happydolphin said:
EncodedNybble said:
happydolphin said:
It's not so far away from Brawl's 10.89m. So, we can see that since both games are a good indicator of the true gamers (lots of casuals buy COD and Kinect they are not good barometers), and since both have very similar sales, the proper assumption or oracle is to say that both the Nintendo and Microsoft gamer bases are quite similar.
Nuff said?
|
I think you're sort of making his point.
So.....comparing last gen to this gen:
Last Gen: Xbox ~ 24 million sales.
This Gen: Xbox ~ 60 million sales.
So, roughly about 3x the amount of potential customers buying a game.
Now, a game like Halo 3 comes out (granted there were probably only about 30 million or less 360s when it came out) and it has 11 million sales vs. 8.5 million for Halo 2. So Halo 3 sold more than Halo 2. That could mean that the series increased in popularity or some other factors, but, for the most part, one could argue that the "core" audience on the 360 vs. the xbox is about the same or has increased.
Now take the Wii and SSBB
Wii = 94 million vs GameCube 22 million (life time)
SSBM = 8 million SSBB = 11 million.
So, an increase in 70 million(!!!!!!!) potential customers nets only 3 million more sales. An increase in 30 million or so 360 users got Halo 3 the same increase. Adding in the fact that the 360 also had another Halo game and countless CoD games when a large number of the 60 million purchased their device while SSBB has little to no competition in the same genre...it's pretty clear cut to me.
Your point about Halo 3 vs. Reach (being in the same gen) is an interesting one. Since it is in the same generation, you would argue that everyone in the "core" audience that bought Halo 3 should have also bought Reach, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So that means either the total number of "core" gamers on the 360 went down, the sales numbers for Halo 3 were inflated (bundles, what have you), or that the series decreased in popularity due to increased competition or other factors.
|
Yes, you're right, Smash went from 7Mil to 10.5Mil from GC to Wii, and a similar thing can be said for the Xboxes. By his own logic, Seece would be right to say:
"Majority of gamers arnt even interested in Microsoft home consoles .."
Hence the futility of his post.
|
Seece, while being a bit of a failure by calling them "true gamers", is referring to "traditional core gamers", a term I coined to end the controversy of what is a "real gamer" since arguments about the games and isntall base never progressed past hurt feelings at being called "casual". Additionally, it solves the problem brought up with the elitest term "sales core", in which some smartass comes in and says that core refers to the people using the system at the moment, which was brought up because "core" to gamers, is almost a genre.
Traditional core gamers are ones who would buy the popular games on a system X many years ago, during the late 80's, and 90s. This would roughly reflect the well known games from NES, SNES, Genesis, 64, ps1.
In the sense of the traditional core, if all the numbers are completely accurate (which I've never been convinced of), MS has taken or "grown" nearly 40m traditional gamers.
