Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

I really didn't mean it in the extent that you thought I did [assuming I understand your intent]

Unnatural in the specific rates of growth not in the overall market behavior. Looking at the data, YOY change for 2006 - 2008 was +19%, +44%, and +19% respectively for an average growth rate of ~27% across those three years. The largest average 3 year growth rate during PS2's period was ~16% from 2001 - 2003.

It appears to be unnatural to the generalized data within the confines of the chart as presented. If I had to try and interpret it on a larger level contextually I would probably say something along the lines that the Wii [and the NDS] managed to hit along a lot of the same demographics that the PS1 and PS2 managed to hit but and here's the important part of my thought process, the Wii did it in a much much shorter time period which to the best of my knowledge is entirely unusual for the console market of which the US retail revenue mostly consists of. The end result doesn't appear to be too unusual for the larger market until the notable decline due to another platform taking over but the growth rate in that time period is certainly a lot more condensed than I have ever seen before. I wouldn't be surprised though if the likes of that had been seen before during 3 year periods during the Atari to Nintendo transition in the 80's but I don't have that data.

Thanks for the help again John. I did well this month

I'm not sure it's more rapid than the PS1 growth -- it's of slightly lower size, but the rate may have been faster.

Regardless, it still seems like a very weird line to draw in the sand. 27% annualized growth is "unnatural," but 16% growth is standard. I don't mean to suggest that 27% isn't bigger than 16%; obviously it is. And if those growth rates were sustained indefinitely,, 27% growth would produce a much larger end result than 16% would.

But over the course of a single year, or a couple of years? A 9% difference in growth is important, but not the difference between "normal" and "unnatural/surely something must be wrong." It's a good year vs. a great year, not a totally new animal. We aren't talking about order of magnitude differences, or even things which are twice as large; we're talking about a 9% difference in growth rates.

Again, PS1 grew the market by nearly 80%; the SNES/Genesis generation grew the market 50% relative to the NES market; the NES market more than doubled the Atari generation. By historical standards, the Gen-over-gen growth with the Wii/PS3/360 was neither the largest growth, nor the smallest growth. It fit right in line with historical norms.

 

[Ty4on]

As time passes, the amount of websites that leech off of NeoGAF and spread sensitive information around the Internet...decreases drastically.

Nobody cares about the late stages of an NPD thread...but all eyes are on NeoGAF right when it starts out.

This facinates me.

Maybe because I love the atmosphere in an NPD thread and the random bombs dropping

 

[prag16]

Yeah, I don't know. I see the explanation(s), but I still think I'm mostly in the metalslimer "they're assholes" camp. The numbers get out eventually (in somewhat accurate form) for hardware. So anybody who wanted to look for old data to base business decisions on could accomplish that with a little bit of effort, as things stand now.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I don't expect you to know this offhand, but I'm just throwing this out there.

What exactly is the quantity of difference between the general economic downturn 2008-2013 in terms of spending/growth versus what the video game industry experienced in the same time frame?

I'm guessing that the videogame industry outpaced the overall recession in general decline (there is/was other factors in play), but by how much and when specific periods of decline occurred in the same context I just don't know/have readily available information to compare against.

Seems to me that the seventh generation saw two bumps: a minor bump (from 10.5 billion in 2005 to 12.5 in 2006, or to 13.26 at the end of the generation in 2012) that it retained, and a major bump (from 12.5 in 2006 to 21.4 in 2008) that it did not. The major bump was just the Wii bubble. Obviously these bumps were simultaneous, so the size of each one is an estimate - the minor bump was still occurring during the major bump, it's just that it's being covered up by the latter.

The minor bump was smaller than the PS2 era bump from 6.6 billion to 9.4 billion, but on its own that doesn't seem like an indication of much of anything to me besides the fact that the HD twins were overpriced and the economy was shitty (and maybe that the console sector had just reached saturation point). The industry still grew over the course of the generation, even after the Wii's collapse.

 

[lightning2k3]

That doesn't address the majority of the argument in the post I was replying to.

Companies want reliable month to month data on a specified schedule, and may want to run their own analytics software on the data as well. If the data is presented in a easily parsable format and in full, they would see no reason to pay NPD for it. Whereas here, we get drips of data, and not with any regularity or pattern. This is nice for discussion, but probably not as useful for business decision making.

 

[Aquamarine]

Companies want reliable month to month data on a specified schedule, and may want to run their own analytics software on the data as well. If the data is presented in a easily parsable format and in full, they would see no reason to pay NPD for it. Whereas here, we get drips of data, and not with any regularity or pattern. This is nice for discussion, but probably not as useful for business decision making.

Yeah.

And a lot of companies pay close attention to revenue figures. In many instances they are more important than raw units sold.

But no one on GAF ever leaks exact revenue figures...just some relative comparisons once in a while. That's something major right there.

 

[SwiftDeath]

I'm not sure it's more rapid than the PS1 growth -- it's of slightly lower size, but the rate may have been faster.

Regardless, it still seems like a very weird line to draw in the sand. 27% annualized growth is "unnatural," but 16% growth is normal. I don't mean to suggest that 27% isn't bigger than 16%; obviously it is. And if those growth rates were sustained indefinitely,, 27% growth would produce a much larger end result than 16% would.

But over the course of a single year, or a couple of years? A 9% difference in growth is important, but not the difference between "normal" and "unnatural/surely something must be wrong." It's a good year vs. a great year, not a totally new animal. We aren't talking about order of magnitude differences, or even things which are twice as large; we're talking about a 9% difference in growth rates.

Again I simply meant it within the confines of the data presented in the scope of the chart itself and not some attempt at determining the overall market behavior across the entire expanse of US video game retail history.

Unnatural is perhaps a bit of a strong word but I'm not really that verbose an individual so my vocabulary has a tendency to cause me issues in regards similar to this.

When I said "unnatural" I simply meant different from the norm as such depicted within the data at present.

Again, PS1 grew the market by nearly 80%; the SNES/Genesis generation grew the market 50% relative to the NES market; the NES market more than doubled the Atari generation. By historical standards, the Gen-over-gen growth with the Wii/PS3/360 was neither the largest growth, nor the smallest growth. It fit right in line with historical norms.

Right and my point was the speed of the growth, not the end result

 

[ZSaberLink]

Count me amongst the interested. It's really frustrating that we can't even get complete hardware numbers. Meanwhile in Japan, the MC top 1000 software has been posted. We really, really need some competition for NPD.

The reason we don't get HW numbers isn't because of NPD. It's because Nintendo/Sony/MS didn't want these numbers released.

Thanks for the final #. Also thanks for the explanation Aqua. I realize that you folks take a risk by posting little tidbits here and there, so it's all the more appreciated.

 

[theprodigy]

Yeah.

And a lot of companies pay close attention to revenue figures. In many instances they are more important than raw units sold.

But no one on GAF ever leaks exact revenue figures...just some relative comparisons once in a while. That's something major right there.

I think what people are getting at is the hardware numbers by themselves are so insignificant in the overall scheme of things (software sales/revenue figures), so why don't those numbers come out early?

 

[Opiate]

Markets don't stay immature forever. Explosive growth of that sort is unsustainable over the long term, especially when we consider that it hadn't occurred during the PS2 generation. The larger the market the more unusual it is for it to suddenly experience massive, sustained expansion.

It did happen in the PS2 generation; we saw 44% growth YoY from 2000 to 2001.

The Wii generation produced neither the largest growth (that would be either the NES or PS1 generations) nor the smallest (that would be either the SNES or PS2 generations). It falls right in line with historical norms. The difference is that in the past, those new consumers were sustained: this generation the new consumers were rapidly lost to competing game platforms.

Just as it wasn't weird for the PS1 to grow the market 80%, but it would have been different if those new consumers all left and went to game on the PC instead when the PS2 launched.

It's a bubble in the sense that they entered the console market and then left it en masse a few years later.

This only makes sense if you think of mobile games as the other, distinct from console and not in the same industry.

I mean, in theory, you could look at last generation and see that the PS3 only sold ~85M units, and declare that the Playstation market had shrunk and was only 50% as large as it had been a generation prior. Of course, most people would look at you silly; those consumers were still playing games, they were just doing so on platforms made by competitors (most notably Microsoft and Nintendo) instead.

The new game consumers who entered the market last generation are still around, they just aren't playing on Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo boxes, anymore.

 

[RyanPierre]

You saw what the NPD Ninjas did to Gamecrate / Newegg, right? I heard about the details of the situation. It was brutal.

This would be infinitely more interesting to hear about than sales numbers, at least for me. Even in more general terms if specifics couldn't be said.

 

[Opiate]

Again I simply meant it within the confines of the data presented in the scope of the chart itself and not some attempt at determining the overall market behavior across the entire expanse of US video game retail history.

Unnatural is perhaps a bit of a strong word but I'm not really that verbose an individual so my vocabulary has a tendency to cause me issues in regards similar to this.

When I said "unnatural" I simply meant different from the norm as such depicted within the data at present.

Yes, the Wii generation grew the market more than the PS2 generation did, no question about that. It wasn't historically unprecedented, but more than we saw in the generation preceding it (if not by too much).

 

[Aquamarine]

I think what people are getting at is the hardware numbers by themselves are so insignificant in the overall scheme of things (software sales/revenue figures), so why don't those numbers come out early?

Why NPD doesn't release hardware numbers early:

NPD doesn't like their sensitive information that they spent an entire month carefully curating...shared with people who have never given anything back to The NPD Group.

These numbers are the results of their hard work. Would you like your work given away / shared for free?

I assume that's the logic behind the current NPD management's policies.

The reason we don't get HW numbers isn't because of NPD. It's because Nintendo/Sony/MS didn't want these numbers released.

And yeah, they may be influenced by the Big 3 to some extent.




Why the Big 3 don't release hardware numbers early:

Because the results may be bad and they don't want to release PR that's not all that positive.

They don't want to set a precedent.



Why leakers on GAF don't release hardware numbers early:

Because you don't want to be reliable...and the more you wait, the fewer sites spread it around the Internet and you don't attract nearly as much attention.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

This only makes sense if you think of mobile games as the other, distinct from console and not in the same industry.

I mean, in theory, you could look at last generation and see that the PS3 only sold ~85M units, and declare that the Playstation market had shrunk and was only 50% as large as it had been a generation prior. Of course, most people would look at you silly; those consumers were still playing games, they were just doing so on platforms made by competitors (most notably Microsoft and Nintendo) instead.

The new game consumers who entered the market last generation are still around, they just aren't playing on Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo boxes, anymore.

Mobile games are in the same industry, but they're a separate market. For instance: cars and commercial trucks constitute separate markets, even if they're both part of the same industry. Very few people cross-shop cars and trucks (or at least very few people who are in the market for cars would also consider buying a truck, obviously most people who own trucks also own cars). An individual brand of car doesn't constitute its own market, in the same way that an individual console does not. But consoles collectively constitute a separate market from mobile games.

In the last generation a bunch of people entered the console market and then left it for the mobile market. That would be troubling if they were long-term residents of the console market, but they weren't: before the Wii they hadn't been gamers at all, and the only reason the Wii was able to attract them in the first place was that the mobile market didn't really exist yet.

 

[Lumyst]

Yeah.

And a lot of companies pay close attention to revenue figures. In many instances they are more important than raw units sold.

But no one on GAF ever leaks exact revenue figures...just some relative comparisons once in a while. That's something major right there.

That Gamecrate leak, I remembered it showed revenue figures, a piece of information that we don't usually (if ever) get. So I take it that that kind of information is even more guarded than the sales numbers. So while that was a major no-no for Newegg to leak, It was a great educational moment for me to see what kind of revenue a game like Yoshi's New Island generates, though!

 

[lightning2k3]

Why leakers on GAF don't release hardware numbers early:

Because you don't want to be reliable...and the more you wait, the fewer sites spread it around the Internet and you don't attract nearly as much attention.

Adding to your last point, most gaming news sites report the NPD numbers once a month and then move on to the next big thing. Passing interest in numbers fades pretty quickly.

 

[metalslimer]

Mobile games are in the same industry, but they're a separate market. For instance: cars and commercial trucks constitute separate markets, even if they're both part of the same industry. Very few people cross-shop cars and trucks. An individual brand of car doesn't constitute its own market, in the same way that an individual console does not. But consoles collectively constitute a separate market from mobile games.

In the last generation a bunch of people entered the console market and then left it for the mobile market. That would be troubling if they were long-term residents of the console market, but they weren't: before the Wii they hadn't been gamers at all, and the only reason the Wii was able to attract them in the first place was that the mobile market didn't really exist yet.

The comparison is bad (and you probably just wanted to show the idea of different markets) because the mobile market is made up of many of the same people that own consoles just due to the fact that the mobile market is open to anyone with a smartphone which is most people today.

 

[Opiate]

Mobile games are in the same industry, but they're a separate market. For instance: cars and commercial trucks constitute separate markets, even if they're both part of the same industry. Very few people cross-shop cars and trucks. An individual brand of car doesn't constitute its own market, in the same way that an individual console does not. But consoles collectively constitute a separate market from mobile games.

This isn't compatible with what we're seeing. Last generation, this is exactly what happened; people did buy cars and trucks (analogically speaking). I want you to do a study and find out how many console owners also own a smartphone; I suspect you'll find the crossover is very high.

In the last generation a bunch of people entered the console market and then left it for the mobile market. That would be troubling if they were long-term residents of the console market, but they weren't:

So it would have been okay if, for example, the PS1 grew the market 80%, and then the console market collapsed back to Gensis/SNES levels by the next generation?

before the Wii they hadn't been gamers at all, and the only reason the Wii was able to attract them in the first place was that the mobile market didn't really exist yet.

When do markets start to "really exist?"

 

[jcm]

The reason we don't get HW numbers isn't because of NPD. It's because Nintendo/Sony/MS didn't want these numbers released.

Thanks for the final #. Also thanks for the explanation Aqua. I realize that you folks take a risk by posting little tidbits here and there, so it's all the more appreciated.

So then why do we get them every week in Japan?

 

[ZSaberLink]

Btw, if the 3DS is selling about as well as it did in June in July (30K/week to 27K a week), doesn't that possibly indicate Tomodachi Life may have had a lasting (2 month) impact on 3DS hardware sales? Even with the release of both Kirby & Mario Golf in May (I realize their launches were in the April NPD), 3DS sales were something like 97K. There were 0 new big titles in July for the 3DS yet it sold better. Or is this just that July is a stronger month than both January and May?

 

[metalslimer]

So then why do we get them every week in Japan?

Oh misread your post. Well it seems like NPD thought they were only doing a favor giving out those top 10 and hardware sales, so if a 1st party wanted it to stop they would have some leverage as they are probably a big consumer. On the other hand, the lack of a monopoly on these numbers in Japan means it would be hard to get all of the companies who release them to stop.

Still I'm still having issues with the notion that the data NPD gets on video games really is that time intensive to create and get. I'm sure they have a computer system set up with the data that comes in from the individual retailers. Like I said before, NPD tracks a lot more than videogames so these hardware/software numbers are just a very small percentage of what they do. Actually, does someone have info on NPD's financials? It would be interesting to know they kind of profit they are pulling right now.

 

[Bruno MB]

I'll only say, God bless Enterbrain and Media Create!

 

[Aquamarine]

So then why do we get them every week in Japan?

The lack of monopoly is a big factor.

Some Japanese companies prefer one tracker over the other.


For example, companies like Nintendo and Square Enix prefer Media Create, while companies like Capcom prefer Enterbrain / Famitsu.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

This isn't compatible with what we're seeing. Last generation, this is exactly what happened; people did buy cars and trucks. I want you to do a study and find out how many console owners also own a smartphone; I suspect you'll find the crossover is very high.

I edited my post to clarify that most truck owners also own a car, in the same way that most console owners also own a mobile phone.

So it would have been okay if, for example, the PS1 grew the market 80%, and then the console market collapsed back to Gensis/SNES levels by the next generation?

No, that would entail an actual contraction in the market. But that didn't happen this time. The market at end of the seventh generation was still larger than at the end of the sixth.

When do markets start to "really exist?"

The mobile game market begins to "really exist" when most people have devices capable of playing mobile games. The iPhone was released in 2007, it didn't have an app store until 2008, smartphones didn't reach saturation point until several years later. At the time of the Wii's launch and initial success the mobile market did not exist, at the time of the Wii's collapse the mobile market was gaining steam.

 

[allan-bh]

NPD policy really sucks, but at least we have people here that doesn't leave us completely in the dark.

Japan sales is a dream, the amount of data that we have is amazing.

 

[theprodigy]

The lack of monopoly is a big factor.

Some Japanese companies prefer one tracker over the other.


For example, companies like Nintendo and Square Enix prefer Media Create, while companies like Capcom prefer Enterbrain / Famitsu.

so basically someone else needs to show up on the scene

btw which is older, Media Create or Famitsu? (I assume the latter)

 

[Opiate]

No, that would entail an actual contraction in the market.

How so? Why would a reversion to SNES/Genesis levels be a contraction, and not a stagnantion?

But that didn't happen this time. The market at end of the seventh generation was still larger than at the end of the sixth.

It did happen, actually, in real terms. Even without considering real terms, 9% total growth over 6 years barely outpaces population growth and would reasonably be described as "stagnant."

The mobile game market begins to "really exist" when most people have devices capable of playing mobile games. The iPhone was released in 2007, it didn't have an app store until 2008, smartphones didn't reach saturation point until several years later. At the time of the Wii's launch and initial success the mobile market did not exist, at the time of the Wii's collapse the mobile market was gaining steam.

How does one define "most people?" Most people don't currently own home consoles. Does that mean the home console market doesn't really exist?

Here's what I'm proposing: you're being fairly vague in your terminology. I am suggesting this vagueness is intentional, and that you are intending to dismiss the Wii as a bubble/blip.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

How so? Why would a reversion to SNES/Genesis levels be a contraction, and not a stagnantion?

There was no reversion to PS2 levels in the seventh generation. Overall the industry grew, albeit sluggishly. This is stagnation.

I don't see the point of postulating a PS1-era contraction to SNES/Genesis levels. This is not something that occurred during the seventh generation (PS360 never contracted to PS2 levels), so I'm not sure what the point of entertaining this thought experiment is.

It did happen, actually, in real terms. Even without considering real terms, a 9% growth rate over 6 years barely outpaces population growth and would reasonably be described as "stagnant."

Yes, the seventh generation was relatively stagnant. That's not surprising, since it coincided with a worldwide recession.

How does one define "most people?" Most people don't currently own home consoles. Does that mean the home console market doesn't really exist?

Fine, then take out most people and replace it with "a considerable number of people." There was no market for mobile games before 2008 at the earliest because smartphones with app stores full of mobile games did not exist until that point (actually until a bit later than that point, since game-compatible smartphones did not proliferate instantaneously).

Here's what I'm proposing: you're being fairly vague in your terminology. I am suggesting this vagueness is intentional, and that you are intending to dismiss the Wii as a bubble/blip.

The Wii was a bubble. No generation since the 1980s has seen such swift growth followed by such steep decline. The last time it happened we called it a bubble, why not this time?

 

[Orgen]

As always thank you for all the clues and insight info provided.

A question for JH (because I read related comments from you before in other threads). Now that Wii U has improved HW wise I wanted to know if SW wise (specially third party) the situation has improved too or is still the same as months before MK launch.

No need for concrete numbers and thanks in advance!

 

[Opiate]

The Wii was a bubble. No generation since the 1980s has seen such swift growth followed by such steep decline. The last time it happened we called it a bubble, why not this time?

I'll respond to this part because most of the other was equivocal.

Answer: because the consumers this time did not leave gaming. They did not go and find other hobbies, as they did in the Atari era.

They just stopped playing on the boxes specifically made by Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo. The consumers still play games, they just play them on boxes made by Apple or Samsung or Google or Dell instead, because they make better platforms (for these consumers needs) than do the aforementioned companies.

A bubble "popping" usually sees an industry decline; that is not happening with gaming right now, at all. Instead, gaming is still growing rapidly -- it's just doing so almost entirely outside the home console space.

 

[John Harker]

As always thank you for all the clues and insight info provided.

A question for JH (because I read related comments from you before in other threads). Now that Wii U has improved HW wise I wanted to know if SW wise (specially third party) the situation has improved too or is still the same as months before MK launch.

No need for concrete numbers and thanks in advance!

There are lots of fun indie games coming to the eShop!

 

[allan-bh]

One doubt, New Super Mario Bros U LTD (1.69m) is with bundle, right?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'll respond to this part because most of the other was equivocal.

Answer: because the consumers this time did not leave gaming. They did not go and find other hobbies, as they did in the Atari era.

They just stopped playing on the boxes specifically made by Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo. The consumers still play games, they just play them on boxes made by Apple or Samsung or Google or Dell instead, because they make better platforms (for these consumers needs) than do the aforementioned companies.

A bubble "popping" usually sees an industry decline; that is not happening with gaming right now, at all. Instead, gaming is still growing rapidly -- it's just doing so almost entirely outside the home console space.

I don't see why it's helpful to classify "gaming" as a coherent market: the home console market has never encompassed the entirety of the human propensity for playing games, anymore than the passenger car market has ever encompassed the entirety of the human propensity for ferrying themselves around in large self-propelling metal objects. The growth of other forms of gaming is only a problem for the console market if console gamers are abandoning consoles. If people who are lifelong console gamers switch to mobile, or they stop playing games entirely, or they start playing board games, that's a problem.

If people enter the console market for two or three years and then leave for the mobile market that's not a problem for the console market, that was just a momentary fad.

 

[Opiate]

I don't see why it's helpful to classify "gaming" as a coherent market:

Because that's what we call it? Games which display on a video screen are collectively referred to as "the video game industry." Mobile passenger carriers with automated engines are referred to collectively as "the automobile industry."

the home console market has never encompassed the entirety of the human propensity for playing games,

It actually did, more or less, in 2000. The home console market was ~80% of all video gaming revenue at that time.

The growth of other forms of gaming is only a problem for the console market if console gamers are abandoning consoles.

Console gamers are indeed abandoning consoles, as that graph shows; the market is notably smaller than it was in 2009.

If people enter the console market for two or three years and then leave for the mobile market that's not a problem for the console market, that was just a momentary fad.

What are you calling a "fad" in this case -- console gaming or mobile gaming?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Console gamers are indeed abandoning consoles, as that graph shows; the market is notably smaller than it was in 2009.

I see no evidence that console gamers are abandoning consoles. Wii gamers are abandoning consoles, sure - because they weren't ever console gamers in the first place, they were specifically Wii gamers. The market is larger than it was in 2006 when the Wii was released. The entirety of the decline you're speaking of is attributable to the Wii bubble.

What are you calling a "fad" in this case -- console gaming or mobile gaming?

Neither. I'm calling the Wii a fad.

 

[prag16]

There are lots of fun indie games coming to the eShop!

Ouch. Even with many of these third party games going for fire sale prices many places now? Ouch. Though I guess not really unexpected.

 

[Orgen]

There are lots of fun indie games coming to the eShop!

Hahaha ok. Thanks!

(Specially funny for me because I just bought child of light for it ;D)

 

[Opiate]

I see no evidence that console gamers are abandoning consoles. Wii gamers are abandoning consoles, sure - because they weren't ever console gamers in the first place, they were specifically Wii gamers. The market is larger than it was in 2006 when the Wii was released. The entirety of the decline you're speaking of is attributable to the Wii bubble.

Neither. I'm calling the Wii a fad.

You're clearly working very hard to set the Wii aside as an "other" -- gamers who played on them were not "real" console gamers, according to you. They deserve a separate classification separate from everyone else, even though the Wii fits every reasonable definition of "video game console" I can find.

I understand that this helps you avoid saying that the console market is declining, but it's not a rational position to take.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You're clearly working very hard to set the Wii aside as an "other" -- gamers who played on them were not "real" console gamers, according to you. They deserve a separate classification separate from everyone else.

I understand that this helps you avoid saying that the console market is declining, but it's not a rational position to take.

Why not? Every piece of information we have suggests that the Wii's presence was an anomaly - such as the fact that a bunch of people who had never bought a console before apparently bought them and then exited the console market completely within a few years.

 

[Opiate]

Why not? Every piece of information we have suggests that the Wii's presence was an anomaly - such as the fact that a bunch of people who had never bought a console before apparently bought them and then exited the console market completely within a few years.

I don't see a lot of evidence that the Wii was an anomaly.

About half of the people who bought a PS1 did not own a console before. Did that make them not real gamers?

If the video game industry was shrinking, that would suggest the Wii was an anomaly. But it's not; the market the Wii helped create is still growing rapidly. The home console market specifically is shrinking, but not gaming broadly.

 

[A Human Becoming]

The reason we don't get HW numbers isn't because of NPD. It's because Nintendo/Sony/MS didn't want these numbers released.

Thanks for the final #. Also thanks for the explanation Aqua. I realize that you folks take a risk by posting little tidbits here and there, so it's all the more appreciated.

I agree, the big three have the real control over hardware sales released. You see that when companies have a good month, more often with software.

I think what people are getting at is the hardware numbers by themselves are so insignificant in the overall scheme of things (software sales/revenue figures), so why don't those numbers come out early?

Insignificant? Software is where the money is made, but a larger user base creates a higher probability of software sales. I think the PS2 is the best example and the Wii is the big exception.

Not in practice, when the end result is not all that different. It just takes longer.

Scenario A: Nintendo gives some percentage via PR. Two hours later creamsugar posts a pie chart. People immediately come up with calculations. 1/2 hour later Harker or Aqua confirm relative accuracy. If any numbers are missing, one of them may state the last one a few hours later.

Scenario B: Somebody on gaf concisely posts all hardware numbers a little while after NPD PR starts coming out.

Scenario A sounds more fun to me and lessens the risk for the leakers. I can make puzzles from the HW numbers if any are interested. (I've keeped confidentiality before)

 

[biggersmaller]

Based on these sales numbers - I am very comfortable with the state of the console gaming economy. I believe the mobile market will swallow the handheld console market whole once a 3DS successor surfaces, but console gaming is on the upswing (believing lower year-over retail software sales result from mandatory day-and-date digital sales).

NPD policy really sucks, but at least we have people here that doesn't leave us completely in the dark.

Japan sales is a dream, the amount of data that we have is amazing.

This cannot be emphasized enough. BIG THANKS to all those making this data available.

 

[prag16]

Based on these sales numbers - I am very comfortable with the state of the console gaming economy. I believe the mobile market will swallow the handheld console market whole once a 3DS successor surfaces, but console gaming is on the upswing (believing lower year-over retail software sales result from mandatory day-and-date digital sales).

Bolded is based on what? The much touted launch-aligned lead PS4bone has on PS360? The pent up launch demand due to by far the longest generation thus far (followed by sales worse than most here would have predicted)?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

None of the information we have suggests that the Wii was an anomaly.

About half of the people who bought a PS1 did not own a console before. Did that make them not real gamers?

PS1 owners remained in the market. The PS1 expansion of the market was durable, the Wii expansion of the market was not. That's why one is a fad and the other isn't.

The entire sales contour of the seventh generation suggests that almost all of the gains and all of the losses were directly as a result of the Wii, rather than some explosive rise and cataclysmic fall in the popularity of console gaming in general. The market at this point is more or less where it would be if the Wii had never happened at all, and it's about ready to start growing again, as it has grown at the start of every new generation since the NES.

Bolded is based on what? The much touted launch-aligned lead PS4bone has on PS360? The pent up launch demand due to by far the longest generation thus far (followed by sales worse than most here would have predicted)?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the concept of "pent-up demand due to an overlong generation" is a thing. The good sales at launch were because for the first time there were enough consoles around to meet demand, which is always high at the start of a generation. The bad sales since launch are simply because there are no supply constraints to smooth out the sales curve.

 

[StormKing]

PS1 owners remained in the market. The PS1 expansion of the market was durable, the Wii expansion of the market was not. That's why one is a fad and the other isn't.

The entire sales contour of the seventh generation suggests that almost all of the gains and all of the losses were directly as a result of the Wii, rather than some explosive rise and cataclysmic fall in the popularity of console gaming in general. The market at this point is more or less where it would be if the Wii had never happened at all, and it's about ready to start growing again, as it has grown at the start of every new generation since the NES.

The Wii gamers are still in the market. They are just mobile gamers now. Gaming as a whole is growing. The growth is just not in the home console market.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The Wii gamers are still in the market. They are just mobile gamers now. Gaming as a whole is growing. The growth is just not in the home console market.

They're not in the console market. Gaming as a whole is growing, including the console market. The mobile market is growing faster than the console market, but that doesn't imply that the console market is in any sort of decline. It just means that the mobile market is a young, untapped market with lots of growth potential.

 

[Celine]

PS1 owners remained in the market. The PS1 expansion of the market was durable, the Wii expansion of the market was not. That's why one is a fad and the other isn't.

The entire sales contour of the seventh generation suggests that almost all of the gains and all of the losses were directly as a result of the Wii, rather than some explosive rise and cataclysmic fall in the popularity of console gaming in general. The market at this point is more or less where it would be if the Wii had never happened at all, and it's about ready to start growing again, as it has grown at the start of every new generation since the NES.

If the video game industry was shrinking, that would suggest the Wii was an anomaly. But it's not; the market the Wii helped create is still growing rapidly. The home console market specifically is shrinking, but not gaming broadly.

.

 

[biggersmaller]

I don't see a lot of evidence that the Wii was an anomaly.

About half of the people who bought a PS1 did not own a console before. Did that make them not real gamers?

If the video game industry was shrinking, that would suggest the Wii was an anomaly. But it's not; the market the Wii helped create is still growing rapidly. The home console market specifically is shrinking, but not gaming broadly.

You are half correct that the Wii wasn't an anomaly if you look strictly at sales and attach rates, which were both consistent with console leaders of the past.

However, Wii was still an outlier due to its emphasis on motion control driving its success. There is no doubt it would've failed without it. Every other historical system leader was successful primarily because hit gameplay innovation was driven by superior processing. A reliable economical model for refreshing sales with a new product launch.

Is it wrong to say there was a motion control bubble evidenced by the sales drop once Wii was no longer fashionable? I say no.

 

[TSM]

I don't see a lot of evidence that the Wii was an anomaly.

About half of the people who bought a PS1 did not own a console before. Did that make them not real gamers?

He's making the case that many people were not there for "gaming" as much as they were there for specific experiences like Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Just Dance, Dance Central and plastic instrument games. It certainly seems like that portion of the market is gone from console gaming at this point. Even Microsoft has realized this and given up their Kinect support. I don't see this as a Nintendo specific thing, but they certainly benefited the most from their arrival and are suffering the most after their departure. I think that he is correct that this was a fad, but not for the same reasons he probably does. I think it's a fad because none of the major players really understood why this happened and thus they were unable to retain these customers by providing the experiences these customers needed to continue being a part of the market. Instead there seemed to be more of a gold rush attitude where they realized these customers wouldn't be around long and they tried to milk them for cash as best they could.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

.

The home console market is not shrinking. Just the Wii's share of it.

He's making the case that many people were not there for "gaming" as much as they were there for specific experiences like Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Just Dance, Dance Central and plastic instrument games. It certainly seems like that portion of the market is gone from console gaming at this point. Even Microsoft has realized this and given up their Kinect support. I don't see this as a Nintendo specific thing, but they certainly benefited the most from their arrival and are suffering the most after their departure. I think that he is correct that this was a fad, but not for the same reasons he probably does. I think it's a fad because none of the major players really understood why this happened and they were unable to retain these customers by providing the experiences these customers needed to continue being a part of the market. Instead there seemed to be more of a gold rush attitude where they realized these customers wouldn't be around long and they tried to milk them for cash as best they could.

I actually agree with this. I think it would have been possible for Nintendo and Microsoft to hold on to a larger share of the Wii's market if they had made the right decisions - though I also think that most of that market was just gone for good. It didn't make sense for these people to be spending hundreds of dollars every five years on dedicated gaming computers.

But I also view the fate of the Wii's audience to be sort of irrelevant to the health of the console market.