Quantcast
November NPD 2018 Thread

Forums - Sales Discussion - November NPD 2018 Thread

DonFerrari said:

And if the reason Xbox 1 kept ahead of X360 was its launch sales, how can anyone arguee that the reveal is really the cause for the drop against X360 5 years after the fact (while it didn't prevent it to have great launch)?

You understand that it is a bit different when you launch a new console after 20m+ console last gen and when you launch a new console after a major success with 85m+ sales. When 360 launched Xbox wasn't even established as a gaming brand. It was coming after a pretty niche console. I believe in some countries people didn't even know what Xbox is. Xbox One was launched after a major success in 360 which had a lot of loyal customers and fans. Those who preferred to choose XB1 even despite all the backlash. That's why it started off pretty good. Initial sales of each consoles are always driven by certain brand fans. If you look at first months sales you will see that the gap between XB1 and PS4 wasn't that big.



 

Around the Network

What about the Vita??



Bah!

flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said: 

Yes I remember that and I agree with you.

And if the reason Xbox 1 kept ahead of X360 was its launch sales, how can anyone argue that the reveal is really the cause for the drop against X360 5 years after the fact (while it didn't prevent it to have great launch)?

The XBO didnt drop, its selling consistently. Its just that X360 sales shot up that year.

The cause of that "drop" was the launch of the kinect, which was a huge hit back in day and really boosted x360's sales and lifespan.

Eeeeeerrr guess you jumped on the gun.

The lead didn't disappear suddenly on the year 5. It have been losing lead basically since launch. A show that X1 launched good but lost wind after every year. Another evidence? PS4 increased the percentage lead every year. Another evidence is that X1 didn't really had YOY growth for consecutive years as is expected on the first half of the gen.

All in all, it just shows that reveal/release for X1 for all the troubles they had wasn't the problem.

derpysquirtle64 said:
DonFerrari said:

And if the reason Xbox 1 kept ahead of X360 was its launch sales, how can anyone arguee that the reveal is really the cause for the drop against X360 5 years after the fact (while it didn't prevent it to have great launch)?

You understand that it is a bit different when you launch a new console after 20m+ console last gen and when you launch a new console after a major success with 85m+ sales. When 360 launched Xbox wasn't even established as a gaming brand. It was coming after a pretty niche console. I believe in some countries people didn't even know what Xbox is. Xbox One was launched after a major success in 360 which had a lot of loyal customers and fans. Those who preferred to choose XB1 even despite all the backlash. That's why it started off pretty good. Initial sales of each consoles are always driven by certain brand fans. If you look at first months sales you will see that the gap between XB1 and PS4 wasn't that big.

Sure I understand. But please tell me what kind of turn around in sales make you go from outselling aligned to trailing behind.

Toddifer said:
What about the Vita??

Shouldn't be tracked anymore =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
flashfire926 said:

Yes, I'm very certain that it wont fall behind launches aligned. They look to have a steady stream of games coming in 2019 that will maintain and grow its lead over the 3DS to an amount that the 3DS wont be able to come back from. No doubt about it.

Wii U faced its demise because of two things:

1) Nintendos own mistakes. Very little marketing (and the marketing that was there was very poor). A lot of my friend circle were left thinking that this is some tablet add on to the original wii. The system launched without a good killer app (2d mario clearly didnt cut it), and had a huge software drought in 2013 especially. There wouldnt be a must-own game until Mario 3D World, which came out a few years. The whole gamepad gimmick sucked as well.

2) Mobile gaming taking over the casual market that Nintendo was going for. Why buy a seperate device when the device you already have has 100's of games beforehand?

Lets say if Nintendo actually spent some marketing dollars, called it Wii 2, took more care of the software situation with a steady stream of titles, etc, some third party support wouldve arrived as a byproduct, and the Wii 2 would've sold 50 million units (still only half the wii due to Mobile gaming)

No it wouldn't.

N64 and GC didn't had droughts, they had competent HW and also were marketed and priced right.

It is purely speculation and wishful thinking. In real world if you look Nintendo had only been dropping on console world NES>SNES>N64>GC>WiiU ... Wii sales were mostly from non-gaming public. If Nintendo was able to sell 80M HH plus 50M consoles per gen why would they make the hybrid and cut themselves to a single market that will do around 80-100M?

The answer is quite simple.  They wouldn't.  Nintendo knows they couldn't compete directly with Sony on the home console market without a gimmick/hook.  The Wii succeeded in hooking in the more casual market with its motion controls, which helped it thrive for 3 years or so.  However, the novelty started to wear off, and a console many thought was destined to rival the PS2 ended up having to crawl its way across the 100M mark.  The PS3, Sony's worst selling home console, only sold ~15M less than it.

The Wii U was an attempt to recapture the exact magic of the Wii.  HW that was only slightly more powerful than the previous gen, a gimmick controller (this time trying to appeal to the growing number of phone/tablet gamers), and a price point lower than the competition.  Unfortunately for Nintendo, those casuals were just fine continuing to play on their mobile devices.  And the system was as pointless to the more core audience, as they were ready for an actual tech jump from their PS3s and 360s.  Nothing was going to change the outcome the Wii U saw.

So, Nintendo, realizing it couldn't compete head to head in the home console space decided to combine the market with one they were much stronger in, the handheld market.  Combining the two, they were able to appeal to the handheld gamer, while also having some presence in the home.  It's an approach that really suits them, while also seemingly allowing the PS4 and Switch to really have no effect on one another.  I think its the model they will continue to adopt, while Sony continues as a sole home console that strives to have a good price to performance balance.



flashfire926 said:

What? Stop with the goal post moving.

You original argument was that Switch wont hit 80 million, due to having a lesser number of total games than other consoles, which I immediately disproved.

The bolded: what are you even replying to? I just said great games is all that matter, and what sells hardware, and the switch has that in spades. So youre basically agreeing with me here.

Also, Nintendo does release 5-10 games a year, some that are front runners, and some that provide additional support. Their usual great games will be the driving force of the Switch getting to 80m+. Not Skyrim, not Fifa. Its easy to understand.

Sorry what? You are twistin what I have said. 

 

And while i am agreeing with you you are still ignoring wht I am saying and in particular what makes what I am saying different from what you are saying.

I said that for the switch t hit 80M and like any other platform that has sold that much it would need a great number of games released for it. I never said it won't have those games but instead suggested that as it stands i dont see nintendo first party alone being able to carry that mantle.

How is my then saying that it needs a lot of games and games being wht sells hardware moving the posts?

And while it seems like I am agreeing with you, the difference is my emphasis on a continuous stream of such games. And i have repeatedly explained that point so I am not going to do it again.

To conclude.... those usual great games you are talking about has NEVER taken a nintendo home console to 80M. Outside the wii.... and I talked on this too. There is a reason for why its never happened but there i no point here cause you obviously arent listenning to what I am saying. Case in point...... nothing i am saying now have I not already said.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
flashfire926 said:

The XBO didnt drop, its selling consistently. Its just that X360 sales shot up that year.

The cause of that "drop" was the launch of the kinect, which was a huge hit back in day and really boosted x360's sales and lifespan.

Eeeeeerrr guess you jumped on the gun.

The lead didn't disappear suddenly on the year 5. It have been losing lead basically since launch. A show that X1 launched good but lost wind after every year. Another evidence? PS4 increased the percentage lead every year. Another evidence is that X1 didn't really had YOY growth for consecutive years as is expected on the first half of the gen.

All in all, it just shows that reveal/release for X1 for all the troubles they had wasn't the problem

What do you mean, "it lost wind". Its sold about the same for each of the last five years. 

I didnt jump any gun. You said XBO dropped when compared to 360, but what actually happened that the 360 shot up and XBO remained flat, which is true.

It lost because of that horrible reveal that still leaves a bad place in peoples mouth to this day, the primary reason why the XBO isnt doing as well as its competitors:

- focus on TV TV TV  and other media instead of games

-horrible DRM plans, trying to make it always online, trying to eliminate used games

-Kinect forced into every XBO, so they were basically selling a weaker system for a larger price

Theres not much else to it. Next gen will be a fresh new start for Xbox, where it can finally escape the "xbox one" name.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

thismeintiel said:
DonFerrari said:

No it wouldn't.

N64 and GC didn't had droughts, they had competent HW and also were marketed and priced right.

It is purely speculation and wishful thinking. In real world if you look Nintendo had only been dropping on console world NES>SNES>N64>GC>WiiU ... Wii sales were mostly from non-gaming public. If Nintendo was able to sell 80M HH plus 50M consoles per gen why would they make the hybrid and cut themselves to a single market that will do around 80-100M?

The answer is quite simple.  They wouldn't.  Nintendo knows they couldn't compete directly with Sony on the home console market without a gimmick/hook.  The Wii succeeded in hooking in the more casual market with its motion controls, which helped it thrive for 3 years or so.  However, the novelty started to wear off, and a console many thought was destined to rival the PS2 ended up having to crawl its way across the 100M mark.  The PS3, Sony's worst selling home console, only sold ~15M less than it.

The Wii U was an attempt to recapture the exact magic of the Wii.  HW that was only slightly more powerful than the previous gen, a gimmick controller (this time trying to appeal to the growing number of phone/tablet gamers), and a price point lower than the competition.  Unfortunately for Nintendo, those casuals were just fine continuing to play on their mobile devices.  And the system was as pointless to the more core audience, as they were ready for an actual tech jump from their PS3s and 360s.  Nothing was going to change the outcome the Wii U saw.

So, Nintendo, realizing it couldn't compete head to head in the home console space decided to combine the market with one they were much stronger in, the handheld market.  Combining the two, they were able to appeal to the handheld gamer, while also having some presence in the home.  It's an approach that really suits them, while also seemingly allowing the PS4 and Switch to really have no effect on one another.  I think its the model they will continue to adopt, while Sony continues as a sole home console that strives to have a good price to performance balance.

Exactly. And a combination that made their HH more valuable by having console level game on the go, something cellphones still can't do. So if they released a HH only I would say they would get like 60-65M this time around and console only 15M. So it's quite possible that Switch by synergies of the fusion can do better than if Nintendo had 2 different devices (of course not talking about they making a full line of HH, Hybrid, console that play the same game... that is where they can really do big numbers with double dippers helping).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Intrinsic said:
flashfire926 said:

What? Stop with the goal post moving.

You original argument was that Switch wont hit 80 million, due to having a lesser number of total games than other consoles, which I immediately disproved.

The bolded: what are you even replying to? I just said great games is all that matter, and what sells hardware, and the switch has that in spades. So youre basically agreeing with me here.

Also, Nintendo does release 5-10 games a year, some that are front runners, and some that provide additional support. Their usual great games will be the driving force of the Switch getting to 80m+. Not Skyrim, not Fifa. Its easy to understand.

Sorry what? You are twistin what I have said. 

 

And while i am agreeing with you you are still ignoring wht I am saying and in particular what makes what I am saying different from what you are saying.

I said that for the switch t hit 80M and like any other platform that has sold that much it would need a great number of games released for it. I never said it won't have those games but instead suggested that as it stands i dont see nintendo first party alone being able to carry that mantle.

How is my then saying that it needs a lot of games and games being wht sells hardware moving the posts?

And while it seems like I am agreeing with you, the difference is my emphasis on a continuous stream of such games. And i have repeatedly explained that point so I am not going to do it again.

To conclude.... those usual great games you are talking about has NEVER taken a nintendo home console to 80M. Outside the wii.... and I talked on this too. There is a reason for why its never happened but there i no point here cause you obviously arent listenning to what I am saying. Case in point...... nothing i am saying now have I not already said.

Sigh...

I've already adressed that multiple times. For the last time, Nintendo is uniting their development teams for a single console. Now, not only will the Switch recieve traditional home console releases such as Mario/Zelda/Smash etc, but the 3DS teams that made pokemon/fire emblem/animal crossing are coming to switch, giving it the firepower it needs.

Its those usual great games, PLUS all the new games from handheld developers, which will add a lot to the system.

Though you're just taking the argument in circles now and not getting anywhere.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

flashfire926 said:
DonFerrari said:

Eeeeeerrr guess you jumped on the gun.

The lead didn't disappear suddenly on the year 5. It have been losing lead basically since launch. A show that X1 launched good but lost wind after every year. Another evidence? PS4 increased the percentage lead every year. Another evidence is that X1 didn't really had YOY growth for consecutive years as is expected on the first half of the gen.

All in all, it just shows that reveal/release for X1 for all the troubles they had wasn't the problem

What do you mean, "it lost wind". Its sold about the same for each of the last five years. 

I didnt jump any gun. You said XBO dropped when compared to 360, but what actually happened that the 360 shot up and XBO remained flat, which is true.

It lost because of that horrible reveal that still leaves a bad place in peoples mouth to this day, the primary reason why the XBO isnt doing as well as its competitors:

- focus on TV TV TV  and other media instead of games

-horrible DRM plans, trying to make it always online, trying to eliminate used games

-Kinect forced into every XBO, so they were basically selling a weaker system for a larger price

Theres not much else to it. Next gen will be a fresh new start for Xbox, where it can finally escape the "xbox one" name.

Do you know what is a sales curve for consoles and that for MS and Sony it is something that grow on the first 3 or 4 years (each year selling more than the previous) to X1 not doing that while X360 did and PS4 as well? That made X1 lose the lead against X360 continuously and also PS4 to open the lead more and more (even in percentage)

Please explain to me how all those bad things didn't prevent a very good release and start but then held the console 3 to 5 years later.

X1 done good in USA, and bad WW it's simple as that and would happen even if they didn't make the mistakes, and that is because Sony dominates WW. And have dominated even with the blunders on PS3. Look at sales aligned without USA for last gen and you'll see (and that was the gen X360 done most right and PS3 most wrong).

Next gen PS5 will still dominate X2 unless something unexpected happens. You can expect another 50M Xbox and 120 Playstation if Sony doesn't make gigantic mistakes.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

I do not know how else to say this without what I am saying being twisted.

  1. I do not believe the NS will sell more than the 3DS.

  2. And that is because I do not believe that any console can sell that many units on the merit f their first party software alone. And nintendo never actually have accomplished this. More on this in number 4

  3. The only exception is the wii... and that was driven more by the novelty of the hardware (motion controls) than anything else.

  4. And while nintend makes great games why i say nintendo games will not be enough is because of the nature of the nintendo audience. They don't just buy great games they primarily buy Nintendo games. And therin lies the problem. 

    If yu look at the PS4 for instance, Yu have the people that will buy the console for overwatch, those for GOW, those for COD, those for madden, those for assasins creed, thse for RDR......etc. And all these people can buy just the one or two games and none of the others.

    Now look at the library of most nintendo gamers. They could have 10 games and all are made by nintendo. So what tends to happen is that you have a lot of shared bases. The 5M people that bought the NS for Zelda make up 4M of the 5M that will buy it for Mario. This is why you can have a 20M install base and all of mario, zelda..... the usual suspects have all sold over 10M units. These games are most sold to the same people. When pokemn is released, mst of that 20M people will g and buy it. Along with the couple million new people the IP will bring to the fold. 

    Basically, with nintendo platforms what tends to happen is a lack of user diversity. They are all playing very diverse genres, but the all come from nintendo. So basically its like they are all buying one game. I don't knw if that makes sense.  Its like they arent just buying different games. They are buying nintendo.