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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Wii at 35 million worldwide XBOX 360 at 29 million Jan 1st 2009

Dodece on 02 November 2007

I knew I would.

By the end of 2006 The PS2 had sold 8,751 games world wide. That factors out to 1,071 games annually. Factor in a doubling of development costs over the years, and it is realistic to expect 500 games annually for the Wii console. This is your average market cap for the Wii. Now realize that some markets are larger then others.

Now realize that Asia got over three times the games development that the North American market received. Then you reach a number or around 125 games for North America. The PS2 sold an average of 171 games annually in North America. During the coarse of this year the Wii has definitely exceed a hundred titles, and will exceed over two hundred titles including the Virtual console. Looks to me like the Wii is already getting to that ceiling in its first year.

The exponential logic would predict that that as the consoles sales double software titles provided will double. So if in the first year the console has sold six million consoles and has seen over two hundred games total for the first year. By the end of year three if consoles sales remain stable. The console must receive six hundred games annually that year. Let me say that again six hundred games for one console in one year in one market. That would be three times the games produced for a console that as of this moment posses a total of one eight the total volume that the PS2 possessed at the end of eight years on the market.

Can you see where the logic is heading. Your saying that the Wii is going to support more software titles annually then the PS2 was supporting annually by the end of its eight year, and it will be doing that in under eighteen months. Thats far too much competition for so few customers.

I would say that the Wii actually has a annual market cap of around 150 hard copy software titles in North America. That would be the physical limitation your looking at. No your not going to get two hundred titles just, because a new demographic is making up a larger percentage of ownership. Your going to get fewer core titles had the market remained traditional.

Seriously the Wii is not going to produce more physically distributed software then the PS2 averaged. The market can expand, but its not going to reach the PS2 volume for quite some time. You need to adopt realistic expectations.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece

Around the Network
Sqrl on 02 November 2007
rocketpig said:
Sqrl said:

As far as the not proving anything that wasn't focused at you as an attack but rather at Lost who seemed to be taking your argument as gospel. Not sure why you really felt the need to respond to it unless you thought it was a negative remark but considering the rest of what I said I don't see how you could have taken it that way. If anything my comments about your argument were positive even if not in total agreement.

As for your last paragraph I tend to agree that they have turned a corner in NA, but do you really think that their current 130-150k a week number is sustainable? I certainly don't and I would be beyond shocked if it didn't return to below 70k weekly starting next year. For now it will likely stay at a fairly high level throughout the holidays as many folks pick up a 360 & Halo 3 for X-mas.

As it stands right now with the week of the 27th/28th wrapped up the 360 needs to sell 3.26m consoles over Nov/Dec to break 16m this year. That isn't the same as last year but rather a 16% increase over last year's 2.825m (approx), thats more than a mentionable difference. Now is it a doable number? Of course it is, I never ruled it out. But my current prediction after looking over this new week of info will probably see the 360 selling about the same as last year +/- 200k which would be in the neighborhood of 15.36m to 15.76m.

I think all of that constitutes more than a legit line of reasoning whether you agree with it or not is up to you but to say that I "have no brain" because of my prediction is going a little far and is definitely not the kind of rhetoric I expect from a mod in a debate of ideas based almost entirely in opinion, particularly when it was unprovoked. Its just as easy for my to claim that "Anyone who thinks the 360 will sell more than 8 consoles this holiday is an idiot!". But as you know a strong proclamation of one's certainty is not a proclamation of fact.

In any case, I will conclude this by saying what I have said in another post recently. I am not 100% accurate with my predictions and I never made a claim that I was. If folks want to debate it a bit, I am glad to join in. But I don't really feel the need to be involved in a debate where the other person is going to set hard fast limits on what I am allowed to say/think/post and then if/when I deviate from their prescribed box of operation be insulted for it.


For the sake of brevity, I cut out parts of the post. No need to get so upset about my comments Sqrl, they were a good-natured poke at your predictions. I respect you as a poster and think you have well-articulated arguments. I didn't mean to insult you and sometimes intent is lost over the Intraweb.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on Nov-Dec sales. I think the 360 will outperform its 2006 numbers simply because of Halo. You know that there are still loads of parents out there who couldn't afford to buy their children a $350 console and $60 game in September; over the holidays, that will change and Halo will continue to push units until 2008.

As for the 360 holding 100k+ weekly next year, I'll agree that it won't happen. But I do believe that we'll see improved sales over 2007. How much improved? I don't really know.

And BTW, you can post whatever you want; I have yet to even reprimand a poster (other than the occassional "stop trolling" post). I'm not the type to tell someone what they can and cannot think, though I will argue with them if I disagree. I think you're confusing me with other admins. :D


 The only part that really bothered me was the suggestion of a minimum guess.  The rest of the stuff about "not understanding why you brought up ____" was genuinely not understanding where you were going with it.

I'm fine with an "agree to disagree" approach, someone's gotta be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time if it was me and I doubt it would be your first time either =P But just to be clear I did say I think Halo 3 will continue to be a factor at least through the holiday, possibly further but at least that long.

I never meant to imply you would ban folks for saying stuff, just that you were placing labels on folks who went below a pre-set line and it does serve as a deterrant for people adding in their predictions...especially when the name is in red.  But I would have been beyond shocked if you had utilized mod powers to enforce it, I like to think I have a better read on your personality than that. And I honestly wouldn't expect anything like that from you.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl on 02 November 2007
Dodece said:
I knew I would.

By the end of 2006 The PS2 had sold 8,751 games world wide. That factors out to 1,071 games annually. Factor in a doubling of development costs over the years, and it is realistic to expect 500 games annually for the Wii console. This is your average market cap for the Wii. Now realize that some markets are larger then others.

Now realize that Asia got over three times the games development that the North American market received. Then you reach a number or around 125 games for North America. The PS2 sold an average of 171 games annually in North America. During the coarse of this year the Wii has definitely exceed a hundred titles, and will exceed over two hundred titles including the Virtual console. Looks to me like the Wii is already getting to that ceiling in its first year.

The exponential logic would predict that that as the consoles sales double software titles provided will double. So if in the first year the console has sold six million consoles and has seen over two hundred games total for the first year. By the end of year three if consoles sales remain stable. The console must receive six hundred games annually that year. Let me say that again six hundred games for one console in one year in one market. That would be three times the games produced for a console that as of this moment posses a total of one eight the total volume that the PS2 possessed at the end of eight years on the market.

Can you see where the logic is heading. Your saying that the Wii is going to support more software titles annually then the PS2 was supporting annually by the end of its eight year, and it will be doing that in under eighteen months. Thats far too much competition for so few customers.

I would say that the Wii actually has a annual market cap of around 150 hard copy software titles in North America. That would be the physical limitation your looking at. No your not going to get two hundred titles just, because a new demographic is making up a larger percentage of ownership. Your going to get fewer core titles had the market remained traditional.

Seriously the Wii is not going to produce more physically distributed software then the PS2 averaged. The market can expand, but its not going to reach the PS2 volume for quite some time. You need to adopt realistic expectations.

 Just curious what % of the PS2 market do you actually think was actively purchasing games during that timespan of its 8th year?  If you think it was all 120m+ your way off.  The fact is most people stopped buying PS2 software a long time ago and a direct install for install base comparison is NOT a valid market comparison.  

Not to mention I am not sure where you are getting your 3x asia development rate which you are using to justify a rather larger sales division to even get that 125 number.  You need to use hard numbers if you are going to do this type of analysis and this 3x number isn't the only place you are lacking hard numbers (see market size).

None of this is even mentioning the assumption being made about the future of Wii software being a huge boom, which isn't really a bad thing.  Even if you are right and the market cannot sustain the games its not as if there will be less good games made.  The fact is that a saturated market forces companies to disitinguish themselves and quality is one of the best ways to do that.   

So in short, I think your analysis is jumping to a lot of conclusions prematurely, and should all of those assumptions turn out correct I still don't think it is going to result in the conclusion you are getting.   
To Each Man, Responsibility