PS3 has lowest console attach rate News

It actually has nothing to do with the quality of the PS3s games, nor the fact that there's very little available on the PS3 that isn't on the 360, nor the fact that what few quality exclusives are on the PS3 have equally good quality equivalents on the 360.

It's because 360 owners actually have money left over to be able to afford them.

And I'm not even Joe King.

True, if people are splashing out 300 for a console then are probably not got a hell of a lot to spare/willing to fork out for a load of games straight away, however if you buy a console for less than 200quid then it doesn't seem so bad buying a few games.

Yet third parties are making more money from the PS3.. damn statistics

Wouldnt you expect the attach rate to fall as a console gets bought by more casual gamers who buy less games?

I have both and whilst I sort of agree, I put it down to generally 360 versions of multi-platform titles being more stable, having achievements, being cheaper. Or that's why I pick up a 360 version rather than a PS3 version. Oh and I know far more people likely to also buy the title on 360 to play with / against, if having strong multiplayer elements. The only titles I own on PS3 is Buzz, Eye of Judgement and Little Big Planet.

Does that include XBLA? Because if so I was responsible for about 4-5 peoples orth of games. Plus, how does pre-owned get figured? I'm sure these stats are just made up, but probably about right anyway.

>Yet third parties are making more money from the PS3.. damn statistics

Err??? That must be imaginary statistics.

So Wii is actually lowest since it has the biggest installed base?

>Does that include XBLA

No

"But these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt, as calculations are based on the installed base of each console, an area that the Wii dominates, thus watering down the associated attach rate."

Erm, what do you suggest they base it on? Kittens?

"I put it down to generally 360 versions of multi-platform titles being more stable, having achievements, being cheaper."

This.

Most of my Multiplatform is 360. I'll tell you this though in terms of exclusive titles Sony has been winning my wallet...

/ goes back to WipEoutHD and Siren.

Seems to me this should have been a 360 story.

"Xbox 360 still has highest attach rate"

This doesn't surprise me at all. I own all three consoles but buy 80% of my games for my 360 with the Wii (understandbly given the lack of decent games of late) getting the least. This isn't new though, I think anyone who owns multiple consoles will find that one tends to get the most use and games.

"Then why fucking report it then. Journalistic integrity and professionalism? Not round these parts. "

You could at least *try* to understand what the article says before posting a nonsense reply.

thing is, the 360 games are cheaper than the ps3. So if you own both, you plump for the cheaper one.

the achievements argument is a pretty moot now that the ps3 has trophies, although i can see online playing a factor on certain titles, respectively.

>Does that include XBLA

No



does it include games off psn? What about ones that are also available as retail. Warhawk, GT5, Burnout, Siren etc.

Garo, maths isnt your strongpoint is it

@Aspic

Attach rate figures are still very useful as a statistic. I think they were trying to say that the average number of games sold per person may not be a good way of saying which console is "winning the console war" if you are into such things.

The sony box is the most expensive and in general the cross platform games are slightly inferior. this is to be expected

If sony were to lower the price to £200 - £220 I would expect the situation to equalise in due course.

The numbers seem extremely low to me. I usually buy at least a couple of retail games every month on average. I am so different from other gamers. Looks like it.

How are 360 games cheaper? I just compared a few on Amazon and they all seem to RRP & £50.

I personally cant make sense of this I have loads of frikken games for my PS3...

How much extra do they have when they buy a battery pack for their controllers? Or if they want their 360 to be wirelessly connected? How much does a 360 user have to pay to upgrade their HDD to a measly 120Gb? And while many of you 360 zealots knock it, how much would a Blu-Ray player actually cost you?

Thninknig about it, I own a whole lot of games. Since I have so many, to balance those out there must be people sitting with only 1 or 2 games.

Well PS3 owners buy blue rays.

360 owners buy HD dvds...

oh wait..... maybe not! So they have a console where they can only buy games for? Oh lol!

The only games I`m going to get for the PS3 are those few worthwhile games that aren`t available on the 360, or should a miracle happen, if the PS3 version is actually better than the 360 version. Other than that I've absolutely no incentive to buy PS3 titles. Still, it makes a nice BluRay player.

YRLY

Attach rate is a wierd one. According to statistics, despite the 360's superior attach rate, the Wii has still sold significantly more pieces of software than the 360.
How dull are statistics though, just get on with the gaming

I have a ton of games for my 360, but only three on the Wii because it sucks so badly.

wow!
who pays £50 for a game?! My advice is to pop in to your local supermarket. generally less than £40 a game.

I was actually under the impression when I got my 360 that I would use it for playing games, maybe I've missed the point of a games console...

I have the following number of games:

XBOX 360 - too many - probably about 180 - no joke - I buy them cos of achievements - online - most of my friends have a 360 - and it just works
PS3 - 20 - needs better online - stop bringing out updates every 2 weeks - for firmware and games
Wii - 8 - gave up cos of quality and they are mostly for kids/family

LOL at the sad PS3 fanboys on here 'nooo my console is betterrrrrr'

truth is it isn't. I've got both 360 and PS3 and I play the 360 more, why? Simple things really, like the ability to join a chat room mid-game WITHOUT HAVING TO QUIT THE GAME I'M PLAYING as on the PS3

That and exchanging smacktalk with braindead yanks (not saying all US are braindead) on xbox live - fantastic fun!

So far, since getting my 360 (again), I've not spent more than £10 on a game.

I've also only bought 1 new one (The Darkness for £10 from Currys... Bargain!) and about 10 pre-owned. Then traded them in a couple of days later once I've finished them.

Jesus, that being the case:

"But these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt, as calculations are based on the installed base of each console, an area that the Wii dominates, thus watering down the associated attach rate."

These figures mean FA and the MS talk is pure bs...

"But these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt, as calculations are based on the installed base of each console, an area that the Wii dominates, thus watering down the associated attach rate."

"OK so basically the average X360 owner has one game more than Wii and PS3 owner.... cough, is this really newsworthy? "

"Attach rate is a wierd one. According to statistics, despite the 360's superior attach rate, the Wii has still sold significantly more pieces of software than the 360.
How dull are statistics though, just get on with the gaming"

I can't believe how people get confused with attachment rates:

A couple of points:

The size of the install base is part of the calculation. It doesn't water anything down.

The Wii can still be selling more software every month than the 360. If you have sold 20 millions consoles and only sell 1 game per console. And you have a 10 million selling console that has sold 2 games per console, you've sold the same amount of software!

Attachment rate is useful at seeing how well a console is doing from software sales UP TO A POINT. If your competitor is selling many more systems than you they don't need to sell as many games per unit.

That means the PS3 is in worse shape as not only are they selling less games per system but they also have the least number of systems.

'Only' 1 game extra per system when you are 9 million consoles ahead is 9 million units of software more!

Wii attachment rate is lower because casual gamers don't buy as many games. I know two friends that still only have Wii Sports.

PS3 attachment rate is lower because no mater what you say there are lots of PS3s sold as 'primarily' BD players by casual/non gamers.

360 attachment rate is higher because mostly gamers buy it. There is no other property of the system (at the moment) that will change that.

Any comments on here about how you have X amount of games on you PS3 are, with respect, not the entire story. You're visiting and posting on a gaming site which implies that games are a hobby of yours. The extra, non-gaming, value of the PS3 to non-gamers have been well documented and that's why it sells less games per system.

I'd like to know where I can buy half a game from on the ps3? or does haze count?

er... I completly destroy this statistics, as I own 76 retail 360 games. And why are you so defensive, claiming about Blu-Ray movies and all?

Isn't that a fact that 360 is for the hardcore niche and stuff, I mean... do you want to rule them all?

Yet again, I have plenty of work collegues that associate "games=Playstation+PES+NFS", that's a fact.

It's a shame the euro is weakening due to the expected lowering of the interest rate. Import game prices have gone up 15 to 20%. Better to use a site that charges you in GBP if you're from the continent currently though I haven't managed to find one. E.g. play charges in euros if you're non-UK.

"Attach rate is also a bit misleading as its not going to take into consideration "invisible" sales like those from the used market."

And let's not forget those filthy pirates.

You can always ascertain a media outlet's bias from the way it phrases its headlines.

"That means the PS3 is in worse shape as not only are they selling less games per system but they also have the least number of systems."

True though you should also compensate for time on the market. In that regard, PS3 and 360 are performing about equally bad. In the end there's only one statistic that really matters: Those the investment in the platform generate a positive return. So far, that's only the case for the Wii.

Own both machines.

Must admit I buy more 360 games, even the multi-platform ones, at the moment. It kinda differs on the game though. With GTA and SC4 I went for the PS3 version because of the more reliable machine. With Fallout 3 I chose the 360 version because it looks way better and has less bugs. I do think the PS3 is a bit of a letdown technically. But LBP and Wipeout make it a machine I'm happy with.

"Attach rate is also a bit misleading as its not going to take into consideration "invisible" sales like those from the used market. I'd say that while the average 360 owner is likely to have quite a lot more games than PS3/Wii owners, there'd also be a big difference putting PS3 owners above Wii owners mainly due to the type of games that are commonly sold second hand.

It's not really misleading at all. Attach rate is a business tool not a fanboy " I own more games than you do" statistic. (I'm not calling you a fanboy)

It's there to show that for every one of our consoles sold, we sell this many NEW games. Make games for our console and you'll sell more. (That's not the whole story as I've already mentioned, but self contained that's what it shows.)

The title of the article could have just as well been something like "Wii has by far the lowest third party attach rate".

I think that's more interesting because people are always arguing whether third party games sell on Wii or not. For the most part, they don't. Of course the quality of the third party offerings has something to do with it, but I think it's worth asking why the quality of third party games on Wii is so bad when compared to PS3 and Xbox 360... maybe the publishers think that they won't sell anyway so why bother...chicken and egg?

I forgot to mention that these particular attach rates are bollocks as they show the first 24 months of each console so they're not a good comparison. They should just show the full attach rate for each system! It's a bloody average. If you don't use the full amount of time a system has been on sale you don't get the TRUE attach rate.

"True though you should also compensate for time on the market. In that regard, PS3 and 360 are performing about equally bad. In the end there's only one statistic that really matters: Those the investment in the platform generate a positive return. So far, that's only the case for the Wii."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Extra time on the market favors a 360 attach rate. How? It's an average.

Why are PS3 and 360 performing equally bad on attach rate? Have you got some proper stats and not the stupid 24 month period posted here?

Again why are you sure that the Wii is the only system generating a positive return. Even if it was that doesn't benefit the publishers does it? Selling games does. You could sell at a £200 loss and as long as the publishers are selling lots of games they don't care. That's what Attach rate is for.

Space, mate, what Les is always trying to say, *always,* is that MS is in deep shit and Linux is taking control.

I've never bought as many games for a system as I have with the 360.

So i guess most of that attach rate must be coming from Microsoft published games ?
Becouse most of 3rd party devs are reporting similar or higher profits from ps3 than x360 ?

Err, htf is the ratio related to time. It is the average amount of games sold to a machine. The only relevant numbers are number of sold machines to number of sold games.

"I'm not sure what you're saying. Extra time on the market favors a 360 attach rate. How? It's an average."

I wasn't really clear, was talking about number of consoles sold. But if attach rate isn't adjusted to time on the market (normally it's just number of games sold in lifetime / number of consoles sold in lifetime), the machine longest on the market will be favoured because people in general have more games for a console they've owned for 2 years than they have for one they've owned for 1 year.

And there's the effect of budget releases. Longer on the market means more older and cheaper games. Can also lead to on average more games sold though it doesn't necessarily mean more revenue.

"Even if it was that doesn't benefit the publishers does it?"

Short term, not really. Long term, definitely. If you can't make money with manufacturing and selling consoles in the long run, there won't be consoles and thus fewer platforms to publish your games on.