS4 launched with medium-end hardware at a reasonable price, compared to PS3 which had bleeding edge tech at $600. 360 had RROD, but eventually chugged along, getting quite cheap and getting a huge boost from Kinect. Xbone launched as the most expensive console and had Kinect 2 bundled in for the complete wrong audience (Kinect boost was from late adopters, not core fanatics), and their messaging was ruined by the used games fiasco. And Nintendo went from cheap, fresh idea with a killer app and a unique name (Wii) to a complete mess, too expensive with a confusing name and no killer app (Wii U).

As such, the attempt to line up PS360 to PS4Bone is IMO misguided. If only from a price situation, PS4Bone has been cheaper, quicker, so of course adoption would be easier for the market. The only actual comparison that can be made without too many caveats is the whole industry, on either hardware or hardware+software.

 

[jroc74]

But I haven't seen you call out anyone comparing Switch sales to Wii U to make the switch sales seem "unprecedented". Seems your problem is ps4/X1 being seen in a positive manner.

I might agree with this. Sometimes its a case of just not giving credit where its due. I kind of sense this here.

Also....if the PS4 and XBO were selling bad, as bad as the Wii U did...then I could see the case being made for an unhealthy industry sales wise.

Ppl didnt like, choose the Wii U. For whatever reasons. Ppl didnt choose XBO as much as PS4 for whatever reasons. If the Wii U had sold better we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Out of the 3 consoles I just listed, only one was a legitimate sales disaster. For the XBO to be back as far as it is vs the PS4 and still be up over 360 is nothing to dismiss.

Sometimes, 1 company dropping the ball, not capitalizing on past success does not equal the industry as a whole in trouble. Just means that specific company dropped the ball. Perfect example of this is Wii to Wii U to Switch. So far the Wii and Switch is Nintendo firing on all cylinders. The Wii U was....something else...lol.

I wouldnt exclude the Wii from any charts either. A case could be made tho for a hypothetical of if the Wii had followed the declining sales trend of Nintendo home consoles. How would the generation comparisons look then....

I mean kudos for Nintendo finally figuring out how to recapture interest in the home console market with the Wii, but still.

If you look at Sony and Nintendo from when they first started making home consoles. Sony will ....if the PS4 sells 100 million.... have 3 out of 4 home consoles pass that mark. The only one that hasnt is the PS3 which might be at 90 million right now.

Nintendo has the Wii at 101 million and the next closest in sales is the NES with 62 million.

Thats one reason why ppl look at the Wii with an asterisk.

Handhelds tho, Nintendo are the kings. And it makes sense why the Switch is a hybrid. And IMO is one reason why Nintendo home consoles sales werent as good over the years. Their handhelds kind of took over at one point.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Glad Horizon has done so well. Congrats Guerrilla.

Same. Super happy for GG. To have a original IP launch to such acclaim and success is very rare.

 

[LordRaptor]

Many of these initiatives were indeed conceptualized as trying anything that could be thought of to grow revenues as the packaged market contracted and dev costs started rising following the 2008 sales peak. The fact consumers have embraced these things so strongly is what I think is the real surprise though. People are eating this stuff up.

I agree, I don't believe there would have been much thought gone into increasing average revenue per title if sales volumes had continued naturally increasing, because frankly most businesses don't put much thought into optimising per customer revenue until they have to.

I'd also suggest that efforts to increase revenue per user also have GameStops success as a contributing factor too; EA were explicit about this goal with their "project $10" initiative, but I don't believe that it went unnoticed by publishers that a middleman was making very large profits in an area that most publishers would believe that they "deserve" a piece of.

 

[dracula_x]

Yes I'm sure Sony is happy they have gone from, launch aligned, last place to first place across generations. They played a basic hand well. But Sony doing better than they did with the PS3 disaster does not make it some kind of 'beast' success, especially in an environment where both competitors shat the bed pretty badly. Sony basically won by default and got all the benefits that come from winning for free.

Why should they care about competitors?

Do you think Apple was disappointed by Samsung's Note 7 fiasco last year? Same for Sony, I guess. As long as PS4 bring them money, they will be fine with that result.

 

[MatPiscatella]

The only actual comparison that can be made without too many caveats is the whole industry, on either hardware or hardware+software.

We'll agree to disagree then.

 

[Majmun]

This chart might be more to your liking, if you want to see all data at once:

Same source: https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/793662249407746048

Is there an updated version? That one is from nov 2016. I don't know how Twitter works.

 

[Ahasverus]

ITT D.lo doesn't know what relative analysis is.

 

[Shin]

We'll agree to disagree then.

It's fine, no point talking to a wall, a lot can be figured from a person's choice of words
Console war is serious business yo.

 

[D.Lo]

We'll agree to disagree then.

Fair enough. I'm sure there is some value in doing it for investment purposes, but I can't see anything lining up clearly enough to make historical comparisons worth much.

 

[KillerMan91]

Sony, who went from distant 3rd in the main game (at this point last gen, though they were still getting some smaller revenue from cheap/legacy platforms PS2 and PSP) to dominant first position, is up in revenue. I mean, surely going from distant third to dominant first it would be expected you'd be up? Console industry as a whole is way down. I mean look at that May 2009 NPD, Wii+DS basically sold double everything else combined.

14 quarters into PS3 life Sony had shipped 35 million PS3s, over 30 million extra PS2s and over 40 million extra PSPs. Over 100 million units of hardware compared to something like ~65-67 million now (PS4 60 million, Vita something like 5-7 million since PS4 launch (guess)). Considering all this it's pretty impressive that even gaming divisions revenue is up this gen and was no way given. Profits are breaking PS2 era records.

That poster didn't know what they were talking about. With Kinect, Microsoft ate up a huge chunk of the wii audience and took over the top position for at least two years. Sony's Wii answer was a mess and they only stayed competitive worldwide because of Japan.

PS3 outsold X360 in Japan by something like 8.5 million units. in contrast X360 outsold PS3 in US and UK by over 25 million units. It wasn't just Japan that kept PS3 in the game with X360.

Absolutely, I'm simply arguing that it is disingenuous to compare PS4 sales to PS3, (or PS360 to PS4Bone) see that it's beating it, and conclude 'see look at all that growth wow so healthy!' Or say things like the PS4 sales are 'crazy' and it's 'a beast' when PS3 had a disaster launch, cost far too much for too long, and there was a phenomenally selling competitor around eating everyone's lunch back then. PS4 launched at a good price, against an already dead WU and a weaker, more expensive Xbox that people thought couldn't play used games. PS4 does indeed have a chance to surpass the Wii, but primarily because it has had little genuine competition. It borderline IS the industry now to a certain extent, you'd want to hope at least one console this gen can outsell at least one from last gen.

I don't think anyone is crazy enough to say that total console market hasn't contracted this gen. But at the same time some segments of the market survived far better the transition to this gen than others. AAA core gaming market (PS/Xbox/PC) survived well and even has grown a lot compared to early last gen. That is the market that at the moment is making record amount of money for Sony and big western publishers. I really don't see then why you can't compare combined PS4/XBO sales to PS3/X360. Of course you can also make comparison of the market as a whole (and see contraction) but you can also between different business segments (and see growth in some).

 

[gundamkyoukai]

14 quarters into PS3 life Sony had shipped 35 million PS3s, over 30 million extra PS2s and over 40 million extra PSPs. Over 100 million units of hardware compared to something like ~65-67 million now (PS4 60 million, Vita something like 5-7 million since PS4 launch (guess)). Considering all this it's pretty impressive that even gaming divisions revenue is up this gen and was no way given.

I think most important thing for Sony than revenue was them not losing billions selling hardware like how they were for PS3.
PS4 can sell the same amount as PS3 and it would be a big win for them on that fact alone.
Same for MS losing a billion to replace consoles .

 

[D.Lo]

14 quarters into PS3 life Sony had shipped 35 million PS3s, over 30 million extra PS2s and over 40 million extra PSPs. Over 100 million units of hardware compared to something like ~65-67 million now (PS4 60 million, Vita something like 5-7 million since PS4 launch (guess)). Considering all this it's pretty impressive that even gaming divisions revenue is up this gen and was no way given. Profits are breaking PS2 era records.

True and fair call, MatPiscatella has said similar things regarding revenue from digital sales propping stuff up. Late PS2 era was dampened in profits by huge R&D expense on PS3 though, so we'll never really know how much it really made.

PS3 outsold X360 in Japan by something like 8.5 million units. in contrast X360 outsold PS3 in US and UK by over 25 million units. It wasn't just Japan that kept PS3 in the game with X360.

I was abbreviating it conceptually. But that Japan 8.5 million is significantly more than the final worldwide gap, so it's still true too.

I don't think anyone is crazy enough to say that total console market hasn't contracted this gen. But at the same time some segments of the market survived far better the transition to this gen than others. AAA core gaming market (PS/Xbox/PC) survived well and even has grown a lot compared to early last gen. That is the market that at the moment is making record amount of money for Sony and big western publishers. I really don't see then why you can't compare combined PS4/XBO sales to PS3/X360. Of course you can also make comparison of the market as a whole (and see contraction) but you can also between different business segments (and see growth in some).

This is true, PS4Bone, as a same-paradigm extension of PS360, is up on the same period last gen. But I would argue that is because of the lack of competition. There is obviously no Wii, and even in your post you pointed out the PS2 was still around and selling in a way no console from last gen was this time.

I think most important thing for Sony than revenue was them not losing billions selling hardware like how they were for PS3.
PS4 can sell the same amount as PS3 and it would be a big win for them on that fact alone.
Same for MS losing a billion to replace consoles .

This is in fact the biggest difference. Last summary/estmate I read, 360 lost net 3 billion, and PS3 lost net 5 billion. And honestly that does put PS4Bone in perspective as successes. PS360 lost so much net cash any of their success was essentially bought, they were massive market distortions in that sense.

 

[Shiggy]

Is there an updated version? That one is from nov 2016. I don't know how Twitter works.

.

Daniel Ahmad‏
@ZhugeEX

As requested-

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/879364578257358848

 

[wonderful103]

I don't think anyone is crazy enough to say that total console market hasn't contracted this gen. But at the same time some segments of the market survived far better the transition to this gen than others. AAA core gaming market (PS/Xbox/PC) survived well and even has grown a lot compared to early last gen. That is the market that at the moment is making record amount of money for Sony and big western publishers. I really don't see then why you can't compare combined PS4/XBO sales to PS3/X360. Of course you can also make comparison of the market as a whole (and see contraction) but you can also between different business segments (and see growth in some).

But then you're putting asterisks everywhere again.

The console market is healthier, as a whole, when it is more inclusive and sells outside the core young male demographic that everyone and their mother (including Nintendo, frankly) is focusing on now. It is not an indicator of health when the focus of the entire market narrows and focuses on monetizing only certain demographics to the maximum amount possible.

There are other industries that demonstrate why this is a problem very clearly. One of the most publicized industries where this occurred is the comic book industry. The mainstream demographic-breaking re invigoration of comic books was only captured when extremely general-focus movies were made.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Big issue when determining the answers to such esoteric questions like "is this market healthy" is that the definition of "healthy" often differs from person to person while the timeline of the comparison will also vary from person to person.

Of course no answer to such a question will be apparent. Everyone's not speaking the same language.

Just an exercise in futility.

My take - Comparisons to years like 08 or 09 are pointless. They really don't matter to the business much, if at all. Publisher count contracted significantly as sales fell during the post 08 contraction. Everything was different then... consumers, retailers, content producers, publishers. I've yet to run into any client, anywhere, that wants to look at comparisons like this. Heck, most people don't want to even go as far back as 2014 because the market is just fundamentally different now. So you can have academic exercises comparing this stuff, but imo it's not worth the energy or effort to get frustrated or passionate about it. The graphs are fun because they generate conversation and get the fans engaged, that's about it.

 

[Fdkn]

Sony basically won by default and got all the benefits that come from winning for free.

Oh wow, this argument came back to life.

PS4 is also making way more money than PS2 at the same age, so it has to be something else than 'free winning', unless you think PS2 was also winning for free and in reality the default state of the console market is Sony winning if they don't screw up like the ps3.

 

[jroc74]

Oh wow, this argument came back to life.

PS4 is also making way more money than PS2 at the same age, so it has to be something else than 'free winning', unless you think PS2 was also winning for free and in reality the default state of the console market is Sony winning if they don't screw up like the ps3.

Plus, at the same time one could argue the PS3 being $599 helped the Wii win by default, win for free.

Doing that doesnt give credit to what Nintendo did with the Wii tho. With the console and the price.

Nevermid that Sony seemed to want to bundle the camera with the PS4 and quietly didnt.
Nevermind that Sony stuck to the basics launching the PS4, then quietly threw PS Vue out there months later. And avoided alot of the backlash MS got for TV TV TV TV.

Those 2 examples dont look like winning by default. That looks like paying attention and adjusting accordingly. Adapting to the environment is a great characteristic. Sony did that from the start of this gen, MS did later on.

They even got risky by charging for online MP for PS4. One thing I would have done is made sure that ppl knew F2P didnt require Plus. To this day I still see ppl mention "Sony charged for online MP tho!!! ...and never mention F2P doesnt need Plus...

 

[Humdinger]

In any case, just looking at units sold really tells you nothing about a title under or over performing in a vast majority of cases.

We're not going to stop, Mat, and you can't make us. ;p

Seriously, though, we typically have little else to go on, here in the silly world of console forums. We have no access to budget figures, no idea what the actual expectations were, and no access to info about how well various monetization attempts are working out over time. Heck, we don't even have access to units sold anymore, just rankings by revenue (which I suppose has advantages over units sold). In the absence of a complete picture, we look at what we have.

 

[MatPiscatella]

In the absence of a complete picture, we look at what we have.

Sure. As does anyone. But the question was specifically about under and over performing. Which one still can't do looking at only units, no matter how badly one may want to.

"Did Game X sell more unit copies than Game Y" is a question that can be answered by looking at units sold. "Did Game X underperform by selling Y units" cannot really be answered by looking at units sold.

I'm certainly not saying that units sold aren't a useful metric. Of course they are. This measure can only be used to answer a handful of questions though.

 

[Humdinger]

Sure. As does anyone. But the question was specifically about under and over performing. Which one still can't do looking at only units, no matter how badly one may want to.

"Did Game X sell more unit copies than Game Y" is a question that can be answered by looking at units sold. "Did Game X underperform by selling Y units" cannot really be answered by looking at units sold.

I'm certainly not saying that units sold aren't a useful metric. Of course they are. This measure can only be used to answer a handful of questions though.

I understand -- you can't judge the success of a game based only on the number of units sold. There is budget. There are GaaSy components (DLC, microtransactions). There is other stuff to consider. A game with a 50K budget will not need to sell as many copies as a game with a 10 million dollar budget. Makes sense. Common sense, really.

Speaking of common sense, though, sometimes you can use that to fill in some of what we don't know. For instance, if a AAA high-profile game has been under development for 4 or 5 years and has AAA-level production values, we can assume the budget is a big one, with corresponding sales expectations that are also big. If that game goes on to sell 80K in its first month and then drop off the chart never to be seen again, we can call that one a flop, based on sales figures (+ inferred sales expectations).

 

[MatPiscatella]

we can call that one a flop

Well yes, that's the beauty of being in the position of interested hobbyist or anonymous insider. I may have to go with something such as "likely disappointing" if I were to comment on something like that at all.

 

[Humdinger]

Well yes, that's the beauty of being in the position of interested hobbyist or anonymous insider. I may have to go with something such as "likely disappointing" if I were to comment on something like that at all.

Yes, you have to keep it professional.

p.s. But I'll add that to my Professional to Layman translator. "Likely disappointing" = "flop." lol

 

[donny2112]

Erm, you cut off the last part of the satement: "In any case, just looking at units sold really tells you nothing about a title under or over performing in a vast majority of cases." You're arguing against a point I was not making.

Sorry. The followon replies to yours about "this statement should be at the beginning of all sales threads" and the like significantly irked me, and I went off on how they were interpreting your statement instead of how your statement read. If you're restricting the comparison to how a title does compared to its immediate predecessor using that predecessor as your standard, then, yeah, more revenue streams are opening up over time. If you want to see how the series is performing and its future potential (which was not your point), then units sales start becoming much more important.

I'm, by default, a long-term thinker. Next five years will be what they will, but I want to have an idea of if the series I like will be around in another 10-20 years. For that, install base of units sold (physical and digital) means a lot. That kind of long-term projection is not your stated focus, though.

Edit:
For example, Fire Emblem. IS specifically said that Awakening was going to be their last game in the series, if the sales trends continued the way they were. That's not a concern about if it under/over performed Radiant Dawn. That's a commentary on the whole series and the path its sales are taking, That's what I'm interested in. If Animal Crossing Switch sells 10% less than New Leaf, I'm not worried about its long-term support, as that's still significantly up over its historical performance.

 

[legend166]

I also think the 'is the dedicated video game market healthy' question can have two different answers that can both be right. If we take a snapshot of the market today, or if we're looking at it quarter by quarter, then yeah, it's pretty healthy. Your average publisher is making a lot more money now than they did 10 or 15 years ago (it helps there's a whole lot less of them). Microsoft and Sony have seemingly stopped bleeding money (although Microsoft hides their figures well so who knows). Nintendo have recovered from their slump and are making cash and have dragged themselves back to a place of relevancy.

However, if we're taking a longer view of things, I think there's a heap of signs that make you go "oh crap". It's a fact that there will be most likely hundreds of millions fewer dedicated video game devices this gen compared to last gen. Of course the follow up question is "does that really matter?" Is there a point separating out dedicated devices from mobile/tablet gaming when we're talking about video games now? I still think for now, yes, purely because there's a fairly major difference in the content being made, how it's consumed and the business models employed. But those lines are disappearing drastically, especially with the rise of GaaS and loot boxes in console gaming basically copying what I personally think is everything wrong with mobile gaming. But that's just me.

Speaking of 'games as a service', micro-transactions, etc, I'm not sure I buy the idea of "everything's fine, look at our revenue growth with these new business models we're implementing!" To me, trying to extract more and more money out of a shrinking user base is a recipe for long term disaster.

 

[kyser73]

ITT D.lo doesn't know what relative analysis is.

Basically anything that doesn't conclude 'Nintendo r da bezt' will be seen as wrong.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Plus, at the same time one could argue the PS3 being $599 helped the Wii win by default, win for free.

Doing that doesnt give credit to what Nintendo did with the Wii tho. With the console and the price.

Nevermid that Sony seemed to want to bundle the camera with the PS4 and quietly didnt.
Nevermind that Sony stuck to the basics launching the PS4, then quietly threw PS Vue out there months later. And avoided alot of the backlash MS got for TV TV TV TV.

Those 2 examples dont look like winning by default. That looks like paying attention and adjusting accordingly. Adapting to the environment is a great characteristic. Sony did that from the start of this gen, MS did later on.

They even got risky by charging for online MP for PS4. One thing I would have done is made sure that ppl knew F2P didnt require Plus. To this day I still see ppl mention "Sony charged for online MP tho!!! ...and never mention F2P doesnt need Plus...

Yeah, the idea any successful console can just stroll their way into huge success is such a ridiculous console warrior argument.

Sony did so many things right leading up to the PS4 and a lot of them started years before the PS4 even came out. Initiatives like the Instant Game Collection. The start of their strong indie push. Incredible exclusives like TLOU and Journey. The decision to go with GDDR5 instead of (at the time) cheaper and larger solutions, like Microsoft, which paid off in a number of ways. And so on. There were very good reasons why there was so much excitement surrounding the PS4, to ignore them and try to write its success off as "winning by default" is either extremely ignorant or completely delusional.

 

[D.Lo]

Oh wow, this argument came back to life.

PS4 is also making way more money than PS2 at the same age, so it has to be something else than 'free winning', unless you think PS2 was also winning for free and in reality the default state of the console market is Sony winning if they don't screw up like the ps3.

Yeah, the idea any successful console can just stroll their way into huge success is such a ridiculous console warrior argument.

Sony did so many things right leading up to the PS4 and a lot of them started years before the PS4 even came out. Initiatives like the Instant Game Collection. The start of their strong indie push. Incredible exclusives like TLOU and Journey. The decision to go with GDDR5 instead of (at the time) cheaper and larger solutions, like Microsoft, which paid off in a number of ways. And so on. There were very good reasons why there was so much excitement surrounding the PS4, to ignore them and try to write its success off as "winning by default" is either extremely ignorant or completely delusional.

When you can't argue a case, make up an argument and argue against that I guess.

I stated the PS4 WON by default. NOT that it was successful by default.

Winning is always relative. Winning is not necessarily the same thing as success. Many have gone to great lengths in the thread to define the 360 as successful, despite it not winning the worldwide race last gen. Many non-winning consoles can accurately be called successes (Mega Drive, N64, 360, PSP).

The PS4 was a solid hand played well, I stated as such. But it has so easily won the generation, not only because of its own merits, but because both competitors stumbled hard. Nintendo and MS screwed up so badly I'm confident Sony would have won even if they didn't do as well themselves.

Basically anything that doesn't conclude 'Nintendo r da bezt' will be seen as wrong.

Or I guess if you have no counter argument, insult people instead.

I don't see how you can say I am saying Nintendo is 'da bezt' when I have been ruthless in criticising them on the Wii U and 3DS debacles over multiple years. I've been criticising Nintendo regarding the Wii U and 3DS on here for significantly longer than you have been on neogaf.