"But the Xbox 360 has been on sale for 35 months, the cheat, while the other two have been around for 23 months. Compare all three over the latter amount of time and Xbox 360 fattach rate alls to 6.5."

In conclusion, for USA market:

xbox360 = 6,5
WII = 5,5
PS3 = 5,3

Only one game less for PS3.

These numbers for USA market, say that worldwide xbox360 has certainly lowest attach rate, because in Europe and Japan sells less.

Worldwide attach rate is:

WII
PS3
xbox360

NNN2004 said: ctk495 said: Who had the lowest attach rate last gen?    maybe the game cube.

 It was the PS2 if I recall correctly. The market leader almost always has the lowest attach rates because it has so many units out there.

Gnizmo said: NNN2004 said: ctk495 said: Who had the lowest attach rate last gen?  maybe the game cube.  It was the PS2 if I recall correctly. The market leader almost always has the lowest attach rates because it has so many units out there.

I've repeatedly read the same. The PS2 has the lowest attach rate, while the Gamecube had the highest. Not that that's too surprising, when you apply the slightest bit of logic: any number divided by 120 million is going to be lower than a number divided by 23 million. Which not only proves your point, Gnizmo and dbot, but also goes to show that tie ratios are useless indicators that mysteriously never arose until the Wii proved it wasn't a fad.

One example of how Microsoft and partner websites abuse data:

Platform 1 and Platform 2, let's assume for both consoles the average person buys only 2 game per year. And for illustrative convenience let's assume they all buy these games and consoles in January of the year.

Platform 1 (healthy console sales for 10 years)

Year 1 - 10 million users - 20 million software units sold for the year
Year 2 - 10 million new users - 40 million units software sold for the year
Year 3 - 10 million new users - 60 million units software sold for the year
Year 4 - 10 million new users - 80 million units of software sold sold for the year
Year 5 - "" - 100 million software units
Year 6 - "" - 120 million software units
Year 7 - "" - 140 million software units
Year 8 - "" - 160 million software units
Year 9 - "" - 180 million software units
Year 10 - "" - 200 million software units

Total console sales: 100 million units
Total software sales: 1100 million software sales

Attach ratio (using Microsoft's definition): 11 software sales per user.

Now a less successful platform (Platform 2) sell a lot less hardware in upcoming year:

Year 1 - 10 million users - 20 million software units sold for the year
Year 2 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units software sold for the year
Year 3 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units software sold for the year
Year 4 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units of software sold sold for the year
Year 5 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 6 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 7 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 8 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 9 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 10 - "" - 20 million software units

Total install base 10 million hardware sales.
Total software sales, 200 million software units.
Attach ratio 20 games per sold console.

Looking at the (PR) attach ratio it may look software sells much better for platform 2, but if you look closer per person people buy just as much software. I think everyone would agree platform 1 performed much better and is financially far more attractive.

Just wanted to demonstrate, how the figures are abused by PR is rather meaningless if you want to determine the amount of games people actually buy.

Gnizmo said: NNN2004 said: ctk495 said: Who had the lowest attach rate last gen?    maybe the game cube.  It was the PS2 if I recall correctly. The market leader almost always has the lowest attach rates because it has so many units out there.

 

Yep, so is it really relevant ?

@ Comrade Tovya

For me the PSN is already vastly superior judging from my personal experiences with games like Resistance: Fall of Man, Motorstorm and Warhawk, all using dedicated servers. They are virtually lag free for me. At the end of the month I will be playing 30 vs 30 lag free squad battles and 8 player co-op with Resistance 2. Gears 1 only had 4 vs 4 battles and Gears 2 only 5 vs 5, probably with lag as was the case with Gears 1...

With regard to content, IMO nothing on XBox live really competes with games like WipeOut HD, Tekken 5: DC, Super Stardust HD, etc, etc.



I don't think so and I think with Playstation Home the PS3 will be far more social, being able to play pool biljards, chess, bowling, etc with friends within Home, jumping into games like LittleBigPlanet from your private space or within public areas, like social game dedicated game areas. All while being realtime speech communication as well as text chat enabled. Being able to discuss the latest trailers (maybe live conference feeds and such) with friends and people who just happen to be there following similar interests, etc.



They have been working hard on Playstation Home, like we all know and it will be available for free.

If they add lots of great PSN content, this may actually drag down (PR) game attachment rates.

My Blu-Ray PS3 attachment rate is currently 9 games within 1 and a half years.
But if you include my PSN purchases it's 20 and if you would include my PS2 buys for the PS3 it's at 25.

It's not unlikely that if less good quality PSN content would have been available I would have bought a couple more Blu-Ray PS3 games instead.

@ noname2200

I agree, that's likely for a variety of reasons.

The PS2 sold over 28 million units during the last 2 reported fiscal years. That's more than the total GameCube or XBox installed base which both have been discontinued a while a ago. It's also more than the current 360 install base which has been on the market for nearly 3 years now. The PS2 still sells well, it sold more than the PS3 the last reported quarter, which sold more than the 360 at a much higher entry pricing.

I think it's also likely those who bought a PS2 late due to pricing, those people are more likely to buy budget games or even pirate games. Early PS2 adopters I think are more likely to be early PS3 adopters as well (in addition to newcomers, including tech enthusiasts like me).

As no XBox game consoles are being sold anymore, its software attachment ratio can only go up nowadays. Some games have still been released for the XBox last year and there's still a lot of unsold stock left at retailers.

dbot said: I think you should take into account the console lifetime. The 360 has been on the market for 12 to 15 months longer than the Wii and PS3. The tie ratio should gradually increase over time. Also, the Wii is "penalized" for its success at moving consoles. It's fairly impressive for all 3 platform holders. It's a shame that ancillary revenues (xbox live paid memberships, in-game advertising, psn/xbox live downloads, movie rentals, etc.) don't have a similar measurement.

 

id have to say the closest thing is the peripheral sales reports which have put nintendo as king with MS a close second. but you are right there need to be more well defined reports, it is an area of the market where masses of money are made, just look at the two part nintendo controller  soon to be three part with motion plus, or ms selling rechargeable batteries separately form controllers pure profit. 

I have no problem with charging for live and core, though i do have problems with people like EA being able to bend the rules and kill servers, if thats the case i should get a % of the cost of the game back or cost of live durring the time i owned the game since they are wasting my money. that kinda thing pisses me off

@ goddog

It's likely so far more peripherals have been sold for the 360 than for the PS3 even when taking equal timeframes, the PS3 has Wi-Fi, harddrive, HD movie support, etc by default.

MikeB said: @ Comrade Tovya The PSN, while free, is not very good. For me the PSN is already vastly superior judging from my personal experiences with games like Resistance: Fall of Man, Motorstorm and Warhawk, all using dedicated servers. They are virtually lag free for me. At the end of the month I will be playing 30 vs 30 lag free squad battles and 8 player co-op with Resistance 2. Gears 1 only had 4 vs 4 battles and Gears 2 only 5 vs 5, probably with lag as was the case with Gears 1... With regard to content, IMO nothing on XBox live really competes with games like WipeOut HD, Tekken 5: DC, Super Stardust HD, etc, etc. XBOX Live is much more social than the PSN and is much more user friendly. I don't think so and I think with Playstation Home the PS3 will be far more social, being able to play pool biljards, chess, bowling, etc with friends within Home, jumping into games like LittleBigPlanet from your private space or within public areas, like social game dedicated game areas. All while being realtime speech communication as well as text chat enabled. Being able to discuss the latest trailers (maybe live conference feeds and such) with friends and people who just happen to be there following similar interests, etc. A) Sony needs to work on the PSN immediately... make it more 'bright' and social. They have been working hard on Playstation Home, like we all know and it will be available for free. If they add lots of great PSN content, this may actually drag down (PR) game attachment rates. My Blu-Ray PS3 attachment rate is currently 9 games within 1 and a half years. But if you include my PSN purchases it's 20 and if you would include my PS2 buys for the PS3 it's at 25. It's not unlikely that if less good quality PSN content would have been available I would have bought a couple more Blu-Ray PS3 games instead.

 

A) As for lag, I really think it just depends on the individual really.  I get not lag at all on either the PSN or XBOX Live, but I also have a 6 meg download and 3 meg upload cable connection, so never a micro issue.  On my DSL that I also have, my lag is horrible on both social networks... but my DSL runs at 800k down, and 150k up, so it's an easy formula to figure out.

B) What it will be is not relevant, because it's not more social now... I want it to be, and I believe it will be.  But at the moment, LIVE is a lot more fun than the PSN.  But of course the PSN is free, and I do love that word.  I'd actually be willing to pay for the PSN if it were better to be honest with you.  One of my best friend only plays on the PSN, so I would enjoy it very much if it were better right now.  Secondly, I literally HATE playing COD4 on the 360 because I think the controller stinks for it... it's too stiff.  I love my Sixaxis and the fact that I can move so much faster and am more agile with that controller.

C) Thus far, I have bought Warhawk, Oblivion IV, the new SOCOM, Lemmings (on the PSN), RainbowSix Vegas 2, and Call of Duty 4.  I got rid of Warhawk, Oblivion, and SOCOM.. I just wasn't impressed with them. 

All-in-all, I really do enjoy my PS3.  Call of Duty 4 rocks on it, it's the BEST Blu-ray player bar-none, a pretty good up-converter DVD player, and I love the Sixaxis controller (though I am about to upgrade to the Dual Shock 3)... but the PSN is really what is holding it back for me.. that's the one and only negative to the system in my opinion.

Then again, Microsoft is about to release the so-called "new and improved" XBOX Live experience.  After seeing the demo for it, I was actually not impressed... and honestly, if it is half as bad as it looks, I may very well revoke the 'best online experience' vote away from LIVE and give it to the PSN.  Only time will tell.

If I knew more people on the PSN and didn't constantly find myself playing alone on it, I'd probablly be a little more generous to it.  But the fact of the matter is, all of my friends are on LIVE, and I've been playing with the same guys since the original XBOX.