We understand that, More Hardware sales = More games get developed for that Hardware

We like more games to choose from, as this equates to having a higher chance to play games we like. (Well… as long as discoverability and curation are still high enough)

So, I was curious how each console’s library has faired, compared to its install base. (In a way, how efficient each platform was at garnering developer support per console sold.)

So, basically, Total games in a platform’s library divided by Millions of consoles sold. (ex. A total game library of 500 games on a platform that sold 40 million consoles = 12.5 Games released per million consoles sold)

Now, looking at Gen 3,4,5,6, and 7 consoles as those have all pretty much completed releasing games.

Nintendo Consoles
NES -   11.5 Games Per Million
SNES - 15.9 Games Per Million
N64 -   11.8 Games Per Million
NGC -  30.4 Games Per Million
Wii -     15.1 Games Per Million

Sega Consoles
SMS -   30.7 Games Per Million
GEN -   30.4 Games Per Million
SAT -    67.7 Games Per Million
DC -      77.6 Games Per Million

Sony Consoles
PS1 -     23.5 Games Per Million
PS2 -     15.9 Games Per Million
PS3 -     16.5 Games Per Million

Microsoft Consoles
XB -       42.4 Games Per Million
X360 -   14.2 Games Per Million

Some interesting observations here.

Looking at this, we see that consoles with low hardware sales are (by proportion) usually well supported relative to their install base.

Interestingly, a console with high hardware sales seem to consistantly have between 11-16 games released per million consoles sold. (Perhaps a slightly useful metric for forecasting game library sizes.)

Also, I imagine digital games will have a different trend as it is more accessible to developers.

And, on that note, does a console’s digital library effect its size of its retail library?

Observing the PS3’s and Xbox360’s libraries, this indicates that it does not. (obviously more data would be needed to see that more conclusively)

Any other interesting observations anyone can perhaps gleen from this???

I'd be really interested in the handheld ratios.

The correlations are a bit more clearer if you compare consoles fro the same generation with each other.
But ultimately all we need to learn from it is the fact that more consoles sold means more games, and more games mean more consoles sold.

Well, it did receive at least one installment of each of their IPs, including new ones.
- Mario (Sunshine, Double Dash, Luigi's Mansion, Party 4,5,6, and 7, Thousand Year Door, etc.)
- Zelda (Wind Waker, Four Swords, and Twilight Princess.)
- Pokemon (not the mainline games, for reasons obvious, but still.)
- Metroid (Prime 1 & 2)
- Star Fox (Adventures and Assault)
- Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
- F-Zero GX
- Pikmin (1 & 2)
- Animal Crossing
- Kirby Air Ride
- And of course, Super Smash Bros. Melee.

Plus, it got some pretty damn good 3rd party support, miles better than the Nintendo 64, Sonic being on a Nintendo console for the first time was a very big deal. So, while it didn't sell as many units as the other Nintendo consoles at that point and was the worst selling Nintendo system until the Wii U, it's overall library was great and those who did buy the system always had something to play and something to look forward too.
- 

You can add Wii U on your list. There are no more meaningful release on that console right now.

It is wrong to divide by number of sold consoles. Such platforms like Saturn or Gamecube have advantage of very few sales and most games of its library are cheap garbage that has been released for all platforms. I think it would be indicative to divide each platform's total games by years when developers were being active but not userbase.

GC only looks better because it sold worse. The overall library would be smaller or about the same. Same thing for Sega.

What blows me away is PS1, this had a really big library. Also Wii had seemingly a substantial bigger library than PS3 and X360.

@OP: Thanks for the thread. Which is your source for overall game library size?

Games (in library) pr Million (hardware consoles) is such a weird metric.

What is the use of it?

So systems with "low" scores pr million, where systems where consumers on avg had more games to choose from?

So the better systems would be the low scores.

On the other hand.... it says something about how willing consumers are to in turn support a system, with games buys, even if they dont have much to choose from (a high score).

It looks like Dreamcast basically didnt have many games, dispite their fanbase loveingly buying the hardware.

Its def. a standout at 77.7 pr million, when most others are 10-15 pr million.

It's perfectly alright for this comparison. The high ratios on console with very small userbases just strengthen the point. I doubt anybody thinks any better of the GC or DC when looking at those ratios.

Every gaming platform has trash software, just look at the inflated PS1 ratio.