Xbox 360 tops US game console sales again in July 2012

Microsoft's Xbox 360 console continues to dominate US console sales, according to new data from the NPD Group. Microsoft announced today that in July 2012, it sold 203,000 Xbox 360 units in the US.

In Microsoft's blog post, it states this marks the 19th straight month that the Xbox 360 was the number one best selling game console in the US, and the 17th straight month that the Xbox 360 held more than a 40 percent share of the game console market in the US. Microsoft said that the total amount spent on Xbox 360 hardware and software in July was $218 million. However, the unit sales number for July were down for the Xbox 360 compared to July 2011, when the company said it sold 277,000 units.

Overall, retail game sales were down once again in the US. Gamesindustry.biz reports that for July, the combined sales of hardware, software and accessories were $548.4 million, down 20 percent compared to the same period a year ago.

These numbers don't take into account revenues from used game sales, along with sales from digital downloads of games, subscriptions and micro-transactions. The NPD Group estimates that if these numbers are added, the total revenues from game sales in July come out to $1.1 billion.

NCAA Football 13 was the best selling game in July, followed by Lego Batman 2, The Amazing Spider-Man, Just Dance 3 and Batman: Arkham City.

Source: Microsoft blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Battle.net accounts compromised

Next Story

TechSpot: Acer Iconia Tab A700 Review

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Where is the incentive for MS to launch the next gen console if the current one is doing well enough? I am skeptical of seeing the XBox 720 earlier than the 2014 Holiday Season. Can Americans please stop buying XBoxes.

the current consoles are starting to get dated and are in need of the next gen.

it's been since 2005 for Xbox360 and we know the next XBox console won't be til at least 2013 which basically means 8+ years.

i would say a new console about once every 6-ish years is probably best as it keeps the consoles from getting to far behind the PC that way and we don't want to update our consoles too much either so i would say about every 6 years sounds like a good spot, maybe 7 years tops.

but i guess the good news about those longer delays between consoles is it keeps the PC from advancing too much so as long as you have a decent spec PC now odds are it will comfortably last at least until next gen consoles arrive.

my GPU (Radeon 5670 512MB (about Geforce 9800GT level, possibly a bit worse)) is the weak link in my PC but i would not be surprised if i can at least run game half way decently with it until next generation of consoles arrive and then begins the process all over again where your CPU/GPU get dated pretty quickly and eventually hit a point where it will last years but that's usually after the PC side of things is comfortably ahead of the console side which i would estimate is something good about 3-4 years after the consoles are released.

Adamb10 said,
MS and Sony really need to get there next gen consoles out there soon. Sales are tumbling across the board.

As opposed to what?? What's selling so high that MS and Sony need to hurry with a new console?

Colin McGregor said,

As opposed to what?? What's selling so high that MS and Sony need to hurry with a new console?


I guess the poster thinks that the Wii U and that Kickstarter thing will be real competition to the manly devices known as XBOX 8 and PS4.

DClark said,

I guess the poster thinks that the Wii U and that Kickstarter thing will be real competition to the manly devices known as XBOX 8 and PS4.

The Wii-U has already been proven to not even be better then 360 spec wise and that other android thing is going to be a cheap cell phone game on your tv console hardly worth mentioning.

Colin McGregor said,

The Wii-U has already been proven to not even be better then 360 spec wise and that other android thing is going to be a cheap cell phone game on your tv console hardly worth mentioning.

The Wii U will have better graphics than the 360.

Adamb10 said,

The Wii U will have better graphics than the 360.

Please. Don't even bother. You don't know anything about how graphics work. For the record the 360 has far superior graphics to any other platform (bar PC of course) due to the nature of not just its hardware but its kernel and DirectX functionality. The Wii U will use some cruddy *nix kernel using a ****ty offspin of OpenGL...

ingramator said,

Please. Don't even bother. You don't know anything about how graphics work. For the record the 360 has far superior graphics to any other platform (bar PC of course) due to the nature of not just its hardware but its kernel and DirectX functionality. The Wii U will use some cruddy *nix kernel using a ****ty offspin of OpenGL...

Bit off topic, but Uncharted on the PS3 is far more beautiful than anything I've played on my XBox 360 or any other console for that matter.

Back on topic, this might be in response to the looming issue of the XBox sales being banned in the US because of the conflict with the Motorola patents...

Adamb10 said,

The Wii U will have better graphics than the 360.

Hardware wise, it is a bit more powerful; however, the execution of that power is limited to the platform and software capabilities.

Additionally the Wii U is essentially an ATI 4xxx series HD GPU, which is a design that is a direct descendant of the XBox Xenos GPU. The main advantage is the number of stream processors and the on chip video decoding features.

(The Video decoding technology is now essentially moot with the XBox and modern Windows using Media Foundations that can accelerate video decoding using GPGPU operations independently of native GPU support. This is why using 'decoders' that replace the Windows 7 Media Foundation codecs will reduce performance and consume more CPU, etc. So don't do it.)


At 1366x768 the ATI 4xxx GPUs in PCs running on an optimal DirectX engine offer surprisingly little improvement over a native XBox 360 game in terms of performance due to the DirectX subset used in the XBox that is closer to DX11 than DX10.1 that the GPU support on the PC.

ATI was able to squeeze a bit more performance out of these series GPUs by slapping on large amounts of VRAM (at the time). We have laptops around here with the 4650 GPUs and they hold their own to the XBox 360 graphically, but are not beyond what you can expect from a well produced XBox 360 game.

The execution is where we hit problems, and just as people witnessed on the Snapdragon with the Adreno 200 in the WP7 devices. The WinCE OAL kernel model and optimized drivers (which was designed from NT concepts) and using DirectX instead of OpenGL was able to squeeze 5 to 10 times the performance out of the GPU portion, in comparison to a generic Linux and an Android build using the latest OpenGL ES technologies.

This is where hardware numbers don't tell the truth. As WP7 devices were first shipping, there were GPUs in Android and on iOS that were in 'theory' 10 times faster than the GPU in the WP7 devices, yet for fillrate, and triangle/sec the WP7 devices were able to keep up with the must faster GPUs.

That is how important a kernel, driver, platform, and GPU framework are.

What we know that is a problem is the Wii U's OS platform and framework, which will NOT be Windows NT based and will NOT be DirectX.

The last two items is where we see a massive loss in performance, as the Windows NT kernel on the XBox 360 (as in Vista/Win7/Win8) have a kernel level GPU scheduler and shared RAM management system.

(Note the low about of Shared RAM the XBox 360 uses, that DEPENDS on the NT kernel and Video model to hand out to essential resources as needed.)

This is why a low memory footprint can product texture levels that is higher than the PS3, as the NT kernel can swap out assets on a Dynamic nature faster than traditional load/unload from RAM using the DMA technology of the GPUs onboard DMA technology, along with its enhanced bus transfer techniques that allow direct use and drawing from low priority RAM areas as needed.

It is this DMA and bus and GPU scheduling technology along with the unified shader that revolutionized GPUs using the Xenos as a reference design. These technologies are essential today to modern computing, and things like NVidia Cuda 2.0 and the GPU processing of OpenCL would NOT work without them. (Microsoft technology is at the base of the technologies being used today on OS X and Linux.)

Then there is the OpenGL aspect, and depending on what subset variation the Wii U is using, it could be 'horrible' to 'ok', as the 4.x OpenGL is finally catching up in features, but not yet performance to DirectX.

As old as the XBox is, the DirectX subset it uses is closer to DX11 than DX10, which is a long story, as DX10 was to have DirectX parity with the XBox, but NVidia's GPU designs at the time of Vista's release and DX10 did not have the functionality.

With OpenGL versus DirectX when dealing with the same generation to GPU features (not the Valve idiot tests), there is on average a 20-30% hit in performance when using OpenGL.

DX10, DX11 get out of the way of the GPU more than the older DX9 technologies and were designed for performance, though sadly most developers that have been using DX10 or DX11 are just strapping it on top of a DX9 'mindset' engine and only using the newer technologies for 'better' visual effects, and this does not offer the performance possible.


So will the Wii U actually offer better gaming graphics than the XBox 360, in theory, maybe, but it would be one heck of a kernel, driver, recreation from the existing technologies outside Windows NT, and would require some really tight OpenGL work.

The problem is Nintendo are about the 'gaming' and 'play', so they are not going to optimized for graphics, and the game developers are not going to spend time squeezing the extra graphics out of the device for Wii U games.

So ya, the Wii U technically has a faster GPU, but will it result in games with better graphics, the odds are very very slim.