NPD Sales Results for May 2015

May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Seems like COD is played by a lot of people who did not yet update (or never will, who knows). But this was a year ago and I am sure things have changed. would be really strange if this happened once again.
I think that even with marketing deal, DLC and Beta the split will be very close between PS4 and XboxOne, with PS4 leading. But even if it was 50/50 at the end this should be frightening for Xbox as they lost one of their top-associated franchises.
Did they lose it? Or did they let it go?

Also I don't think, if there is any shift, we wont see it until next year.
 

DC1

Member
Jan 30, 2013
2,425
0
355
Did they lose it? Or did they let it go?

Also I don't think, if there is any shift, we wont see it until next year.
Oh. You will see it this year.

Damn near every professional esport Call of Duty player has responded positively with the switch (while they do not have a choice competitively, they still have a voice).
Where they go, so does the 100s of thousands of esport competitors in waiting with countless youths and teens in tow.

The Activision partnership with COD was a freaking stroke of genius.


To answer your question:
Both. MS lost it because they didn't want it enough.
Some may argue that Activision may benefit just as much by moving to the Platform with the largest install base..however, we don't have any specifics regarding the agreement. Activision could have initiated the move for more creative reasons.
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Oh. You will see it this year.

Damn near every professional esport Call of Duty player has responded positively with the switch (while they do not have a choice competitively, they still have a voice).
Where they go, so does the 100s of thousands of esport competitors in waiting with countless youths and teens in tow.

The Activision partnership with COD was a freaking stroke of genius.


To answer your question:
Both. MS lost it because they didn't want it enough.
Some may argue that Activision may benefit just as much by moving to the Platform with the largest install base..however, we don't have any specifics regarding the agreement. Activision could have initiated the move for more creative reasons.
We wont know much about how it'll change the competitive seen until later, I just don't see an instant switch, I believe next year if Sony has the partnership then maybe, but as of now idk.

I will say though Ms must have found a reason not to grab it this year to leave it open for grabs. Decline maybe?
 

QaaQer

Member
Jun 13, 2012
11,333
0
0
Oh. You will see it this year.

Damn near every professional esport Call of Duty player has responded positively with the switch (while they do not have a choice competitively, they still have a voice).
Where they go, so does the 100s of thousands of esport competitors in waiting with countless youths and teens in tow.

The Activision partnership with COD was a freaking stroke of genius.


To answer your question:
Both. MS lost it because they didn't want it enough.
Some may argue that Activision may benefit just as much by moving to the Platform with the largest install base..however, we don't have any specifics regarding the agreement. Activision could have initiated the move for more creative reasons.
It is easier to compete with Sony's lineup of shooters than MS', so more ps marketshare means more CoD sales.
 

Elandyll

Banned
Oct 13, 2014
7,121
0
0
Arizona
With all that happened I am honestly just surprised (as much as I hate third party exclusives) that Battlefront ended up a PS co-marketing title, now that we know they got the COD deal.

I think the situation between Activision/ COD and Sony has happened somewhat organically between their existing relations (long term partnership with Destiny, and already back on the PS3 with Diablo III...), but then also with EA becoming such a core partner for the XB1's launch and post launch support (including EA Access), it might have seemed natural to align themelves with Sony while the PS4 became #1 next gen platform WW I guess.

But then again, I wonder what was EA's logic with Battlefront (beside prefering the top selling console) in signing co marketing with Sony, while they have pushed the XB1 so much (with, among other things, that multi-million $ deal around NFL). Trying to make nice with Sony maybe? Or could Sony have circumvented them on some level and made a deal with Lucasfilm/ Disney directly, which gave them some "weight" in getting Battlefront? (cf the on stage talk around the reveal of Disney Infinity 3.0 Star Wars) :shrug:

I just find it weird that Sony ends up with not one, or two, but three futuristic FPS (with Destiny) being promoted for PS4 between September and November.

On the sales front, I expect MS to throw everything at the wall this Holiday season, as I think it would possibly be their last chance at a meaningful upset that might turn the tides (in the US and UK). I could definitely see them doing an instant price dop to $299 if Sony goes there in October/ November. Perhaps even as low as $249 for a "temporary promo" around Black Friday.

They'll loose a ton of money around that, for sure, but if they don't turn things around this Holiday season, it's pretty much over (in terms of market domination, not "the XB1 is Doooooomed").
Even with that, If Sony decides to expand their reach and go for $299, I would then see them winning the Holiday season, and perhaps with a good margin too.

But if they decide to play it "safe" and do a half step at $349, I think Sony will likely loose the Holiday by a (relatively) small margin but that'll net them more money otoh.
 
Jun 26, 2013
2,952
1,078
385
With all that happened I am honestly just surprised (as much as I hate third party exclusives) that Battlefront ended up a PS co-marketing title, now tht we know they got the COD deal.

I think the situation between Activision/ COD and Sony has happened somewhat organically between their existing relations (long term partnership with Destiny, and already back on the PS3 with Diablo III...), but then also with EA becoming such a core partner for the XB1's launch and post launch support (including EA Access), it might have seemed natural to align themelves with Sony while the PS4 became #1 next gen platform WW I guess.

But then again, I wonder what was EA's logic with Battlefront (beside prefering the top selling console) in signing co marketing with Sony, while they have pushed the XB1 so much (with, among other things, that multi-million $ deal around NFL). Trying to make nice with Sony maybe? Or could Sony have circumvented them on some level and made a deal with Lucasfilm/ Disney directly, which gave them some "weight" in getting Battlefront? (cf the on stage talk around the reveal of Disney Infinity 3.0 Star Wars) :shrug:

I just find it weird that Sony ends up with not one, or two, but three futuristic FPS (with Destiny) being promoted for PS4 between September and November.

On the sales front, I expect MS to throw everything at the wall this Holiday season, as I think it would possibly be their last chance at a meaningful upset that might turn the tides (in the US and UK). I could definitely see them doing an instant price dop to $299 if Sony goes there in October/ November. Perhaps even as low as $249 for a "temporary promo" around Black Friday.

They'll loose a ton of money around that, for sure, but if they don't turn things around this Holiday season, it's pretty much over (in terms of market domination, not "the XB1 is Doooooomed").
Even with that, If Sony decides to expand their reach and go for $299, I would then see them winning the Holiday season, and perhaps with a good margin too.

But if they decide to play it "safe" and do a half step at $349, I think Sony will likely loose the Holiday by a (relatively) small margin but that'll net them more money otoh.
Yeah, it's going to be interesting if Sony brings the heat or plays if safe this holiday season. I think Sony is going to cut the regular SKU to $299 and release COD & Battlefront bundles for $349.
 

blakep267

Member
Dec 9, 2013
6,321
2
0
With all that happened I am honestly just surprised (as much as I hate third party exclusives) that Battlefront ended up a PS co-marketing title, now tht we know they got the COD deal.

I think the situation between Activision/ COD and Sony has happened somewhat organically between their existing relations (long term partnership with Destiny, and already back on the PS3 with Diablo III...), but then also with EA becoming such a core partner for the XB1's launch and post launch support (including EA Access), it might have seemed natural to align themelves with Sony while the PS4 became #1 next gen platform WW I guess.

But then again, I wonder what was EA's logic with Battlefront (beside prefering the top selling console) in signing co marketing with Sony, while they have pushed the XB1 so much (with, among other things, that multi-million $ deal around NFL). Trying to make nice with Sony maybe? Or could Sony have circumvented them on some level and made a deal with Lucasfilm/ Disney directly, which gave them some "weight" in getting Battlefront? (cf the on stage talk around the reveal of Disney Infinity 3.0 Star Wars) :shrug:

I just find it weird that Sony ends up with not one, or two, but three futuristic FPS (with Destiny) being promoted for PS4 between September and November.

On the sales front, I expect MS to throw everything at the wall this Holiday season, as I think it would possibly be their last chance at a meaningful upset that might turn the tides (in the US and UK). I could definitely see them doing an instant price dop to $299 if Sony goes there in October/ November. Perhaps even as low as $249 for a "temporary promo" around Black Friday.

They'll loose a ton of money around that, for sure, but if they don't turn things around this Holiday season, it's pretty much over (in terms of market domination, not "the XB1 is Doooooomed").
Even with that, If Sony decides to expand their reach and go for $299, I would then see them winning the Holiday season, and perhaps with a good margin too.

But if they decide to play it "safe" and do a half step at $349, I think Sony will likely loose the Holiday by a (relatively) small margin but that'll net them more money otoh.
Eh I don't see Sony dropping the price more. In the sense that they may drop the base console to 299. But any bundle is probably gonna be 350. Where as MS will probably pump out assassins creed levels of a tomb raider bundle at 299. So I think there will still be a price/ value differential

And if 299 bundles are the starting too r for MS, that ms bro even including the retailer incentives like a free game or a $50 gift card
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
The question is:
Who declined and who lost interest?
Well we can cut some dust around the vase that is truth.

It probably isn't a software sales issue, as Cod still sells very, very well.

It's possible the cod deal was a contract this whole time.

Ms has been pushing a lot this year for first party games, may even show more 2015 games at gamescom

Activision may have other games Ms decided to partner with

Halo 5 will be promoted heavily and clearly want to reverse issues people had with Halo 4.

Ubisoft partnership with rainsix, and the division may have caused some issues.
 

Joeshabadoo

Member
Apr 5, 2010
1,157
0
0
NYC
rungamelive.blogspot.com
Splatoon copies are consistently in short supply at the Nintendo world store, and good on em for keeping the demo units out in full force along with one TV that is WiFi linked and allowing for turf war and splat zone play.

This game is going to be top 5 for June, absolutely no doubt in my mind
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Splatoon copies are consistently in short supply at the Nintendo world store, and good on em for keeping the demo units out in full force along with one TV that is WiFi linked and allowing for turf war and splat zone play.

This game is going to be top 5 for June, absolutely no doubt in my mind
I can't see that, you have The Witcher 3, lingering MKX, Lego, Still charting GTA V, and Elder Scrolls.

Those games will be fighting for the next 5 after Batman. If Splatoon charts, as I said before, i expect it to be from 6 at highest, 9 at lowest. I think due to the slow month it'll prevent being 10, but that could happen.
 

slavesnyder

Member
Nov 18, 2013
4,304
0
355
Well we can cut some dust around the vase that is truth.
It probably isn't a software sales issue, as Cod still sells very, very well.
It's possible the cod deal was a contract this whole time.
Ms has been pushing a lot this year for first party games, may even show more 2015 games at gamescom
Activision may have other games Ms decided to partner with
Halo 5 will be promoted heavily and clearly want to reverse issues people had with Halo 4.
Ubisoft partnership with rainsix, and the division may have caused some issues.
You always sound as if it was Microsoft's decision to end the partnership.
Maybe it was Activision's.
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
You always sound as if it was Microsoft's decision to end the partnership.
Maybe it was Activision's.
uh

It probably isn't a software sales issue, as Cod still sells very, very well.

It's possible the cod deal was a contract this whole time.

Halo 5 will be promoted heavily and clearly want to reverse issues people had with Halo 4.

Ubisoft partnership with rainsix, and the division may have caused some issues.
This all would be Activision decisions or lead to activision decisions (like A lack of promotion because of Halo, Activision may not like that, Activision may not like the Ubisoft shooter partnership.

Activision probably didn't (if they did) cancel because of sales.

Maybe there was a contract and Activision decided not to renew it (it also could go the othe rway around.)
 

KillerMan91

Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,928
0
500
Finland
uh



This all would be Activision decisions or lead to activision decisions (like A lack of promotion because of Halo, Activision may not like that, Activision may not like the Ubisoft shooter partnership.

Activision probably didn't (if they did) cancel because of sales.

Maybe there was a contract and Activision decided not to renew it (it also could go the othe rway around.)
I mean we are talking about COD so of course sales were still great on every platform it was released but when thinking about highest possible potential PS4 is the clear victor here as it has almost double the install base of Xbox One worldwide (COD sells everywhere). It would make sense to me if Activision would want to switch the camp or at least ask better deal from MS as Xbox One is not in same situation as X360 was. Sony probably had to offer far less than MS.
 

ZhugeEX

Banned
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
I mean we are talking about COD so of course sales were still great on every platform it was released but when thinking about highest possible potential PS4 is the clear victor here as it has almost double the install base of Xbox One worldwide (COD sells everywhere). It would make sense to me if Activision would want to switch the camp or at least ask better deal from MS as Xbox One is not in same situation as X360 was. Sony probably had to offer far less than MS.
Black Ops II even won the Gold Prize at the PlayStation Awards in Japan. That's just amazing!
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
I mean we are talking about COD so of course sales were still great on every platform it was released but when thinking about highest possible potential PS4 is the clear victor here as it has almost double the install base of Xbox One worldwide (COD sells everywhere). It would make sense to me if Activision would want to switch the camp or at least ask better deal from MS as Xbox One is not in same situation as X360 was. Sony probably had to offer far less than MS.
The PS3 had double the installbase worldwide (only NA was the sole difference, and even then they are close) Ghosts (which was bad) and AW had Xbox One marketing, despite PS4 being in the same similar position as now. Heck, when Ghosts came on next gen Xbox One was in a WORSE position than before holiday 2014.

I think MS probably didn't meet the criteria they wanted for the series. Whatever that may be, but I don't think Activision moved because of more software sales, which for the first year, will probably not be that much of a gap.

Black Ops II even won the Gold Prize at the PlayStation Awards in Japan. That's just amazing!

You all right today buddy?
 

DC1

Member
Jan 30, 2013
2,425
0
355
What exactly makes it a stroke of genius? It's common sense to grab the number one franchise when your console is number one in the world.
Number one is subjective and Sony isn't competing with itself.

The partnership had to be won. Whether through:

A) Activision's proactive foresight at the globle level.
B) MS'S realization that the saturated market for COD on their platform is lagging behind the globle adoption for the XBOX One.
C) Sony realizing that with this deal, the existing XBOX One base of competitive professional COD players would have to migrate from MS to the PS4, bringing the hords of young teen to aspiring pro adults with them, would have a significant bump in PS4 adoption.

A+B+C Equals.... Stroke of Genius.
All three plays a part. It's OK to give a head nood of appreciation to a win. This was a win for Sony.
 

DC1

Member
Jan 30, 2013
2,425
0
355
It is easier to compete with Sony's lineup of shooters than MS', so more ps marketshare means more CoD sales.
That's a fair statement, but a strawberry nonetheless.

COD never completed with Halo in the past so it would be disingenuous to suggest that it would compete with .....ummm....(can we go back a couple of years....). Yeah. Cough... I think you get my point!
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
That's a fair statement, but a strawberry nonetheless.

COD never completed with Halo in the past so it would be disingenuous to suggest that it would compete with .....ummm....(can we go back a couple of years....). Yeah. Cough... I think you get my point!
First time I ever heard someone use Strawberry for a term in this context.
 

KillerMan91

Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,928
0
500
Finland
Black Ops II even won the Gold Prize at the PlayStation Awards in Japan. That's just amazing!
Yeah. Even in Japan COD is biggish series nowadays (at least in current dying home console market).

The PS3 had double the installbase worldwide (only NA was the sole difference, and even then they are close) Ghosts (which was bad) and AW had Xbox One marketing, despite PS4 being in the same similar position as now. Heck, when Ghosts came on next gen Xbox One was in a WORSE position than before holiday 2014.

I think MS probably didn't meet the criteria they wanted for the series. Whatever that may be, but I don't think Activision moved because of more software sales, which for the first year, will probably not be that much of a gap.
What? If you take out Japan X360 sold more in west than PS3. It destoryed PS3 in states and was also somewhat competitive in Europe. This gen Xbox One is almost as big flop as WiiU in Europe (especially outside UK) and little behind PS4 even in US. It absolutely makes sense for Activision to follow the bigger userbase and that is by far on PS4 this gen. Of course had MS been willing to pay extra money for the partnership Activision could have stayed in Xbox camp but it seems they weren't.
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Yeah. Even in Japan COD is biggish series nowadays (at least in current dying home console market).



What? If you take out Japan X360 sold more in west than PS3. It destroyed PS3 in states and was also somewhat competitive in Europe. This gen Xbox One is almost as big flop as WiiU in Europe (especially outside UK) and little behind PS4 even in US. It absolutely makes sense for Activision to follow the bigger userbase and that is by far on PS4 this gen. Of course had MS been willing to pay extra money for the partnership Activision could have stayed in Xbox camp but it seems they weren't.

Let's randomly assume that PS4 and Xbox One are at 85 million sold-through as of january 2015 or something.

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For 360 you will be left with (this is a guess), That's 36 million

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For PS3 you will be left with (this is a guess), 50

The Xbox 360 sold better in the west? no, not even close. (Keep in mind that the 36 and the 50 include countries outside of Europe as well so both numbers are even smaller.)

It was inflated by the U.S., this is why you're "if you remove Japan for PS3" Doesn't make sense. What's odd about this format is that you don't even need to remove japan to say x360 sold more in the "west" (if you include USA" so I'm actually lost on what your point even was.
 

ZhugeEX

Banned
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
Let's randomly assume that PS4 and Xbox One are at 85 million sold-through as of january 2015 or something.
WAT!

You mean PS3 and 360 right. Hard to guess actual sell through figures.

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For 360 you will be left with (this is a guess), That's 36 million
Japan and USA account for over 44 million consoles.

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For PS3 you will be left with (this is a guess), 50
Japan and USA account for over 36.5 million consoles.


(Rounded to .5)
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
WAT!

You mean PS3 and 360 right. Hard to guess actual sell through figures.



Japan and USA account for over 44 million consoles.



Japan and USA account for over 36.5 million consoles.
Lol oops, they must have gotten a $99 boost.

???

USA is at 47 million isn't it for 360? Japan is 1.6?

PS4 is 10 in japan and 25 in US right?
 

Chobel

Member
Mar 26, 2013
15,673
3
515
uh



This all would be Activision decisions or lead to activision decisions (like A lack of promotion because of Halo, Activision may not like that, Activision may not like the Ubisoft shooter partnership.

Activision probably didn't (if they did) cancel because of sales.

Maybe there was a contract and Activision decided not to renew it (it also could go the othe rway around.)
See that doesn't make sense:
1) Halo 5 is only this year, so if Activision is pissed about it they'll do one year deal with Sony, however their deal is multi-year.
2) Activision is now working with Sony, even though Sony will promote Battlefront from EA, but somehow you expect Activsion to be pissed about MS and Ubsioft relationship in 3rd person shooter that's not coming this year?
 

Chobel

Member
Mar 26, 2013
15,673
3
515
Let's randomly assume that PS4 and Xbox One are at 85 million sold-through as of january 2015 or something.

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For 360 you will be left with (this is a guess), That's 36 million

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For PS3 you will be left with (this is a guess), 50

The Xbox 360 sold better in the west? no, not even close. (Keep in mind that the 36 and the 50 include countries outside of Europe as well so both numbers are even smaller.)

It was inflated by the U.S., this is why you're "if you remove Japan for PS3" Doesn't make sense. What's odd about this format is that you don't even need to remove japan to say x360 sold more in the "west" (if you include USA" so I'm actually lost on what your point even was.
He removed Japan, because CoD is way less popular in Japan than the rest of the world. In the other words, when talking about CoD sales, Japan can be ignored.
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
See that doesn't make sense:
1) Halo 5 is only this year, so if Activision is pissed about it they'll do one year deal with Sony, however their deal is multi-year.
2) Activision is now working with Sony, even though Sony will promote Battlefront from EA, but somehow you expect Activsion to be pissed about MS and Ubsioft relationship in 3rd person shooter that's not coming this year?
Gears is next year, and the Ubisoft shooters (let's pretend the SC rumor is true) and probably more will be next year. Except seige, that's this year right?

MS had already arranged and announced these partnerships ahead of time for Seige, and The Divisions, and apparently also Fallout 4 (though I think all that has is Fall Out 3 for 3 in terms of exclusive content). As for the two Ubisoft shooters, you have one this year one next year (2 if rumor of SC is true) With Siege and The Division, announced ahead of time. I think MS took those and didn't give Activision what they wanted for the partnership. Activision was probably annoyed marketing/support wise.
 

KillerMan91

Member
Aug 24, 2011
6,928
0
500
Finland
Let's randomly assume that PS4 and Xbox One are at 85 million sold-through as of january 2015 or something.

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For 360 you will be left with (this is a guess), That's 36 million

If you take out Japan and U.S.A For PS3 you will be left with (this is a guess), 50

The Xbox 360 sold better in the west? no, not even close. (Keep in mind that the 36 and the 50 include countries outside of Europe as well so both numbers are even smaller.)

It was inflated by the U.S., this is why you're "if you remove Japan for PS3" Doesn't make sense. What's odd about this format is that you don't even need to remove japan to say x360 sold more in the "west" (if you include USA" so I'm actually lost on what your point even was.
Well lets just simplify what I am trying to say. Last gen X360 was rather competitive worldwide. This gen Xbox One is not. Last gen X360 destroyed PS3 in two of the biggest markets for COD (USA and UK). This gen Xbox One doesn't destroy PS4 in these markets. Last gen it made sense for Activision to be on Xbox camp because of these reasons. This gen it doesn't without MS throwing money at them. PS4 is leading the sales even in US and UK and absolutely crushing Xbox One in rest of the world. There is simply more sales potential on PS4.
 

Chobel

Member
Mar 26, 2013
15,673
3
515
Gears is next year, and the Ubisoft shooters (let's pretend the SC rumor is true) and probably more will be next year. Except seige, that's this year right?

MS had already arranged and announced these partnerships ahead of time for Seige, and The Divisions, and apparently also Fallout 4 (though I think all that has is Fall Out 3 for 3 in terms of exclusive content). As for the two Ubisoft shooters, you have one this year one next year (2 if rumor of SC is true) With Siege and The Division, announced ahead of time. I think MS took those and didn't give Activision what they wanted for the partnership. Activision was probably annoyed marketing/support wise.
Not trying to shit on Siege but... no one gives a shit about it, it will be decent seller at best.
Fallout: an RPG.
Gears 4: TPS
The Divsion: TPS (RPG?), new IP and it's not releasing in different period than CoD

Seriously all these are not competing in any significant way against CoD.
So then...

Where are they at?



The context was installbase, not COD.
The context is installbase that buys CoD
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Last gen X360 destroyed PS3 in two of the biggest markets for COD (USA and UK).
The only real difference that may have some barring if any is that the two are "close" in U.S. and UK, but why would that be enough to switch? If the 360 "lead" was the cause then why would they change it now? PS4/XOne in UK and U.S. are close, so there's a coin-flip factor if they just jump on the PS4 because they are slightly ahead when that could remain the same OR change through the next few months, that's an odd bet to make. Outside those two regions, the PS4 s in the same position as the PS3, the PS3 was always ahead of the 360 everywhere but the U.S. (in terms of big markets).

I don't think sales has anything to do with COD jumping. ALso keep in mind that the PS3/360 weren't that far apart when the deal already started, 360 took some time to reach that "destroying" gap that it ended up receiving. The Wii was the real seller then.

Higher than the Dreamcast. That's for sure.
Right.

So what are the last actual numbers?
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Not trying to shit on Siege but... no one gives a shit about it, it will be decent seller at best.
Fallout: an RPG.
Gears 4: TPS
The Divsion: TPS (RPG?), new IP and it's not releasing in different period than CoD

Seriously all these are not competing in any significant way against CoD.

]
You missed the important part about those games getting MS's money, AHEAD of time. All of them. Which probably opened the gates at Activision and Sony decided to grab the asking price.
 

Chobel

Member
Mar 26, 2013
15,673
3
515
The only real difference that may have some barring if any is that the two are "close" in U.S. and UK, but why would that be enough to switch? If the 360 "lead" was the cause then why would they change it now? PS4/XOne in UK and U.S. are close, so there's a coin-flip factor if they just jump on the PS4 because they are slightly ahead when that could remain the same OR change through the next few months, that's an odd bet to make. Outside those two regions, the PS4 s in the same position as the PS3, the PS3 was always ahead of the 360 everywhere but the U.S. (in terms of big markets).

I don't think sales has anything to do with COD jumping. ALso keep in mind that the PS3/360 weren't that far apart when the deal already started, 360 took some time to reach that "destroying" gap that it ended up receiving. The Wii was the real seller then.
Because they're close in US/UK, then the sales from the other countries makes a big difference now.

You missed the important part about those games getting MS's money, AHEAD of time. All of them. Which probably opened the gates at Activision and Sony decided to grab the asking price.
So you think MS offered to pay less this time?
 

Chobel

Member
Mar 26, 2013
15,673
3
515
The PlayStation 4 versions of the last two CALL OF DUTY titles have sold more than the Xbox One versions. (Worldwide)
I know, but at that time Activsion was still bound by the marketing deal with MS, the deal supposedly ended this year and that's why Activsion switched partners.
 

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,352
11
320
But then again, I wonder what was EA's logic with Battlefront (beside prefering the top selling console) in signing co marketing with Sony, while they have pushed the XB1 so much (with, among other things, that multi-million $ deal around NFL). Trying to make nice with Sony maybe? Or could Sony have circumvented them on some level and made a deal with Lucasfilm/ Disney directly, which gave them some "weight" in getting Battlefront? (cf the on stage talk around the reveal of Disney Infinity 3.0 Star Wars) :shrug:
EA tried to play king maker and clearly, they don't have that power. In the end, they have to try to sell as many games as they can, regardless of power plays.
 

ZhugeEX

Banned
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
I know, but at that time Activsion was still bound by the marketing deal with MS, the deal supposedly ended this year and that's why Activsion switched partners.
Yup. Just backing up your point by giving one of the reasons why the marketing deal switched to Sony PlayStation.
 

DC1

Member
Jan 30, 2013
2,425
0
355
You missed the important part about those games getting MS's money, AHEAD of time. All of them. Which probably opened the gates at Activision and Sony decided to grab the asking price.
I would argue that all of those games with "marketing tights" when combined do not meet the sells totals or collective influence of call of Duty marketed on a new lead platform.





So sorry. I had a typo,.. But the image seemed better at the time.
 
May 30, 2015
193
0
0
Yup. Just backing up your point by giving one of the reasons why the marketing deal switched to Sony PlayStation.
By using a point I made about a probable contract ending. Which is what I'm saying, I think it's a support/money issue. i think MS threw thier cards at a ton of things from ubisoft to Fallout to TR etc.

That would make the Xbox One look even worse in the US if the 360 was at 47 million.
Uh wasn't Wii over 40 million? Didn't the 360 pass the Wii in the U.S.?