Attachment Rate vs. Console Sales - Which is more Important?

with attachment rate, the only winners are the devs. with console sales the winner is the creator of the console. so i guess it would make sense that its console sales that determines the winner.Silenthps

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]In SW, we argue about who is going to "win" the console war. Traditionally, the end number to declare victory is the amount of console hardware is sold.

But look, consoles aren't developed to make a profit off of. Their developed to make a profit off of software - that is why Sony, MS and Nintendo are in the business to begin with. And of course, it's why the 3rd Party Dev are here.

So, what is more important to those that sell the software? The number of consoles out there or the number of "real consumers" - that is the number of people who own the console and are participating in purchasing software for it.

Take the 360 vs. Wii. For argument's sake, let's say they the 360 has 10 million consoles sold, and the Wii has 10.1 million consoles sold. Who is winning? Obviously, from Nintendo's position they are.

But are they really?

Add this to the equation: The 360 has an attachment rate of 6:1, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 2:1, that is, number of games and accessories sold to every console sold. Now who's winning? From a game developer's perspective the 360 looks like a better console to develope for. The Wii would need nearly 30 million consoles sold for a developer to put them on an equal profit opportunity as the 360.

So at the end of this, if we only calculate the number of hardware sales, can we truly say who the winner of this generation is?

EDITED FOR: My mathmatical stupidity. mjarantilla

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wii's attachment rate is more like 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. The 360's attachment rate is not much higher (and is in fact lower than the Wii's in the US and Europe, at least when it was last measured).

THe wii attachrate is abit rigged anyway. Poeple will go out of thier way to include sports and play.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="Pripyat"][QUOTE="Eponique"]

Numbers from the rear end FTL.

Wii's attach rate is 4. 6 in the US, 5 in Europe and 2 in Japan.

And that's before games like Mario Party 8 and DQS were released in Japan, so I wouldn't be surprised if that number's higher now.

Besides, Total Software Sales > Hardware sales > Attachment rate.

Duckman5

Wiis problem is it's low third party attach rate, and that's what attracts more games for the system. Iwata has talked about Nintendo calming down and leaving more space for third parties, but at the same time they are shooting of their whole wad of games (MP3,MG, SSBB)this holiday season. They should have waited until Wii has slowing down and needed a boost.

Iwata didn't say ****.

Nintendo's plan is simple: Hype. Yes hype. They had a terrific launch with Zelda, Wii Sports (I'm talking about the real world... y'know outside GS), that's when the hype begun. Iwata's plan is the squish all the major first party titles into '07. Since when did we have Zelda, Mario, Smash and Metroid all in one year? Iwata wants people to continue playing their Wiis. To keep the hype going. People will buy Wiis if they like what they're hearing and what they're seeing.

When it's all said and done, 17 million consoles will be sold by the end of 2007. With not much first party titles in 08, third parties will get more room. The 17 million consoles sold will look very attractive to the developer, not to mention Nintendo barely has anything planned for 2008. 3rd Parties will have a lot of breating space.

Wii is cheap and easy to develop for, with a large userbase (which will end up having more total software sales than the 360 by the year's end. You can quote me on that). Which developer wouldn't want to develop for the Wii?

Are we talking short run or long run? If long run I :lol: at you.

where did you get that the wii attach rate is 2-1? I've seen 5-1 and 4-1 from different sources.

also considering that the 360 had a year longer to sell games i'd say the wii is winning both battles right now.

Ontain

I remeber reading an article about game sales and 360 sales matched the combination of Wii and Ps3 sales.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]In SW, we argue about who is going to "win" the console war. Traditionally, the end number to declare victory is the amount of console hardware is sold.

But look, consoles aren't developed to make a profit off of. Their developed to make a profit off of software - that is why Sony, MS and Nintendo are in the business to begin with. And of course, it's why the 3rd Party Dev are here.

So, what is more important to those that sell the software? The number of consoles out there or the number of "real consumers" - that is the number of people who own the console and are participating in purchasing software for it.

Take the 360 vs. Wii. For argument's sake, let's say they the 360 has 10 million consoles sold, and the Wii has 10.1 million consoles sold. Who is winning? Obviously, from Nintendo's position they are.

But are they really?

Add this to the equation: The 360 has an attachment rate of 6:1, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 2:1, that is, number of games and accessories sold to every console sold. Now who's winning? From a game developer's perspective the 360 looks like a better console to develope for. The Wii would need nearly 30 million consoles sold for a developer to put them on an equal profit opportunity as the 360.

So at the end of this, if we only calculate the number of hardware sales, can we truly say who the winner of this generation is?

EDITED FOR: My mathmatical stupidity. slduncanlaw

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wii's attachment rate is more like 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. The 360's attachment rate is not much higher (and is in fact lower than the Wii's in the US and Europe, at least when it was last measured).

100% incorrect. Its AVERAGE attachment rate is 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. As of their April 2007 financial statement, where they state total games sold (NOT including WiiPlay or WiiSports) and total systems sold.

So, once again....

*pops bubble*

Early on - sales.

Late in the gen - attachment rate.

I will be comparing them for all of the consoles later on. If the PS3 and 360 still have an attachment rate of about 5-6 games a year while the Wii has about 1. We will see who is the true victor of the gen.

i would say both

1) sales so the next console is better

2) software so more exclusives are developed for the next one

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]In SW, we argue about who is going to "win" the console war. Traditionally, the end number to declare victory is the amount of console hardware is sold.

But look, consoles aren't developed to make a profit off of. Their developed to make a profit off of software - that is why Sony, MS and Nintendo are in the business to begin with. And of course, it's why the 3rd Party Dev are here.

So, what is more important to those that sell the software? The number of consoles out there or the number of "real consumers" - that is the number of people who own the console and are participating in purchasing software for it.

Take the 360 vs. Wii. For argument's sake, let's say they the 360 has 10 million consoles sold, and the Wii has 10.1 million consoles sold. Who is winning? Obviously, from Nintendo's position they are.

But are they really?

Add this to the equation: The 360 has an attachment rate of 6:1, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 2:1, that is, number of games and accessories sold to every console sold. Now who's winning? From a game developer's perspective the 360 looks like a better console to develope for. The Wii would need nearly 30 million consoles sold for a developer to put them on an equal profit opportunity as the 360.

So at the end of this, if we only calculate the number of hardware sales, can we truly say who the winner of this generation is?

EDITED FOR: My mathmatical stupidity. mjarantilla

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wii's attachment rate is more like 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. The 360's attachment rate is not much higher (and is in fact lower than the Wii's in the US and Europe, at least when it was last measured).

100% incorrect. Its AVERAGE attachment rate is 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. As of their April 2007 financial statement, where they state total games sold (NOT including WiiPlay or WiiSports) and total systems sold.

So, once again....

*pops bubble*

Market watchers discount the financial statement of, in particular, the Wii with regards to attachment rate because Nintendo factors WiiSports - a title that is included with the Wii everywhere but Japan - as a separate unit sold in connection with console sold, despite your claim to the contrary. In the report, it states that WiiSports has sold 5.2 million copies. It also states that the Wii has sold 5.8 million units worldwide. Nintendo notoriously factors included software into their attachment rates.

When factoring numbers released by NPD along side public merchant numbers from EB, GameSpot, Best Buy, etc., etc., you get the real attachment rate. Wii hovers below 3:1 and above 2:1.

Not to burst your bubble here, but I have a certain unique perspective on this that gives me certain advantage. Trust me when I tell you that you're wrong here.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="slduncanlaw"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]In SW, we argue about who is going to "win" the console war. Traditionally, the end number to declare victory is the amount of console hardware is sold.

But look, consoles aren't developed to make a profit off of. Their developed to make a profit off of software - that is why Sony, MS and Nintendo are in the business to begin with. And of course, it's why the 3rd Party Dev are here.

So, what is more important to those that sell the software? The number of consoles out there or the number of "real consumers" - that is the number of people who own the console and are participating in purchasing software for it.

Take the 360 vs. Wii. For argument's sake, let's say they the 360 has 10 million consoles sold, and the Wii has 10.1 million consoles sold. Who is winning? Obviously, from Nintendo's position they are.

But are they really?

Add this to the equation: The 360 has an attachment rate of 6:1, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 2:1, that is, number of games and accessories sold to every console sold. Now who's winning? From a game developer's perspective the 360 looks like a better console to develope for. The Wii would need nearly 30 million consoles sold for a developer to put them on an equal profit opportunity as the 360.

So at the end of this, if we only calculate the number of hardware sales, can we truly say who the winner of this generation is?

EDITED FOR: My mathmatical stupidity. slduncanlaw

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wii's attachment rate is more like 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. The 360's attachment rate is not much higher (and is in fact lower than the Wii's in the US and Europe, at least when it was last measured).

100% incorrect. Its AVERAGE attachment rate is 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. As of their April 2007 financial statement, where they state total games sold (NOT including WiiPlay or WiiSports) and total systems sold.

So, once again....

*pops bubble*

Market watchers discount the financial statement of, in particular, the Wii with regards to attachment rate because Nintendo factors WiiSports - a title that is included with the Wii everywhere but Japan - as a separate unit sold in connection with console sold, despite your claim to the contrary. In the report, it states that WiiSports has sold 5.2 million copies. It also states that the Wii has sold 5.8 million units worldwide. Nintendo notoriously factors included software into their attachment rates.

When factoring numbers released by NPD along side public merchant numbers from EB, GameSpot, Best Buy, etc., etc., you get the real attachment rate. Wii hovers below 3:1 and above 2:1.

Not to burst your bubble here, but I have a certain unique perspective on this that gives me certain advantage. Trust me when I tell you that you're wrong here.

Sorry, but that's bull****.

Nintendo's financial report SPECIFICALLY states that software sales DO NOT include software bundled with hardware. Yes, WiiSports sold 5.2 million copies....IN JAPAN. Where it was sold separately and was ridiculously popular, almost as much as the Brain Age games. If you'd read the fine print on that financial statement, you'd know that.

And what unique perspective, exactly?

Attach rate doesn't matter. It's total software sales that matter.

Or another thing you could look at is average software sales (total sales/number of games)

As far as profits are concerned attach rate wins hands down, as software sales is where most of the money is made in the industry.Snugenz

A system could have an attachment rate of 1,000. But if it only has 10 systems sold. Developers will choose the 200 million fanbase which only has an attachment rate of 2.

It's TOTAL SOFTWARE SALES that count. Attachment rates don't mean ****

I would do an archives search of SW for this very issue. It was only a week or two ago that I made a NUMBER of points and posts about why attach rate is meaningless due to a complete lack of evidence AND context. I find it surprising that NOBODY ever talked about attach rate until MS came on the scene...and now suddenly every acts as if it is the best indicator of success. Funny how suddenly the one thing that favours MS's console, and is constantly hyped by MS, is suddenly believed to be the gospel.

Here is my basic point. Yes...attach rate MIGHT have very crucial relevance. But we can't know for sure because we aren't given proper proof, evidence or context to the numbers. Think of it this way. If you saw a news report calling America the richest nation on earth...is that TRULY a proper indicator of the standard of living for each person? Or is thisa skewed number due to the number of extremely wealthy people in the states? Does being the richest nation mean that there are no poor or sick? Of course not.

This is the problem with simply saying "attach rate of 5! We Win!" We have no idea what this means. Does it mean MS is making lots of money? Of course not. Xbox had a higher attach rate supposedly than the PS2, yet the PS2 sold way more games in all genres and Sony made money while MS lost billions.

Does attach rate mean developers will sell more games? Not necessarily. How much of that attach rate is propped up by the big name sequals vs new and unknown games? Surely this is important info for developers deciding to put thier new, unhyped game on the 360. How much of that attach rate is "casual" titles like FPSers, arcade racers, or sports titles? Surely that is crucial information for any developer who wants to make RPGs, platformers, adventure, puzzle, etc. How muchof these "attach rate" is due to two big name companies like Bungie and Bethesda (or Ubisoft), as opposed to a wide sample of all companies or smaller companies? What good is a high attach rate to developers, if it is only high because of big name companies. Wouldn't that be important for smaller devs?

While there are issues with simply relying on console sales, we KNOW what the means. Lots of consoles means lots of users. Simple as that. We know that there are roughly X people waiting for games to buy. It isn't perfect, but I think it is a MUCH better indicator for success and what developers should focus on. Or at least, it SHOULD be that way. UNfortunately, I think developers are too used to doing "business as usual" and too blinded by the whole "attach rate" issue.

Personally, I refuse to give anythig more than a curious glance at attach rates until somebody bothers to give real context as to what these numbers really mean.

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="slduncanlaw"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]In SW, we argue about who is going to "win" the console war. Traditionally, the end number to declare victory is the amount of console hardware is sold.

But look, consoles aren't developed to make a profit off of. Their developed to make a profit off of software - that is why Sony, MS and Nintendo are in the business to begin with. And of course, it's why the 3rd Party Dev are here.

So, what is more important to those that sell the software? The number of consoles out there or the number of "real consumers" - that is the number of people who own the console and are participating in purchasing software for it.

Take the 360 vs. Wii. For argument's sake, let's say they the 360 has 10 million consoles sold, and the Wii has 10.1 million consoles sold. Who is winning? Obviously, from Nintendo's position they are.

But are they really?

Add this to the equation: The 360 has an attachment rate of 6:1, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 2:1, that is, number of games and accessories sold to every console sold. Now who's winning? From a game developer's perspective the 360 looks like a better console to develope for. The Wii would need nearly 30 million consoles sold for a developer to put them on an equal profit opportunity as the 360.

So at the end of this, if we only calculate the number of hardware sales, can we truly say who the winner of this generation is?

EDITED FOR: My mathmatical stupidity. mjarantilla

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Wii's attachment rate is more like 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. The 360's attachment rate is not much higher (and is in fact lower than the Wii's in the US and Europe, at least when it was last measured).

100% incorrect. Its AVERAGE attachment rate is 6.5 in the US, 6.1 in Europe, and 3.9 in Japan. As of their April 2007 financial statement, where they state total games sold (NOT including WiiPlay or WiiSports) and total systems sold.

So, once again....

*pops bubble*

Market watchers discount the financial statement of, in particular, the Wii with regards to attachment rate because Nintendo factors WiiSports - a title that is included with the Wii everywhere but Japan - as a separate unit sold in connection with console sold, despite your claim to the contrary. In the report, it states that WiiSports has sold 5.2 million copies. It also states that the Wii has sold 5.8 million units worldwide. Nintendo notoriously factors included software into their attachment rates.

When factoring numbers released by NPD along side public merchant numbers from EB, GameSpot, Best Buy, etc., etc., you get the real attachment rate. Wii hovers below 3:1 and above 2:1.

Not to burst your bubble here, but I have a certain unique perspective on this that gives me certain advantage. Trust me when I tell you that you're wrong here.

Sorry, but that's bull****.

Nintendo's financial report SPECIFICALLY states that software sales DO NOT include software bundled with hardware. Yes, WiiSports sold 5.2 million copies....IN JAPAN. Where it was sold separately and was ridiculously popular, almost as much as the Brain Age games. If you'd read the fine print on that financial statement, you'd know that.

And what unique perspective, exactly?

First of all, quit taking this personal. I have no agenda to discredit the Wii and the business achievement that it has become in its first year.

To say that Wii Sports sold 5.2 million copies, which by the way is 3.2 million more copies than actual consoles sold in Japan (2.0mil) through the March 31st, 2007 Fiscal year tells me that I need to do something better with my time than argue this with you.

Here's the report, we can let those less emotionally invested in the console decide for themselves:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2007/annual0703e.pdf

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="slduncanlaw"]

Market watchers discount the financial statement of, in particular, the Wii with regards to attachment rate because Nintendo factors WiiSports - a title that is included with the Wii everywhere but Japan - as a separate unit sold in connection with console sold, despite your claim to the contrary. In the report, it states that WiiSports has sold 5.2 million copies. It also states that the Wii has sold 5.8 million units worldwide. Nintendo notoriously factors included software into their attachment rates.

When factoring numbers released by NPD along side public merchant numbers from EB, GameSpot, Best Buy, etc., etc., you get the real attachment rate. Wii hovers below 3:1 and above 2:1.

Not to burst your bubble here, but I have a certain unique perspective on this that gives me certain advantage. Trust me when I tell you that you're wrong here.

slduncanlaw

Sorry, but that's bull****.

Nintendo's financial report SPECIFICALLY states that software sales DO NOT include software bundled with hardware. Yes, WiiSports sold 5.2 million copies....IN JAPAN. Where it was sold separately and was ridiculously popular, almost as much as the Brain Age games. If you'd read the fine print on that financial statement, you'd know that.

And what unique perspective, exactly?

First of all, quit taking this personal. I have no agenda to discredit the Wii and the business achievement that it has become in its first year.

To say that Wii Sports sold 5.2 million copies, which by the way is 3.2 million more copies than actual consoles sold in Japan (2.0mil) through the March 31st, 2007 Fiscal year tells me that I need to do something better with my time than argue this with you.

Here's the report, we can let those less emotionally invested in the console decide for themselves:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2007/annual0703e.pdf

On taking a closer look, you are right. The report I was reading said FORECAST figures didn't include quantity bundled with hardware, while the actual sales figures did include bundles. My bad.

I wasn't taking it personally, BTW. That's how I always react when I think someone is talking BS.

Wow, I can't believe MS has brainwashed so many people into believing attachment rates are more important than console sales.

Look at it this way. If MS ends up with around 25 million userbase and an attachment rate of 8, the total would be 200 million software sold. If the console that wins sells 100 million consoles and the attachment rate is 2.5, then the total software sold would be 250 million software sold. The bigger userbase easily trumps the attachment rate of the smaller userbase.

The only reason MS' attachment rate looks impressive is because not many are buying their console. If a lot of people start buying the 360, the attachment rate starts to go down because people aren't going to purchase 6+ games at that time. Attachment rate is just a number MS invented to make their console look better than it is. Look at the PS2. 120+ million userbase with an attachment rate around 2. No one can say that the PS2 lost to the other two.

[QUOTE="Eponique"][QUOTE="Pripyat"][QUOTE="Eponique"]

Numbers from the rear end FTL.

Wii's attach rate is 4. 6 in the US, 5 in Europe and 2 in Japan.

And that's before games like Mario Party 8 and DQS were released in Japan, so I wouldn't be surprised if that number's higher now.

Besides, Total Software Sales > Hardware sales > Attachment rate.

DivergeUnify

Wiis problem is it's low third party attach rate, and that's what attracts more games for the system. Iwata has talked about Nintendo calming down and leaving more space for third parties, but at the same time they are shooting of their whole wad of games (MP3,MG, SSBB)this holiday season. They should have waited until Wii has slowing down and needed a boost.

Iwata didn't say ****.

Nintendo's plan is simple: Hype. Yes hype. They had a terrific launch with Zelda, Wii Sports (I'm talking about the real world... y'know outside GS), that's when the hype begun. Iwata's plan is the squish all the major first party titles into '07. Since when did we have Zelda, Mario, Smash and Metroid all in one year? Iwata wants people to continue playing their Wiis. To keep the hype going. People will buy Wiis if they like what they're hearing and what they're seeing.

When it's all said and done, 17 million consoles will be sold by the end of 2007. With not much first party titles in 08, third parties will get more room. The 17 million consoles sold will look very attractive to the developer, not to mention Nintendo barely has anything planned for 2008. 3rd Parties will have a lot of breating space.

Wii is cheap and easy to develop for, with a large userbase (which will end up having more total software sales than the 360 by the year's end. You can quote me on that). Which developer wouldn't want to develop for the Wii?

WTF? everytime I quote what i write disappears...

Edit: Well here's what that went lost.

Can you show me a link telling that X360 has superior software sales? Because according to this (Not super reliable, but better than some random guy's rumor) X360 has sold 34 million games. http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=&console=X360&publisher=&sort=Total

While Wii has sold 25 mill... And no, Wii sport counts, as GeoW was packed with many X360s.

So each year Wii sells 30 and X360 sells 20 mill games.

Each year X360 sells 6 million consoles Each year Wii sells 12 mill consoles.

20/6 3,33

30/12 = 2,5

So the average Xboxer buy more games than the Wiier. But in total Ninty beats MS, even as sad as it is for ya lemms

Console sales generally to me say established fan base. The attachment rate is important so much more to developers, and the console makers only in the end. Why else is Square and others Japan companies starting to NOW come around to M$? They've been overtaken (barely) by the Wii recently, if console sales were the be all end all factor then why are these companies NOW turning around where they're putting they're best bets on?Montavious2004

In some cases, it is due to MS pushing to get more japanese software on their console. It would be stupid for MS to NOT push for japanese software.

In the case of Square, games like FF need a minimum of 4 million sales to just break even. Right now, the PS3 doesn't quite have the numbers to promise all those sales. So Square needs to hedge their bets by releasing games on other consoles, in hopes of making money there should FF13 fail to make its money back.

In short, many reasons that have NOTHING to do with attach rate. especially since, if you look at the MS library and it's biggest hits and best sellers...apply that to the attach rate...one could say the attach rate for japanes games is practically zero.

Wow, I can't believe MS has brainwashed so many people into believing attachment rates are more important than console sales.

Look at it this way. If MS ends up with around 25 million userbase and an attachment rate of 8, the total would be 200 million software sold. If the console that wins sells 100 million consoles and the attachment rate is 2.5, then the total software sold would be 250 million software sold. The bigger userbase easily trumps the attachment rate of the smaller userbase.

The only reason MS' attachment rate looks impressive is because not many are buying their console. If a lot of people start buying the 360, the attachment rate starts to go down because people aren't going to purchase 6+ games at that time. Attachment rate is just a number MS invented to make their console look better than it is. Look at the PS2. 120+ million userbase with an attachment rate around 2. No one can say that the PS2 lost to the other two.

Zhengi

Nobody's brainwashed. Your example in some ways mirrors what happened last generation with the PS2. While that console had a 1.6 attachment rate (shooting from memory here - no offense if I'm off), their 126 million console base made up for issues associated with the low attach rate.

Everyone is forcasting this generation to be a closer finish between all three. I've seen reports that speculate an even finish by 2010, predicting the Wii's popularity to level out, the PS3 surging, and the 360 just maintaining. That is the basis from which the question comes from. What is agreed it that it is unlikely that there will be such a margin of "victory" that the PS2 enjoyed.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]

Wow, I can't believe MS has brainwashed so many people into believing attachment rates are more important than console sales.

Look at it this way. If MS ends up with around 25 million userbase and an attachment rate of 8, the total would be 200 million software sold. If the console that wins sells 100 million consoles and the attachment rate is 2.5, then the total software sold would be 250 million software sold. The bigger userbase easily trumps the attachment rate of the smaller userbase.

The only reason MS' attachment rate looks impressive is because not many are buying their console. If a lot of people start buying the 360, the attachment rate starts to go down because people aren't going to purchase 6+ games at that time. Attachment rate is just a number MS invented to make their console look better than it is. Look at the PS2. 120+ million userbase with an attachment rate around 2. No one can say that the PS2 lost to the other two.

slduncanlaw

Nobody's brainwashed. Your example in some ways mirrors what happened last generation with the PS2. While that console had a 1.6 attachment rate (shooting from memory here - no offense if I'm off), their 126 million console base made up for issues associated with the low attach rate.

Everyone is forcasting this generation to be a closer finish between all three. I've seen reports that speculate an even finish by 2010, predicting the Wii's popularity to level out, the PS3 surging, and the 360 just maintaining. That is the basis from which the question comes from. What is agreed it that it is unlikely that there will be such a margin of "victory" that the PS2 enjoyed.

And who's to say we can't disagree? I think the Wii will be as successful if not more than the PS2. The Wii is selling more than the PS2 was in the same point in its lifetime.

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]

Wow, I can't believe MS has brainwashed so many people into believing attachment rates are more important than console sales.

Look at it this way. If MS ends up with around 25 million userbase and an attachment rate of 8, the total would be 200 million software sold. If the console that wins sells 100 million consoles and the attachment rate is 2.5, then the total software sold would be 250 million software sold. The bigger userbase easily trumps the attachment rate of the smaller userbase.

The only reason MS' attachment rate looks impressive is because not many are buying their console. If a lot of people start buying the 360, the attachment rate starts to go down because people aren't going to purchase 6+ games at that time. Attachment rate is just a number MS invented to make their console look better than it is. Look at the PS2. 120+ million userbase with an attachment rate around 2. No one can say that the PS2 lost to the other two.

slduncanlaw

Nobody's brainwashed. Your example in some ways mirrors what happened last generation with the PS2. While that console had a 1.6 attachment rate (shooting from memory here - no offense if I'm off), their 126 million console base made up for issues associated with the low attach rate.

Everyone is forcasting this generation to be a closer finish between all three. I've seen reports that speculate an even finish by 2010, predicting the Wii's popularity to level out, the PS3 surging, and the 360 just maintaining. That is the basis from which the question comes from. What is agreed it that it is unlikely that there will be such a margin of "victory" that the PS2 enjoyed.

I think it's a little too optimistic for people to think that all 3 consoles will finish relatively close to each other, especially since the 360 and PS3 combined aren't matching the monthly sales rate of the Wii in the US, let alone the entire world. And like Eponique pointed out, the Wii is outselling the PS2 at this point in its lifetime. The Wii is on track to at least mirror the PS2 success. There have been no indications that it will slow down by 2010 like you pointed out.

Also, what you stated about the PS2 was exactly the point of my post. Attachment rates are overrated especially if the userbase is huge like the PS2s. If the userbase isn't growing and they keep purchasing games, of course, the attachment rates goes up. So attachment rate is overrated.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]As far as profits are concerned attach rate wins hands down, as software sales is where most of the money is made in the industry.AfterShafter

Of course not, because the PS2 sales completely overshadowed the GC's, so if the GC did have a higher attach rate, the sheer number of PS2 users would make up the numbers. But in a console war were system sales are very close (like now) attach rate means everything.

Anyway my first post made no comment about who was winning or why they were winning, all i said was, that companies (MS, Sony, Ninty) make the majority of their money from software sales and only a small percentage from hardware sales.

It's a loaded quesiton. For the big-name games, like zelda, wii sports, halo, it's all about sales since if a person buys two games it'll be one of those two. For more niche titles, it's all about attachment rate since if a person buys more software, they'll buy the lesser-known games. Overall, it's a factor of both sales and attachment rate.

I'd say if a console has 10 million and a attachment of 2, it's worse than a console with 8 million and an attachment rate of 3.

Hm, I was going to make a post about this later, but anyhoo.

The answer is: depends on which company you're talking about and what their objectives are.

First off, there's already confusion as to what constitutes as "winning" a war. People have to decide whether winning means making the most profit for the console developer, gaining the largest market share, or producing the most or best games. Without agreeing to a common set of criteria, you can argue all day long and it always goes back to "but I never said it's about...".

However, from each company's perspective, I think they should all be happy with what they're pushing at the moment.

• Nintendo is a hardware and perpherials company, the only console maker known to release multiple revisions of the same hardware, different colors, multitudes of addons and accessories, etc. They make money from every console sold, so for them sales make sense.
• Microsoft is a software company, they earn a living writing code. In that respect, attachment rate is important b/c it's cheap for them to replicate software (e.g., burning a DVD9 disk) and they're either losing money or barely breaking even with their main pieces of hardware. What would be interesting would be to see how well their obviously overpriced accessories (wireless adapter, battery packs, etc.) sell as they experiment with trying to make money on the hardware side.
• Sony wants Bluray - people who claim that Sony would have been better off without the drive don't understand the company's philosophy in pushing its propietary storage mediums. And right now Bluray is winning and Sony takes a loyalty cut out of every Bluray disk sold.

[QUOTE="slduncanlaw"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]

Wow, I can't believe MS has brainwashed so many people into believing attachment rates are more important than console sales.

Look at it this way. If MS ends up with around 25 million userbase and an attachment rate of 8, the total would be 200 million software sold. If the console that wins sells 100 million consoles and the attachment rate is 2.5, then the total software sold would be 250 million software sold. The bigger userbase easily trumps the attachment rate of the smaller userbase.

The only reason MS' attachment rate looks impressive is because not many are buying their console. If a lot of people start buying the 360, the attachment rate starts to go down because people aren't going to purchase 6+ games at that time. Attachment rate is just a number MS invented to make their console look better than it is. Look at the PS2. 120+ million userbase with an attachment rate around 2. No one can say that the PS2 lost to the other two.

Zhengi

Nobody's brainwashed. Your example in some ways mirrors what happened last generation with the PS2. While that console had a 1.6 attachment rate (shooting from memory here - no offense if I'm off), their 126 million console base made up for issues associated with the low attach rate.

Everyone is forcasting this generation to be a closer finish between all three. I've seen reports that speculate an even finish by 2010, predicting the Wii's popularity to level out, the PS3 surging, and the 360 just maintaining. That is the basis from which the question comes from. What is agreed it that it is unlikely that there will be such a margin of "victory" that the PS2 enjoyed.

I think it's a little too optimistic for people to think that all 3 consoles will finish relatively close to each other, especially since the 360 and PS3 combined aren't matching the monthly sales rate of the Wii in the US, let alone the entire world. And like Eponique pointed out, the Wii is outselling the PS2 at this point in its lifetime. The Wii is on track to at least mirror the PS2 success. There have been no indications that it will slow down by 2010 like you pointed out.

Also, what you stated about the PS2 was exactly the point of my post. Attachment rates are overrated especially if the userbase is huge like the PS2s. If the userbase isn't growing and they keep purchasing games, of course, the attachment rates goes up. So attachment rate is overrated.

Right now I'm kicking myself in using actual consoles in the example, which was disclaimed as having accurate numbers (though they are close).

It wouldn't shock me in the least to see the Wii finish with a 200 million console base. Nor would it shock me to see the console lose numbers to its competitors in 4 years for lack of HD support, or worse, for an early new console.

Business in this market is all about highs and lows - peaks and valleys. The numbers I use are the basis numbers for how analysts perceive the market. While the numbers have a relative low margin of error, the only good they are for is predicting what is going to happen in the very near future. It is a bit like meteorology. Only accurate at arm's length. Outside of that, and we're all being speculative.

Which, ain't a bad thing. ;)

[QUOTE="AfterShafter"][QUOTE="Snugenz"]As far as profits are concerned attach rate wins hands down, as software sales is where most of the money is made in the industry.Snugenz

Of course not, because the PS2 sales completely overshadowed the GC's, so if the GC did have a higher attach rate, the sheer number of PS2 users would make up the numbers. But in a console war were system sales are very close (like now) attach rate means everything.

Anyway my first post made no comment about who was winning or why they were winning, all i said was, that companies (MS, Sony, Ninty) make the majority of their money from software sales and only a small percentage from hardware sales.

Attach rate STILL means nothing. OVERALL SALES MEAN EVERYTHING. The 360 has higher attach rates, but only as a consequence of higher overall sales. Attach rate should still be ignored.