@ johnsobas

I thought it was obvious, but read above.

No, currently the PS3 has no game with an attach rate similar to Halo 3.

No, there are more multi-platform games than exclusives. The PS3 bestseller list has more multi-platform games and lack exclusives like Lair, FolkLore or my personal favourite Super Stardust HD.

No, they are unsurprisingly losing money on the hardware (very high specs vs cheap price). Overall not on software.

You will have to take install base ratios into account for when those games launched.

Not rare, but more multi-platform games in comparison, but its likely many more full PS3 exclusives will be released during its lifecycle because Sony itself has more software development muscle. Considering 360/PS3 owners on average buy less than 5 games a year, you will see well more than that amount of exclusives per year.

Well you seem to imply in your post that the goal is to compare which consoles have the most high-selling exclusives or perhaps high-quality exclusives?

Either way the problem is that the Top-25 selling games for a console are not necessarily representative of the rest of the top selling games for that console. All you've shown is that amongst top 25 games (and top 25 games only) the 360 has more multi-platform games. This, in essence, confirms what everyone already knows, which is that multi-platform games sell better on the 360 and thus more easily penetrate its Top-25 list.

You would need a list of all high-selling games for both consoles to make the comparison you were trying to make originally. Fortunately you can achieve this by just setting a cutoff point, for instance 500k or 750k would probably do fine.

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.

 

 

MikeB said: @ Squilliam Its top 5 sold 29 million vs 17 million on the PS3 For example GTA IV sold more copies on the 360, but the attach ratio is better amongst PS3 owners. Some games were released later on the PS3 due to these games being lead on the 360, due to the 360 headstart. For a new console owner this means nothing, also of the best sold multi-platform games some are better on the 360 but likewise some are better on the PS3, the differences aren't that big though. Overall they are mostly the same games. The 360 may have games which scored higher on the 360, but this means little. For example Oblvion scored lower on the PS3 on average, but every reviewer agrees the PS3 version is superior. Some 360 games are showing their age as new games tend to accomplish more (resulting in higher expectations), if the old games would be released unmodified today they would receive lower scores.

Attach rate is pretty much always going to be better on the system with lower hardware sales. That's just how attach rates work.

Increasing your hardware sales does no raise your software sales by an equal amount because people have different tastes.

If the 360 actually was beating PS3 on attach rates for games PS3 would be in SERIOUS trouble.

@ Sqrl

No, it's about games appealing to consumers. It's not per se about how much a game sells that makes it a more appealing game than others.

For example, a game like Oblvion appeals to certain people. The PS3 version is better than the 360 version, but not amongst its top sellers because the game was released well after the 360 and PC version. So a potential customer may well already own one of the other versions, making it less likely such people also buy the PS3 version.

For a new consumer deciding whether to own a 360 or PS3, it's irrelevant how much the original 360 game sold. The consumer has the option to choose the PS3 version if he or she so desires.

What these lists show is:

1) 16 of the best sold 360 games are also available for the PS3 and 15 of the best selling PS3 games are also available on the 360.

So 360 fans saying the PS3 has no games is IMO stupid.

2) 10 of the 25 best sold PS3 games are exclusively available only on the PS3. While only 5 of the best sold 360 games are exclusively available on the 360.

What this means, many people own PCs and they can expect many of the 360 console exclusives to come to at least the PC as well. (Sadly many will just pirate them)

However the bulk of PS3 exclusives can only be played on the PS3.

@ starcraft

Look at the EA chart, for Q4F Y2007 the 360 was a more interesting platform for EA. But for Q4 FY2008 the PS3 was the more interesting platform.

Do you think EA will look at their FY2007 results rather than at their FY2008 results to determine which platform will be more interesting to them during FY2009? I don't think so.

It's great for Microsoft Halo 3 had such a amazing attach ratio on the 360, but to EA's business this means very little. Just because Halo 3 sold so many copies with all the Microsoft generated media circus does not mean EA will do better business on the 360 in comparison to on the PS3.

MikeB said: @ Sqrl Well you seem to imply in your post that the goal is to compare which consoles have the most high-selling exclusives or perhaps high-quality exclusives? No, it's about games appealing to consumers. It's not per se about how much a game sells that makes it more appealing than others. For example, a game like Oblvion appeals to certain people. The PS3 version is better than the 360 version, but not amongst its top sellers because the game was released well after the 360 and PC version. So a potential customer may well already own one of the other versions, making it less likely such people also buy the PS3 version. For a new consumer deciding whether to own a 360 or PS3, it's irrelevant how much the original 360 game sold. The consumer has the option to choose the PS3 version if he or she so desires. What these lists show is: 1) 16 of the best sold 360 games are also available for the PS3 and 15 of the best selling PS3 games are also available on the 360. So 360 fans saying the PS3 has no games is IMO stupid. 2) 10 of the 25 best sold PS3 games are exclusively available only on the PS3. While only 5 of the best sold 360 games are exclusively available on the 360. What this means, many people own PCs and they can expect many of the 360 console exclusives to come to at least the PC as well. (Sadly many will just pirate them) However the bulk of PS3 exclusives can only be played on the PS3.

Customer appeal might be your underlying goal, but sales are still the metric you're using to measure that appeal.  In truth sales are the best metric available as essentially each purchase is a vote from the populace at large.

I completely agree its stupid to say either console has zero quality titles.  Although I must admit its been quite a while since I've seen anyone say this anyways.

You also raise a good point about consumer perspective, and I would point out that from the consumer perspective the 360 having a head start is fair game since its benefits are there whether it seems fair or not.  In that regard limiting to 25 games mitigates that advantage tremendously as you ignore far more high-selling 360 games than you do high-selling PS3 games.  All of those ignored games are valid choices for consumers.

 

 

So the whole point of this thread is to show that PS3 has games? considering that on the top 25 on PS3 there is dynasty warriors 6 and gundam the only real conclusion you can make is that PS3 owners make poor choices when purchasing games.

See, I too have the ability to take certain information and display it in a way that makes my point come across as being logical and factual, even though I've completely ignored certain information (i.e That dynasty warriors and gundam are towards the bottom of that list.)

By the way, the fact that you had to make a thread about this clearly shows that you feel that the ps3 has no games seeing as how I haven't seen a "PS3 has no games" post since the release of GTA4. It's like the guy that drives around with a car with a long front who is trying to compensate for something. In this case, the car with the long front is your OP, you're trying to compensate for your feelings of the PS3's inadequacys at producing good games and the guy, well is you.

Seems a bit harsh I know, but seriously there is nothing to worry about, the PS3 has games, this thread would have been valid a year ago, not now (especially right after the release of MGS4).

MikeB said: @ starcraft It makes no sense to develop for a console with a low attachment rate relative to the other consoles. Look at the EA chart, for Q4F Y2007 the 360 was a more interesting platform for EA. But for Q4 FY2008 the PS3 was the more interesting platform. Do you think EA will look at their FY2007 results rather than at their FY2008 results to determine which platform will be more interesting to them during FY2009? I don't think so. It's great for Microsoft Halo 3 had such a amazing attach ratio on the 360, but to EA's business this means very little. Just because Halo 3 sold so many copies with all the Microsoft generated media circus does not mean EA will do better business on the 360 in comparison to on the PS3.

Of course, the EA results are impressive, but they are not indicative of the broad market, which saw far higher total third party sales on the Xbox 360 than on the PS3.  Furthermore, they don't take into account the additional costs we know are associated with developing on the PS3, nor the fact that many PS3 games are priced higher than their Xbox 360 counterparts.

As for how Halo 3 could be significant to EA?

Do you believe that Army of Two would have sold double on the Xbox 360 what it did on the PS3 if Halo 3 hadn't expanded the Xbox 360 userbase's desire for shooters/co-op?  Something no-doubt EA saw and capitalised on.

 

PS3 V's Wii top sellers for the same time frame would be interesting. Both consoles released around the same time. 14 year console rivalry between Sony and Nintendo. Epic.

BTW: This just looks like another PS3 V's 360 thread. We have like heaps of them on here already.