NPD Sales Results for January 2014 [Up3: PS4/XB1 #1/#2 best selling; Poke/SM3DW/ALBW]

Jan 19, 2013
1,318
0
0
EA didn't advertise the PS3 version of ME2 at all, but they seem to have been satisfied with the sales.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-08-ea-happy-with-mass-effect-2-ps3-sales


I still have a nagging suspicion, given the ME sales on the 360 and EA's relationship with MS, that the next one might be a target for exclusivity. Hopefully not though.
Not a chance. You can take it to the bank. Peter Moore isn't running EA anymore and shareholders are already asking some difficult questions about Titanfall on the earnings calls.
 
Sep 21, 2006
26,720
2
1,070
43
Helsinki, Finland
psnprofiles.com
That would be enough for me to get an Xbone.
That would be enough for me to say farewell to the series, or get a new PC.


EDIT:
Not a chance. You can take it to the bank. Peter Moore isn't running EA anymore and shareholders are already asking some difficult questions about Titanfall on the earnings calls.
I sure hope you're right. It would be an odd move to make the series exclusive again, and take it away from the bigger userbase.
 
Sep 26, 2013
2,303
0
0
I still have a nagging suspicion, given the ME sales on the 360 and EA's relationship with MS, that the next one might be a target for exclusivity. Hopefully not though.
Ehhh, I can't imagine. EA spent millions to develop FrostBite into what it is right now.
They have all their internal studios working with FrostBite or a FrostBite derived engine like Ignite. Hell, BioWare is developing Dragon Age on FrostBite.They want their games on as many platforms as possible.

I just really can't imagine a game built on an engine that was built for mutliple platforms skipping what appears to be the most popular console.
I suspect it would cost MS way more than they'd want to pay.
 
Jan 21, 2011
14,540
6
0
Not a chance. You can take it to the bank. Peter Moore isn't running EA anymore and shareholders are already asking some difficult questions about Titanfall on the earnings calls.
Not that I think ME will be exclusive, but Peter Moore is still COO at EA and is a pretty key figure at the company. However, I don't really think he has any console bias. The Titanfall deal works for EA on a number of levels.

EA have never been good at launching new franchises. If you look at their successful launches last gen you can count them on one hand. Microsoft, otoh, are very good at it. Their hype machine is undeniably one of the best in the industry. Making the first Titanfall a pseudo-XB1 exclusive in terms of marketing has made the game much, much bigger than it would have been otherwise. In addition, EA get to declare a nice tasty gain from the pay off rather than defer income over 10 quarters.

So in one hand you have a desperate Microsoft who are willing to pay whatever is necessary to lock down early exclusives, and in the other you have EA who are terrible at launching new franchises. It was a match made in heaven.

As for Titanfall 2, well that will be multiplat from the off, and by then it will be a huge franchise, and MS will see little to no benefit from the continual sales of it, though they will have expended a lot of energy and resources to get it off the ground. Eerily similar to Mass Effect actually.
 
Sep 21, 2006
26,720
2
1,070
43
Helsinki, Finland
psnprofiles.com
Ehhh, I can't imagine. EA spent millions to develop FrostBite into what it is right now.
They have all their internal studios working with FrostBite or a FrostBite derived engine like Ignite. Hell, BioWare is developing Dragon Age on FrostBite.They want their games on as many platforms as possible.

I just really can't imagine a game built on an engine that was built for mutliple platforms skipping what appears to be the most popular console.
I suspect it would cost MS way more than they'd want to pay.
Well, I guess RE series jumping to GC, which also wasn't the most popular system, all those years ago has made me paranoid about it happening again to a series I enjoy. ;)

They'll have to get those big 3rd party exclusives from somewhere though, and I presume a known franchise is a better (although more expensive) option than a new unproven title.
 
Jan 19, 2013
1,318
0
0
That would be enough for me to say farewell to the series, or get a new PC.


EDIT:


I sure hope you're right. It would be an odd move to make the series exclusive again, and take it away from the bigger userbase.
I'm 100% certain I'm right. EA is already being forced to defend its Titanfall exclusivity deal by people way more important than gamers in the ultimate scheme of things. As a large third party publisher like EA, there's very little business sense to a exclusivity deal for an established franchise. Titanfall is a new IP from a small studio that's more of a demo for what the franchise hopes to be in the future. If it succeeds in attracting any sort of audience (it will), It is extremely unlikely any sequels will be exclusive so adding more Xbox exclusive games is laughable at this point. January's NPDs have probably blown away the last shreds of logic their strategy has had. I suspect they're desperately seeking ways to get the first game out on PS3/4 now.
 
May 24, 2012
18,812
119
500
Apparently NPD severely underestimated the PS4 sales in the 5-10% of stores they don't track.
I want to know where he got that silly statistic from. 1.38 million consoles in January in the USA? That's...that's unprecedented. Nothing even close to that calibre has ever happened before and it's like 5 times more than NPD numbers...
 
Jan 19, 2013
1,318
0
0
Not that I think ME will be exclusive, but Peter Moore is still COO at EA and is a pretty key figure at the company. However, I don't really think he has any console bias. The Titanfall deal works for EA on a number of levels.

EA have never been good at launching new franchises. If you look at their successful launches last gen you can count them on one hand. Microsoft, otoh, are very good at it. Their hype machine is undeniably one of the best in the industry. Making the first Titanfall a pseudo-XB1 exclusive in terms of marketing has made the game much, much bigger than it would have been otherwise. In addition, EA get to declare a nice tasty gain from the pay off rather than defer income over 10 quarters.

So in one hand you have a desperate Microsoft who are willing to pay whatever is necessary to lock down early exclusives, and in the other you have EA who are terrible at launching new franchises. It was a match made in heaven.

As for Titanfall 2, well that will be multiplat from the off, and by then it will be a huge franchise, and MS will see little to no benefit from the continual sales of it, though they will have expended a lot of energy and resources to get it off the ground. Eerily similar to Mass Effect actually.
Oh I agree. My point about Moore is that knowing how this industry works, it was likely very easy for Don Mattrick to pick up the phone and call him directly about Titanfall's availability as an exclusive. Microsoft likely had first dibs on it which (obviously) they took. Its less bias and more accessibility. As for Titanfall 2 I agree it will be multiplat. My origina point is that there is 0% likelihood that any successful existing third party franchise goes Xbox One exclusive. There was no chance back in May and there's even less of a chance now.
 
Sep 21, 2006
26,720
2
1,070
43
Helsinki, Finland
psnprofiles.com
Not that I think ME will be exclusive, but Peter Moore is still COO at EA and is a pretty key figure at the company. However, I don't really think he has any console bias. The Titanfall deal works for EA on a number of levels.

EA have never been good at launching new franchises. If you look at their successful launches last gen you can count them on one hand. Microsoft, otoh, are very good at it. Their hype machine is undeniably one of the best in the industry. Making the first Titanfall a pseudo-XB1 exclusive in terms of marketing has made the game much, much bigger than it would have been otherwise. In addition, EA get to declare a nice tasty gain from the pay off rather than defer income over 10 quarters.

So in one hand you have a desperate Microsoft who are willing to pay whatever is necessary to lock down early exclusives, and in the other you have EA who are terrible at launching new franchises. It was a match made in heaven.

As for Titanfall 2, well that will be multiplat from the off, and by then it will be a huge franchise, and MS will see little to no benefit from the continual sales of it, though they will have expended a lot of energy and resources to get it off the ground. Eerily similar to Mass Effect actually.
That's a very interesting point, and one that I never thought of myself. Microsoft sure seems to be able to create a massive hype for the new IPs, going by everything that lead to Halo, Gears of War, and Titanfall. Whereas Sony has often fallen flat on that front, with the exception of The Last of Us, which had a surprisingly effective marketing backing it.


I'm 100% certain I'm right. EA is already being forced to defend its Titanfall exclusivity deal by people way more important than gamers in the ultimate scheme of things. As a large third party publisher like EA, there's very little business sense to a exclusivity deal for an established franchise. Titanfall is a new IP from a small studio that's more of a demo for what the franchise hopes to be in the future. If it succeeds in attracting any sort of audience (it will), It is extremely unlikely any sequels will be exclusive so adding more Xbox exclusive games is laughable at this point. January's NPDs have probably blown away the last shreds of logic their strategy has had. I suspect they're desperately seeking ways to get the first game out on PS3/4 now.
Yeah, my worries on that regard may be completely illogical, so I'm in no way disappointed if I'm proven wrong. ;) It's reassuring for the series' fan.
 
Jun 18, 2005
12,707
0
0
45
Las Vegas
Is digital-hero some kind of an insider or something? Because his number doesn't make any sense.
Obviously he isn't, or he wouldn't post such a crazy thing. At a guess, it's some weird distortion of the launch month figure of 1.138m. First month sales...first month of the year...someone played Telephone and he was at the end of the line.
 
May 30, 2013
6,884
0
0
That's a very interesting point, and one that I never thought of myself. Microsoft sure seems to be able to create a massive hype for the new IPs, going by everything that lead to Halo, Gears of War, and Titanfall. Whereas Sony has often fallen flat on that front, with the exception of The Last of Us, which had a surprisingly effective marketing backing it.




Yeah, my worries on that regard may be completely illogical, so I'm in no way disappointed if I'm proven wrong. ;) It's reassuring for the series' fan.
Huh, that just proves that they are terrible at creating big new ips. Halo was the only big exclusive and that was for the og xbox. Gears was during the 360 gen. So far, two whole gens have gone by and they only made 2 mega franchises. Titanfall is an unknown.
 
Apr 1, 2013
6,623
0
0
EA bet on the wrong horse and decided to push for MS. They've got Titanfall and PvZ. And Xbox also gets BF DLC first (kinda like CoD). It's amazing to see that blow up in their face.
Exactly, Destiny is on PS3, PS4, X360, X1, and more than likely it'll land on PC. If anything will be the next huge thing, it's this.

Titanfall being on only Xbox and PC means it's got no chance of being the next "CoD" which is sad since Respawn really seems to have put a lot into it. Hopefully it doesn't completely ruin the franchise and Titanfall 2 can come out stronger than ever. (Don't get me wrong, it'll sell great, but not CoD great, not even close). I can see EA changing their tune very quickly (hell, they already seem to be doing just that).
EA simply thought that Xbox One would become very big like Xbox 360 was. So far, it's not happening.

I bet that they're kicking themselves right about now.
 

heidern

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,288
0
0
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim that the current price point is saturated and that a $20 cut is going to give them a big bump. If anyone needs to provide proof then it's you. I guess I would point out the the 3DS if already frequently discounted, and that hasn't seemed to have much of an effect.
You want me to provide proof that if you cut prices sales will increase. Seriously? The proof is everytime there's a price cut sales increase. You're arguing against basic economics, you should be providing proof. You'll get a nobel prize if you succeed. BTW the 3DS has not been frequently discounted, it's only had one price cut and that was two and a half years ago.

Elasticity in games isn't what you might think.
Do you have examples of videogame hardware that didn't increase in sales when there was a price cut?

I'm guessing since Nintendo's data on handheld sales an pricing goes back decades and that they're a huge company that's been doing this a while that someone over there has crunched these particular numbers. Just a guess that they have an idea of their elasticities, cost structures and margin goals.
You're guessing on Nintendo's internal processes? That's stretching. And in this case you're verifiably proven wrong. Handhelds have always succeeded at lower prices(Gameboy vs Game Gear/Lynx, DS vs PSP). Your guess that Nintendo had an idea of their elasticities, cost stuctures and margin goals is wrong. They didn't. They thought they did but they were wrong. They released the 3DS at $249 and it flopped. They were forced to cut the price after 5 months to $169 where it's stayed to this day. And $169 is still $20 more than the launch price of the DS. Is it any wonder it struggles in the sales comparison?
 
May 24, 2012
18,812
119
500
Is there nothing Based Cerny and Based Kaz can't do!? Just when I think those magnificent bastards have done everything humanly possible, they pull off a coup like selling hardware digitally.
Well, it's quite simple, actually:

NPD is inadequate when it comes to the realm of digital hardware. As you can plainly see, the vast majority of PS4's 1.38 million January sales came from digital sales of digital hardware.

Just another example of NPD's irrelevance. 271K physical hardware sales? That's nothing...try 1 MILLION sales of digital hardware.



haha
 
Mar 26, 2006
14,931
0
0
EA simply thought that Xbox One would become very big like Xbox 360 was. So far, it's not happening.

I bet that they're kicking themselves right about now.

They knew. They will have had PS4 production estimates. But the whole thing stinks of "19th Hole business deals" that has ended up blocking some of their new ips from a very fast growing userbase!
 
Getting sleepy Opiate?
Yes, it's time. He edited, however. Let this close call be a lesson, Digital-Hero: we don't insist on sources and evidence and accuracy because we're jerk mean heads. It's because when you say stuff like "the PS4 sold 1.38M in January," it means many of us have to go rooting through the internet to find out if your claim is true or not. Even if the answer is it's true (let alone in cases like this, where it's false), it may mean a slew of people having to go and Google-fu for twenty minutes just to make absolutely sure you know what you're talking about.

And we don't like to have to do that. No ban this time, just understand why the rules are the way they are. We like evidence-based posts on this forum for a reason.
 
Aug 25, 2013
24,331
0
0
Well, it's quite simple, actually:

NPD is inadequate when it comes to the realm of digital hardware. As you can plainly see, the vast majority of PS4's 1.38 million January sales came from digital sales of digital hardware.

Just another example of NPD's irrelevance. 271K physical hardware sales? That's nothing...try 1 MILLION sales of digital hardware.



haha
you haven't seen the Vita's 1 million/month digital hardware pace since launch?
#champion

:p
 
Jun 7, 2004
63,747
2
0
I don't believe EA thought MS would be down in territories they are strongest. Plus, they probably figured MS would have launched the XB1 is more regions than currently available. The exclusivity deal went down from forecasts projected years ago:

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/01...-innovative-explains-xbox-exclusive-decision/

Jorgensen continued by explaining that the decision to go exclusive was made “a few years ago,” based on forecasts from the time on where Electronic Arts thought PlayStation and Xbox would be today. He also mentioned that they’re still “very comfortable” with that.
In a nutshell, they did think the XB1 would be in a stronger position then it is now. If EA had a chance to take that deal back I think they would. Launching a new IP and ignoring the most popular and fastest growing next gen user base is the closest thing to new IP seppuku there is. EA hurt the growth of a new IP by making this deal. This is why Vince Zampella tweets were extremely sad after he found out the news. Respawn knows it is not good missing out on PS4, even if this version would have been later. TitanFall XB1 prospects are basically the US and UK. Every other market the impact is minimal. If TitanFall were on PS4 its prospects would be much greater to sell in every market worldwide. In Europe the PC version of TitanFall is going to outsell the XB1 version.

I'm sure Activision did throw a party when they found out the news. Destiny is going to go unchecked on PS4. Like MS is banking on TF, Sony is going to double down on Destiny. Doesn't matter that it is multi platform, just need to convince people to get the game for PS4. The way the PS4 is selling it isn't hard to entice people to own the hardware.

That's really crazy.
To be fair, PC is typically number one when Europe is online playing. PS4 is usually a close number two. But yeah I get your point.
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
Do you have examples of videogame hardware that didn't increase in sales when there was a price cut?

You're guessing on Nintendo's internal processes? That's stretching. And in this case you're verifiably proven wrong. Handhelds have always succeeded at lower prices(Gameboy vs Game Gear/Lynx, DS vs PSP). Your guess that Nintendo had an idea of their elasticities, cost stuctures and margin goals is wrong. They didn't. They thought they did but they were wrong. They released the 3DS at $249 and it flopped. They were forced to cut the price after 5 months to $169 where it's stayed to this day. And $169 is still $20 more than the launch price of the DS. Is it any wonder it struggles in the sales comparison?
What's with the aggressive tone? We're all friends here.

Just because a company could sell more of an item at a certain price does not mean that those sales would result in profit. The effect of dropping the price compared with costs of goods and retailer margins and their estimations of demand have led them to the decision that holding price is the best place to be right now. They know they could sell more with a price drop, but who cares if they sell more if they lose money in the process?

Dropping the price of a game to $0.00 would lead to incredible sales. But that wouldn't make it a real good idea though, would it?
 
Jul 17, 2013
12,888
0
0
Seattle
NPD is inadequate when it comes to the realm of digital hardware. As you can plainly see, the vast majority of PS4's 1.38 million January sales came from digital sales of digital hardware.

Just another example of NPD's irrelevance. 271K physical hardware sales? That's nothing...try 1 MILLION sales of digital hardware.
What, you mean you guys don't download schemata for your consoles and 3D print them in your nanotech foundry?