Pachter Predicts: Future Console Sales

[botticus]

CAG-favorite analyst Michael Pachter has made his predictions for this generations market share:

2007 year-end (US and Europe):
360: 44%
Wii: 35%
PS3: 21%

2009 year-end (US and Europe):
PS3: 36%
Wii: 34%
360: 30%
(everybody makes money!)

2011 year-end (Japan-only):
Wii: 51%
PS3: 44%
360: whatever's left (5%)

For reference, the current unofficial totals via VGChartz:
Current (US and Europe):
360: 58%
Wii: 27%
PS3: 15%

Current (Japan-only):
Wii: 64%
PS3: 25%
360: 11%

A dead heat in the US and Europe would be a fine thing, I think, and a very interesting starting point for the next generation, after this generation ended with a clear domination by the PS2. I wonder if someone somewhere is keeping track of analyst accuracy like they do EGM rumor mills.

http://gonintendo.com/?p=17433

Let the analyst and console hate commence, ruining this wonderfully utopian prediction.

[jer7583]

A somewhat even split between the three with Wii moreso than PS3 dominating Japan is the most logical conclusion right now. The 360 probably will come out on top, but it'll be fairly even in NA.

[PyroGamer]

So basically he was too scared to pick a winner? So he just shoveled out the "safest" numbers he could think up.

[Sarang01]

I think he's an idiot myself after saying he think Blu-Ray would give PS3 a win, albeit narrow.

[SpreadTheWord]

I think most gamers can see that it would be bad for "hardcore" games if the Wii kills the competition with mostly mini-games and movie tie-ins. But which of the two other consoles should gamers hope to "win"?

I like the Xbox more than the others, but I can see the profitability in having the "winning" console be popular in Japan as well as the West (see: PS2). Then again games like Ninja Gaiden, Dead Rising and Devil May Cry show that Japanese developers are willing to put their games on a system that aren't popular in their home country.

[dpatel]

I think he's an idiot myself after saying he think Blu-Ray would give PS3 a win, albeit narrow.

I actually kinda agree with him on that. Of course, this is assuming that Blu-ray does not die (which, at this point, it seems like we'll be having a two format generation with both HD and BD coexisting).

Sure Blu-ray may not offer much to consumers as far as gaming in concerned. But, it will look pretty appealing coming 2009-2011 when more people have HDTVs and are looking for more uses for them. And the $200 price difference between the 360 and PS3 won't always be there. Once price is less of a factor, more HDTVs are out there, and there is more of a reason to own blu-ray, I can see it helping the PS3 quite a bit in the long run.

[dpatel]

I think most gamers can see that it would be bad for "hardcore" games if the Wii kills the competition with mostly mini-games and movie tie-ins. But which of the two other consoles should gamers hope to "win"?

I can see the Wii fading out fairly early. The technical limitations aren't that big of a deal right now since we are still in a transition from last gen. Once the 360 and PS3 really start to show their stuff, I feel the technical limitations of the Wii will outweigh the 'new, fresh control scheme' and start to fade. Consumers and Developers will latch onto the Wii early on because of its cheap price for both consumers and developers. However, two or three years down the line, prices for both the 360 and PS3 will have dropped (for both consumers and developers), which, I believe, will cause Wii owners to shift more to the PS3/360.

I could be wrong. Maybe the Wiimote actually does have something to offer that gaming has been lacking, but, I really don't see it (of course it is WAY too early to tell). I, personally, just see the Wii as a great transition system. The majority of console owners don't purchase consoles until they are at the sub-$200 price point, so the Wii will be a great system for those gamers to hold them off until the 360/PS3 are at a more reasonable price point.

As for which of those two will win. I really don't think it will matter. I see the 360 being ahead for most of the beginning of the gen (until about 2009), then, if Blu-ray doesn't die, I see the PS3 starting to close in, and eventually overtake the 360. Of course, both will be so close the entire time that it won't even matter.

[Xevious]

Ryan Leaf was predicted to be a great quarterback when he got drafted. Basically predictions are meaningless.

[trq]

I actually kinda agree with him on that. Of course, this is assuming that Blu-ray does not die (which, at this point, it seems like we'll be having a two format generation with both HD and BD coexisting).

Honestly, I'd guess it'll be a three format generation, with DVDs (yes, I know they're "last gen") still the most common and popular format, and HD and BR both profitable, but niche. The DVD to HD-DVD jump just isn't of the level that VHS to DVD was. I'm sure people will replace and upgrade existing players as they break, but I just don't see many people going out of their way to adopt the new formats, even with HD enabled TVs becoming more common.

[Sarang01]

I actually kinda agree with him on that. Of course, this is assuming that Blu-ray does not die (which, at this point, it seems like we'll be having a two format generation with both HD and BD coexisting).

Sure Blu-ray may not offer much to consumers as far as gaming in concerned. But, it will look pretty appealing coming 2009-2011 when more people have HDTVs and are looking for more uses for them. And the $200 price difference between the 360 and PS3 won't always be there. Once price is less of a factor, more HDTVs are out there, and there is more of a reason to own blu-ray, I can see it helping the PS3 quite a bit in the long run.

The issue by then is VERY affordable BR standalone players will be around.

[trq]

I think most gamers can see that it would be bad for "hardcore" games if the Wii kills the competition with mostly mini-games and movie tie-ins. But which of the two other consoles should gamers hope to "win"?

Um ... no. This argument is pretty ridiculous. The Playstation and PS2 were both massive mainstream successes. Did they ruin gaming? Is it now impossible to buy anything other than a Madden or GTA clone? Hell, want to count all the movie tie-ins on the PS2?

And honestly, anyone who's trying to figure what system gamers should want to "win" is completely missing the point of this goddamned hobby. How about they all stay profitable and then everybody can play whatever the fuck they want?

[RedvsBlue]

Console sales is one thing, software sales is another. I predict we'll see that now more than ever this generation. So far the Wii's attach rate for software isn't too hot as it would seem people are buying the console for Wii sports alone. Will it change? I'm betting not because the Wii may be grabbing the "non-video game" people's attention right now but will they stay interested in it is the real question.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Nintendo truly is doomed if they cant win with power (Gamecube) and without power (now).

I dont think most people will suddenly forget how to have fun just because we dangle some shiny keys in front of them.

Historically, the most powerful system doesnt win.

This industry is a momentum heavy one. If the Wii is suddenly going to die out, it doesnt have much time to do so.

The cost of the systems may come down, but dev costs wont to the same degree.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6392/goodgrafixps0lh8.jpg

[dpatel]

Honestly, I'd guess it'll be a three format generation, with DVDs (yes, I know they're "last gen") still the most common and popular format, and HD and BR both profitable, but niche. The DVD to HD-DVD jump just isn't of the level that VHS to DVD was. I'm sure people will replace and upgrade existing players as they break, but I just don't see many people going out of their way to adopt the new formats, even with HD enabled TVs becoming more common.

True. I kinda forgot to include DVD, but I agree that DVD isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The issue by then is VERY affordable BR standalone players will be around.

Well, I didn't mean people will still be buying PS3s solely for blu-ray. I was talking about people looking for both gaming and movies.

[Dr Mario Kart]

If all goes to hell, I guess I can just stick to the underpowered DS, until someone enters the handheld market with some sort of powerhouse, wide screen device

[dpatel]

I dont think most people will suddenly forget how to have fun just because we dangle some shiny keys in front of them.

Why can't we have both? Nothing says a powerful console can't be fun as well. I don't care about Wii's lower end graphics. But there are other technical limitations, things like AI, framerate, etc will be affected by Wii's hardware. That is what concerns me more. Not only will they look last gen, but they will feel that way too, unless someone is going to come up with a better way to use the Wiimote than what we have already seen.

[dpatel]

Historically, the most powerful system doesnt win.

If that was the only factor, that statement would be relevant, but there are too many variables that come into play each gen.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Looking last gen is probably fine for the vast majority of people. We can even pretend that it'll be a secondary console and that still works out well for them. Dev costs (as well as the broken publisher-developer relationship) have gotten out of hand and people arent taking as many game design risks.

There needs to be a low cost option, on both the consumer end and the developer end. Their competitors may be able to catch them on the hardware price eventually, but they will never be able to compete with developer costs.

Of course, I think HD is not only irrelevant to gaming, but harmful to it.

[rabbitt]

I don't see the Wii being on top by the end, but that's just my opinion.

I hope Nintendo makes me eat my words.

[dpatel]

Looking last gen is probably fine for the vast majority of people.

Agreed, but they will still be pretty limited in what they can do. I could care less if they all looked like GCN games, but I would like to see improvements in other aspects, technically.

We can even pretend that it'll be a secondary console and that still works out well for them. Dev costs (as well as the broken publisher-developer relationship) have gotten out of hand and people arent taking as many game design risks.

There needs to be a low cost option, on both the consumer end and the developer end. Their competitors may be able to catch them on the hardware price eventually, but they will never be able to compete with developer costs.

I totally agree that consumers/developers will look to the Wii because it is a 'low cost' option. However, the price difference (for both consumers and developers) between the Wii and the PS3/360 will continue to shrink. As it does, the benefits will start to slowly outweigh the extra costs, and more people will be willing to support the once 'expensive' machines. They will always be more expensive than the Wii, but there will be a point when the difference in price will be greatly outweighed by the benefits. When that does happen, I see no reason why the Wii will continue to dominate. I see it taking first this xmas and mainting that first place position until about 2009. Then the 360/PS3 will start to gain speed, and will overtake the Wii probably by the end of 2009.

[botticus]

Console sales is one thing, software sales is another. I predict we'll see that now more than ever this generation. So far the Wii's attach rate for software isn't too hot as it would seem people are buying the console for Wii sports alone. Will it change? I'm betting not because the Wii may be grabbing the "non-video game" people's attention right now but will they stay interested in it is the real question.The thing is, last year, the 360 was working on what was considered an almost unhealthy attach rate. A core consumer base who bought everything, because everything appealed to them (maybe... shooter fans?). But if that's the case, then unless the majority of gamers are in the core, you limit your resulting install base. And you really do have to add Wii Sports (i.e. 1 software sale for every hardware sale) when looking at attach rates, since it is a game. People who buy a 360 or PS3 have to buy a game when the buy the console, unless they want to stare at the boot-up screen, people who buy a Wii do not.

I'm not sure what the PS3's relative attach rate is, but they need to be more concerned with the install base at this point.

Eh, here are some once again unofficial numbers:
Japanese attach rates:
Wii: 2.35
PS3: 1.31
360: 2.94

Don't have any US cumulative data, but 5% of 360 owners bought a game last week, 9% of Wii owners (12 if you include Wii Sports), and 10% of PS3 owners. Totally random data, but hey, it's somethin.

http://vgchartz.com/aweekly.php
http://vgchartz.com/japweekly.php

I know it's hard for everyone to deal with, but three very different approaches to the gaming industry could be successful at the same time. Not sure why everyone is convinced that some other console than their favorite succeeding will ruin things for them. Clearly Microsoft changed their methodology when their console was a horribly distant second last generation.

[Dr Mario Kart]

It would be quite the historical landmark to have a position change THAT late in the game, but certainly there are a lot of new precedents this time around.

And what exactly does "feeling like next-gen" even mean?

Frame rates havent improved(frame rate and resolution are opposed to each other), I'm not aware of any huge jumps in AI, the basic game designs havent changed.

All I'm seeing now is what I've been seeing for a long time, only much prettier.

[dpatel]

It would be quite the historical landmark to have a position change THAT late in the game, but certainly there are a lot of new precedents this time around.

True, but this is also the first time we have had a 'next gen' console that is more akin to the 'last gen' consoles.

And what exactly does "feeling like next-gen" even mean?

Frame rates havent improved(frame rate and resolution are opposed to each other), I'm not aware of any huge jumps in AI, the basic game designs havent changed.

All I'm seeing now is what I've been seeing for a long time, only much prettier.

Well, we really haven't seen anything too impressive over last gen just yet. Point is, the potential is there. So far, I think the best example would be Oblivion. Even with last gen graphics, that game would be hard to achieve on the Wii. Of course, this gen is just getting started. Like I said initially, the weakness of the Wii won't be apparent just yet since last gen is still kicking. People seem to be completely content with their PS2s. This will change pretty soon though.

[Dr Mario Kart]

You're always wrong about everything, dpatel! but at least you're courteous about it. :)

[dpatel]

All I'm seeing now is what I've been seeing for a long time, only much prettier.

Far too early to judge. I could say that all I am seeing on the Wii is the same games but instead of pushing a button to do something, I am now waving my arm to do the same thing (which can sometimes lead to me being less precise). But all consoles haven't even begun to show us what they are capable of.

[dpatel]

You're always wrong about everything, dpatel! but at least you're courteous about it. :)

uhhh..thanks? Were you joking, or do you really think I am 'always wrong'? Because, I really don't know what you are referring to.

I don't think I'm wrong here either, but if you disagree, that's fine. We are both just speculating here, and there really isn't any 'wrong' or 'right'.

[alongx]

Why would Pachter be a CAG favorite? It's not like he's particularly accurate, ever.

[botticus]

Why would Pachter be a CAG favorite? It's not like he's particularly accurate, ever.It was rather tongue-in-cheek, since I don't think CAG will ever have any positive feelings towards any analyst. But he was a guest on the CAGcast, so it'll do.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I'm joking, but I dont think the argument that once HD catches on the Wii will be doomed is a legitimate argument.

That point will come too late in the generation to affect it if it could.

It'll be a sad day for me if everyone decides they cant have fun without it being in a certain resolution.

[captmurphy]

I agree with Dpatel...

[dpatel]

I'm joking,

Heh, oh. My bad if I sounded defensive. Can't really detect sarcasm on the internet.

but I dont think the argument that once HD catches on the Wii will be doomed is a legitimate argument.

That point will come too late in the generation to affect it if it could.

It'll be a sad day for me if everyone decides they cant have fun without it being in a certain resolution.

I agree that once HD catches on, it won't lead to the Wii falling. But, I think that it will hurt it (not too much though. HD catching on will have little to do with the Wii losing popularity. It will, instead, help the 360/PS3, but it won't hurt the Wii in any direct way). However, naturally, as time goes on, the Wii's aged hardware will show, and while HD gaming probably won't be a must (I still think the majority of gamers will still be gaming in SD by the end of this gen), other hardware limitations will come into play. Developers will want more room to breathe when developing, but won't be able to, and now the, once 'expensive', consoles are looking more tempting and prices for consumers and developers will have dropped.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Its certainly not for everyone in the dev community. Given what has been done with the PS2, I think this amount of power is enough to do the vast majority of game designs, just not with all the bells and whistles.

Another reason it doesnt need a lot of power is because its not pushing high resolutions.

Where the devs have breathing room is in their budget. That will not drop with the cost of the system, though it will drop slightly as people gain proficiency on the platform.

The core of this disagreement is how much the discrepancy in power (or power in general) actually matters. I think the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Apossum]

When I play Ninja Gaiden (which looks better than pretty much everything and runs at a 99% perfect 60fps frame rate) or Gears of War, it's a whole other plane of gaming that I feel the Wii will never reach. When I play Ubisoft game X, I feel the Wii's existence is very justified.

[dpatel]

Its certainly not for everyone in the dev community. Given what has been done with the PS2, I think this amount of power is enough to do the vast majority of game designs, just not with all the bells and whistles.

Another reason it doesnt need a lot of power is because its not pushing high resolutions.

Where the devs have breathing room is in their budget. That will not drop with the cost of the system, though it will drop slightly as people gain proficiency on the platform.

Yea. I see what you're saying. I guess, hypothetically, most games could be done on the Wii's hardware. I guess what I believe is that consumers and developers won't want to be limited by the hardware. Right now, it is great. The Wii hardware isn't really considered 'dated', seeing as how the PS2 is still alive and kicking, which shows people aren't ready to jump to next gen. But, I really think the only thing stopping people from jumping is the cost. Which is what makes the Wii so appealing right now. It is something new, without the added costs. But, I just can't see the Wii staying significantly cheaper for the entirety of this gen. Right now, the system itself is significantly cheaper than the PS3 ($350 cheaper). But, there is no way it will stay that way for long. The PS3, being more expensive, has more room to drop, whereas, the Wii, doesn't. For instance, the PS3 could, and probably will drop by about $300 at some point (far off), while the Wii, would not be able to. I think I'm kinda rambling now, but basically I am saying that the $350 price difference between the Wii and PS3 will just continue to shrink as time goes on. Which, I believe, will occur for all costs that are associated with the Wii (taking away its initial advantage).

The core of this disagreement is how much the discrepancy in power (or power in general) actually matters. I think the costs outweigh the benefits.

I agree the costs currently outweigh the benefits for both consumers and developers. But, as I previously said, as time goes on, the costs will be less of a factor, because the difference in consumer and developer costs between the Wii and 360/PS3 will just continue to shrink. As it does, the costs will decrease to a point where benefits could outweigh the costs, which is why I see a shift in the leader of the 'console war' relatively late in the gen.

[dpatel]

I'm not sure how coherent that post was. It sounded right in my head, but I wrote and rewrote it several times, and still couldn't find the best way to put it.

[trq]

Yea. I see what you're saying. I guess, hypothetically, most games could be done on the Wii's hardware. I guess what I believe is that consumers and developers won't want to be limited by the hardware. Right now, it is great. The Wii hardware isn't really considered 'dated', seeing as how the PS2 is still alive and kicking, which shows people aren't ready to jump to next gen. But, I really think the only thing stopping people from jumping is the cost. Which is what makes the Wii so appealing right now. It is something new, without the added costs. But, I just can't see the Wii staying significantly cheaper for the entirety of this gen. Right now, the system itself is significantly cheaper than the PS3 ($350 cheaper). But, there is no way it will stay that way for long. The PS3, being more expensive, has more room to drop, whereas, the Wii, doesn't. For instance, the PS3 could, and probably will drop by about $300 at some point (far off), while the Wii, would not be able to. I think I'm kinda rambling now, but basically I am saying that the $350 price difference between the Wii and PS3 will just continue to shrink as time goes on. Which, I believe, will occur for all costs that are associated with the Wii (taking away its initial advantage).

I agree the costs currently outweigh the benefits for both consumers and developers. But, as I previously said, as time goes on, the costs will be less of a factor, because the difference in consumer and developer costs between the Wii and 360/PS3 will just continue to shrink. As it does, the costs will decrease to a point where benefits could outweigh the costs, which is why I see a shift in the leader of the 'console war' relatively late in the gen.

That made sense -- don't worry.

You're right that the price difference between the Wii and the PS3 will shrink, but I think you underestimate where that will wind up in the end. Even if Nintendo drops the Wii by $50 every time Sony drops the PS3 by $100, you're still looking at a $100 Wii and a $300 PS3 ... the price that the PS2 launched at. And we all know the Wii also has a $50 buffer in Wii Sports, which Nintendo could just leave out of the bundle.

Beyond that and more important is the question of time. If people are just waiting for a price drop to buy the PS3 (and I don't doubt that they are -- I know I am), how long is that wait? Will the PS3 hit, say, $300 in four years? That's almost a hundred dollar drop each year. Are developers willing to put their projects on the back burner, waiting for that price drop and the mass market sales that finally come with it? Doubtful. Then the question is whether a $300 PS3, without all that third part support, will even be worth owning four years down the line.