360 leads hardware to software ratio, Wii and PS3 trail with similar ratios

Definitely not.

I've bought like 90 XBLA games already. I'm psycho, but I'm seriously making up for anyone who isn't even signed up for silver, I think.

Pretty lame since a lot of those XBLA games are on par or better than most Wii games.

plus, the 360 actually has good games worth playing

No YOU suck at statistics. Time does NOT increase a RATIO. Time increases TOTALS. A RATIO is an average sum and is independent of TOTAL sales.

I'VE SAID THIS FOUR TIMES NOW.

Historically attach ratios DECREASE the longer a console is on the market, not the opposite as you mistakenly claim.

If a console with a userbase of 10 million has 50 games and an attach rate of 3.5, that means the AVERAGE owner of that console bought over 3 games. The only way it could be CAPPED at 3 is if there were only 3 games on the market. Since 50 is more than 3.5, it is ILLOGICAL to think that the total number of games available stunted the attach rate ratio. When the 360 launched with ONLY 15 games, it had an attach rate of around 5. Once the library reaches a certain size (probably around 50 games or so) the available library QUANTITY is not a factor, however QUALITY may still be.

The real factor is each demographic's BUYING HABITS. Xbox owners have historically been hardcore gamers who buy lots of GAMES. The Xbox had the highest attach rate last gen even though it had FAR less games in its total library than the PS2. The PS2 had also BEEN OUT LONGER, yet had a LOWER attach rate than the Xbox.

Check the actuall statistics and industry history before you tell someone their statistic skills suck.

Not quite, but close. Time does allow certain factors to mature, such as quantity of quality games. Basically, it allows normal statistical variance to stabilize. In the case of Wii and PS3, because they don't have a good amount of games in their first year, the expected upper limit for the attachment ratio is also concievably lower.

The same would then be true of all the Wii lists around, right? Actually, if you look at both Wii and PS3 lists that people like to throw around they both usually contains lots of upcoming games.

Yeah, but there isn't a big no games for wii argument, most times the fanboys throw around waggle isn't innovation about the wii.

True. But any time I find a game in the street I call NPD and tell them about it.


I just think they should count bundles. It's the only way they can get people to buy Motorstorm!

But RE4 is a good game and Blue Dragon isn't. Duh.

I am beyond disappointed by the developers not retooling Fire Emblem to a point and click interface. I'm not going to bother with it for that reason.

I'm pretty stoked over the Medal of Honor game though, and I generally abhor WW2 shooters. Its not really getting very much attention or marketing either at this point :|

Much better than the PS3, yeah, but I don't expect the attach rate average for the Wii to be high, considering the percentage (however high) of people that buy it that are dubbed 'casual'. I mean, I have 6 Wii games right now, and I have yet to buy titles like Zak and Wiki, Mario, etc.

PS3, though, is looking sketchy.

Thanks for that info. I think that now proves what I've been saying: The 360 simply has a higher attach rate than the other consoles regardless of "omg, it's been out an extra year, not fair!" arguement.

Spartacus, you can't count that 5.3 attach rate until the Wii and PS3 make it through their first holiday season where the consoles have been widely available. Not only are a ton of games coming out in the next 2 months, but it's the gift giving season, so I think we'll see the attach rates jump over the next two months.

Also, the assertion that attach rates don't rise over time is ridiculous. How many games did you have after 2 months of having the XBox? How many did you have after 12 months? 24 months? I'm guessing each number is higher than the last. Obviously, most people have some kind of monthly budget, even if it's not spelled out in Quicken, and can only afford to purchase games slowly over time. So _as time goes by_, *they buy more games*.

Here's some math for ya - assume for a moment that xbox owners buy one game every 2 months. Assume they sell 300,000 consoles per month (just pulling that number out of my ass for ease of math's sake), with a starting userbase of 2 million that got the xbox in the first couple months. Assume everyone who buys a console also buys exactly one game.

At the 1 year mark, the 2 million that got the console at launch will have 7 games each. The 600,000 people who bought it in months 1 and 2 will have 6 games, 600k in months 3 & 4 have 5 games, 600k 5&6 have 4, 7&8 have 3, 9&10 have 2, and 11&12 have just the one.

Now add that up, and you have 5.6 million owners with an average of 4.75 games. Extend the same numbers over another 12 months and the average rises to 7.9. (these numbers generated from excel).

Now, obviously the people who buy the console in the first 6 months are probably the hardcore fans who will buy more games, but I think after that, the average buyer is likely to be just that - average. So while there may well be a dip as the average buyers start outweighing the smaller number of hardcore users... the ratio should rise over time, just because the average age of each console rises over time and people tend to buy games over time because they have more money, more good-looking games are out, older games have gone down in price, and they've gotten bored with the games they have.