Cool, thanks!

The software total is the total amount of software sold up to that point in time.  I'll give an example of part of my spreadsheet for the 360.

As you can see, both TWO and Total Software increase over time.  Most of the year, TWO increases faster than Total Software.  During the holidays, Total Software outpaces TWO.  That is why there is a rise and fall.

It does appear that the bumps are going to get smaller over time, but we won't know for some time.

I also expected a smooth graph that approached a limit over time, but I forgot that the holidays are such big time of the year for software.  The holidays also have a smaller effect on TWO, because those console are just bought, so they only add one week each to the TWO.  Older consoles are what really drive up TWO.

As for your last question, I don't think that exists.  It took me a lot of time to collect all the data for this analysis.

By the way, does anyone know how to post spreadsheet data into a post without having to reformat it?

Used game sales are only important to Gamestop.  New software sales are important to developers and publishers.  That is not really an opinion.  However, I think I will be changing the desciption on the graph to read WBP New Software in the future to avoid this argument.

Leaving out the bundled software would skew the graphs much higher, and I don't think that would be very representative of the real picture.  That bundled software gets played, and while the consumer plays it, they are not going to buy anything else.

I do like the idea of doing this for first and third parties, however, that probably would happen until I get more time on my hands.

Cool stuff in this thread.

Wii owners buying games more frequently makes a lot of sense, simply because the games are cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the average Wii owner drops a very similar amount of money on gaming in a month as the average PS360 owner.

Who in the world decided to use such a stupid method for their graph? "Average number of weeks between software purchases"? Please.......

Also, there is one critical flaw I see in this whole attempt to make the PS3 and Wii look like software selling phenoms... and that's multiple games/software sold at the same moment. It seems more likely to me that Xbox 360 gamers have historically bought games in large packages. They purchase 2-3 at one time, thus why they go longer in between before buying more.

Just something to think about before believing this very deceiving graph. How else could you explain the 360's much higher overall games per console sold, if they were buying games less often? It's simply because 360 gamers tend to purchase multiple titles at once.

There is perhaps some logic missing here.

If X360 gamers do as you say, and buy 2 or 3 games but with longer periods between, then there would still be no way to find out looking at this graph.... because this averages it out.

What this method does is eliminate the advantage the X360 gets by being out longer.... time always sells more games.... and this takes the extra time out of the argument by working out how many weeks each owner has had the system (which then gets the total weeks of ownership) then we already have the software figures here on VGC

It does arguably put the X360 at a SLIGHT disadvantage, because in it's first year it was still competing against the PS2... but it is a minute disadvantage compared to the advantage it gets using simple attach ratios.

----

There is another problem that is perhaps going against the X360... and that is that the graph uses VGC figures.... which are less complete for the X360 in "others" region than they are for the other two consoles.

Good explaination.

At some point I'm going to collect and graph all the data for each region.  The fact that I already have the spreadsheet setup is going to make it a lot easier.  However, going through the charts week by week and copying all the data by hand does take quite a bit of time.  Maybe after the semester ends I'll get to work on it.

How exactly are you averaging these things out to get the "Total Weeks of Ownership"?

Did you really go through each and every week to update the number of consoles sold per each week and how old they are now?

Please go into more detail on how you got the TWO figures. I also do not see how dividing that TWO by the total games sold somehow makes an average weeks between games bought. Seems to me like you would have to account for data involving how many games are out, and again, how many games per single purchase.

So in other words, by relying so much on all these different averages, it seems that this graph has a high %error probability.

Yes, the spreadsheet goes through each and every week using the data from this site.  Here is an example using the 360:

So for week six, the formula for TWO is:

TWO=(352952 x 6)+(94972 x 5)+(333422 x 4)+(164562 x 3)+(133939 x 2)+(95270)=4,783,094

As for your other question, lets say I bought a 360 with 4 games at launch.  Let's say I don't buy any other games for a while after that.  At the end of the first week, I have owned the console for one week and bought 4 games, so my WBP (Weeks Between Purchases) is 1/4 = 0.25.  At the end of four weeks, I have owned the console for 4 weeks, but I have still only bought 4 games.  So, my WBP is now 4/4 = 1.  It is an average.

This is how it works, it is just for everyone who owns a 360.  That is why it is the total number of weeks owned and total amount of software sold.

The error that will be in this graph is going to be the error from the VG Chartz data.