By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Million sellers by publisher

bbsin on 19 March 2010
themanwithnoname said:
makingmusic476 said:
leo-j said:
Twistedpixel said:
Microsoft looks like a bigger publisher than I have seen them given credit for. Interesting stuff right there considering the size of their stable of 1st/2nd parties.

just because they have sales doesn't mean they are any bigger than you thought they were..

 

there 1st party studios are microscopic next to SONY and NINTENDO

The year head start somewhat inflates their numbers here.  They were releasing million sellers in 2006 (PD0, PGR3) while Sony and Nintendo were still supporting the ps2/gc.  Even in 2007 Sony was still supporting the ps2 to a degree, with releases like God of War II, while Microsoft's efforts were focused fully on the 360.

Within the next few months Sony will fly by Microsoft in million sellers for the gen, as shown in my earlier post.  They'll soon be at 15-17, while Microsoft will be at 14 until Alan Wake eventually crosses a million.

And Nintendo flew by Microsoft years ago.

Knowing the amount of studios they both own, Microsoft's numbers here are more impressive than Sony's even with that extra year.

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

Around the Network
the_lonely_gamer_123 on 19 March 2010
bbsin said:
themanwithnoname said:
makingmusic476 said:
leo-j said:
Twistedpixel said:
Microsoft looks like a bigger publisher than I have seen them given credit for. Interesting stuff right there considering the size of their stable of 1st/2nd parties.

just because they have sales doesn't mean they are any bigger than you thought they were..

 

there 1st party studios are microscopic next to SONY and NINTENDO

The year head start somewhat inflates their numbers here.  They were releasing million sellers in 2006 (PD0, PGR3) while Sony and Nintendo were still supporting the ps2/gc.  Even in 2007 Sony was still supporting the ps2 to a degree, with releases like God of War II, while Microsoft's efforts were focused fully on the 360.

Within the next few months Sony will fly by Microsoft in million sellers for the gen, as shown in my earlier post.  They'll soon be at 15-17, while Microsoft will be at 14 until Alan Wake eventually crosses a million.

And Nintendo flew by Microsoft years ago.

Knowing the amount of studios they both own, Microsoft's numbers here are more impressive than Sony's even with that extra year.

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.



Human contact, the final frontier.

Triple Chix on 19 March 2010

It is an interesting table.

To be more accurate it should show how many titles shipped from each publisher.



chapset on 19 March 2010

third parties sell a lot better on the wii then on the ps3 so why are wii owners still complaining about wii not getting support from them and also I don't think the headstart for the xbox means a lot on that list i don't think they sold that much software the first year



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Kasz216 on 19 March 2010
jarrod said:
FastFord58 said:
Kasz216 said:
damndl0ser said:
Kasz216 said:
damndl0ser said:
Wow, it looks as if 3rd party developers probably love the 360! Eye opening to say the least!

Keep in mind... 360 had a head start.

How exactly does this matter?  The 360's third party performance is astounding no matter.  Its nearly equal to that of the PS3 and th Wii combined.

How does it matter?  It's been out longer... I mean, what more is there to say.

If one guy is ahead of another guy by 10 homeruns career totals wise and he's been in the majors a year longer... what's that really tell us?

Million sellers divided by months on the market is a better metric.

I mean, 360's been out a year longer... and it's been what... about 4 years?  That's like a 25% advantage.

I bet if you discount all of the first year mil sellers, it still wouldn't change the number in a meaningful way.

Actually, discounting their last year would be more accurate.  It's not a perfect scenario though, as Microsoft's first year was pretty light support wise, while PS3 got tons of 360 ports it's first year and Wii got a lot of PS2/GC port ups it's first year.

I thought that at first too... but i'd say first year, because it's more relvent to "NOW" if you know what i mean.  Rather then just academically.



Around the Network
bbsin on 19 March 2010
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:
themanwithnoname said:
makingmusic476 said:
leo-j said:
Twistedpixel said:
Microsoft looks like a bigger publisher than I have seen them given credit for. Interesting stuff right there considering the size of their stable of 1st/2nd parties.

just because they have sales doesn't mean they are any bigger than you thought they were..

 

there 1st party studios are microscopic next to SONY and NINTENDO

The year head start somewhat inflates their numbers here.  They were releasing million sellers in 2006 (PD0, PGR3) while Sony and Nintendo were still supporting the ps2/gc.  Even in 2007 Sony was still supporting the ps2 to a degree, with releases like God of War II, while Microsoft's efforts were focused fully on the 360.

Within the next few months Sony will fly by Microsoft in million sellers for the gen, as shown in my earlier post.  They'll soon be at 15-17, while Microsoft will be at 14 until Alan Wake eventually crosses a million.

And Nintendo flew by Microsoft years ago.

Knowing the amount of studios they both own, Microsoft's numbers here are more impressive than Sony's even with that extra year.

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.

Are you responding to me? I fail to understand what your post has anything to do with mine.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

jarrod on 19 March 2010
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.

Nintendo also published Chibirobo (skip), Odama (Vivarium) and Baten Kaitos Origins (Monolith/tri-Crescendo) in 2006.  Which kind of proves his point, your can have a robust 1st party output still publishing external/contracted titles.



bbsin on 19 March 2010
jarrod said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.

Nintendo also published Chibirobo (skip), Odama (Vivarium) and Baten Kaitos Origins (Monolith/tri-Crescendo) in 2006.  Which kind of proves his point, your can have a robust 1st party output still publishing external/contracted titles.

correct me if I'm wrong, but publishing titles for exclusivity wouldn't mean that the the publisher would have a robust 1st party output, it would mean that that they'd have a 2nd party output since the studios are not internal. The amount of titles published can have little to do with the amount of internal studios a publisher has since all you have to do is fund a project.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!

jarrod on 19 March 2010
bbsin said:
jarrod said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.

Nintendo also published Chibirobo (skip), Odama (Vivarium) and Baten Kaitos Origins (Monolith/tri-Crescendo) in 2006.  Which kind of proves his point, your can have a robust 1st party output still publishing external/contracted titles.

correct me if I'm wrong, but publishing titles for exclusivity wouldn't mean that the the publisher would have a robust 1st party output, it would mean that that they'd have a 2nd party output since the studios are not internal. The amount of titles published can have little to do with the amount of internal studios a publisher has since all you have to do is fund a project.

Unless those 2nd parties are selfpublishing (which isn't unheard of ex; The Pokemon Company), it's still 1st party output.  It's just not 1st party developed.



bbsin on 19 March 2010
jarrod said:
bbsin said:
jarrod said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:

What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.

No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.

Nintendo also published Chibirobo (skip), Odama (Vivarium) and Baten Kaitos Origins (Monolith/tri-Crescendo) in 2006.  Which kind of proves his point, your can have a robust 1st party output still publishing external/contracted titles.

correct me if I'm wrong, but publishing titles for exclusivity wouldn't mean that the the publisher would have a robust 1st party output, it would mean that that they'd have a 2nd party output since the studios are not internal. The amount of titles published can have little to do with the amount of internal studios a publisher has since all you have to do is fund a project.

Unless those 2nd parties are selfpublishing (which isn't unheard of ex; The Pokemon Company), it's still 1st party output.  It's just not 1st party developed.

I assume you're talking about second party developers, if that's the case, it's impossible for a 2nd party dev to fund it's own project because the definition of a 2nd party developer is a 3rd party or independent dev that makes a game funded by a 1st party publisher.

So if a 2nd party dev funds it's own project, it either means it's a 3rd party dev or an independent dev, whether they choose to make a game exclusive is up to them.

If a 1st party publisher isn't completely producing a title with their own studios, then I don't see how they would be considered to be producing "1st party output" by definition. What Nintendo did in 2006 is better described as publishing output rather than 1st party output.

At least, that's how I see it.



Looking for VGchartz members that play SSF4(PSN)??? Click here!