PS3 vs 360 top sellers

[starcraft]

jphuff said:

starcraft said:
As squilliam pointed out, there is a reason MikeB left out raw sales numbers. The PS3 comes off far less swimmingly when they are included.

At the end of the day the attach rates for the consoles are VERY different. The Xbox 360's is much higher. Now people like Tombi claim they are the same by convincing themselves its reasonable to do point-in-life comparisons. That only serves any real purpose when the comparison is with a console from a previous generation.

The only attach rates developers are going to look at when deciding who to develop for are point-in-cycle rates. At this point in time/cycle, the Xbox 360 has a far higher attach rate than the PS3, regardless of headstarts etc.

One could use a point-in-life comparison to imply the PS3 will continue to grow its attach rate at the end of the generation for one year longer than the Xbox 360, but there is a reason why even that argument is flawed. By now, its just plain common sense to realize that the PS3 and Xbox 360 will have tails FAR lower than the PS2's and FAR behind the Wii. Though it started later in the generation, the PS4 will be forced out at a time competitive with the Xbox 3 and Wii 2, meaning any late catchup in attach rates is unlikely, and will in any case be irrelevant to games production.

How exactly do YOU know what developers look at when making decisions who to develop for?  By this logic, any of the independent developers that make the decision to release an exclusive for the PS3 are basically criminally stupid in their business sense.

The whole point of this thread is that a real LOGICAL decision cannot be made by attach rate comparison alone when consoles have released a different times, or at least in a time period significantly apart.  It's only common sense that tells you when you see how attach rates are determined that a console with over a year head start will have a higher attach rate.  Yes, that's not the same as comparing sales of the same title on the two consoles, but that's not what we're talking here.  If you DO compare the attach rates over a similar period, you get similar results.  That's more clearly, at least, what companies are looking at right now when making development decisions.  I can't know for sure, of course, but there has to be SOMETHING.  Else these companies would not act as they do.  It would be stupid.

Overall, this kind of detraction smacks more of an attempt to just ignore the point being made.  Not saying you are, but that's exactly the kind of thing the fanboys hang on.  So once again, the point is that the "attach rates" aren't the end all, be all, and can and do mean different things depending on the point in the lifecycle they're measured at.

What would be more interesting is a comparison of consoles with more equal install bases AND this kind of difference in release time.  For example, Wii vs. 360.  Take the attach rate and then compare the actual number of software sales over the past year.  Then take the attach rate for just that year.  What would that show?  At some point, I'm sure an advantage in install base numbers would overcome the time difference and the attach rate equals out or surpasses.  What exact point is that?  5 million more sales?  10?

Anyway, very interesting OP and good point.  I think it's important for people to realize that very rarely is there just one set of numbers that shows a clear market advantage for one competing product over another.

Developers/publishers are out to make money.  It makes no sense to develop for a console with a low attachment rate relative to the other consoles.  Publishers are not going to go "lets be nice to the PS3, because in a year it MIGHT have the same tie-in ratio as the Xbox 360 has NOW."  Most independant publishers that stick to one console (in this case we will use MikeB's Insomniac example) do it for one reason: payment.  Though Mike attempted to recast simply financial assistance as just "support," it is the only reason Insomniac is so cosy with Sony.  Despite what he attempted to imply, MikeB is smart enough to know that under normal market conditions (i.e. no moneyhatting) the PS3's attach rate would be a deterrent to small developers and publishers (at least relative to the Xbox 360).

You criticised me for attacking the OP, but you failed to examine the OP's critical flaws.  Namely, the lack of raw numbers.  Those raw numbers emphasize the importance of on-the-spot attach rate comparisons versus aligned-launch attach rate comparisons.  You are right when you point out that one set of numbers is insufficient to demonstrate market advantage on its own, but as this thread is about attach rates, it is important to note that no third party publisher exposed to market-conditions would view the PS3's poor relative attach rate as a benefit, nor would they show mercy on Sony by aligning launches (at the end of the day, they are about game sales, not being nice to other companies like Sony that are also only in it for the money).

I of course agree that installed base is another important indicator alongside attach rates.  But like attach rates, installed base also indicates that the PS3 is the weakest of the three competing consoles at this point in time.