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.

 

starcraft said: scottie said: I think most of you missed the point of the thread You cannot easily compare the attach rates of consoles that were released at different times, at least not until later in the generation Of course you can compare them. You just can't expect fans of the consoles that came out later to be happy that they'll normally be well behind in attach rates.  This is especially true for fans of the PS3, which according to VGC has a lower tie rate than the Wii, which came out at comparable times. And of course you can expect such people to say "wait till the PS3 has the same attach rates this time next year" whilst completely failing to realize that PUBLISHERS DONT CARE.  All they care about is making money.

Well, this is a good point.  FANBOYS may not be happy about such things, but inherently, the Wii vs. PS3 attach rate comparison is exactly what the core of this thread is about.  A dead even comparison based on how attach rates are calculated.  It can't be denied that the numbers are what they are.

I AM curious at what point a huge sales run (like that of the Wii) might compensate for the difference in release time, say against the 360.  Or if it would at all.

Hey, the Wii is a MONSTER right now.  I will be first to admit that I was among those who thought it might well die out in it's mad popularity.  However, at this point I think the very fact that you can't find it in stores still is actually FEEDING it's popularity as it maintains the mindset in people that since it can't be found anywhere, it's even MORE SO the "thing to get."  Anyone aware of any articles, etc, that have explored that possibility?  The psychology of the consumer market can't be ignored when talking about the success of a product.  I don't even see the Wii being advertised on TV near as much as the 360 or PS3 but it is just continuing to steam on.  And before anyone jumps in here, I'm not taking anything away from the product itself or it's games.  It's very obvious that it's a compelling product to many people out there.  It's just the question of how it's lack of availability might be influencing the market further, that I'd like to see explored.

 

@ starcraft

For example especially Halo 3 is upping the 360's attach ratio, great for Microsoft but less meaningful to 3rd party potential.

But for example an EA financial report revealed EA generated well more revenue with the PS2 and PS3, compared to the 360 and Wii.

1) PS2 166 million
2) PS3 152 million
3) 360 128 million



Of course this is important to a 3rd party software developer, as well as the rate at which consoles are currently selling. For 2008 the PS3 install base is growing much more rapidly than the 360 install base.

Don't worry the PS3 will remain of much importance to 3rd party developers and its importance will grow in course of time.

MontanaHatchet said: DirtyP2002 said: MikeB said: DirtyP2002 said: haha 8 of those PS3-games did not even sell a million units, while the 360 has 16 further millionsellers besides those you listed. 4 of these further millionsellers are 360-exclusive.   Like clarified in the original post, the 360 had a one year headstart. This resulted into an install base advantage when the PS3 launched and when games were released. But on average a PS3 owner buys about just as many games per year. For example what this means, if both the average PS3 owner and 360 owner buys 4.7 games per year, if 360 console owners from 2005 bought a 360 they would own 9.4 games on average by 2007. PS3 owners from 2006 will own 4.7 games on average by 2007. Understand? Software Totals: Console Weekly Total Tie Ratio 1,079,625 (+12%) 75,844,534 6.15 1,000,621 (-3%) 100,032,193 4.25 844,663 (-17%) 106,653,529 9.06 616,287 (-42%) 33,090,545 6.41 346,634 (-13%) n/a n/a 242,809 (-4%) 51,282,013 3.96 Total 4,130,639  tie ratio means average games per console, right? If the average PS3 owner buys as much software as the average 360 owner, why is there such a big difference? I am asking seriously! No trolling here That's clearly not what it means... Use Google.

okay, my fault. looked it up and all i found was "Time interests earned" profit / interest charges. Is this one correct? Just tell me plz

As interesting to dealing with numbers can be, i think sticking to pure analytical point of view is like pointing a finger to the moon ...

I think Mike is right when he tries to prove that software-wise, the situation of the PS3 is not as bad as it seems. But the fact is that others are as right too when they try to show it is not as good as he intends to prove ...

Why ?

If we come back to mid 2006 (right before E3), anyone that would have claim the situation in mid 2008 would be remotely what it is right now would at best have been told "foolish".

This whole industry works around trends. Trends are the main reason everybody says that Wii won't be cought in this generation. Snowball effect is another one that the gap can only grow up.

Nothing is wrotten but the fact is that Xbox360 and Wii were both able to make chuncks in Sony's armor. My point is that trends take time to show their full effects and 2008 is too early to definitely show what Sony has lost these 2 last years (regarding 3rd parties) ...

MikeB said: @ starcraft whilst completely failing to realize that PUBLISHERS DONT CARE For example especially Halo 3 is upping the 360's attach ratio, great for Microsoft but less meaningful to 3rd party potential. But for example an EA financial report revealed EA generated well more revenue with the PS2 and PS3, compared to the 360 and Wii. 1) PS2 166 million 2) PS3 152 million 3) 360 128 million Of course this is important to a 3rd party software developer, as well as the rate at which consoles are currently selling. For 2008 the PS3 install base is growing much more rapidly than the 360 install base. Don't worry the PS3 will remain of much importance to 3rd party developers and its importance will grow in course of time.

 

ps3 money maker confirmed

@ jphuff

You are right, there are many different factors to take into account.

The reasons why Insomniac sticks to the PS3:

1) Sony's marketing muscle
2) Support
3) Desire to tap into cutting edge technology for this generation without the need to make multi-plaform related sacrifices (they are the leading 3rd party PS3 technology experts)

All good reasons for a company like Insomniac.

Likewise there are many reasons to make a 360/PS3 game rather than a Wii game.

1) Wii owners relatively seem to buy far less 3rd party software compared to Ninendo's own games.
2) Many experience difficulty adapting to suit the Wii's userbase preferences. Very much unlike the games they are used to make and may not have the enthusiasm to play such games themselves (thus aren't real experts).
3) Creating a 360/PS3/PC/Mac game means you can more easily re-use the game engine technology and assets across these two platforms. It may make more sense to create a PS2/Wii multiplatform game.

IMO also valid reasons for 3rd party developers to base their decisions on. It's not all black and white, there are many different potential factors to take into consideration.

Good lists of games. I would like to have seen PS3 V 360 V Wii 25 top sellers and have sales totals for each game and accumulated totals. That would make things more interesting. The three current generation console comparison.

i don't get what the point of the thread is. It just seems like a misleading way of saying that exclusives do better on PS3 than on 360. Almost all of the PS3 games are first/second party, and we know very well that Sony is likely losing money on its software. Hot Shots Golf sold way less than the previous games. Leaving out the total sales numbers is completely misleading also.

The bottom line with exclusives on HD consoles is that they are going to be very rare unless money is being thrown around.

Rock_on_2008 said: Good lists of games. I would like to have seen PS3 V 360 V Wii 25 top sellers and have sales totals for each game and accumulated totals. That would make things more interesting. The three current generation console comparison.

I think we have had many such threads and that not this thread's purpose.

This thread is about both the PS3 and 360 having appealing games, both have worty exclusives which perform well amongst the many multi-platform games both platforms share and it's about PS3 owners buying roughly just as many games as 360 owners buy do on a yearly basis.

The thread was just meant to dispell some myths.

We all know the 360 has had a year or more headstart (enjoying 3 holiday seasons in for example Europe vs 1 for the PS3) and thus the 360 sold more hardware and software so far. But simultaneously released games like Call of Duty 4, GTA IV, Assasin's Creed, BurnOut Paradise, etc perform well on the platform and taking equal measures the PS3 sells well faster in terms of hardware than the 360 does worldwide, this despite nearly all sequels to big XBox games have already been released on that platform and the original XBox has been left to die a sudden death ever since the 360 launched.