Numbers Discussion Thread
- Thread starter The Wolf King
- Start date
- Status
Here is the UKIE/GfK Top Ten for the week ending April 28th.
Last Week This Week Title
1 1 God of War
2 2 Far Cry 5
New Entry 3 Nintendo Labo: Variety Pack
4 4 FIFA 18
5 5 Mario Kart 8: Deluxe
7 6 Fallout 4
19 7 Call of Duty: WWII
6 8 Super Mario Odyssey
8 9 PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
10 10 Grand Theft Auto V
Last Week This Week Title
1 1 God of War
2 2 Far Cry 5
New Entry 3 Nintendo Labo: Variety Pack
4 4 FIFA 18
5 5 Mario Kart 8: Deluxe
7 6 Fallout 4
19 7 Call of Duty: WWII
6 8 Super Mario Odyssey
8 9 PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
10 10 Grand Theft Auto V
PUBG seems to be hovering around the bottom of the top ten, the last few weeks. So reasonably good hold there.
Sea of Thieves dropped to 17, which is considerable. Lots of buyers up front, followed by not so much.
Yakuza 6 plummeted to 39. Ouch! That one apparently sold only to hardcore Yakuza fans and beyond that, nothing. Really dumb decision to release alongside God of War. Also I think people are just tired of Yakuza. Three Yakuza games released in the space of a year, all of them set in the same city, same combat, same hero? I really enjoyed Yakuza 0, but that's way overkill.
Sea of Thieves dropped to 17, which is considerable. Lots of buyers up front, followed by not so much.
Yakuza 6 plummeted to 39. Ouch! That one apparently sold only to hardcore Yakuza fans and beyond that, nothing. Really dumb decision to release alongside God of War. Also I think people are just tired of Yakuza. Three Yakuza games released in the space of a year, all of them set in the same city, same combat, same hero? I really enjoyed Yakuza 0, but that's way overkill.
I do see that Sea of Thieves is number 2 on Amazon for released Xbox games. It is also leading PUBG, which is 15th.
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...ames/6469296011/ref=zg_bs_nav_vg_2_6469269011
Microsoft: Xbox One is the "Highest-Engagement Console" in the Market
Explains Strategy for Gaming
"During Microsoft’s quarterly financial conference call, Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella and Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood talked more about the Xbox platform as part of the Q&A session following the prepared remarks.
Asked to explain the large growth registered in gaming revenue, Nadella explained that Microsoft has a strategy for the gaming segment that really helps the company articulate both the growth opportunities as well as the investment across the various layers of the business.
According to Nadella, the Xbox One is the “highest-engagement console in the marketplace.” Any time a new game releases, whether it’s first or third-party, “the fact that Xbox is where the best engagement is driven benefits” Microsoft. As a platform owner, that’s a “great growth area” for the company.
Yet the strategy doesn’t stop there, because of Microsoft has Xbox Live, Game Pass, and Mixer are all additional opportunities to “really serve the gamers” as they play more games or watch games on different platforms.
The last element, which Nadella thinks is new and is already paying its dividends on the Azure growth side is that Microsoft has taken all the knowledge of what it means to build first-party games, and has built it into services in Azure for game developers. The PlayFab acquisition speaks directly to that. Those are the levers Microsoft has in gaming, and investors will see the effects on the More Personal Computing segment and overtime on Azure.
Hood added that she expects to see in the current quarter a continuation of the growth seen in the past quarter in Xbox software and services. Part of this is consistent even going back a few quarters. It has been a double-digit growing factor for a while, and it’ll continue to be, despite the fact that there might be some volatility in the numbers. Third-party hit games will push the numbers higher, but there is also a “really strong base” to the business that is the result of having a “vibrant platform with fans that believe in it and come to it with all the value that has been added.”"
More PR, but surprising considering it is behind like 35 million consoles compared to the competition.
Explains Strategy for Gaming
"During Microsoft’s quarterly financial conference call, Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella and Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood talked more about the Xbox platform as part of the Q&A session following the prepared remarks.
Asked to explain the large growth registered in gaming revenue, Nadella explained that Microsoft has a strategy for the gaming segment that really helps the company articulate both the growth opportunities as well as the investment across the various layers of the business.
According to Nadella, the Xbox One is the “highest-engagement console in the marketplace.” Any time a new game releases, whether it’s first or third-party, “the fact that Xbox is where the best engagement is driven benefits” Microsoft. As a platform owner, that’s a “great growth area” for the company.
Yet the strategy doesn’t stop there, because of Microsoft has Xbox Live, Game Pass, and Mixer are all additional opportunities to “really serve the gamers” as they play more games or watch games on different platforms.
The last element, which Nadella thinks is new and is already paying its dividends on the Azure growth side is that Microsoft has taken all the knowledge of what it means to build first-party games, and has built it into services in Azure for game developers. The PlayFab acquisition speaks directly to that. Those are the levers Microsoft has in gaming, and investors will see the effects on the More Personal Computing segment and overtime on Azure.
Hood added that she expects to see in the current quarter a continuation of the growth seen in the past quarter in Xbox software and services. Part of this is consistent even going back a few quarters. It has been a double-digit growing factor for a while, and it’ll continue to be, despite the fact that there might be some volatility in the numbers. Third-party hit games will push the numbers higher, but there is also a “really strong base” to the business that is the result of having a “vibrant platform with fans that believe in it and come to it with all the value that has been added.”"
More PR, but surprising considering it is behind like 35 million consoles compared to the competition.
From what I've heard -- and this is not to diminish MS -- it's actually a function of being behind in sales (at least partly). Average engagement (spending in the marketplace) drops as install base grows. The more consoles you sell, the more you're selling to a less hardcore crowd (people less likely to buy lots of stuff in the marketplace). So, for example, the first 10 million you sell is almost all to hardcore users and rabid fans. The next 10 million is still mostly hardcore, but some more casual/secondary users. The next 10 million is more of a mix. And so forth. So engagement level depends on install base. The downside of the PS4 selling so much is that, when you get to the 70 or 80 million mark, you're selling to a lot of people who are more casual buyers, secondary owners, and so forth. So you get less "engagement" (less spending on the marketplace) from those people.
I'm not sure if that's the whole explanation -- Xbox owners might just spend more in the marketplace than PS owners, regardless -- but it's part of it.
I'm planning to marry my PS4, so I have the highest level of engagement.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was legal. I think people marry their cars. Or I know some have sex with their cars. I would never do any such thing. Well, I haven't met a car yet that made me horny.
I don't think it's just PR. Three reasons: First, this comes from their quarterly financial briefing. It wasn't directed at gaming journalists or gamers, but at shareholders. Second, it's a very important metric for MS, because it's a direct measure of what they're most interested in -- how much people spend on their platform. Third, there's reason to believe that (apart from install base) people may spend more on XBL than they do on PSN (e.g., I believe Xbox skews toward a demographic that has more disposable income and is more internet-connected and predisposed to online play, which might mean more purchases via MTs, DLC, etc.).
I get that a business is interested in how much their consumers spend, that is an obvious given.
But, if what you said before about install base and engagement is correct, then it is just PR....a false positive.
I agree, I mean if one company has less than half the consumer base but says that their members are more "engaged" than the one who has over twice as many and therefor is bound to have many more casuals mixed in which in turn negatively skews the metrics used to calculate "engagement" what's the real point of saying it? As you say it's a "false positive"
It's not a "false" anything. It's a true statement.
It's not "PR spin;" it's Nadella talking to investors and shareholders. Nadella is directly accountable to them, and if he just shovels BS, he's going to damage his credibility and by extension investment in MS as a whole, which would be enormously stupid. He's not doing that -- he's pointing to a critical metric for both MS and the investor. It's a good thing, even if it's an expected/normal thing.
And as I said, there are other factors besides install base that would contribute to the difference in "engagement" (per-player spending). Because of the different regions where they sell, Xbox players tend to have better access to good internet and higher incomes; they also tend to be more focused on online multiplayer games. All of that would correlate with higher per-player spending. So even if install base were taken out of the equation, Xbox would probably still have a higher "engagement" than PS.
It's not "PR spin;" it's Nadella talking to investors and shareholders. Nadella is directly accountable to them, and if he just shovels BS, he's going to damage his credibility and by extension investment in MS as a whole, which would be enormously stupid. He's not doing that -- he's pointing to a critical metric for both MS and the investor. It's a good thing, even if it's an expected/normal thing.
And as I said, there are other factors besides install base that would contribute to the difference in "engagement" (per-player spending). Because of the different regions where they sell, Xbox players tend to have better access to good internet and higher incomes; they also tend to be more focused on online multiplayer games. All of that would correlate with higher per-player spending. So even if install base were taken out of the equation, Xbox would probably still have a higher "engagement" than PS.
In their recent PR statement, MS indicated Xbox is 15% up y-o-y worldwide. Welfare crunched the numbers and says it means sales are down y-o-y in the rest of the world. That's because it's up a lot in the US (40%+), so being up 15% total means the RotW is down. So up in the US, down elsewhere.
I'm not sure how much the y-o-y stuff matters. It's up yoy this year (NPD), but that's because last year was pretty crappy. And next year, it will be down yoy, because this year was so good.
I'm not sure how much the y-o-y stuff matters. It's up yoy this year (NPD), but that's because last year was pretty crappy. And next year, it will be down yoy, because this year was so good.
Here's something suprising. Fortnite on iOS reportedly generated 5x the revenue as PUBG on iOS. That seems crazy considering how well PUBG mobile plays and how complex Fortnite is.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/680...ek-revenues-on-ios-only-a-fifth-of-fortnites/
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/680...ek-revenues-on-ios-only-a-fifth-of-fortnites/
I would have to disagree with that last part because Sony still has more customers in places with all of those things you said Xbox owners have. There isn't a single market that I've seen where MS is leading in sales, if they were ahead in North America and the UK and behind everywhere else I'd agree with you but they are behind everywhere. While what he says may be "true" because of how this type of thing is calculated it is still a smoke and mirrors kind of way of trying to claim first place in something when in reality they are behind in every metric that matters at this point. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about what I'm saying, that doesn't mean they aren't making money or that they are failing, being a distant second doesn't mean you can't also be successful.
Two points.
First, remember we're talking about per-player average engagement, not total sales or total engagement. A company can have greater total engagement yet still have lower per-player engagement. A baseball player can have more total RBIs but yet a lower RBIs percentage than another player. Depends how many times he's been at bat and other factors. So it's the per-player averages that we're talking about, not total sales or total engagement.
Second, you point out that PS is leading everywhere. That's right, and that's what contributes to the lowering of the average. For example, PS4 is greatly outselling Xbox the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Turkey, South Africa, Parguay, Uraguay, Bolivia, Qutar, Bahrain, Greece, Oran, Venezuala.... People in those countries have much less disposable income and less stable broadband internet. Selling more in those countries means you have more players with low incomes and less internet access. So that lowers the overall PS4 average engagement.
Hope that makes sense.
Welfare estimates:
- Close to 70% of Xbox One sales are coming from the US alone.
- Xbox One is approaching 37 million sold through, WW.
- Xbox 360 was at 40.3 million WW shipped at this point last generation.
- Xbox One trails Xbox 360 WW by over 2 million, approaching a 3 million gap.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/7473573/
- Close to 70% of Xbox One sales are coming from the US alone.
- Xbox One is approaching 37 million sold through, WW.
- Xbox 360 was at 40.3 million WW shipped at this point last generation.
- Xbox One trails Xbox 360 WW by over 2 million, approaching a 3 million gap.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/7473573/
The issue is when people in places like those countries you mentioned are factored in then of course they'll lower your overall engagement average. I would guess that if you just took the two places MS does well in, North America and the UK and compared their level of engagement to those of PlayStation customers in those same areas you'd likely find that Sony's numbers still surpass Xbox. Sony still has access to the all of the same 3rd party MP games MS does (other than PUBG) and MS first party games by and large haven't been as successful this gen as they have in the past. Games like Halo 5 and Gears 4 sold roughly half of what the previous game in each series has while Uncharted 4 has sold nearly twice as many copies as UC3 and it also includes a MP option.
I'm sure they factor in things like EA access and Game pass which Sony doesn't have but they do have PSNow, not sure how successful that is one way or the other though. One thing that is certain, total number of units sold is far more important than engagement numbers and MS would change places with Sony in a heartbeat right now if given the chance.
Dr Bellybama do you concur?
https://igea.net
Top 10 Australia
Top 10 New Zealand
https://igea.net
Top 10 Australia
- God of War
- Far Cry 5
- Mario Kart 8
- GTA 5
- Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege
- FIFA 18
- Labo Toy Variety Kit
- Destiny 2
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
- South Park: The Fractured But Whole
Top 10 New Zealand
- God of War
- Destiny 2
- Far Cry 5
- Far Cry 4
- FIFA 18
- Call of Duty: WWII
- NBA 2K18
- GTA 5
- Crash Bandicoot: N. Sane Trilogy
- The Sims 4
Right, that's what I'm saying. They are factored in, and they do lower the average.
Perhaps (I'm not sure), but in any case, that's not how these figures are calculated. They are overall averages, based on all players who own the system, not just players in the US/UK.
Exactly and that was my point earlier, when you have to factor in everyone it makes your numbers look lower which is why a company with a much smaller user base can find a place they "lead" if they look hard enough. At the end of the day though it's sort of an empty stat because they are claiming to be #1 at something that's not directly comparable. I think we've both basically been saying the same thing we just disagree on how meaningful it actually is.
Ok, if we've been saying the same thing, then I must've misunderstood you.
I do disagree with that way of characterizing it -- "If they look hard enough" they can find an "empty stat." Engagement isn't an empty stat. It's a buzzword for a reason. They didn't need to "look hard" for it -- it's been important to them from Day 1. It's their whole model. They're a service-oriented company. They want people spending money on their service. Engagement is a critical metric for a service-oriented company. It genuinely matters to them. It genuinely matters to investors. Is it the whole story? No.
As you say, we disagree about how meaningful that particular stat is. I think it's meaningful (even if expected), and you seem to be dismissing it as nothing more than desperate PR fluff.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to see engagement stats just focused on US or UK. I've never seen them, though.
- Status