Argh. It deleted my entire wonderful post that was 40% of the way through. Oh well, let's start again.

 

Having been a VGC member for around 10 months, and an avid gamer, I've seen alot of arguments rattled against the Xbox 360 not only as of late, but since the VGC forum explosion a few mothns ago.

Now, many of you have probably heard these arguments, and I believe none of them are founded in areas that they argue are true.

"The Xbox 360 only appeals to hardcore PC/Console gamers"

"The Xbox 360 is only for FPS games"

"Software sales for the Xbox 360 are so high because the system is only bought by hardcore players"

"The Xbox 360 is only being bought by Xbox owners, and won't sell more than 25m units"

Now, if you've owned a Xbox, or Xbox 360, you've probably heard alot of Wii and PS3 owners on these forums make statements like this probably a hundred times a day. I've seen plenty of it within the past few weeks as moderator of the X360 forums that we've got recently.

I'll gladly state my bias at the front door: I love my Xbox 360. Everyone knows I post alot of stuff here, and defend the system, comment about it's sales more, and such. I do this because I try to stay informed about the X360, and it's games because I really enjoy the system. Far more than I liked my Xbox, or N64, but not quite as much as my SNES in it's glory days.

 

Now, I believe these arguments do have a tinge of truth to them, but the fact is, they relegate reason to a mere bias, and anti-X360 idea, rather than look at real numbers to specify who are buying the Xbox 360s, and why.

 So allow me to divuldge into my arguments against these statements, using VGC numbers, and some opinions on why I feel the statements people make are wrong.

But first, lets say this: the fact is, the Xbox 360 is preceived by some of this forum to be founded on those 4 statements. Some adhere to all of them, or some adhere to one or two. Preception is party of reality, but it doesn't make it entirely true. 5 years ago, the GameCube was known as the kiddie machine, all dressed up in it's purple lunchbox. Nevertheless, it still had some great games on it that weren't always kid friendly, so I will argue that no game system really has a bias of a specific group, maybe aside from the price.

So the arguements:

"The Xbox 360 is only being bought by hardcore console and PC owners"

Argument 1 is founded in the idea that since the most popular (sales wise) games have traditionally been shooters, with strong multiplayer components, that the people that play them must be very hardcore, since they devote all their time to the said games (Halo, Halo 2, Gears of War).

However, let me introduce this idea to you: The shooter is a popular genre, that actually circumvents a given "fanbase", just like many genres do. If this was the true case, and FPS games were only for hardcore users, I fail to see how a game such as Halo 2 could wind up selling 8m+ copies. Games that sell over 5 million copies worldwide don't fit a niche genre. I don't see how a pleasantly plump plumber from Brooklyn could wind up selling hundreds of millions of games based on a precieved "kiddie" notion about himself. Not only this, Mario sold to both sides of the Atlantic, and Pacific. Likewise, a certain sci-fi bald space marine has done very well worldwide.

Next, I will ask this: Was Goldeneye 64 for the Nintendo 64 hardcore? Maybe I am the only one that always had 3 friends over to my house to play it when it came out, for hours on end. But the fact was, even back then, console shooters with strong multiplayer elements, if they did it right, have always sold good, and sold to a fairly large fanbase. Goldeneye was one of the N64's top-sellers in the US, and I really never saw that the N64 had a hardcore fanbase, that only bought zany shooters. Why then, when Halo sells similarly, does it then have to be so hardcore?

 The next argument against such an idea through sales:

If anyone can tell me how these games managed to sell so many units, with there "only being a hardcore following" in the US, please tell me:

Guitar Hero 2	1,258,161 (Apr 07 Release) - Still Top-10 Seller, #2 Yearly
Madden 2008	1,279,652 (Aug 07 Release) - Top 3 seller, #1 Yearly
Fight Night Round 3	1,072,808 (Feb 06 Release) - Still Top-20 Seller, #11 Yearly
Spiderman 3	374,354 (May 07 Release) - #12 Yearly
Pirates of the Carribean 3	200,372 (Jun 07 Release) -
Lego Star Wars 2	388,432 (Oct 06 Release) - Still Top-20 Seller
Viva Pinata	250,000 (Est, Nov 06 Release)

Also, another good one would be Dance Dance Revolution at 159,000 units and still charting.

Now, let me ask those that feel the X360 only has a hardcore fanbase: Why is Guitar Hero 2, a certainly casual game, selling 35,000 units per week, and the #2 game for the X360 this year? GH2 has been exhibiting very similar sales patterns (save the Christmas release, and the x4 console userbase) to the PS2. The PS2 was certainly a major system that sold to everyone. If it did similar numbers on PS2, why is it selling so strongly to a supposed hardcore fanbase? Afterall, if someone has GH2 on PS2, they don't need it on X360, as it doesn't offer a whole lot more. So maybe some of those 1.25m owners of GH2 in the US aren't your typical bald space marine faring 15-21 white males, are they?

Likewise, Madden is very similar. You CAN NOT argue Madden is a hardcore title. It's a perennial favorite game, that mimics the American's love of Football. It would be like arguing that PES or FIFA is hardcore in Spain or the UK, as it's their favorite pastime sport. Everyone buys games strongly on their favorite sports. Thats why Hotshots Golf, J-League Club Soccer, and Powerful Pro Baseball do well in Japan (Also Wii Sports), and aren't considered hardcore, are they?

Then you have the many other smaller-selling games. Why would a Disney game sell on the X360 at all? In the case of POTC3, the X360 version outsold every other version. And it's a Disney game! You also have Spiderman, Transformers, Shrek, and Harry Potter that still chart with comparible numbers to the PS2 versions, and are all above the Wii versions, save Harry Potter.

Then you have Viva Pinata and Lego Star Wars. 2 older vets. In the case of LSW2, it's sold nearly 500k copies in the US. And rounding it out, you have Viva Pinata, which although bombed on Week 1 managed 250k units LTD in the US. Although some might say "well, that shows that the X360 doesn't sell to kiddies and such", but the fact is, VP didn't have a ton of marketing to start with, and showed casual-style legs, having wound up with a 20x multiplier.

Then you have the other PC/HxC busters. Blue Dragon is charting well, a definate non-Xbox/PC fanbase game, Kameo did well @ launch, Banjo Kazooie 3 has been getting alot of hype (on a X360 too!), and so on.

Not only this, key sports games are doing remarkably better on the X360. Now, maybe its me, but if a game like Madden 2007 sells a few hundred thousand more units than the Xbox predicessors did, and other sports games routinely selling over 500k, I would think that the average gamer that was so pivital in the PS2 sales of the similar series, are gaming (some of them) on the X360, and are still middle of the road gamers.

So again, why are games like those selling AT ALL, when there are no casual or normal gamers?

 

The Xbox 360 is only for FPS Games

Okay, maybe some haven't heard this one, but back in the day, the Xbox and Xbox 360 were known as the "shooter boxes", as the only games that were ever made were *gasp* FPS and TPS games.

Now, in todays modern gaming, most of those that have those arugments have evolved. Now it's "The X360 only caters to you if you like FPS, or Sports, or Racing, or RTS games, or Simulation, or Real Time Strategy". I've heard many on these forums use those types of games, arguing that the X360 only has games in one of those catagories. But I must ask this: how many more genres of games does the X360 need before it just has a well-established diverse group of games? I understand and agree the platforming options are limited until Banjo Kazooie comes out, but outside of that genre, the X360 has had a great lineup of games.

Now, I won't spend as much time on this as the others, but it just seems with almost every passing month, another group of gaming genres are added to this list of "the X360 only has genre X and Y" - but they've added the rest of the alphabet now too. Not only this, any arguments against various niche-style games have been solved with the huge library of XBLA games. Puzzle games are becoming more prevelant on the X360 than ever before, as well as a strong showing of card games, family games, and such on XBLA. Again, what genres have no similar games in them? Microsoft has also done real well in trying to make first-party games that are for every genre, you have MS-made JRPGs, WRPGs, Platformers, Shooters, Racers, and such. So I fail to see how those games are just under the FPS/TPS mantra.

 

Software Sales for the X360 are so high because the system is only owned by Hardcore Gamers

This is one we've heard tons of times, and to a point, many have agreed with. It's a very well known fact the X360 tier ratios are ungodly. They lead every other console at this point in history, as well as are on track to be the #1 system for tier ratios.

But first, lets get #4 tied in with this one. The Xbox had the same tier ratios as every other system of the era (around 9-10 titles per system, at the end of it's cycle). So obviously the Xbox's supposed hardcore fanbase didn't exhibit this pecular attraction to lots of games, did they?

Let me argue this point: There is a solid reason the X360 games have been selling well, and it's not because of the userbase. It's because of the games themselves. If it was true that the X360 only had a hardcore following, for one reason or another, it would be safe to assume that the PS3 would be in a similar predicament, since it's very expensive, but that's not the case.

Here are the 2 reasons the X360 has such a great attach ratio:

#1. Highly reviewed games. Regardless, the X360 has the highest-rated must-have games compared to either next-gen competitor, as well as one of the highest-reviewed libraries of any system out there (it has more high-rated games in total than the DS has, btw). In the internet age, news spreads fast. So when a game gets a great review score, it gives it more marketing. Bioshock is a great example. It wasn't a game that anyone thought would sell, but since it recieved alot of great reviews, it wound up selling phenominally to start.

#2. High Replayability via XBL. I feel this is the #1 reason games are selling well. MS made a mandate for the X360 devs: They needed to add online functions and features. Now, many of the X360 games have multiplayer, add-on DLC, and such. Because of this, the X360 games have a vastly higher degree of replayability vs. previous-gen games. A shooter like Gears of War, without the online component would of never sold as well as it did if it didn't have multiplayer. Likewise, many games such as Madden, Lost Planet, Crackdown, Guitar Hero 2, Rainbow Six Vegas, and others have great online multiplayer, or stress added value pack-ins.

Now what does that have to do with higher software attach ratios? It keeps the games in the hands of the owners, rather than the used-copy bin at EB/GS. This has a huge effect on game sales. There's a reason Sony's business practices in Japan have been frowned upon. They tried to keep used copies out of the retail chain, forcing consumers to buy new. This is so key to attach ratios. If there are no used copies for cheap, customers must buy new, and that goes on the attach ratios vs. used copies not. Dragon Quest Swords, a short but good game, is a great textbook example of this phenomenon. It was 10hrs, no multiplayer, and rather easy. It sold out (around 300k copies first week). But after week 1, sales died off, and has had aweful legs despite the Wii dominating Japan. Why? Used copies are very, very common for DQS in Japan. So after the first week, many of the 300k copies had been played, beaten, and sold back to the retail stores, then re-bought. This killed the sales. It goes to show you how having longer, more challenging games via online content helps the tier ratios.

And again, why does the X360 exhibit so high tier ratios when the Xbox had a standard end-of-life figure? It all comes down to replayability, and word of mouth. It's why casual games like Brain Training, Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, Halo 2, and such do so well, and why one-off games like some RPGs die off quick in Japan, even with huge starting sales.

 

The X360 is only selling/catering to Xbox owners

Now, I'm sure many of us here can provide antecdotal input about how we know lots of people that bought X360s that didn't own Xboxes. I know a few myself that were PS2, GC, and such owners last gen.

Now, one must wonder: Where are the sales figures to argue a point? Obviously, the X360 is selling in a similar pace as the Xbox was, which gives the question of it.

However, what "hints" can we get at just sales figures? We can get some. Microsoft has also stated that 50% of the X360 owners never owned an Xbox, but we can argue that.

A quick look at Japan would be the easiest. After all, the X360 sales have surpassed the Xbox's sales as-of a few months ago, and is quickly outpacing it, easily showing it's broken the mold there. So that argument in Japan is obviously invalid.

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=XB&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&align=1

Of course, on inspecting that comparison chart, we can see the X360 is around 1.5m units ahead of the Xbox was, at a similar point. Not only this, the lead is increasing weekly, as the X360 only broke out of it's Xbox-style run in December, having greatly outsold the Xbox's comparible December.

Not only this, it's done it at a wickedly higher pricepoint. I know some feel the the price argument is bunk, but I do think the X360 has done very well, despite costing 2x as much for the standard model. Remember, the Xbox had it's first pricedrop within 6 months of release, whereas the X360 finally had a pricedrop after 19 months.

Time will tell on this one more, but it's safe to say that if a system is selling MORE than the previous generation system did, that it *might* mean that it's selling to a broader fanbase.

 

Just a few things to think of. Feel free to discuss, but I had to get it off my chest ;)

As you've said, there is a bit of truth to the statements. A disproportionate amount of top sellers had been shooters. Because the 360 is an expensive console, it precludes a large amount of casual gamers from picking it up. And yet this isn't true to the extent that many would have you believe.

You've got a lot of good statements here -- many of which I agree with. I don't have time to respond to everything I agree/disagree with, but I agree with your overall message that the 360 is unfairly characterized as a hardcore-only device or an FPS only device. The tie in ratio is high because there have been a lot of good games, as you noted, and also because it sold almost exclusively to people willing to put a lot of money toward gaming (since the majority of them put $400 down). If the PS3 had as many good titles as the 360, the tie in ratio would probably be competitive.

Viva Pinata should have sold more than it has. It didn't have a ton of marketing, but it is a really high quality game which explains its long legs. This is the biggest question mark for me going forward about the 360: why hasn't this game sold much better?

The recent Nelson survey should also shed some light on some of the common arguments -- would a 'hardcore' gamer who owned the 360 likely know that the 360 can do HD graphics? According to the recent Nelson survey, only 30% of 360 owners knew it was an HD console. This alone should be enough to suggest that non-hardcore gamers are buying the 360.

shush, do you really think anyone wants to read such long threads?

Seriously, I don't feel like reading trough your whole post, but I think the argument that the Xbox and the Xbox 360 are only owned by hardcore gamers is crap. But I think true is that the percentage of the 15-25 year old male console owners is the highest for the Microsoft consoles.

It depends on your definition of hardcore.

Core gamers last gen were the guys that played insane amounts of hours and bought lots of games.

Now with Nintendo's new push, the former casual players have become core players and the non gamers are becoming casual players (people who normally do not play games that are playing Wii) at least that's the plan.

So there really should be 3 categories of players, not 2.

Hardcore player- People who buy lots and lots of games and are mostly attracted to certain types of games (games that they play through and beat and not just play them as a passtime).

Core players- People who buy games but go by what's hyped, or what's big and they also have an interest in licenesed movie games or sports games and such to a greater extent than the last group.

Casual players- the new casual players are the ones that either did not play games at all before or very rarely did and now are into the Wii because of that type of game and the controls and such.

In this sense, both the 360 and PS3 mostly cater to the core and hardcore audience with a few exceptions (Scene it, maybe Viva Pinata if it's bought by a kid, Buzz or Singstar).

The Wii is the only one catering in a huge way to the new casuals with a lot more casual-centric games coming out.

Nintendo, and I would agree that the X360 has a higher-than-normal number of 15-25 y/o white males, but it's not in the way to characterize it as a hardcore gaming machine.


As for VP's sales:

To be fair, it's a pretty strange genre. It's a fantastic game, and one of my favorites for the X360. The issue is that it combines a great kid-friendly design, with a very difficult simulation-style gameplay. So the kids that want it might not understand it, while the game might look to childish for the sim-fan to buy.

Nevertheless, it sold 15k or so first week, and managed 250k overall. If Microsoft makes a VP2 (which they will), it'll sell alot better.

I'd compare Viva Pinata to Nintendo DS's Ouedan 1 and 2 (aka, Elite Beat Agents). It recieved very high reviews, but for some strange reason didn't sell good (about 75k or so in Japan for Ouedan 1). But when Ouedan 2 rolled around earlier this year, it wound up selling 260k thus far. So I think a VP2 would be very similar in sales.

I don't think MS will make another Viva Pinata, they took the franchise to a party game and thus down the shitter for me.

There is no console that caters literally only to the hardcore types because there is cross over between core players and hardcore players in certain games which is when a game gets great reviews, creates a huge fan base and sells a lot (halo).

If it only has hardcore players interested in it, it becomes a niche title that gets good reviews but fails to sell huge amounts.

If it only has core players or casuals interested in it then it gets crappy reviews (for the most part) but it can sell good to those audiences.

mrstickball said: Nintendo, and I would agree that the X360 has a higher-than-normal number of 15-25 y/o white males, but it's not in the way to characterize it as a hardcore gaming machine.

That's exactly what I meant.

 I mean, the vast majority of people buying consoles, being hardcore or not, is 15-25 years old and male. The question is, what do the consoles have to attract other demographic groups?

Nintendo consoles always sold good for kids and gaming interested girls as well, and because they are on the market for a long time also to older gamers, I think we don't have to discuss that.

Sony consoles were market leader for ten years now, and that means that you have games from all the genres and can attract all the groups. The two most important groups Sony attracted are RPG-girls (most of the gaming girls I know prefer RPG's) and kids playing movie games, platformers or also other stuff of course. Later on, Sony could also attract groups that were not related to gaming with EyeToy, Singstar, Buzz etc.

 That leads us to Microsoft. IMO, though I don't really know the entire Xbox/X360 libraries, those consoles only have a handful of games that attract other groups. As it looks, those games didn't reach yet to sell the 360 to other groups, surely also depending on its pricepoint.

 If we look at the sales you listed again, we should not think about their appeal to hardcore gamers but about their appeal to 15-25 year old males. This shows that the games selling over a million are typical games for this group while Lego Star Wars and Viva Piñata don't fit this pattern. I think this illustrates my point quite well.

Nice read mrstick..... and long, but I did read it all and I do agree with you, the 360 is doing well and there is no question that all the stereotypes you listed make little sense... though I don´t get how it´s bad that softwares sales are so high, the games are good and lots of people buy them, only shows that hardware sales are not everything.

I think we also need to do some definition work on this site, hardcore is a very overused word around here and everyone means something different, lots of people think it has to do with what games you play and if you play them online (FPSs Racers) others think its about how much time you spent playing and again others say its about how many game/consoles you own. My older brother doesn´t plays videogames at all anymore, except for Civ, and belive me he´s pretty damn hardcore at Civ. So what does that make him ???

Quite a large and nice post, I just want to throw in my thoughts on the 4 statements.

 

mrstickball said: "The Xbox 360 only appeals to hardcore PC/Console gamers"

Well, the word only is wrong, but there is a truth to the sentence, and thats in alliance with the next one:

 

mrstickball said: "The Xbox 360 is only for FPS games"

 Again the word only. I would say the 360 is FPS centric, but microsoft do its best to change that. I personaly thought they would fail. But looking at Blue Dragon, and how much hardware it moved, they seem to succsess at core gamers other genres more and more. Only casual gamers don't use the box. Viva piniata sales show that. Guitar Hero may a casual title. But the numbers can also come from core/hardcore. These can buy casual titles, its just not working the other way arround. Microsoft failes missarbly at the hard casual, but they don't targeting them realy much right know. They target first the Hardcore, now the core and seem to be very successful with both. They begin to start to targeting the casual, and well it seems they start to have succsess. If they play their card rights, they could realy put up a fight against the Wii in NA, delaying the cross over to 2009.

mrstickball said: "Software sales for the Xbox 360 are so high because the system is only bought by hardcore players"

 Only, you like the word, don't ya. Yes the Box is Core and Hardcore centric (at the moment). I personaly don't see a problem with that. That means higher attach rate then the Wii e.g.. For these higher Attach rate you need good games, but you need them anyway to get the core and hard core.

mrstickball said: "The Xbox 360 is only being bought by Xbox owners, and won't sell more than 25m units"

Thats not even a statement. Thats things people say, if they don't have a statement ore argument left, and it is bs. The same goes fore "The Wii is not next gen", "120 Million PS2 owner wait to buy a PS3" etc. pp.