Brilliant Sean Mastrom's blog entry

[ItsaMii]

Squilliam said:

Sky Render said:

My statements were not an attack; they were observations of your criticisms of Malstrom mirroring your own behavior. That you took them as an attack is rather peculiar, and I'm not sure what (if anything) I should interpret from it.

Also, I think you've misunderstood what that 80/20 split actually means. Just because one company takes 80% of the overall industry profits does not mean that the other 20% of profits are insufficient to make up for the expenses of the competing products. In such an environment, basic logic would indicate that businesses would either collapse rapidly from overbearing expenses, or would intentionally leave the industry due to unprofitability.

If I said that 20% of games make 80% of the overall revenue, is that easier as we don't have individual profit reports on every game?

There are 443 games on the Xbox 360 which have sold a total of 140,000,000 copies or 316,000 per game.

There are 42 games which have sold over a million copies out of 95 million copies sold or an average of 2.25 million copies sold per game. They are the top 9.5% of Xbox 360 games.

Therefore 401 games sold an average of 137,000 copes per game. 8.2 million revenue per game on average.

Average revenue of the top 9.5% of games? 135 million at retail. 9.5% of games made 68% of the total revenue. Therefore my statement is true.

This is quick and dirty but I feel that I have proved my 80/20 rule.

 

 

You are mixing everything up. 443 is the total amount of games when you consider that every version of the same game is a different game (like Halo 3 NTSC/US, Halo 3 PAL and Halo 3 NTSC/JP). Those million sellers are a much higher number up to 126 (not every game has a JP yet, like GTA 4). Your revenue argument is really weak. You are assuming every game sold at 60 bucks. Some games are way cheaper and several blockbuster get pricecuts along the way.