| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (127)

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 6:38PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because it's arbitrary. Wii Play would sell just as well as a $10 stand alone. It still sells despite extra controllers no longer being in short supply (at least around these parts). Increasing the price or removing pack-ins is arbitrary, like discounting sales of Warhawk because of the headset or Time Crisis because of the GunCon. Or we should eliminate inexpensive software from each system. Consumers won't spend an extra $10 if they have no intention of using the software. The sale is plenty valid.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 6:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay, so once again, why remove Halo?

It doesn't have a headset, GunCon or controller. Removing Halo is like taking Mario Galaxy or SSBB out of the Wii figures. It is just a game and nothing else.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 6:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But is it fair to include a $10 tech demo while we're comparing $60 big budget games?
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 6:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ B3astofthe3east:

YES. Whether one game is "tech demo" or the other is a big budget blockbuster, they're both tracked by NPD as games and therefore, their sales can be compared and legitimately contribute to tie-in ratios.
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 6:46PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm removing Halo 3 to be totally arbitrary. Like the $60 one above, does that mean the sales of Zack and Wiki, Harvey Birdman and No More Heroes don't count either because they're $20 less? How about eliminating Greatest Hits or Platinum sales? Tie ratio isn't the number of games sold at the $60 price point for each unit. If that were the case, the Wii would stand at 0 since no games come out at $60.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 7:01PM figmentPez said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd like to see the numbers after the first round of Player's Choice titles come out (if they ever do). A round of A-list games selling at a discount (instead of the current weirdness where Marvel Ultimate Alliance is still $50 most places). Games are expensive, and I'm on a budget. I can't buy all my games at full price.

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 7:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kenology you're absolutely right, Wii sport is
not taken into account, only Wii play. Wii play takes
up a large chunk of the ratio though.
Would you consider it fair if microsoft and/or sony would include pong with their joypads and the NPD took
that into account for the ratio??

@ voodoo_craig
what I'm saying is that the 360's bought in the 1st year probably have an ratio of around 12 by now
(I've got 16 games for my 360). This boosts the overall ratio. That's why the PS3 vs 360 ratio isn't a fair comparison

@laughing target
the guncon is a peripheral specifically used for time crises. It's worthless without the game. Just like the instruments in Rockband. The Wiimote can be used for all games and is a lot more valuable then Wii Play.

Saying people buy Wii play for the game and not the Wiimote is like saying that people buy the Ipod for the earplugs and not the Ipod.

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 7:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course it's fair to compare the PS3 and 360 data. The 360 has been on sale for longer than the PS3 and thus has people with more games, sure, but it also has sold a year's worth more consoles. This brings down the tie-in ratio and therefore puts the consoles on a more even footing.

The problem is simply that the PS3 hasn't had THAT MANY good games. There aren't an awful lot of system-sellers at the moment. They will come (GTA, Haze and MGS are on the way) but for now the 360 leads in terms of software quality.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 8:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@benny
It really isn't that hard.
"but it also has sold a year's worth more consoles"
The owners of those consoles, don't stop buying games after a year.
Let's say people buy 4 games per year on an average =>
360:
1st year - 1 console + 4 games
2nd year - 1 console + 8 games (cause the guy from the
first year is still buying games. Ratio = 6
The PS3 however would still be in it's first year
and have a ratio of 4. Comparing the 360 to the PS3
without taking time into account wouldn't be fair.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 7:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hate that gamers are now divided into factions. And sales-age boils down to the finger points a giggles of little prissy schoolgirls.

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 7:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ugh, I'm sick of people saying "why argue about who's doing better". It's a console war! You pick your favourite and have fun rooting for your guy. Who cares if it's a corporation, everybody loves a competition, and when it comes to gaming this is the most high profile and important one around.

Party poopers, let us have our fun. It may be a bit silly rooting for one gaming corporation over the other, but it's still less dumb than American Idol!

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 10:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Lol I never thought of it from that angle...

And damnit you're absolutely right. All these sony fanboys are arrogant and like to pretend like they're holier than the rest of us.

Well the truth is that they represent a very small faction of the gaming industry. The truth is that most of them are fanboys themselves. The truth is that they take they take this website and the comments said by various folk way too seriously. You really think saying "PremierAss" is going to cause the cosmos to explode or something? You think voting Fernando or anyone you've got a disagreement with is going to result in his opinion disappearing or the galaxy will all of sudden become better?

Uh no...

Its just not crucial...
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 1:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the galaxy would be better off if your mother took your computer away...
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 8:50PM Wagyu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was surprised at first that the DS attach rate is only 4.7. Then I remembered I own two DS's, one Phat and one Lite >_

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 8:50PM clay said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People are buying games for their consoles?? Whoa.

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 8:57PM Twist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does this information include PSN/XBLA/VC/WW sales or is it limited to software shipped out on physical media only?

Posted: Apr 24th 2008 10:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It'd be interesting to see attach rate per year. Wii vs. PS3 wouldn't change much, but supposedly 360's not that far ahead of the PS3.

More interestingly, it might mean that the Wii had a better attach rate for 2007 than the 360.

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 12:52AM jamesFF said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder how high the attach rate will be if you include the online games?

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 1:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I'd have been really surprised if BS3 were able to beat the 360's attach rate but as we can see I wasn't surprised because it even fell behind the Wii.

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 2:20AM embassy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hmmm

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 2:34AM doubleyewdee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay. But paying for a beta is no better than paying for a demo. It might actually be worse. If GT5:P purchasers eventually get the full content of GT5 then I will stand corrected, but I'm willing to wager that absolutely will not happen.

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 2:35AM doubleyewdee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You guys need to fix this damn reply button thing. :/
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 3:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Huh, but aren't the PS3 fans running around saying that nobody buys Wii games? Yet the attach rate is higher than their system. I think the PS3 crowd are going mad!

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 7:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, this certainly overturns my worldview. Black is white. Up is down. My girlfriend just turned into an alien, and I am living on the moon.

In light of these statistics, I don't know if I can bring myself to enjoy MGS4...
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 9:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOL what are you on about?

Maybe you felt compelled to reply since you're one of them people who used to run around saying "bbbbut nobody buys Wii games".

It's a surprise to me anyroad. I didn't think the Wii would have such a high attach rate. It's granted for the 360 since it has lots of good games (unlike PS3).
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 1:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, Mills and Boom, you said PS3 owners must be going mad. And my point was that no matter what sells what, I'll still enjoy what the system has to offer me. I don't know why these sales numbers are supposed to make me "mad" about anything.

Hey, god bless the wii. I'm sure children everywhere are being delighted!
Reply

Posted: Apr 25th 2008 8:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Honestly, I think this is good news for everyone. The PS3's game lineup was pretty weak until fall of last year, and I'm sure *some* people do just buy it as a blu-ray player (though no one has any kind of statistics on that, my guess is that it's less than 10% of sales All in all, I'd say 4.6 is pretty decent for the platform that had to compete against a console that had been out for a year before it, and the juggernaut that is the Wii.

I don't really understand why analysts use the "tie ratio". Yearly game sales and yearly console sales are two almost completely unrelated statistics. So, if you sell less hardware, it's a good thing? What?

They should just use ratio of games sold to total console sales. You know, like average number of games bought per year per console owner. That's a much more relevant number.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW