Liabe Brave, thank you for taking the time to write out a complete breakdown of my argument and for including your logical rebuttals. MC, take note. This was impressive.
Anyway, if I may quote forest?
Liabe Brave said:
You ran the numbers, but wheres the logic? Heres just a few points that deflate the analytical value of your % new buyers (hereafter PNB) number as a predictor of platform health:
1. The less popular a game is, the more likely it is to have a high PNB. A game that sells 1000 units week one and benefits from a random fluctuation of hardware could have an apparent 100% PNB. It may or may not be the reason for the hardware jump. Over very many samples the random negative PNBs will cancel out the random positive ones, but now we might as well just be back to counting raw sales data. PNB alone doesnt provide any surety.
I would say decent point, but statisticians refer to this as sample size and statistical noise. It's easy to throw those out because a game that sells 1k is obviously not making an impact on hardware sales. Now, we know that because we're gamers, not because the data shows as much. Games that have huge openings, pre-orders, bundles, and lines forming in order to buy them clearly DO have a measurable impact on hardware sales.
Now, if one wanted to refute the usefulness of PNB for the majority of all software, he or she would have a great point; it doesn't lend it self well to anything but the biggest selling titles. Still, I acknowledge your point and would say that PNB wasn't intended for that purpose.
Liabe Brave said:
2. The less popular a system is, the more likely a game is to have a high PNB. But maybe consumers dont want the hardware for anything else, and in fact the platform is in serious trouble, not looking toward a bright future. (This is another way of stating that high attach rates can indicate sickness, not just health.)
This is an excellent point. Since the PS3 has been selling around 10k for several months, anything resembling a landmark title would surely make an impact. I would refute this point by pointing to the software sales itself, rather than just the hardware numbers. Looking at just the hardware, we see "700% increase!" Looking at the software, we see that 465k copies sold but only 65k more hardware units than normal sold.
That's the heart of the debate, isn't it? What exactly does that 65k represent and how does it relate to first week sales? I'm suggesting that PNB indicates the relative impact of the game -- and this is something that you didn't mention at all -- in relation to the PS3 LTD of 2 million.
The nature of my assertion rests on the fact that the PS3 sold 2 million units before MGS4 went on sale. 465k copies of MGS4 were sold, and weekly sales were 65k more than normal. If we take 65k software sales away and generously assume that every single one of those hardware units are a direct result of MGS4 going on sale, then we are left with 400k copies that sold to current owners of the PS3.
400,000/2,000,000 = 20% of every PS3 owner now owns this game, not including the new owners just mentioned. I suggest that when the % of game ownership is that high, but the PNB of a title is that low (13.9%), it means the market for that game (and 'those types' of games) is essentially saturated on that system.
Liabe Brave said:
3. You assume all major franchises will behave the same as MGS. There are good reasons to disbelieve this, and not just because demographic data on franchise purchase overlap is nonexistent. First, this particular series has been exceedingly consistent from title to title across two prior platforms, which is not true even for reliable franchises like FF and DQ; that heightens the probability that PNB will be low.
Second, very few games (apart from pack-ins) ever maintain a solid tie ratio to contemporary hardware sales over their lifetime. I say very few but I really mean none?; even Wii Sports in Japan has changed over time, and the only better example I know, Wii Play, is a contentious one. Of course, as we add more and more PNBs well get a better and better approximation. . .but the same is true of raw sales data, and you provide no reason for thinking PNB is a better or more accurate measure. Its certainly less easy to use.
1. I do assume that all major titles behave similarly, and the data is on my side. All major titles follow the front loaded model where 90% of all copies (and direct hardware impact) is measurable with the first two weeks of it being on sale.
2. Now, clearly we can't measure mindshare impact, customer satisfaction, nor critical mass buyers (those that finally decide after a certain number of hit titles have been released). I assert that those are the people buying on a weekly basis, rather than during huge software releases.
3. I said it earlier, but comparing MGS4 to Wii Sports is nefarious at best. If you would like to compare it to DQ, FF, or GT, be my guest. I would love to see if PNB is measurable and consistent every time. If I am proven wrong I will be the first to admit it.
4. Consistency is important, but comparing the title on the most successful console of all time (to date!) to one of the most disappointing follow-ups in the history of console gaming can't be good. If each title sells the exact same (do they?), then this further proves my point that essentially everybody that would ever buy the PS3 for that particular title
already has.
5. Clearly PNB will drop over time, just as tie-ratio for each title drops over time. We must use each with caution and make only the most careful of conclusions with each.
Liabe Brave said:
4. You assume first week sales are indicative of overall desire for a title. As all sales-agers know, legs are extremely variable. You yourself once posted charts seeming to show that MKWii would have legs like WiiFit, and stopped when it became apparent they would be more like Brawls. Even the rule of thumb first week half of lifetime is violated often, unless you dilute the meaning of half to anywhere from 30% to 70%. (Im not arguing here about MGS4 in particular, but games in general.)
I absolutely assume that first week sales are indicative of overall desire for a title, and the data shows that in general terms it is tried and true. Again, comparing MGS4 to WiiFit might not be the best comparison ever made. MKWii, while it does appear to be sprouting some legs, still follows the same model.
Also, I take issue with the assumption/assertion that I ever, EVER post charts for any other reason that thinking people will find them interesting in combination with my own interest. I ask that one would NEVER assume that I not post a particular chart because I'm attempting to hide data or have since been proven incorrect. That goes against everything true sales-agers believe and is hurtful at best.
If assumptions about my not posting a chart must be made, assume that I do not have the time, don't believe that it's needed that particular week, or don't believe that it's currently wanted.
Liabe Brave said:
Finally, lets do this same number-crunching with two other big games week one. As you did with
MGS4, we assume hardware sales exceeding the week before are caused and accompanied by game sales.
Code:
Week 1 HW HW+ PNB
SSBB 816198 105570 26497 3.2%
WiiFit 254009 109791 38926 15.3%
By your logic,
Brawl was utterly meaningless and
WiiFit only marginally better than
MGS4. Yet theyre both in the top 50 games of all time in Japan, and everyone agrees that both have been good for the platform, especially
WiiFit.
This is interesting, but I would still make similar conclusions:
1. The majority of all people that were going to buy the Wii for SSBB already had (3.2% PNB). This is the "once the Nintendo fanboys all buy it up, it will stop" argument. In this case, PNB proved true.
2. That WiiFit is clearly driving hardware sales for the Wii. Difference between it and MGS4? The first is clearly the audience. The second would be the install base of each system when it was launched:
[ ] When WiiFit went on sale, the Wii had a 4 millionish install base, and the Wii was averaging around 30k for the previous 5 weeks before it went on sale. Also, it was immediately before the end-of-year hardware spike.
[ ] When MGS4 went on sale, the PS3 had a 2 millionish install bas, and the PS3 was averaging around 10k for the previous 13 weeks before it went on sale. And it went on sale in the middle of the summer.
Liabe Brave said:
Truth is, selling lots of units of a game is good for a platform, period. Thats as true for MGS4 as it is for Wii Sports. Youre right that no one game dictates the success of a platform (except as in my point 2 above), and that the PS3 is in serious trouble in Japan. But the link between a game that sells mostly to the base and a small base isnt causation, or even correlation. Its coincidence. Its not Konamis fault that their success is unprecedented on the platform. And that success is no reason for Sony to worry. The absence of other such successes is reason for Sony to worry.
1. I agree with selling is good, but you really aren't comparing MGS4 with Wii Sports, are you?
2. I hardly think that a big game selling a certain amount and the correlating hardware increase is remotely "coincidence." I'm not arguing for causation, I'm making conclusions based on data.
3. Not sure what Konami has to do with this other than being the publisher of a very successful title. I didn't say that MGS4's success is reason for Sony to worry, nor that Sony should suddenly start worrying if they hadn't already been before. I was simply saying that using these numbers, it's obvious to me that the majority of all people that were ever going to buy the PS3 for MGS4 have already done so.
Thanks again for your lengthy and considerate reply. Someone said it earlier, but this has indeed been a great thread to read. Charts soon.
