By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Sales share among the consoles; EA, Activision and Ubisoft

bonkers555 on 16 October 2009

I really wonder how Capcom, Namco, Konami, Sega and Tecmo/Koei number look like. I bet it will favor Sony.



My Video Games Collection/Set-Up.

Around the Network
Serious_frusting on 16 October 2009

That data to be honest is wrather pointless. The best thing you can do is compare individual releases. or just average a few later ones out because sales from 2 years ago do not reflect sales for games of today



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

NeoRatt on 16 October 2009

Interesting numbers...

Looks like the big 3 won't be dropping support for 360 anytime soon...

Given Wii's install base, it is pretty crappy for 3rd parties...

PS3... Given that it is more then 75% on 360's install base, I would expect to see higher numbers... But not bad where it is at...

It would be interesting to see after expenses profit for each console. I am assuming sales means revenues and not the inclusion of expenses.



Soundwave on 16 October 2009

360 is a monster for third parties in the West, no surprise there.



Killergran on 16 October 2009
RVDondaPC said:

Those were not cherry picked. Those were the two most recent EA titles that were released on both consoles. I will gladly wait for the next two to come along and prove you wrong again.

And that's a great conclusion you came to but like I said it is useless and misleading for current market analysis. If you really think an EA game released on the 360 and PS3 will sell 50% more on average on the 360 than on the PS3, you are a fool. Not only does your data fail to minimize the year of additional releases , it fails to factor in delayed ports, and unestablished userbases at the time of release which are no longer issues in the marketplace. And you also fail to factor out the impact of recent exclusives like Left 4 Dead sales.  The same can be said for Ubisoft and Activision's ratios. They are grossly misleading and your conclusions, though it may be accurate in your math, are useless and misleading. 

Your initial data posted would have one believe that a 360 game outsells a PS3 game by 100%(a ridiculous number), then in your last post you finally added in the factor of the additional games which cut that increase to 50%(which is better but still rather misleading). Well I decided to total up the games released this year and see the sales difference. I added the sales of the 12 different EA titles released this year (trivial pursuit, tiger woods 10, Skate 2, NHL 10, Madden 10, NBA Live 10, Harry Potter: HBP, FIFA 10, NFS: Shift, Fight Night: R4, Godfather II, and Beatles Rock Band) The total sales came out to 5.66 million units for XBOX 360 and 4.63 million units for the PS3. That comes out to only a 22% sales advantage for the 360. That is not even close to the ratio posted in the OT and still less than half the advantage in your subsequent conclusion.

So if you would have done your analysis last year and used it to predict this years sales you would have been way off and if you worked for EA to forecast sales or success on a console you would have been fired. Expect the rest of this year and next years sales ratios to be even a smaller sales advantage for the 360 and maybe even close to no or minimal advantage. 

 

As for Activision, though I suspect the sales advantage is also grossly smaller than the 75% you believe it to be on average, I don't think it will be as minimized as EA's sales advantage has been. And that is exclusively because of the COD franchise. The 360 kicks the PS3's ass with the series and will continue to do so with the MS/MW2 promotional relationship that they have established. As for all the other activision games the sales advantage will be very Minimalized. The same can be said for the whole Ubisoft line up. 

This here is analysis and explanations of the data. It's also clear that it is an analysis that is set on defending or explaining the difference between PS3 software and xbox software sales. That's all fine by me. But it does not render the original data (which is not mine, nor is it Pineapple's) useless or meaningless. It was not presented as a "Xbox is better than PS3" piece, merely as raw data to be looked upon. And it IS interesting in that respect, mostly because gathering that data for oneself is a hideous task.

If you thought the analysis was lacking it was because there WAS no analysis. There was just the complete data of how much each company had sold on each console. I find it to be interesting, and you find it useless because there was no analysis with it. But without the data, there can be no analysis.

It's sort of like saying that showing the numbers of how much the consoles have sold each week and in total is meaningless because it doesn't take into account how long they have been on the market, what pricepoint they are at, what is included in the bundles, what games are available etc. Raw data is just that, and it is what you make of it that is interesting.

As we did in this thread. Investigate, explain, analyse. I, at least, couldn't have done it without the totals numbers Pineapple put up. This particular set is particulary good for seeing how well each company are doing on each platform, relative to each other. If you want to construct a set that is good at determening how well PS3 games are holding up against Xbox 360 games, I would be very interested in seeing your analysis and data. Perhaps 2008-2009, adjusted for differences in platform size and excluding exclusives would be a good place to start.

 



This is invisible text!

Around the Network
RVDondaPC on 16 October 2009
Killergran said:
RVDondaPC said:

Those were not cherry picked. Those were the two most recent EA titles that were released on both consoles. I will gladly wait for the next two to come along and prove you wrong again.

And that's a great conclusion you came to but like I said it is useless and misleading for current market analysis. If you really think an EA game released on the 360 and PS3 will sell 50% more on average on the 360 than on the PS3, you are a fool. Not only does your data fail to minimize the year of additional releases , it fails to factor in delayed ports, and unestablished userbases at the time of release which are no longer issues in the marketplace. And you also fail to factor out the impact of recent exclusives like Left 4 Dead sales.  The same can be said for Ubisoft and Activision's ratios. They are grossly misleading and your conclusions, though it may be accurate in your math, are useless and misleading. 

Your initial data posted would have one believe that a 360 game outsells a PS3 game by 100%(a ridiculous number), then in your last post you finally added in the factor of the additional games which cut that increase to 50%(which is better but still rather misleading). Well I decided to total up the games released this year and see the sales difference. I added the sales of the 12 different EA titles released this year (trivial pursuit, tiger woods 10, Skate 2, NHL 10, Madden 10, NBA Live 10, Harry Potter: HBP, FIFA 10, NFS: Shift, Fight Night: R4, Godfather II, and Beatles Rock Band) The total sales came out to 5.66 million units for XBOX 360 and 4.63 million units for the PS3. That comes out to only a 22% sales advantage for the 360. That is not even close to the ratio posted in the OT and still less than half the advantage in your subsequent conclusion.

So if you would have done your analysis last year and used it to predict this years sales you would have been way off and if you worked for EA to forecast sales or success on a console you would have been fired. Expect the rest of this year and next years sales ratios to be even a smaller sales advantage for the 360 and maybe even close to no or minimal advantage. 

 

As for Activision, though I suspect the sales advantage is also grossly smaller than the 75% you believe it to be on average, I don't think it will be as minimized as EA's sales advantage has been. And that is exclusively because of the COD franchise. The 360 kicks the PS3's ass with the series and will continue to do so with the MS/MW2 promotional relationship that they have established. As for all the other activision games the sales advantage will be very Minimalized. The same can be said for the whole Ubisoft line up. 

This here is analysis and explanations of the data. It's also clear that it is an analysis that is set on defending or explaining the difference between PS3 software and xbox software sales. That's all fine by me. But it does not render the original data (which is not mine, nor is it Pineapple's) useless or meaningless. It was not presented as a "Xbox is better than PS3" piece, merely as raw data to be looked upon. And it IS interesting in that respect, mostly because gathering that data for oneself is a hideous task.

If you thought the analysis was lacking it was because there WAS no analysis. There was just the complete data of how much each company had sold on each console. I find it to be interesting, and you find it useless because there was no analysis with it. But without the data, there can be no analysis.

It's sort of like saying that showing the numbers of how much the consoles have sold each week and in total is meaningless because it doesn't take into account how long they have been on the market, what pricepoint they are at, what is included in the bundles, what games are available etc. Raw data is just that, and it is what you make of it that is interesting.

As we did in this thread. Investigate, explain, analyse. I, at least, couldn't have done it without the totals numbers Pineapple put up. This particular set is particulary good for seeing how well each company are doing on each platform, relative to each other. If you want to construct a set that is good at determening how well PS3 games are holding up against Xbox 360 games, I would be very interested in seeing your analysis and data. Perhaps 2008-2009, adjusted for differences in platform size and excluding exclusives would be a good place to start.


That's exactly what I said in my second post. I said thanks for the information it was interesting to note but that it was useless. So you found it interesting, I found it interesting, and then I added that it was useless data that can't be used to analyze. You then tried to defend it that it was not useless and can be used to draw meaningful conclusions and I proceeded to try to discount anything meaningful from this data. The only data that I said was meaningful(in my first post) was the last bit of data, that you are now trying to use in your last paragraph to show that there was meaningful data. You just back pedaled yourself into my first two posts.  



silicon on 16 October 2009

The information is interesting, but it's hard to draw any worthwhile conclusions that many responses seem to make.



Killergran on 16 October 2009
RVDondaPC said:

That's exactly what I said in my second post. I said thanks for the information it was interesting to note but that it was useless. So you found it interesting, I found it interesting, and then I added that it was useless data that can't be used to analyze. You then tried to defend it that it was not useless and can be used to draw meaningful conclusions and I proceeded to try to discount anything meaningful from this data. The only data that I said was meaningful(in my first post) was the last bit of data, that you are now trying to use in your last paragraph to show that there was meaningful data. You just back pedaled yourself into my first two posts.  

That's pretty much it, yep. What can I say, I read your second post, but since I didn't reply to that part it kinda fell out of my mind. Sorry for backpedaling.

In my defense I'll say that the only thing I saw you trying to analyze was PS3 sales vs. Xbox sales (for which the data isn't all that good, I agree) and seemed to dismiss the validity of all the data on only that basis. Also,  I still haven't understood what part of the data you found useful.

 



This is invisible text!

RVDondaPC on 16 October 2009

Sorry I could have made that clearer. I was talking about the last piece of data for each set. The % sales on a specific console for a publisher. Because with that data you can compare publishers sales to each other on a given console and you can determine a consoles reliance on a given publisher. The reason I find that data useful is because for each console the time period is fixed and thus you can evenly match up sales from EA to Ubisoft to Activision in determining who is the bigger publisher for the 360, or for the PS3, or the Wii.



wholikeswood on 16 October 2009

A lot more of 360 sales are Activision sales than PS3 sales, percentage-wise.

Shooterbox confirmed? :P