Support NeoGAF

[LordRaptor]

I did.

No, you posted a link to the playstation store.*
That is not proof that there are more games being released today on consoles than ever before.

I wasn't posting a link to XBLIG as a proof of anything, it is there to show you exactly why I find your claim highly doubtful, because XBLIG was churning out games for its entire existence, to an extent that far exceeds digital only releases on any current console - to the extent I do not even need to cite digital only titles that came out for consoles last gen.

Again; can you actually cite anything that shows there are more console releases today than ever before?

*the store which lists titles unavailable to actually buy or play (Days Gone), and multiple SKUs of regular games, and only for one single platform. Do you really not see the problem with you using that as an industry wide proof?

 

[Theslammer]

No, you posted a link to the playstation store.
That is not proof that there are more games being released today on consoles than ever before.

I wasn't posting a link to XBLIG as a proof of anything, it is there to show you exactly why I find your claim highly doubtful, because XBLIG was churning out games for its entire existence, to an extent that far exceeds digital only releases on any current console - to the extent I do not even need to cite digital only titles that came out for consoles last gen.

Again; can you actually cite anything that shows there are more console releases today than ever before?

You do realize you linked me to the Xbox Marketplace, right? Which is no different than linking to the Playstation Store?

So your number of 3400 counts even though it includes stuff like E3 2008 and Facebook as "games," but showing 1900 in less than half the time doesn't count because reasons.

I feel you're trying to point score and not really trying to talk honestly, and since I feel what I'm saying, however obvious, is falling on deaf ears, I don't think it's worth continuing this conversation with you. Sorry.

 

[LordRaptor]

Holy shit dude, it is - at least - considered good etiquette to provide evidence of a claim, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

Please, stop nit-picking a list I did not use as a proof, and address the claim you have made; you stated as a fact that there are more titles being released today on consoles than ever before.

If you do not have any actual proof to support that claim, please just say "But I could be wrong".
I am more than willing to be convinced that the decline in retail titles has been offset by the rise in digital only titles if shown any evidence - at all - that that is the case, but you continue to not provide that evidence!

 

[Turrican3]

Then either you're not being honest or, more likely, you think I'm trying to be dishonest.

Where am I ignoring it?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=241308120#post241308120

Now the PS4/XBO collectively are outselling their predecessors

^^ this is the claim you are/were using to demonstrate the health of the console market.

I'm 99% sure if we include Wii and WiiU the outcome is the exact opposite by a decent margin, and let's not even start taking into consideration DS and PSP numbers or this is gonna be a bloodbath.

And I can see how having a Wii U would make you think things are awful

But I explicitly told you I have been thinking about this far before the WiiU even began being conceived.

 

[Turrican3]

So what is the new Wii this gen? Nothing. Wii U cratered, and PS4/XO have only mild gains over their generation losing predecessors, which IMO is mostly just because they started at and got to better price points more quickly.

This generation is down ~40% so far, not even counting handhelds. Try and tell a stockbroker that a market being down 40% is 'healthy'.

Yep.

 

[Theslammer]

Holy shit dude, it is - at least - considered good etiquette to provide evidence of a claim!

I did, but you keep saying it doesn't count while linking me to the Xbox Marketplace which lists Facebook as a 360 game. It's getting tiresome that you see no problems with your proof (which, yes, you used as proof to do raise doubts about the claim), but keep splitting hairs that a whole DLC pack doesn't count as anything -- of course it does considering many DLC packs are bigger games than games from a decade or more ago, and if you want me to add that qualifier, I will.

The fact that the numbers are that high in less than four years compared to the 360's, which also has problems considering E3 conferences, Facebook and Last.fm and the 360 dashboard aren't games while games and expansions objectively are, is telling. But sure, I might be wrong.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=241308120#post241308120

Now the PS4/XBO collectively are outselling their predecessors

^^ this is the claim you are/were using to demonstrate the health of the console market.

I'm 99% sure if we include Wii and WiiU the outcome is the exact opposite by a decent margin, and let's not even start taking into consideration DS and PSP numbers or this is gonna be a bloodbath.

But I explicitly told you I have been thinking about this far before the WiiU even began being conceived.

No, it's part of what I used to demonstrate the health of it. The revenue, the games, were also part of it. If you include the DS and PSP, then you'd have to include mobile gaming as well to diagnose the mobile market. And the minute you start clipping what "counts" is the minute that your point isn't as strong as you think it is, because those DS games like FFVI Advance and Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies found their way into the mobile market.

And then you'd have to look at each device individually (Vita sold expensive memory cards, Wii U was expensive, etc.), and in which case it's not necessarily the market as it is a poorly sold system, which is nothing new.

I feel your argument centers around the industry being different. Games creating more add-on content, indie games continuing to release at a breakneck pace, aren't signs of a declining industry.

 

[MatPiscatella]

I'm not sure everyone's using the same definition of "healthy". Also, not sure how comparing the market of 2017 to the market of 2009-10 makes any sense whatsoever.

Try and tell a stockbroker that a market being down 40% is 'healthy'.

Totally. Must be why ATVI, EA, UBI, NIN and all the other big pubs' stocks are doing so poorly right now. Oh, wait.

I mean, you're looking at one very small slice of what has become a very large pie. There are far more ancillary revenue streams than way back in the day, and a lot more opportunities for monetizing. It's just a very different world. Back then, you had stores selling apples. Now, stores are selling apples, oranges, pears, whatever. You can't just compare apple sales from then and now and say that's how well the store is doing.

This is a terrible analogy. Need more coffee.

 

[Innolis]

Super glad Automata is still on the charts!!

 

[Theslammer]

I'm not sure everyone's using the same definition of "healthy". Also, not sure how comparing the market of 2017 to the market of 2009-10 makes any sense whatsoever.



Totally. Must be why ATVI, EA, UBI, NIN and all the other big pubs' stocks are doing so poorly right now. Oh, wait.

I feel like this point is being lost in it all and now we're trying to talk about what "counts" and what doesn't instead of looking at the industry and the money it's generating.

But as someone who works in this, do you think it's healthy? If so, do you think it's healthy in a completely different way than, say, 2007? I've seen movie ticket sales level compared to the highs early in the 21st century, but considering the revenue/profits, the actual industry seems to be doing very well in at least that aspect (though I know less about it as a whole than games).

 

[LordRaptor]

I did, but you keep saying it doesn't count while linking me to the Xbox Marketplace which lists Facebook as a 360 game.

I'm not linking to the xbox marketplace, you honestly don't seem to understand the difference here.

[total number of titles released] = [number of retail titles] + [number of digital titles]

You stated - as a fact, even when questioned ;
Today [total number of titles] > any prior gen [total number of titles].

Given that we know [number of retail titles] has decreased, the only way that can possibly be true is if [number of digital titles has increased] by more than the decrease in retail.

I'm "not counting" DLC because DLC can be applied to any game.
It is a revenue modifier; you can't sell DLC to a game that nobody owns, but you can sell a new game.

I linked XBLIG only as it has a round number at the top showing number of releases; I do not claim that everything there is 100% things anyone would actually want to play, or even 100% definitely a game, it is there solely to show the sort of magnitude of digital content that the 360 alone in only indie titles received last gen.

Conversely, your sole provided evidence that your original statement is true, on the very first page shows a sizable number of duplicate or invalid entries that suggests that that 1900 claim is sizably exaggerated; of the 30 entries shown, 9 are alternate SKUs which would - naive maths - lead me to assume that almost a third of those entries are not software releases but alternate SKUs.

If you want to make an argument that revenue can increase even while individual title releases reduce, that is fine - that is in fact what is actually happening - but that is a completely different argument than saying "more titles are being released now than ever".

 

[Theslammer]

I'm not linking to the xbox marketplace

That's interesting since your link landed me here:

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games?page=1&sortby=BestSelling

I'm "not counting" DLC because DLC can be applied to any game.

I think this is the crux: you'll count Facebook and the 360 Dashboard, but actual DLC or standalone expansions -- game content -- are not "counted." No.

I think we're done here. I'm not going to get honest answers from you.

 

[Hero]

I'm not sure everyone's using the same definition of "healthy". Also, not sure how comparing the market of 2017 to the market of 2009-10 makes any sense whatsoever.



Totally. Must be why ATVI, EA, UBI, NIN and all the other big pubs' stocks are doing so poorly right now. Oh, wait.

I mean, you're looking at one very small slice of what has become a very large pie. There are far more ancillary revenue streams than way back in the day, and a lot more opportunities for monetizing. It's just a very different world. Back then, you had stores selling apples. Now, stores are selling apples, oranges, pears, whatever. You can't just compare apple sales from then and now and say that's how well the store is doing.

This is a terrible analogy. Need more coffee.

Yeah, AAA single-player, story-driven games are not what they once were, the market has changed. The video game industry has grown and expanded for sure, but I think for people that primarily enjoy those AAA single-player games, the market is less healthy for having more of those games created. On this forum, I think we tend to have a lot of people within that mindset and game preference.

 

[D.Lo]

No, it's part of what I used to demonstrate the health of it. The revenue, the games, were also part of it. If you include the DS and PSP, then you'd have to include mobile gaming as well to diagnose the mobile market. And the minute you start clipping what "counts" is the minute that your point isn't as strong as you think it is, because those DS games like FFVI Advance and Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies found their way into the mobile market.

You are in fact arbitrarily including stuff from a completely separate market to make a point about things 'counting'.

It should be blindingly obvious what counts. Let's be crystal clear. We are talking about the console hardware and software market. Devices designed specifically for games, and the software that plays on them. This market has shrunk.

If a market loses sales to another market, and is down overall, it is not healthy relative to its previous state. If TV viewing is down due to online streaming, TV viewing is down. The console market has lost lots of sales to another market - PC/pocket PC (mobile). Sales in the other market do not then somehow prove console gaming is doing well!

I'll state it again - PS3 and 360 LOST last generation. And they lost HARD for the first four years (which is the period PS4Bone are being compared to in the comparisons) and made up ground later. Beating the first four years LTD of the losers of a previous generation does not somehow prove the market is fine.

 

[LordRaptor]

That's interesting since your link landed me here:

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games?page=1&sortby=BestSelling



I think this is the crux: you'll count Facebook and the 360 Dashboard, but actual DLC or standalone expansions -- game content -- are not "counted." No.

I think we're done here. I'm not going to get honest answers from you.

We're done here because you continue to not provide the proof that you obviously don't have in favour of nit picking an example and ignoring the actual argument.

 

[Theslammer]

Yeah, AAA single-player, story-driven games are not what they once were, the market has changed. The video game industry has grown and expanded for sure, but I think for people that primarily enjoy those AAA single-player games, the market is less healthy for having more of those games created. On this forum, I think we tend to have a lot of people within that mindset and game preference.

The interesting thing is many people have fond memories of 90s games -- who are also fans of AAA single-player experience (and I am) -- and AAA single-player experiences weren't a huge thing. Sonic, Mario, that was the big thing, with JRPGs really filling in the story-driven stuff (and they weren't even the most popular games).

I grew up playing WWF games, Goldeneye, Twisted Metal, Tekken, Lode Runner, Super Smash, etc., along with single-player stuff which really started to become a bigger thing as technology allowed for them to become bigger.

But the multiplayer stuff has always been huge; that's never really changed. Instead of making a new game that's not THAT much different, they make DLC/expansions. Instead of making a new Destiny every year, they supported the first for several years before making a proper sequel.

You are in fact arbitrarily including stuff from a completely separate market to make a point about things 'counting'.

It should be blindingly obvious what counts. Let's be crystal clear. We are talking about the console hardware and software market. Devices designed specifically for games, and the software that plays on them. This market has shrunk.

If a market loses sales to another market, and is down overall, it is not healthy relative to its previous state. If TV viewing is down due to online streaming, TV viewing is down. The console market has lost lots of sales to another market - PC/pocket PC (mobile). Sales in the other market do not then somehow prove console gaming is doing well!

I'll state it again - PS3 and 360 LOST last generation. And they lost HARD for the first four years (which is the period PS4Bone are being compared to in the comparisons) and made up ground later. Beating the first four years LTD of the losers of a previous generation does not somehow prove the market is fine.

Your last paragraph shows we have different definitions of "winning." The 360, despite not having the sales of the Wii, was doing quite well building its infrastructure, selling itself, and selling its games). Forum-dwellers seem to use these things are ways to gauge the industry, but it's so much more than that.

And I'll also let you read Mat's response to yours as your stockbroker comment was really detached from reality. If it helps, the PS4 will likely outpace the "winner," which was the Wii. But saying, "The PS4 outpacing its predecessor 'doesn't count' because the PS3 lost," is a reductive way of viewing the industry.

 

[Turrican3]

No, it's part of what I used to demonstrate the health of it. The revenue, the games, were also part of it.

There was nothing about revenues nor the games in that post though.
And of course revenues are going up if average prices are increasing as well, aren't them?

If you include the DS and PSP, then you'd have to include mobile gaming as well to diagnose the mobile market.

The mobile market we all know started with Android and iOS, which didn't exist when PSP and DS came to the market.

They *did* significantly erode the traditional handheld market by the way, but I don't think there was anything directly comparable back in 2004-5 unless I'm missing something.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=241308120#post241308120

Now the PS4/XBO collectively are outselling their predecessors

^^ this is the claim you are/were using to demonstrate the health of the console market.

I'm 99% sure if we include Wii and WiiU the outcome is the exact opposite by a decent margin, and let's not even start taking into consideration DS and PSP numbers or this is gonna be a bloodbath.

Not really it deepens on which companies you talking about .
For certain big 3rd party devs Wii and Wii U hardly effect much same for the handhelds.
And like i said for handhelds devs like in Japan some gone mobile and making loads of money .

I'm not sure everyone's using the same definition of "healthy". Also, not sure how comparing the market of 2017 to the market of 2009-10 makes any sense whatsoever.



Totally. Must be why ATVI, EA, UBI, NIN and all the other big pubs' stocks are doing so poorly right now. Oh, wait.

I mean, you're looking at one very small slice of what has become a very large pie. There are far more ancillary revenue streams than way back in the day, and a lot more opportunities for monetizing. It's just a very different world. Back then, you had stores selling apples. Now, stores are selling apples, oranges, pears, whatever. You can't just compare apple sales from then and now and say that's how well the store is doing.

This is a terrible analogy. Need more coffee.

Yep thing are very different now and will be very different in the future.
And who know what will happen then .

 

[Kill3r7]

Yeah, AAA single-player, story-driven games are not what they once were, the market has changed. The video game industry has grown and expanded for sure, but I think for people that primarily enjoy those AAA single-player games, the market is less healthy for having more of those games created. On this forum, I think we tend to have a lot of people within that mindset and game preference.

Well put. The console market is ridiculous anyhow. Here is an industry that has gone backwards in pricing when accounting for inflation. The hardcore fans are opposed to any attempt to monitize the hobby as though the console market exists solely for the love of the hobby rather than business. If the console industry was such a great business then why aren't the other tech giants outside of MS involved in it?

 

[DriftingSpirit]

Oh, we're back to this generation being doomed? Neat.

 

[Theslammer]

There was nothing about revenues nor the games in that post though.
And of course revenues are going up if average prices are increasing as well, aren't them?

There were more posts than that one, so the bold is a very weird comment.

How are the average prices going up when AAA games have been $60 for two generations? Never mind that that's irrelevant to whether an industry is healthy or not: if I'm bringing in more money and my stocks are doing better (and they are), I'm doing pretty well. You guys are reaaalllyy stretching what the definition of 'healthy' is.

The mobile market we all know started with Android and iOS, which didn't exist when PSP and DS came to the market.

They *did* significantly erode the traditional handheld market by the way, but I don't think there was anything directly comparable back in 2004-5 unless I'm missing something.

That... doesn't really change that the mobile market is doing great. A lot of that "traditional" stuff has found its way onto mobile. Once you start parsing what counts and what doesn't like that, it's because what you're saying doesn't have the weight you think it does.

Oh, we're back to this generation being doomed? Neat.

Yes, some people don't just want to be wrong about their gloomy predictions that they've made year after year, but I feel it's akin to people who say the world will end. I'm sure someone will eventually be right.

 

[MatPiscatella]

But as someone who works in this, do you think it's healthy?

This is a great question. But wow is it tough to answer.

Let's talk Console.

So, we finished a period of pretty significant market contraction in 2015. Packaged titles (which I use as a surrogate for big titles that drive HW sales, I'm not disregarding digital only titles, which are very important to a platform ecosystem, but I'm trying to work with the available data) fell off significantly, from over 700 in 2010 to around 200 in 2015. Publisher count fell at a similar rate. Many studios closed. It was rough. I wouldn't call this period particularly healthy.

However, publisher and packaged title count stabilized in 2015, and, when combining packaged, digital and DLC/MTX we started seeing overall spending growth again. Development risks have gotten bigger, but so have the potential rewards. It certainly appears as though it's much healthier now than it has been in recent years.

Which takes us back to the discussion on the last page. What is the comparable period to gauge what's "healthy"? Is it 2010 to 2017? If so, then I'd imagine one would say things are not particularly healthy. But if you compare 2014 to 2017? Then I think one would say things look healthy, if not pretty darn strong.

I look at today, comparing to a year ago, where Packaged sales are flat, Digital spend is up, HW spend is up, where we have a resurgent Nintendo in the Console space, a Sony that is doing very well, and a Microsoft that has a box still ahead of any other it has placed in the market and is making a big push with the One X... where we see games like those that have released this year and I think wow, this is the "healthiest" I've seen this market in years.

As with anything, it's a matter of perspective I guess?

 

[noshten]

Mat I had a question about Minecraft on Switch, are the sales from the Switch eShop not disclosed by Microsoft?

 

[Cornbread78]

so, um, slightly OT but isn't ROCKSTAR meant to be a mess and horrible people to work for?

I've been told the opposite. I guess it depends on the job you have there, or what project your hired for......



Nier, Horizon and MLB all still up there, very nice. Also good to see Mass Effect up there as well. The game really was a lot of fun to play despite some issues.

 

[D.Lo]

Your last paragraph shows we have different definitions of "winning." The 360, despite not having the sales of the Wii, was doing quite well building its infrastructure, selling itself, and selling its games). Forum-dwellers seem to use these things are ways to gauge the industry, but it's so much more than that.

It seems we do.

I have the objectively measurable definition of winning, and you have your own personal undefined subjective definition.

And I'll also let you read Mat's response to yours as your stockbroker comment was really detached from reality. If it helps, the PS4 will likely outpace the "winner," which was the Wii. But saying, "The PS4 outpacing its predecessor 'doesn't count' because the PS3 lost," is a reductive way of viewing the industry.

Lol no. No no no. You are the one detached from reality. The PS4 is nowhere near outpacing the Wii launch aligned. The Wii was at 80-85 million at this point. 40 million in the US alone.

Wii sales slowed in year 5 (to only 10 million that year), but the pace was then picked up by PS360, mostly due to them repositioning as Wii alternatives with Kinect and Move. Do you think the current gen losers Wii U and Xbone will sell ~25 million combined this year, like PS360 did?

I mean, you're looking at one very small slice of what has become a very large pie. There are far more ancillary revenue streams than way back in the day, and a lot more opportunities for monetizing. It's just a very different world. Back then, you had stores selling apples. Now, stores are selling apples, oranges, pears, whatever. You can't just compare apple sales from then and now and say that's how well the store is doing.

This is a terrible analogy. Need more coffee.

I was responding directly to the claim that PS4 and XO hardware sales being up on PS360 is proof the market is healthy. I was showing that in historical context, they are not proof of that, quite the contrary when PS360 were only 50% of the market at this point in their lives.

Other factors? Absolutely that can be argued. The market is clearly transforming. But that was not what we were talking about.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I feel like this point is being lost in it all and now we're trying to talk about what "counts" and what doesn't instead of looking at the industry and the money it's generating.

But as someone who works in this, do you think it's healthy? If so, do you think it's healthy in a completely different way than, say, 2007? I've seen movie ticket sales level compared to the highs early in the 21st century, but considering the revenue/profits, the actual industry seems to be doing very well in at least that aspect (though I know less about it as a whole than games).

Globally? Because I think with China that couldn't be the case.

 

[Theslammer]

This is a great question. But wow is it tough to answer.

Let's talk Console.

So, we finished a period of pretty significant market contraction in 2015. Packaged titles (which I use as a surrogate for big titles that drive HW sales, I'm not disregarding digital only titles, which are very important to a platform ecosystem, but I'm trying to work with the available data) fell off significantly, from over 700 in 2010 to around 200 in 2015. Publisher count fell at a similar rate. Many studios closed. It was rough. I wouldn't call this period particularly healthy.

However, publisher and packaged title count stabilized in 2015, and, when combining packaged, digital and DLC/MTX we started seeing overall spending growth again. Development risks have gotten bigger, but so have the potential rewards. It certainly appears as though it's much healthier now than it has been in recent years.

Which takes us back to the discussion on the last page. What is the comparable period to gauge what's "healthy"? Is it 2010 to 2017? If so, then I'd imagine one would say things are not particularly healthy. But if you compare 2014 to 2017? Then I think one would say things look healthy, if not pretty darn strong.

I look at today, comparing to a year ago, where Packaged sales are flat, Digital spend is up, HW spend is up, where we have a resurgent Nintendo in the Console space, a Sony that is doing very well, and a Microsoft that has a box still ahead of any other it has placed in the market and is making a big push with the One X... where we see games like those that have released this year and I think wow, this is the "healthiest" I've seen this market in years.

As with anything, it's a matter of perspective I guess?

Thank you.

This is where I stand, as well, along with the store/produce analogy you made. Then you have VR which Sony underestimated demand for to add to the console experience, and I'm quite excited about the next several years.

It seems we do.

I have the objectively measurable definition of winning, and you have your own personal undefined subjective definition.

I guarantee you MS wasn't looking at how the 360 was doing and growing and thinking, "Darn, we're not 'winning' AKA beating the Wii."

That's why your definition is not only subjective, it's wrong. Forum-dwellers talk about who "won" a console generation. That's not how a business operates.

Your Wii example pretty much made my point for me: nowhere did I say it's currently outpacing the Wii. However, considering how it dropped off, I fully expect the PS4 to sell more than the Wii by the end of its life. So before talking about people being "detached from reality," I suggest reading their posts carefully, or else you'll simply prove the point that ignorance begets confidence.

Globally? Because I think with China that couldn't be the case.

Sorry, I meant domestically. Worldwide has seen massive growth, indeed.

 

[MatPiscatella]

One point of clarification on last gen... the Xbox 360 outsold the Wii in both total HW units and SW spend.

I was responding directly to the claim that PS4 and XO hardware sales being up on PS360 is proof the market is healthy.

When I make those comparisons in the releases, I do so with the intention of showing relative strength of the Core consoles, with the assumption that folks understand that Portable isn't even quite the shell of what it once was and that Nintendo has had an outlier success in Wii, and outlier downside in Wii U and the Switch is still too early to call.

I don't think there's much of an argument against the Core consoles doing well compared to last gen (and even the gen prior... PS4/Xone combined installed base will eclipse time aligned PS2/XBX sometime before the end of the year).

As for using the Core consoles to make some overarching statement of the market, no, I don't think that would be appropriate.

Mat I had a question about Minecraft on Switch, are the sales from the Switch eShop not disclosed by Microsoft?

Correct. Minecraft Switch eShop sales are not in the current data.

Good points

Ambiguity everywhere, certainly.

 

[LordRaptor]

This is a great question. But wow is it tough to answer.

You had a line here about defining "healthy" as sustainability rather than growth which I somewhat agree with, (but would still expect a healthy industry to at least be matching population growth) but I think there's also inherent ambiguity about the definition of "the industry" - the transition to digital over retail is obviously better news for publishers than it is for retailers, or for secondary businesses involved in the logistical side of things like packaging, manufacturing and shipping.

It is also somewhat open to question whether the move to digital supports longterm health; moving from ~40% revenue per sale to ~70% is a noticeable short term increase in direct revenue, but it can only happen once; once everyone has been transitioned to digital purchases, the only real gains to be made from distribution model changes would be setting up your own storefront for 100% revenue, which I do not foresee platform holders being particularly willing to allow (although EA have made some steps in this direction on Xbox One)

 

[Theslammer]

I don't think there's much of an argument against the Core consoles doing well compared to last gen (and even the gen prior... PS4/Xone combined installed base will eclipse time aligned PS2/XBX sometime before the end of the year).

I made a similar statement a page ago but it was completely dismissed for whatever reason:

Have you see the numbers for the Xbox/GC? PS4 is outselling the PS2 day-to-date, and the Xbox One is easily outpacing the Xbox. GC and DC barely sold anything, and why would we exclude the Switch from this conversation?

 

[D.Lo]

When I make those comparisons in the releases, I do so with the intention of showing relative strength of the Core consoles, with the assumption that folks understand that Portable isn't even quite the shell of what it once was and that Nintendo has had an outlier success in Wii, and outlier downside in Wii U and the Switch is still too early to call.

I don't think there's much of an argument against the Core consoles doing well compared to last gen (and even the gen prior... PS4/Xone combined installed base will eclipse time aligned PS2/XBX sometime before the end of the year).

As for using the Core consoles to make some overarching statement of the market, no, I don't think that would be appropriate.

You are making this 'core' definition for consoles to suit your point. It has no basis in reality.

As I stated above, if you remove the Wii from last generation, the market was down. PS360 did not sell as much as PS2/XB/GC. Was last generation a contraction then?

The Wii was a console. It was not a 'non-core' console. It sold a billion games. The vast majority of those games were not Wii Fit. It had 120 3rd party million sellers. It had the highest selling (not primarily packed in) game of the generation, and it was a racing game.

The DS and too. New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart DS, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Mario 64 - these games all sold over 10 million copies. NSMB sold 30 million. Explain why they are not 'core' games? And if the highest selling games on a platform are core games, how can the platform be non-core?

Also, explain what exactly was 'non-core' about the Gamecube, since you've excluded that to be able to say PS4+XO will maybe beat PS2+XB launch aligned? It was significantly more powerful than the PS2, and had the games with the highest in-game polygon of the generation (the Rogue Squadron games both outperformed every single Xbox game).

What makes a console meet your definition of 'core'? It seems the definition is 'does not say Nintendo on the box'?

Note: I am mostly referring to international sales figures because that's all I have, even though this is an NPD thread.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

You had a line here about defining "healthy" as sustainability rather than growth which I somewhat agree with, (but would still expect a healthy industry to at least be matching population growth) but I think there's also inherent ambiguity about the definition of "the industry" - the transition to digital over retail is obviously better news for publishers than it is for retailers, or for secondary businesses involved in the logistical side of things like packaging, manufacturing and shipping.

It is also somewhat open to question whether the move to digital supports longterm health; moving from ~40% revenue per sale to ~70% is a noticeable short term increase in direct revenue, but it can only happen once; once everyone has been transitioned to digital purchases, the only real gains to be made from distribution model changes would be setting up your own storefront for 100% revenue, which I do not foresee platform holders being particularly willing to allow (although EA have made some steps in this direction on Xbox One)

There always the question of where thee market will go .
We could move away from hardware if streaming happens.
Or maybe they come a day when phones will play even consoles games .
There going to come a point where hardware going to matter less in the market IMO .

 

[Turrican3]

I guarantee you MS wasn't looking at how the 360 was doing and growing and thinking, "Darn, we're not 'winning' AKA beating the Wii."

Oh no, they surely as hell were looking at the 360 vs the Wii.

That's why we got Kinect from them (and Move from Sony)

That... doesn't really change that the mobile market is doing great.

Of course it is, I'm not claiming otherwise.

Let's try to add a couple of definitions so we have a complete picture.

Oldgen, for me, is PS3/X360/Wii/DS/PSP
Currentgen is PS4/XB1/WiiU/3DS/Vita

I think we should not include mobile in the comparison because mobile basically didn't exist back when the oldgen started: it appeared during the previous generation, but I think it actually affected the current one, not the previous (as DS+PSP sold over 200 million units and 3DS+Vita will likely fail to even reach half that number)

Mobile is also a completely different business model, for good or worse, and that's what makes the comparison even more difficult.

But most of all, you original claim was about the console market: we do both agree mobile is a totally different market, right?

On the other hand, we still have consoles and handhelds, with most of sales coming from physical (but strong rise of digital, that has to be acknowledged) and extra sources of revenue that came to life exactly during the PS360 era (DLC, microtransactions, paid online)

So there *is* a 1:1 comparison that we can make. Hell, current gen even has Nintendo fully onboard with all of this if we choose to include the Switch (it's just partly onboard if we only consider the WiiU due to its free online)

Now, we have less hardware being sold and less software being made for the platforms listed above... It could be a healthy market (depending on who you ask) but there's undoubtely a decline, if you ask me.

 

[Nirolak]

Yes. I was certain that so early an announce would be backed up by significant content, services and an attractive price.

I get that $499 makes sense for the components, and that this will appeal to a segment of core gamers (like me). However, I thought the positioning of the box would be targeted at a larger potential base. I caught slack for saying that I thought Scorpio had the potential to push Xone sales ahead of PS4 this year in the US. Well, I no longer think this is possible. I'm more with Welfare now, that the One X is being positioned somewhat differently, and to more of a core niche. Which is completely fine, I just don't think it will generate the units I was previously thinking.

Given the naming scheme and relatively low overall sales percentage of the PS4 Pro and (presumably) Xbox One X, do you feel we see console vendors actually asserting that they're still going to be following a generational model instead of a constant stream of consoles, at least in terms of how they title and market their systems?

Like with Microsoft especially, I felt there was a sense that they might just release a new box every 3-4 years without any of them being billed as "Xbox Two: Microsoft's Fourth Console" or whatever to indicate a full new generation. As it stands, both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X are named as if they're the equivalent of the Nintendo DSi, and seem to be more niche products for super-enthusiasts.

 

[MatPiscatella]

You are making this 'core' definition for consoles to suit your point. It has no basis in reality.

Oh.

As I stated above, if you remove the Wii from last generation, the market was down. PS360 did not sell as much as PS2/XB/GC. Was last generation a contraction then?

It was right in my post, a contraction between 2010-2015. I even used the word contraction.

However, software sales from the 9 year period from 2005-2013 were 55% higher than software sales in the 9 year period ending in 2004. So... no? Last gen wasn't a contraction at all from the previous? Like, where are you setting your gen barriers?

The Wii was a console. It was not a 'non-core' console. It sold a billion games. The vast majority of those games were not Wii Fit. It had 120 3rd party million sellers. It had the highest selling (not primarily packed in) game of the generation, and it was a racing game.

Ok? It was also a console with a majority of SW $ sales coming from 1st party, and a majority of 3rd party titles selling SW $ that, if they were called small, would be generous. Platform sales of software on Nintendo consoles does not behave all that similarly to sales of software on MS/Sony. Nintendo is its own thing, and the data suggest it should be evaluated in a different context.

The DS and too. New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart DS, Pokemon, Animal crossing, Mario 64 - these games all sold over 10 million copies. NSMB sold 30 million. Explain why they are not 'core' games.

I never said anything about the games themselves.

Given the naming scheme and relatively low overall sales percentage of the PS4 Pro and (presumably) Xbox One X, do you feel we see console vendors actually asserting that they're still going to be following a generational model instead of a constant stream of consoles, at least in terms of how they title and market their systems?

I wish I knew for sure. I just don't. I'm planning on a new gen of PS5/XNext in 2020, with low likelihood of 2019, but I also won't be surprised if I'm completely wrong about that.

Like with Microsoft especially, I felt there was a sense that they might just release a new box every 3-4 years without any of them being billed as "Xbox Two: Microsoft's Fourth Console" or whatever to indicate a full new generation. As it stands, both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X are named as if they're the equivalent of the Nintendo DSi, and seem to be more niche products for super-enthusiasts.

I've been wondering a lot about this... do they end up just going the Surface route, make a device for under the TV that's a PC with a console UI and store and it's just "Xbox" or whatever. I mean, from what I understand, the original idea of the Xbox was the DirectXbox with that kind of idea in mind.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Mobile is also a completely different business model, for good or worse, and that's what makes the comparison even more difficult.

This is where you are wrong .
Consoles games are moving more and more to how mobile games are .
In fact most of the big games on any platform are going that way .

 

[noshten]

Correct. Minecraft Switch eShop sales are not in the current data.

Thanks for the clarification - I expected a much larger bump so I was surprised it didn't move at all.

 

[LordRaptor]

There always the question of where thee market will go .
We could move away from hardware if streaming happens.
Or maybe they come a day when phones will play even consoles games .
There going to come a point where hardware going to matter less in the market IMO .

Well, for the console market, all subsequent revenue is entirely dependent upon that first console sale for the reasons I explained above; it is that baseline coefficient.
If we reach the point where 'thin client' streaming is a 'good enough' solution for mass market adoption, then the 'big players' are likely going to be the Apples, Samsungs, Amazons and Googles and we're basically talking streaming boxes rendering consoles obsolete.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

Oh no, they surely as hell were looking at the 360 vs the Wii.

That's why we got Kinect from them (and Move from Sony)

I mean, yeah, of course companies are always looking at ways to continue growing. Wii brought in the motion control craze and everyone else wanted some of the pie.

His point was about Microsoft's growth from Xbox to X360. They were surely very happy with the result. It brought in a far larger install base and Xbox Live subs brought in a large stream of new revenue. They didn't look at all that and go, "man, this is big growth from gen to gen but it ain't no Wii. Kinda disappointing."

 

[D.Lo]

It was right in my post, a contraction between 2010-2015. I even used the word contraction.

Which post sorry? I was responding to another posters point, I have not seen your post.

It was also a console with a majority of SW $ sales coming from 1st party, and a majority of 3rd party titles selling SW $ that, if they were called small, would be generous. Platform sales of software on Nintendo consoles does not behave all that similarly to sales of software on MS/Sony. Nintendo is its own thing, and the data suggest it should be evaluated in a different context.

So your definition of 'core' is just 'not Nintendo'? IMO that is a poor choice of word for that definition. What is core if not a majority or plurality of a market? The Wii WAS the literal core of the console market 2006-2010.

I never said anything about the games themselves.

So how is a platform full of core games a non-core platform?

 

[Turrican3]

This is where you are wrong .
Consoles games are moving more and more to how mobile games are .
In fact most of the big games on any platform are going that way .

I don't know, it seems to me they're still very, very different beasts. :-\

His point was about Microsoft's growth from Xbox to X360.

I think Microsoft was looking at both, i.e. doing better than Xbox, which they obviously did in a brilliant way, and trying to steal the motion craze, which arguably was a short lived success.

 

[MatPiscatella]

The Wii WAS the literal core of the console market 2006-2010.

From the 2006-10 period, $ sales of software on the Xbox 360 were 11% higher than those on the Nintendo Wii, despite Wii having an over 30% hardware installed base advantage at the end of 2010.

 

[maxcriden]

Any Switch HW info or any word on #s for MK8/BOTW/anything 3DS?

 

[Turrican3]

From the 2006-10 period, sales of software on the Xbox 360 were 11% higher than those on the Nintendo Wii.

Is that dollars or units?

(assuming you can give this kind of information, I don't know)

 

[DriftingSpirit]

I think Microsoft was looking at both, i.e. doing better than Xbox, which they obviously did in a brilliant way, and trying to steal the motion craze, which arguably was a short lived success.

Sure, but the latter didn't make the former less of a "winner" for them.

 

[Theslammer]

Oh no, they surely as hell were looking at the 360 vs the Wii.

That's why we got Kinect from them (and Move from Sony)

You're misreading the point.

It's not that they ignored the Wii; it's that I doubt they thought they were doing poorly simply because the Wii was selling more. Only one supermarket can be "number 1," but that doesn't mean others won't carve out their own niche or expand.

Of course it is, I'm not claiming otherwise.

Let's try to add a couple of definitions so we have a complete picture.

Oldgen, for me, is PS3/X360/Wii/DS/PSP
Currentgen is PS4/XB1/WiiU/3DS/Vita

I think we should not include mobile in the comparison because mobile basically didn't exist back when the oldgen started: it appeared during the previous generation, but I think it actually affected the current one, not the previous (as DS+PSP sold over 200 million units and 3DS+Vita will likely fail to even reach half that number)

Mobile is also a completely different business model, for good or worse, and that's what makes the comparison even more difficult.

But most of all, you original claim was about the console market: we do both agree mobile is a totally different market, right?

On the other hand, we still have consoles and handhelds, with most of sales coming from physical (but strong rise of digital, that has to be acknowledged) and extra sources of revenue that came to life exactly during the PS360 era (DLC, microtransactions, paid online)

So there *is* a 1:1 comparison that we can make. Hell, current gen even has Nintendo fully onboard with all of this if we choose to include the Switch (it's just partly onboard if we only consider the WiiU due to its free online)

Now, we have less hardware being sold and less software being made for the platforms listed above... It could be a healthy market (depending on who you ask) but there's undoubtely a decline, if you ask me.

The fact that it didn't exist is exactly why it's expanded. Again, it's not like they're completely different; many of those games find their way on mobile. I can play Ace Attorney on mobile, not just a DS. I can play Final Fantasy on mobile. To exclude it is to miss the point entirely, especially when the way to make money is way different now.

You'll have to show how "less software" is being made, first, and then you have to show if companies are doing poorly by making less. It certainly isn't showing in revenue or stocks (why'd you skip our revenue point when I told you games haven't increased in price?). If a contraction happened, it happened last gen, and it did. But as we saw, it also didn't mean the end of consoles.

I mean, yeah, of course companies are always looking at ways to continue growing. Wii brought in the motion control craze and everyone else wanted some of the pie.

His point was about Microsoft's growth from Xbox to X360. They were surely very happy with the result. It brought in a far larger install base and Xbox Live subs brought in a large stream of new revenue. They didn't look at all that and go, "man, this is big growth from gen to gen but it ain't no Wii. Kinda disappointing."

Thank you!

Anybody here ever used to watch wrestling or at least remember WWF/WCW in the 90s? It took a while for the WWF to be number 1 in the ratings, but even before it did, its growth was apparent in 1997 and 1998. So although I'm sure Vince McMahon wanted to (and eventually was) number 1, I highly doubt he looked at his company in January of 1998 and thought he was doing terribly. He was doing very well; I highly doubt he felt like a loser because simply getting higher ratings isn't how you grow your company and succeed (WCW thought that, and it failed).

Consoles "winning" is message board talk, imo. And it's sometimes fun, but hardly a way to gauge the industry.

 

[D.Lo]

From the 2006-10 period, sales of software on the Xbox 360 were 11% higher than those on the Nintendo Wii.

Fair call. That's In the US, which you presumably have data on and I do not. Wii was vastly ahead worldwide of course.

How about answering my other questions? Why is GC not core? How is the DS, whose highest selling games are Mario and Pokemon, not core? Why does core have to mean 'primarily 3rd party game focused environment'?

I mean clearly PS360 were the 'core' market for EA vs the Wii. But I would argue consumers had a different definition.

However, software sales from the 9 year period from 2005-2013 were 55% higher than software sales in the 9 year period ending in 2004. So... no? Last gen wasn't a contraction at all from the previous? Like, where are you setting your gen barriers?

YOU excluded the Wii from last generation to show PS4+XO are up against PS360 and this is proof of the 'normal' market doing well.

So if Wii is excluded (because it is a 'random outlier'), it must also be excluded in a comparison with the generation before as well. In which case, PS360 was a dramatic contraction on PS2/XB/GC. And yet I have never seen anyone call last generation a contraction until today.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Fair call. That's In the US, which you presumably have data on

Yep. US. NPD thread and all that.

Why is GC not core? How is the DS, whose highest selling games are Mario and Pokemon, not core? Why does core have to mean 'primarily 3rd party game focused environment'?

The use of "Core" in "Core Console" does not describe the games but the primary market. "Core" as in "Core Gamer Segment" that buys HD consoles, spends disproportionate amounts on software and services, etc etc.

But I would argue consumers had a different definition.

The work I do isn't targeted at consumers. If I was paid by consumers or had a youtube channel or whatever I'd use consumer definitions. But I'm not. I chat on GAF for fun and because y'all make me think about things in different ways. Certainly not here to generate revenue.

 

[joe_zazen]

Wii U was an unappealing product the market rejected which followed a hyped console that failed to deliver in the last few years of its life, from what I understand. I get the feeling some want to blame the decline solely on a general decline in console gaming without factoring in Nintendo's failure.

And Mat is right, it is a mater of perspective. Depending on criteria, the console market can be seen as healthy or unhealthy. One thing is for sure though, more people are playing video games of all kinds than ever and there is more money to be made than ever.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

From the 2006-10 period, $ sales of software on the Xbox 360 were 11% higher than those on the Nintendo Wii, despite Wii having an over 30% hardware installed base advantage at the end of 2010.

Xbox 360 software was also generally $10 more expensive at $59.99 versus the Wii's $49.99.

 

[Clear]

I'll state it again - PS3 and 360 LOST last generation. And they lost HARD for the first four years (which is the period PS4Bone are being compared to in the comparisons) and made up ground later. Beating the first four years LTD of the losers of a previous generation does not somehow prove the market is fine.

Well there are quite a few caveats to that, most notably due to the definition of generational sales being a mutable concept.

Although Sony spluttered horribly out the gate with PS3, over the same period they shipped a very substantial number of PS2's globally (40m + as they only reached 100m shipped in November 2005).

Its always amazed me how people conflate PS2's lifetime sales total with the figures actually achieved during the nominal 6th gen of hardware.