Instead 24m people were convinced to try out Kinect, and their response to it was "meh". It was not a craze. It is difficult to find people who actually liked the Kinect. It is instead much easier to find people who will swear that "other people" like Kinect. If it were such a craze then why won't these people come forward themselves?
If I may add some anecdotal evidence, I knew nobody who was a non-gamer that bought a 360 just to have Kinect. Also, I worked at GameStop in 2011 during the height of Kinect's popularity. I do not recall any such enthusiasm from periphery demographics over the Kinect. Granted, it was a short-term job and my tenure didn't extend into the holidays, but still, I saw nothing to suggest that hordes of casuals and non-gamers were slavering over Kinect.
And to offer some more concrete data, the Kinect did well itself, but most of the games released for it did not. There were a small handful of games for it that attained over a million in sales, but certainly nowhere near as many copies as Kinect units. And it's not like it's only casuals that play party games. I imagine the Venn diagram of "casual" and "hardcore gamers" would overlap in a non-trivial area labeled "people that play party games." Furthermore, the Kinect had utilitarian value beyond just playing those party games. To once again offer some anecdotal evidence, I do know people who already owned a 360 and bought a Kinect both to have a fun party game to sit on the shelf between copies of CoD and Halo, but also because it was a neat new gadget that had voice, facial, and gesture recognition abilities. Eventually, the novelty wore off, but at the time it seemed cool.
In short, the idea that the Kinect could have been bought predominantly by regular console gamers, with non-gamers forming a relatively negligible portion of Kinect sales, is perfectly plausible.
Kinect is almost solely responsible for the X360 resurgence in 2011. I can't believe we are on this site and many of you are denying it.
Did you not see my charts from the other day? The 360 was already resurgent in 2010 when the 360 S was released. The Kinect did not appear to provide any additional boosts outside of giving November a better YoY boost than what September and October got. And the 360 was only up 7.7% YoY in 2011, with nearly all of that boost coming from the Jan.-May period as that was the period in 2010 before the 360 S was released. The June-Dec. period of 2011 was up only about one percent YoY.
In Europe, sales of the 360 were actually nearly flat in 2011, and in Japan is was down quite considerably.
|I LOVE GIGGS said:
Xbox 360 was trending towards 50-60 million lifetime sales before Kinect. Kinect and, to a lesser degree, PS move ejected some live into previous gen console. It extended their life by one year, in my opinion. Any one who lived through that period would know this. I'm surprised Shadow is doubting this.
By the way, I believe Kinect helped Xbox internationally more than in the US, relatively speaking.
Considering the 360 was already almost at 60M by time the Kinect was released, I somehow doubt it was trending towards only 60M lifetime. As mentioned, the 360 already had life injected into it with the S model, with the only obvious additional boost coming from Kinect being in Nov. 2010.
Also, you do mention the obvious corollary of "The Kinect was the main thing responsible for good 360 sales in 2011," that being "Without the Kinect, the 360's sales would have suffered in 2011." Well, there's no evidence that would have been the case, either. Slimline models clearly exhibited their capacity to produce substantial long-term boosts to sales, regardless of whether they're concurrent with a price drop or not.
And I already mentioned the Kinect's effect on sales outside the U.S. earlier.
Oh, and PS Move had no measurable impact on PS3 sales. Even in Japan where sales are tracked weekly, there wasn't any obvious bump the week of or following the PS Move's release.
I'm surprised that anyone who has been following video games sales could deny the selling power of Kinect. I hated the thing but no way would 360 reach the status of 40 million plus in USA without it.
Are you sure? It's far from implausible. If we submit that the GameCube was a "conventional" console (i.e., a more or less conventional standard gamepad, comparable power to the PS2 & Xbox, and a significant overlap with them in terms of third-party titles), then comparing the PS2 and 360's shares of conventional console market during the generation proper shows that the 360 was quite dominant, comparable to the PS2' dominance.
I do have to point out that the PS2 had no real competition for most of 2001, while in 2006 the GameCube and especially Xbox simply cratered. Likewise, the 360 was by its lonesome for the first ten months of 2006, hence the large percentages in those years.
In any case, the 360 dominated the PS3 just as the PS2 dominated the GC & Xbox, aside from a couple of brief periods for both where the competition narrowed the gap. In addition to large plurality or majority market shares during Gen 6 proper, the PS2 managed large lifetime numbers by having strong legs well into Gen 7. Meanwhile, the 360 managed its large lifetime numbers mainly during the generation proper, which was a protracted generation in general, but one with weaker legs.
In short, the 360 managed to bust the 40M mark simply by besting the PS3 by a considerable margin. It had a year's head start to further add to its total (though that's not why it beat the PS3, as head starts never seem to matter much), and it had strong market share of the conventional console market (which was just it and the PS3). It's late peak and its strong sales in that peak appear to be due primarily to the 360 S, as I've explained before. The Kinect was not totally inconsequential, and had a short-term impact on sales, but I do not see anything in the data to suggest it was the primary factor for the 360's success from Nov. 2010 onward.