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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Why aren't PS3 owners more dedicated to their system's amazing games?????

Netyaroze on 07 December 2009
chubaca said:
as far as i know, the attach ratio of 360 is higher.

Now, you think that Europe as a whole is comparable to US in terms of income? I don't think so.

No I am not talking about Europe as a whole the core market in europe which is 95% of all sales is Netherlands Belgium France UK Denmark Italy Austria Switzerland Spain Portugal Irland Norway Germany Finland Luxemburg and Sweden this countrys have together the same Economy like USA.

This numbers are from the world bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNI.pdf

 

USA:  14.5 Trillion/year

Germany: 3.5 Tln

Uk: 2.8 Tln

France: 2.7 Tln

Italy: 2.1 Tln

Spain: 1.45 Tln

Netherlands: 0.82 Tln

Switzerland: 0.5 Tln

Sweden 0.5 Tln

Belgium: 0.47 Tln

Norway: 0.4 Tln

Austria: 0.38 Tln

Denmark: 0.35 Tln

Finland: 0,25 Tln

Ireland 0.22 Tln

Together 16.35 Tln population: About 370 Million. USA 14.5 Tln Population about 305 Million. The other countrys which are important for videogames have developed economys too. So money is not the limiting factor in the key markets. If there is really a big difference (which is yet to proof then it has something to do with the attitude).

Ofcourse the gaming market in the USA is more developed then in the mainland EU (not counting UK). But this has nothing to do with money its always been like this that the US is one step in front of everyone else in terms of media (except Japan). The reason is because this countrys develop a big part of media which is exported to Europe.Games Consoles Movies Series Music.

 

Lets take the numbers from love2splooge:

 

2009 numbers (until now) Software for both HD Consoles is: 100 Millon. Xbox has 56% and PS3 44% of the HD market. If both consoles would move the equal amount of software it would look like this: 56 Million for Xbox and 44 Million for PS3 but the PS3 should have sold 5.5 million units more to move as much software as the Xbox360 (proportional). 

 

And the PS3 had the whole year until september a disadvantage of 8.5 Million Consoles so the Xbox (HD) marketshare was even bigger back then:  The difference is not as big as most people think it is. a couple of millions which could be compensated throughout December. After the holidays I will make a thread with a precise calculation.

If you have numbers which show that the US has a significantly bigger Tie ratio for PS3 or Xbox360 I will reconsider my opinion.

 

I really believe that the PS3 will catch up quickly to the Xbox360.  And the strength in Europe is NO disadvantage.

 

 

 



Around the Network
Squilliam on 07 December 2009
Reasonable said:
Squilliam said:

The sales will tell you what the fans want. If the fans want a sequel then they will pay for it. People don't just blindly sit around suffering for no reason because the software vendor deems they should. I don't think Mario fans are suffering... Nor pokemon... nor GT which is the same game with new cars and graphics essentially.

Sony is stupid because they failed to create franchises and they are reaching around for something that will stick. Do you think EA, the father of the milk it till its dead concept is creating new franchises because they want to get on our good books? No, both Sony and EA are similar in that they are looking to create new franchises to milk.

Do you want to know whats stupid? Its not the people going down to the store buying a game like call of duty and passing up something like Killzone. Do you know why? Because its probably a better, more accessible and more fun game for them to play. Its Sony for focusing on graphics and cutscenes and forgetting about simple things like split screen local multiplayer, forgetting that people percieve high latency 170ms+ killzone 2 thank you very much vs 100ms Halo 3 or 60 ms Call of Duty as bad/unresponsive controls and you can thank Sony for focusing on the kids jerking off at the screenshots on the internet and they forgot basic game fundamentals. Yes, Sony is the stupid one and the consumer is the smart one for not buying Killzone 2 for example and buying Call of Duty 6 instead.

Well, I agree that in the end if you want to shift the most units you appeal to the broadest (I'll avoid lowest) common denomonator possible (look at Transformers 2 for a sterling example in another medium), however I do cringe at the bigger implications for this, with the potential to see the ndustry awash in almost annual refreshes of popular stuff (L4D2 anyone) and a huge fear of innovation.

Mind you, I'm a bit of a snob in some ways about this, so maybe the masses should have their fun!

You also have to be mindful of the tradeoffs that you make to appease one group and the expense of the other, and many of these tradeoffs can have an overall negative impact in the reception of a game. The weight in the movement in Killzone 2 could be described as a method they hid the extensively parellelised engines increased latency, the difficulty in moving quickly through a level in Uncharted 2 could be described as a method they maximised the utility of their streaming engine. These are mass market games and they are going for as wide a market as possible.

There is a constant discourse in the industry of tradeoffs between the different potential elements which can make up a games design. If you target 60FPS you sacrafice graphics for gameplay, if you target 30 or less you sacrafice gameplay for graphics. If you make a game with an extensive story line you may put off people who want a simpler affair but if you make it too simple then you put off those who want a more complicated story. However one thing which seems clear is that the best games tend to sell the most in that they strike the best compromise which pleases the most people. Call of Duty 6 has extremely fluid gameplay and their artists and game design makes better use of 16ms than most art/design groups can do with 33ms.



Tease.