NPD: Wii software sales are more concentrated on a few titles than 360/PS3

[mrstickball]

noname2200 said:

mrstickball said:

noname2200 said:

mrstickball said:
FYI, noname, assuming your numbers are correct, then we get the following numbers as average sales for 'have not' titles:

Wii: 61,892 Units/Game
X360: 66,667 Units/Game
PS3: 56,250 Units/Game

But only if we assume even distribution of sales between all the "have-nots." Is there any reason we should do so?

We could always look at the median sales of said 'have nots' as opposed to mean. Unfortunately, we don't have any sort of numbers from NPD, so we'd have to differ to VGC for median values among the top games. 

The median for the top games, by console, would be (top 100, FYI):

Wii: 356,000

X360: 462,000

PS3: 245,000

Two problems here: first, this data shows that the sales are most definitely not evenly distributed (look at how much the sales spaced out from your first set of numbers to your second set). More importantly, I'm unsure how wise it is to use VGChartz data to fill in the gaps for NPD data, as not only does the former include data not used in the latter but there have been some fairly wide discrepancies recently (I believe you yourself posted something similar).

Second, you're using the Top numbers to tell us what's going on in the games that are not in the top...

If you read what I said, I was using averages for the first set, and median for the second. That's why there's spacing. The first set used the data you gave us.

The reasoning behind using the top-50 was just to get a rough picture of sales. If you want a very indepth (and far more damning) picture of software, then you could use median as well as # of titles released. Again, since VGC only displays the aggregated list of top-100 titles, we'll use your self-admited ratio of 4:3:2 (which is about accurate):

Wii (100th title): 201,249 Units

X360 (75th title): 323,000 Units

PS3: (50th title) 245,000 Units

This would be the best picture we can get with VGC data. Assuming the 4:3:2 ratio is correct, we can assume that titles that do fit in that list of 'have nots' would be best displayed with this data I just posted.

And guess what? VGC states that the sales value of a 'have not' on the 360 is 60% greater than that on a Wii title, which is very close to the argument I made earlier about the 13/87 vs. 20/80 value being 65% greater in favor of a PS3/360 title.

If you forget, the reason I'm using median is to ensure that the data isn't skewed, to the best of the abilities of VGC. Median value helps to do away with anomalies in the have-not values (either too high or two low) to give us a good idea about how much a have-not is selling. Hopefully this explains the reasoning - a median value may be a better picture into the sales values than averages.