-
Introducing NeoGAF Gold
NPD Sales for July 2015
- Thread starter Mpl90
- Start date
- 1909
More like NA and EU.
Marketing deals and performance aside, games like CoD won't be driving hardware decisions because they're available on both platforms. Therefore, games like DQH are exactly what drives platform decisions. If you like CoD and DQH, which platform are you gonna buy? How about if you like CoD and SF? How about CoD and Persona? How about CoD and Risen? How about CoD and No Man's Sky? How about
Previously, you were dividing games in to meaningful and not meaningful. Saying nobody cares about the games not on XBox isn't the same as saying, "Hey, at least they haven't lost CoD entirely, so they still have that going for them!" Sure, having CoD is more important than having those other games. Perhaps more important than having all of those other games. But having CoD isn't particularly special, so don't try to act like those other games aren't special simply because they don't sell much individually. They're unique offerings by definition.
Again, what else should we be considering?
"Microsoft's main concern is maintaining market share to avoid losing more third party support."
"They're not losing third party support."
"Umm, yes they are."
"Those games don't really matter."
"How can you say that?"
"I'm not saying they don't matter; I'm saying it's not their main concern."
"So what's their main concern?"
"Software variety."
#dead
Yup. It's easy to dismiss these titles as relatively meaningless because of their comparatively small sales, but niche titles like these are the primary source of variety on a platform. So your platform still has CoD. That's nothing to hang your hat on. Your rival has it too, and their version runs better, and they get "early" access to content. Plus, they have a bunch of games you don't have at all.
nothingtoseehere.gif
Previously, you were dividing games in to meaningful and not meaningful. Saying nobody cares about the games not on XBox isn't the same as saying, "Hey, at least they haven't lost CoD entirely, so they still have that going for them!" Sure, having CoD is more important than having those other games. Perhaps more important than having all of those other games. But having CoD isn't particularly special, so don't try to act like those other games aren't special simply because they don't sell much individually. They're unique offerings by definition.
Again, what else should we be considering?
"Microsoft's main concern is maintaining market share to avoid losing more third party support."
"They're not losing third party support."
"Umm, yes they are."
"Those games don't really matter."
"How can you say that?"
"I'm not saying they don't matter; I'm saying it's not their main concern."
"So what's their main concern?"
"Software variety."
#dead
Yup. It's easy to dismiss these titles as relatively meaningless because of their comparatively small sales, but niche titles like these are the primary source of variety on a platform. So your platform still has CoD. That's nothing to hang your hat on. Your rival has it too, and their version runs better, and they get "early" access to content. Plus, they have a bunch of games you don't have at all.
nothingtoseehere.gif
Yes, I'm aware of that. What are you driving at? Are you telling me casuals buy CoD and Ass Creed, and give zero fucks about any of the other games available on their platform, so a large library doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things? Got anything to back that up? I'm skeptical. "Software library" or something similar seems to usually rank fairly high when purchasing motivations are surveyed, at least from what I've seen. Queso seems to think software variety is a top concern except when it isn't. /shrug
Software Library is very important.
But there is also a reason why COD sells so much in the first place.
Just look at the Nintendo Wii and the rise of AAA casual franchises (and then sharp decline). Or look at STEAM and the latest stats which show the majority of gamers spend all their time just playing a couple of games.
Notice how In my last posts I used the word "consoles" to refer to all consoles. These big games are driving console sales, whether that be PS4 or XB1. For a lot of people the concern will be around if that console plays "AAA game" which it will. So it becomes a contender straight away. For a lot of people (read casuals) the niche titles don't matter and won't be considered in the purchase. Other factors are more important, one of them being AAA Game, compared to whether or not the console plays Dragon Quest.
But there is also a reason why COD sells so much in the first place.
Just look at the Nintendo Wii and the rise of AAA casual franchises (and then sharp decline). Or look at STEAM and the latest stats which show the majority of gamers spend all their time just playing a couple of games.
Notice how In my last posts I used the word "consoles" to refer to all consoles. These big games are driving console sales, whether that be PS4 or XB1. For a lot of people the concern will be around if that console plays "AAA game" which it will. So it becomes a contender straight away. For a lot of people (read casuals) the niche titles don't matter and won't be considered in the purchase. Other factors are more important, one of them being AAA Game, compared to whether or not the console plays Dragon Quest.
Sure, it's a good thing. And the PS4 is doing very well partly because of this. Does this mean the XB1 is doomed though? What should MS give up to get the XB1 at PS4-levels of 3rd party support for these (mostly) niche titles? Is it worth the investment for them to do so when in the past they have not seen great success in attracting these types of games (or much in the way of sales when they do manage to get these types of games)?
Indeed we are.
Indeed we are.
Yes, that's precisely the sort of data I was asking for. I'm not surprised most users only play a couple of games. Does the data show the majority of users play tentpole franchises and nothing else, or does it show they play CoD and Random Niche Game exclusively? Links?
I'm not disputing that. I'm trying to figure out why you think the average consumer's analysis will end there, because they've already decided they'll never play anything else. Even if it's true, wouldn't that make bundles ridiculously effective? Not only does this one play CoD, it says so right on the box, and even comes with the game. Isn't that precisely the brain-dead type of decision you're arguing drives the vast majority of sales? Aren't people gonna look at the PlayStation this Christmas and see it has every game they've ever heard of on the box and then look at the Bone that just says Halo? You say, "This one plays ____," is all they need to hear before they pounce, right?
The both play the AAA game(s). I don't see why that makes Dragon Quest less relevant instead of more so. You say it's not a significant differentiating factor, but it's the differentiating factor. No, not Dragon Quest specifically. The variety, specifically. PlayStation has all the games you're getting on XBox, plus a bunch more. I seriously don't see how you can argue that doesn't matter.
The central point is that you have it backwards. CoD being on XBox isn't relevant because it's on PlayStation. It's not a selling point for XBox. Dragon Quest is a selling point for PlayStation, because it's not on XBox. You're right that some games are more important than others, but it's the exclusives that offer actual value. Multiplats don't give you anything you can't get anywhere else, especially multiplats you get on XBox.
I'm not disputing that. I'm trying to figure out why you think the average consumer's analysis will end there, because they've already decided they'll never play anything else. Even if it's true, wouldn't that make bundles ridiculously effective? Not only does this one play CoD, it says so right on the box, and even comes with the game. Isn't that precisely the brain-dead type of decision you're arguing drives the vast majority of sales? Aren't people gonna look at the PlayStation this Christmas and see it has every game they've ever heard of on the box and then look at the Bone that just says Halo? You say, "This one plays ____," is all they need to hear before they pounce, right?
The both play the AAA game(s). I don't see why that makes Dragon Quest less relevant instead of more so. You say it's not a significant differentiating factor, but it's the differentiating factor. No, not Dragon Quest specifically. The variety, specifically. PlayStation has all the games you're getting on XBox, plus a bunch more. I seriously don't see how you can argue that doesn't matter.
The central point is that you have it backwards. CoD being on XBox isn't relevant because it's on PlayStation. It's not a selling point for XBox. Dragon Quest is a selling point for PlayStation, because it's not on XBox. You're right that some games are more important than others, but it's the exclusives that offer actual value. Multiplats don't give you anything you can't get anywhere else, especially multiplats you get on XBox.
The assumption seems essentially that the order winning factor in nearly all cases is X exclusive, with various relatively niche titles being cited. And that this has a cumulative or multiplicative effect. Despite that the vast amount of software sales are centred on a small number of megabrands, largely annualised.
A given title being exclusive or being perceived as exclusive can be order winning, but by and large a myriad other factors likely supersede that if it's even a consideration at all. For example, what did I own before - brand loyalty, user interface familiarity; what do my friends own - network effects.
So it's a flawed assumption that's perpetuated due to people projecting their own purchase rationalisation onto the broader market. (Although, I suppose this assumes people are even buying these niche titles rather than just listing them.) And it becomes progressively more flawed as we transition from the early market to the mass.
Or, in short. When the PS4 sells more than the Xbox One in the US, it isn't predominantly because it has DOA Extreme or some random musou game in addition to COD. It qualifies due to games like COD, and wins largely based on more intangible factors.
A given title being exclusive or being perceived as exclusive can be order winning, but by and large a myriad other factors likely supersede that if it's even a consideration at all. For example, what did I own before - brand loyalty, user interface familiarity; what do my friends own - network effects.
So it's a flawed assumption that's perpetuated due to people projecting their own purchase rationalisation onto the broader market. (Although, I suppose this assumes people are even buying these niche titles rather than just listing them.) And it becomes progressively more flawed as we transition from the early market to the mass.
Or, in short. When the PS4 sells more than the Xbox One in the US, it isn't predominantly because it has DOA Extreme or some random musou game in addition to COD. It qualifies due to games like COD, and wins largely based on more intangible factors.
Pretty sure jRPGs biggest home last gen was on the DS, unless you're just limiting your scope to home consoles. In which case last gen was a really bad gen for jRPGs on home consoles
!
Should be up some time on Friday.
Dragon Quest doesn't matter in the U.S. to the general market. Microsoft is not losing any sleep about missing out on it, then.
cause they were almost all on the DS
Should be up some time on Friday.
Dragon Quest doesn't matter in the U.S. to the general market. Microsoft is not losing any sleep about missing out on it, then.
Or was that the point you were trying to make?
I took a quick look, but couldn't find any academic papers on the effects of software library on sales. I imagine it is way harder to research compared to the stuff I do have on exclusives boosting hardware sales or what not.
Because Microsoft has microsofts ready to load into your brain, so as soon as someone has a fully functioning SQUID or perhaps a nice pair of virtual light glasses they win. So why would they care about consoles? I wouldn't. Wetware wins, hands down. I mean yeah sure Ono-Sendai is ahead, but they don't care about games and Sony couldn't afford to buy them anyway. Neural induction hardware be cutting edge, after all.
See, I'm with you; I've always believed the System Seller to be largely a myth. People may wait for their favorite franchise to debut before jumping in, but most people like more than one thing, and everybody likes something different. So the more options you offer, the more people are going to choose you. It's not very complicated. Yes, other factors like what your friends have and various system features influence purchasing decisions as well, but having more games helps you, and having less games hurts you.
Then again, that would imply that XBox is doomed, so only a crazy fanboy would even suggest such a line of reasoning. Guess that proves all you need is CoD after all. /shrug
Then again, that would imply that XBox is doomed, so only a crazy fanboy would even suggest such a line of reasoning. Guess that proves all you need is CoD after all. /shrug
Think it would be a big mistake other than the usual skylanders and disney audience.
Locking content behind plastic toys will turn many people off. It does to me, no way will I ever purchase a plastic toy to unlock anything in a game.
My view is for the WiiU it just monetises existing fansbase, but does nothing for the console adoption (in fact its a negative)
Its nothing to do with brand, its the type of gamer that plays wooly world might buy a cute toy. The gamer that plays GTA5 and COD is most likely not going to buy a toy.
GTA5 and COD is a bigger brand than any of the games you listed.
Cute games and toys for kids is a different market to action games for teens / adults....
Locking content behind plastic toys will turn many people off. It does to me, no way will I ever purchase a plastic toy to unlock anything in a game.
My view is for the WiiU it just monetises existing fansbase, but does nothing for the console adoption (in fact its a negative)
Its nothing to do with brand, its the type of gamer that plays wooly world might buy a cute toy. The gamer that plays GTA5 and COD is most likely not going to buy a toy.
GTA5 and COD is a bigger brand than any of the games you listed.
Cute games and toys for kids is a different market to action games for teens / adults....
Exactly. PS4 don't need toys that locks content which is going to be expensive DLC for those who are not interested in Toys but need content. Wii U has user base who can go blindly for anything that Nintendo makes, so they are trying to monetize this weakness of gamers by locking content inside these toys which does nothing for gaming. If sony wants too do anything related to toys then do it in Collectors edition without locking any content behind toys for those who want to collect them.