The flaw in the attach rate narrative

I'll cut to the chase:

GTA V sold 90 million copies and has as userbase of over 470 million (ps3+ps4+xone+x360+PC), that's roughly 19% of attach rate, low and failure by this argument.

From here on, the numbers only go down.

Mario Galaxy sold 10 Million on a 101 Million userbase, 10% of attach rate, what a failure huh?

GTA San Andreas sold roughly 30 million copies(lifetime sales since its OG release, counting ps4 and xone ports), with a user base of roughly 500 million(ps2+ps4+OG Xbox+xone+PC), that amounts to 6% of attach rate.

So, in the end all games failed, right?

Let lems have this. They literally have nothing else.

@Ant_17: I want them to try and prove me wrong.

I even deflated PC numbers, because it's probably way higher than that, I used 200 million as PC userbase.

This really got into you, the salt is real

That's some deep thoughts right there. I think we should all stop for a day or two and really think about this. I would stay, stop gaming too, but obviously many here are more into posting than playing already.

But seriously... Shivers down my spine.

@MonsieurX: I'll take that answer as a concede.

Thanks for playing.

What are you so upset about this time, can you tell me the original thread were you made this revenge thread froM?

It amazes me how stupid and desperate fanboys can get. This new attach rate narrative proves that 100%.

@zaryia: so, nothing to counterpoint, then? Another concede, thanks for playing.

@vfighter: You sure it proves it 100%.?I think if you really crunch the numbers you'll find that it only proves 8.5%-10%.

I see high attach rates as a failure. For one thing, you absolutely need to have a low ownerbase to have one. Secondly, the argument comes from a place where gamers are some contiguous block of tastes. You have to be 5 years old to think everyone is into anything. If any platform is intentionally targeting a single audience from the spectrum of gamers, it is doomed to fail. Putting up high sales numbers means the developer and publisher reaped a healthy profit, and it ensures that more games will come along to cater to those tastes. Literally, the only thing that matters.

Games like GTAV and PUBG that make stupid money have the opposite intended effect, when you really look at it. One would naturally conclude that a GTAVI would be hot and ready to go, but the publisher has monetized the online to a degree where their release schedule has grown stagnant. I'd much prefer a steady stream of games that sell 2+ million over "Mega-sequels" that sit unmoved near the center of gamer's budgets and suck the life out of everything around them. Probably a different argument for a different time, but it's closely related to "Teh attach raetz".

I was just about to type something very similar. Although I would argue that you don't need to have a low ownerbase, but could instead or also have a smaller range of big ticket games. Of course many people on platform X will buy the next big defining title if it's the big item of the year. Tapping back into the rest of your post, if you have a platform with a big heterogeneous ownerbase and a big heterogeneous library then everyone has something to love but individual items from the library will inevitably sell to a lower percentage unless they are a rare game that transcends tastes

@xantufrog: Ding! Like those rare FFVII moments where people go "JRPGs, no one plays those?" ... until everybody buys one, that is! lol Yet another strength of catering to a wide array of tastes. Gamers, historically, have gotten wanderlust and there has been a few games that are random breakout hits. Always fun to see that.

The fact that lemmings (and embarrassingly some hermits) created this user base narrative to put a negative spin on PS4 game sales....AFTER MS STOPPED ANNOUNCING GAME SALES is all the proof you need to dismiss the morons who used this argument.

The irony and self ownage part of this argument for lemmings/hermits is that PUBG ( a game not on PS4), the game celebrated for the most sales in 2017 only sold 30M by the end of the year but released on PC march...when active PC users are estimated at 150 million for STEAM alone.

On Xbox one, a month after release as of Jan 2018 PUBG only sold 3 million on XB1. Where the other 27 Million sales?

Dose the user base not matter now?

Why aren't lemmings devastated at those low user base numbers for PUBG on Xbox one...I mean it's an online MP BR game and everything right?

@tgob89: what hermits? PC gamers probably have the smallest attach rates due to the volume of the library. Ironically, you're the one who runs around "loling" over "games nobody has heard of" (a distinctly console-AAA-centric attach-rate oriented view)

It's really interesting and ironic this argument was created AFTER MS stopped announcing hardware and game sales.

what?

Anyway, for your first question, I can only take what people claim here. If I say hermit, it's because they "claim" to be hermits.

Anyone who owns multiple systems can claim whatever they want but they could be lying as many from the xbox camp have fled to PC but still harbor the same attitude, posting habits and mindset of an xbox fanboy.

@tgob89: fair enough. Why would you argue attach rate doesn't mean much (or at least not much good) but turn up your nose at under the radar games that might nevertheless be amazing though?

why are cows the salty ones lately?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about, sorry.

When you have no more alibis, you just invent new ones!!!!

Remember it's SW, winning the argument is all that matters ^^

Or is it just anyone that doesn't worship Sony and playstation?

Funny isn't it.

5 years and 80 million sales and you can count the (Worthwhile) exclusives on 2 hands....

3rd in power,

2nd in overall games

Will definitly be 3rd in EXCLUSIVE games after a few more years of the switch.

Only super successful genre is action games.

This gen's console winner is luke warm....

@kali-b1rd: @drlostrib: so, nothing then?

Another concede, and now in double.

Thanks for playing.

concede what?

I just find it kind of funny how you and others got yourselves tied up in knots over this and the movie games thing

I don't know who is using the attach-narrative in the way you describe, but I wouldn't be suprised you just twisted what people have said and made a counter-arguement about something that people are not claiming... again.

The way I see it:

When I mention the sales of a big AAA exclusive, attach rate is brought up purely to say "This kind of game isn't for everyone, putting it on a pedestal is pointless".

And in relation to you numpties, its usually a case of "Cows keep churping on about these games being the biggest thing in gaming, when in reality they are not heres why:"

All of these arguements can be twisted around to suit any situation.... you guys are taking it incredibly personally these days though

@drlostrib: derailing the thread adding "muh salty" is you conceding.

@kali-b1rd: so, no counterpoints and moving thread subject? Thanks for the concede.

@tgob89:

*This is a question that any console fan could easily answer for their system*

Or will the response be a generic list of games that few people have heard of and even less people care about?

Ok, your OP makes a claim that people are saying these games are a failure.

Provide that evidence... with the full context.

If you can't you have a no-go debate to begin with.

again.

@xantufrog his entire perspective is "Sony Game or Bust".

Clearly, anyone who doesn't make idiotic hypocritical arguments!

Maybe it's confusing for someone like yourself who's trying to defend narrative that won't even work in favor of your own preferred platform, but for anyone else who isn't also as delusional as the posters who created and defend that moronic argument, they will understand.

Don't know why you still make it your mission to quote where ever I post like a stalker. I've told you to stop post stalking me on the board. I'll say it again, I don't want any interactions with you so stop quoting me.

Posts on a public message board, complains when he gets responses.

Again, you and your buddy need to provide some solid evidence that this narrative exists... In the context that you are describing it as.

You and Recloud are very similar, Xantufrog, check thier I.Ps :D

@xantufrog:

As you requested, this...

is an example of one of the users I was speaking of.

Self claimed "hermit" so yeah...

Just for clarifications.

@kali-b1rd: you did not.

You're attacking me as usual.

What....?

When ever I pull the quote someone made I always provide a link of the thread to allow full disclosure, if you could be so kind...so I can refresh myself on the full argument?

A sound bite wont do much good to me in a discussion that could have had multiple lines of argument. I need to see what the discussion was about and I'll happily outline the purpose for that response you have pulled there.

@tgob89: yes sorry, this thread: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/which-is-better-pc-or-consoles-and-why-33432910/?page=1

You were arguing that console is the best place to play

Seriously dude? Now we need to defend this shit?

I shoulda knew it was them damn narratives again! First they try to get you with the use your own critical fackleties narrative, then it's the ain't no spacemen talking to you through your fillings narrative, then before you know it you're walking around without any protective aluminum on yer noggin whatsoever, spouting some commie-crap narrative about how "having fun is what counts"!! Yeah, well not me bub. Here at the compound we got all the stats we could ever need to know we're playing the best AAA's all day, every day.

I'm more concerned about attach rates of games in general. Like, are people buying a console for just one or two games, or are they buying games for the console on a consistent basis. That's why even though the Wii was quite a popular system, I viewed it as a failure because people who had it didn't buy many games for it.

@JustPlainLucas: people always bought consoles for one or two games, this is nothing new

I want receipts of where any hermit has said that or else you're lying out of your a$$.

I know this is nothing new. But clearly, some console owners buy more games than others. The metric that determines the success of a console's appeal should be number of games purchased per console, so if a console only sells say 50 million but has an attached rate of eight games per console, that is more of a success than a console that sells 300 million but only has three games per console.

Yup lol..I laugh when I see that by trolls. That basically means any game that released on the best selling console didn't sell as much as it should have.

@JustPlainLucas: that's not the metric being thrown around though, near as I can tell. People are leveraging the attach rate of individual games, not how many games in general bought per console.

*edit* never mind, I see that's exactly your point above

Ahh yes, the opinion thread of which is better PC or consoles.

So, on to your question..

The bold part of my post there is not meant to dismiss any games, but to highlight what supports my personal perspective of why I think consoles are better.

I do not like PC fans trying to provide a link to a million faceless games and think that it's a sufficient argument for best games. I'll never play every game on PS4, what difference dose it make to me if I have more games I won't play than another system? In my mind it's no difference.

The Switches Library is anemic compared to say Xbox one...but on Switch you have Mario Odyssey!!! IMPORTANT QUESTION: How many of those hundreds of more games that Xbox one offers will it take to replace Maro Odyseey?

ANSWER: AAA or not U SIMPLY CAN'T!!!

I'm not going to play 1000 games before the end of this generation and neither are you or anyone else, so what do a faceless lists do for me besides tell me there's more fodder on system that I won't play?

Am I saying all PC games are fodder? NO...

What I was asking (if the game is obscure or not) was to PUT a face on it/them and stand behind it proudly as a representative of one of the games for system you consider the best.

The fact that PC fans are reluctant or incapable of doing that puts me off the platform more than anything else. More games is one argument, but it wasn't my question nor what makes me think one system is better than another.

My argument was that consoles have the highest quality exclusives of every generation. I STILL stand behind that argument, but the point I was making was that PC fans act reluctant to list the games for PC they consider the best and instead hide behind a long list of generic games they will never play.

Console fans have mountains of games they will never play too but if you ask, they'll say with confidence and pride, "Here, HERE...these (insert SPECIFIC games) are the reasons why I think my system is the best".

TL;DR

I was asking for users on PC to tell me the best games on their platform that I NEED to play and make PC better than consoles, not a long generic list of nameless games that I'll never play and users themselves will never touch.

I think I said as much in that thread was well. Hope that explains my thought process a little better for you. :)

They don't take the used games market when talking about this BS.

Where is your proof that I have made this narrative in the context you are using it?

still desperate to convince yourself I'm a lem? does it make you feel better?

"buh buh THE LEMMINGS"

@tgob89: I agree, everytime we ask PC gamers about their exclusives, we get half baked answers like "more AAA on MC every year PC always wins"

But they can't point a single exclusive better or on par with God of war, Mario, Zelda or uncharted.

What are your metrics?

There are pleanty of AA games people enjoy more than AAA games, and for far longer periods of time too. Different genres have different standards/ratings... a 9.4 action game means dick all when compared to Warhammer: Total War for example.

There is also double the good quality games on PC currently according to metacritic (double the ammount of A/AA rated games) to choose from than 3 consoles combined.

How many "AA" is an "AAA" Worth?

What if that "AAA" is a shallow 10 hour mindless b-grade indiana jones game with no replay value and no real challenge/depth/comeptitiveness? What If people watched it on thier second monitor while playing a game with some insenstive outside of its cutscenes?