mrstickball said:
My point was if you wanted to play *that* game of consoles being starved for games, the X360 has more games that came out in the past 3-6 months than the Playstation 3. I don't think either is starved, FYI. And correct me if I'm wrong, but: 1) The Playstation 3 is tied in Europe (or about that much), and has a hefty lead in Japan. Why aren't you taking either into consideration? That's called cherrypicking. 2) How many PS3 and X360 owners actually have the other system? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last survey I saw put multi-console ownership below 20%. How the heck is 20% going to effect it that much, given the fact that said 20% isn't going to swing to the X360 100% of the time. Even if they were twice as likely to buy a game for the X360 than the PS3 (that's multi-plat), that'd increase sales by a whopping 4%. And that's assuming that said 20% all own a PS3 and X360, and no other combination (for all we know, it'd most likely be around 10% total, which would reduce your argument to an overall effect of 2%) The real answer is: Playstation 3 owners don't buy many games games (Attach Ratio = 5.3 globally) compared to a X360 owner (Attach Ratio = 8.1 globally). If one console's average owner buys 50% more games, your going to sell more. Add in a 33% lead in hardware sales, and it's a recipie for much larger sales for most every title.
|
I did say 6 million lead WW and Japan is irrelevant for the games you said (western games), western games are bought mainly in NA and Europe where the 360 has a 7 million lead or something. What you're doing is called reaching for straws.
2)If you're right ( I don't know if you are and honestly don't care), 20% of what? Let's take the smallest install base and say 20% of that. It doesn't sound like much but put it in absolute numbers.
Finally it's not surprising the 360 has a higher attach rate considering all the major franchises are already out for it and Sony keeps delaying their major franchises.







