I“m no statistician but I've heard a lot about raw numbers and attach rates and the argument that developers really only care about total sales however they get there.

One factor that doesn't seem to be getting much attention is development costs. Total sales no matter what the numbers don't mean a hell of a lot if you don't make a profit. There is a big difference in what console you develop for.

The DS is the least expensive with an average of about $1m per game. (Pretty damn good return on Nintendogs) and the PS3 is the highest reported to be an average of $15M. The Wii falls between but at least 1/2 and probably closer to 1/4 the costs. Wii games can and have made decent profits on 200,000 to 300,000 sales but apparently any HD game with less than 500,000 is a serious disaster. Haze certainly comes to mind.

It's a good thing that GTA4 sold 10M games because they had a $100M nut, not to talk about marketing, dealer discounts and all the rest.

My point is that when you go talking about sales and attach rates and all that good stuff, you have to realize that the cost of making that game is an important factor also. The difference between 300,000 sales in a Wii game and 300,000 sales in a PS3 game can be the difference between a bonus and a pink slip.

Way to get your point across

@TWRoO
My point is that the difference between a good post and looking like an idiot is carefull proofing. LoL

@Grampy

Yes, development costs do play a factor. But I have a different opinion on that.

Anyway, you gave you me a good idea for my new thread.

In my opinion, even though you see Nintendo dominating the 3rd party software sales, it will probably still lag in the "big budget/blockbuster" type games - possibly for the "whole" generation.

@ bumidan
I take where you are going and it’s not so much that I disagree but I do have a concern, which I discussed in another thread.

Neal Simon has said that he will never open another show on Broadway because it’s become too expensive even for someone with his proven track record to try anything new. That’s why Broadway has become dominated by revivals and sequels. No one can afford to take a chance on anything that’s not already proven.

I think we are already seeing this happening already. What are the major hits today. I looked at the >1 Million selling games for each platform. By my best estimate:
-The PS3 has 13, of which 11 are sequels (85%)
-The Xbox 360 has 44, of which 29 are sequels (66%)
-The Wii has 26, of which 13 are sequels or near sequels (50%)
There seems to be a strong inverse correlation between development costs and new and original games. I for one am not particularly looking forward to COD48 and GTA112.

So I don’t doubt we will see blockbusters in HD but the question is are they going to be the same blockbusters over and over and over again.

@ Grampy

By definition, a blockbuster will generally be a known IP. So yes, they are generally going to be the "same".

I would break down the the types of "blockbusters" in my opinion:

1. Known IP, multi sequel - eg. Call of Duty 4. This type of game does not need introduction as they are already blockbusters. This is probably the most common one because of the other 2 reasons (see below)

2. Known IP, new sequel. This would be a game (for example: Braid) that was a "low budget" title and was very good. Word of mouth and increasing sales make it more and more popular.

The sequel, eg. Braid 2, now gets more funding due to its early success. Therefore, it is a known IP with a new HIGH BUDGET sequel.

3. New IP. This is not that uncommon (eg. Gears of War). Because of the "success" of blockbuster IPs, a company is willing to bet that they can make a NEW and BETTER game (eg. Haze). By making that "bet", they are willing to invest the resources and marketing to make this game popular (eg. Assassin's Creed).

Out of the 3 types, these games will make up the MAJORITY of sales, just like the movies.
So almost by default, any BLOCKBUSTER title will be a known IP.

@ Grampy
Looking at the numbers you provided - going forward:

PS3 - 2 new IPs (million seller) - will get sequels (most likely) because it was successful
11 IPs, already sequels - will get more sequels.

So going forward, the 13 million sellers will most likely get sequels, so the percentage of million seller to new IP will increase.

Unless there is a surge of new IPs that become million sellers.

Again, blockbuster is not necessarily bad. They are blockbusters because they are GOOD GAMES.

Just like blockbuster movies, music, etc are GOOD, they are BETTER than the other alternatives - hence they become blockbusters.

Despite what people may say about "hating" a blockbuster. Clearly they are in a minority. The numbers (dollars) speak for themselves.

@bumidan
Point taken. Curious thing though, if you take the 10 highest selling games ever on all platforms, four are clearly original ideas and at least six were new IPs at the time. Also I was surprised that nine of them were made by Nintendo.

I'm certainly not against blockbuster sequels if not over done. Every generation needs its own Mario Karts and Super Smash Brothers but once a generation is enough for me and I look forward to the ones that come totally out of left field like Wii Fit. But to each his own.

Good read with statistics, good job bumidan. This is much tighter than I thought between the three.

Wow, 9 by Nintendo?  Though it makes some sense, as they were the "original" console game maker.

I'm assuming a lot of Marios and Duck Hunts, Excite Bike.. haha