Kasz216 said:
I'm not on any "side". I just think they should both be counted because it's the only viable way to do it. Because not all all 60 dollar games sell at 60... and not all budget games even sell at budget prices, some people oversell them and some people put them in bundle sales. Software is software is softwar. Counting pure numbers means nothing so you may as well actually you know, count the numbers. It doesn't count revenue because of the above. It doesn't count profit because of the above AND because you have no clue what the development costs are, if what one devleoper says is true. (which it may or may not... it was one guy.) Then the Wii would need to sell around 50-75% as much software to generate as much profit as a 360 game since it costs on average half as much to make your average game. (little more then 50%) Counting the number of software units only tells you how many games people have, and it doesn't even do a good job with that because everybody has downloadable games which are basically untrackable. So what does a low number of names for the wii mean? That right now they have more casual or "less hardcore" gamers. Since we can combine these numbers with the survey that showed people with the wii actually were more afluent then people with the PS3 and 360. So we know it's not a money issue. |
You've got it the numbers game between wii and ps3 shouldn't matter.
Come on why do consumers even care about attach rates? The only reason I can think of is devlopers look at this data when deciding what platform to focus on when developing a specific title. We all want whatever console we purchase to attract the majority of titles(specifically thoes we are interested in) to that console. Thats it. We made a purchase and don't want to have to make another down the road because an exclusive comes out that we can't live without. I don't have enough disposable income to justify a purchase of a 2nd consloe at the begining of its life cycle. I have a 360. A wii would cost me about 5 new games for it a PS3 almost 8. Thats a little ove half a years to a years worth of games for me.
Devlopers are the only ones that need to care about pack-ins. When there in that stage of starting a project they have to either ask what sells(The Sims, Mario, WOW, Zelda, GTA, Halo,Pokemon, Ect) and then come up with a clone/sequal or come up with an original Idea. Most do the former as it incurs the least risk. They then need to deduce wether the success of a previous game was due to its own merits or because it came with a system. Personall I have never seen a pack in game I would have bought on its own merits.
Lets take Duck Hunt as an example 28+ million in sales. If you go just by sales figures looks like it was ripe for a sequal/knock off. Who would have bought it if it were a stand alone title? Not me. I played it because it came with my NES and another game right after purchase of the system was cost prohibitive to me. Duck hunt 2 or even Waterfowl Hunter where you get to hunt all species of ducks, geese, sand hill cranes, ect. and can customize what type of retriver you have would not return on a devlopers investmet especialy if they are baseing projected sales on duck hunts success.
Thats why you can't judge much by pack in titles. You just can't tell how they would have done in a specific market if they were released solely on thier own merits. IE taking Japans sucess of wii sports and extrapolating it to the American market. Very different demographics. You have to give wii play some sort of credit though as consumers did have the choice no to buy it with their extra controler even if it is made an impulse buy by its minimal increase in price.
Oh yeah i forgot to mention for Kasz tha the Halo3 edition of the 360 did not come with halo 3. I know stupid but thats MS for ya.
