MontanaHatchet said:
Just like the PS2 had the best attach rate last generation (not counting the Dreamcast as the first, sorry) and the Saturn before it, right? The main reason the 360 has such a great attach rate is because it has a huge variety of cheap games. Like I've said before, I got Lost Odyssey for 30 bucks and Dead Rising for 20. The Wii has lots of cheap games too, but being the highest selling console (with a casual focus to boot) lowers the attach rate a good bit. This is why we see so many old 360 games still selling well years after they came out. That, and the great exclusives and multiplatform titles.
|
no that's obviously not the reason why the PS2 had a low attach rate. The reason the ps2 had a low attach rate is because it sold freakin 130 million consoles, the install base is far too big and varied to get a huge attach rate. Wii will never get as good of an attach rate as the ps3 or 360 for this reason as well even if they capture all the hardcore gamers.
Of course the attach rate is still really good with all things considered, but the 1 year head start is far more important than any of the reasons listed in the OP for why it has a better attach rate than the PS3 and wii. When comparing the 360 to the wii (not ps3) directly the 360 has a big advantage because it has been selling far slower than the wii. The average time of ownership for a 360 is far longer than the average length of ownership for a wii (and to a lesser extent the PS3), that's a far bigger reason than anything in the OP.
"I don't think you understand the theory of relativity...or even the definition of attach rate, if you think that is accurate reasoning."
Are we not talking about the average number of games that a console owner owns? I'm pretty sure that is what this is about, not about the attach rate of a single game. Length of ownership is a very important factor.
currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X
