Almost 3 Years And PS3's First Party Still Does Not Have A Killer App?

[DuckThor Evil]

PS2 has over 150 million user base (100million in it's booming heyday). Yet, titles, multiplatform or otherwise, didn't/don't regularly sell 10 million copies (or 5 million for the matter).

It's hard to quantify how big the active user base has been at a given time. I doubt that there has ever been a time where a 100 million PS2 users have bought games at the same time. With the huge install base comes also the huge second hand market and a huge amount of games are borrowed between friends, so while a game "only" sells few million copies, the actual amount of gamers that have played the game is much bigger, if the console manufactures manage to tie the games into a single unit they might see nice growth in sales, especially when the user base grows.

 

[Cornsnake]

Why do some people think you can't evangelize technology AND "fun gameplay"?

Is anyone doing this? I think we're just trying give an answer to the question of how Sony could have made a killer app. They are a business after all, it makes some sense for them to do this.

Of course as a gamer I really dont mind Sony making games like The Last Guardian, which will probably never turn a profit.

As for GT5, even Kazunori Yamauchi has said they could release the game whenever they wanted to. Yet we still haven't got an official release date. There is a point where adding more content offers almost no additional value to the whole product. Like no-one ever needed 50 Nissan Skiline's in GT4. And if they absolutely must have this, then there are other ways to do it instead of filling up a 50GB disk.

 

[-tkf-]

As for GT5, even Kazunori Yamauchi has said they could release the game whenever they wanted to. Yet we still haven't got an official release date. There is a point where adding more content offers almost no additional value to the whole product. Like no-one ever needed 50 Nissan Skiline's in GT4. And if they absolutely must have this, then there are other ways to do it instead of filling up a 50GB disk.

But some might "need" WRC and NASCAR

 

[mrcorbo]

I think you are assuming all or most PS3 owners are of a like mind. That's generally what's needed to sell huge numbers of a particular title. For instance, if most people on X360 want FPS games, guess which titles will sell in huge numbers (especially at about twice the user base in the US). If X360 owners appetites were mainly different, the sales of certain titles most likely wouldn't be as high.

PS2 has over 150 million user base (100million in it's booming heyday). Yet, titles, multiplatform or otherwise, didn't/don't regularly sell 10 million copies (or 5 million for the matter).

You continue to ignore the sales of major mulltiplatform releases being more in-line with sales on the 360. It's only the first/second party that are failing to meet sales expectations. Your "diverse PS3 userbase" doesn't explain this and is also counterintuitive to the usual progression of diversity being achieved with a larger userbase (which you actually reference in your last paragraph).

EDIT:

Why do some people think you can't evangelize technology AND "fun gameplay"? It's like some Wii people that think a game can't be a much "fun", if the graphics are HD. I can't see logic in that thinking. GT3 and GT4 were fine on the PS2 (over 150 million sold) with long development time. NOW, with GT5 they should rush? I don't get it. GT5 should take longer when it's about twice the game FM3 is.

I don't think the argument was that you can't do both. It was that Sony hasn't done both. Personally, I won't attempt to argue that one way or another. I have no idea.

 

[Cornsnake]

But some might "need" WRC and NASCAR

Then its a shame they'll have to wait for whatever PD thinks up next. Perhaps we should go ahead and call GT5 a PS4 launch game already.

 

[specwarGP2]

As for GT5, even Kazunori Yamauchi has said they could release the game whenever they wanted to. Yet we still haven't got an official release date. There is a point where adding more content offers almost no additional value to the whole product. Like no-one ever needed 50 Nissan Skiline's in GT4. And if they absolutely must have this, then there are other ways to do it instead of filling up a 50GB disk.

But those 50 Skylines is part of what makes GT so special. No other driving simulator would go so far to satisfy car nerds.

 

[Nesh]

You continue to ignore the sales of major mulltiplatform releases being more in-line with sales on the 360. It's only the first/second party that are failing to meet sales expectations. Your "diverse PS3 userbase" doesn't explain this and is also counterintuitive to the usual progression of diversity being achieved with a larger userbase (which you actually reference in your last paragraph).

I believe that multiplatform games tend to do better because they can become known easier to a large portion of gamers regarding of console ownership.

Exclusives are mostly discussed by those that own the console (which is a problem when they arent many enough) and are advertised mostly by outlets related to that specific product.

The existence of a multiplatform game is communicated to consumers through much more outlets.

Its not just that people arent interested to many exclusives. In many cases they dont even know about them. The casual consumers (as in those that dont search the internet and magazines for the best games ever but care about good and popular games in general) often dont know about some certain exclusives, and a quick glance of one at a store shelf might not pick their attention until its too late.

They will buy the game that everyone knows and plays instead now.

The majority of Average Joe gamers I meet know and play CoD. Few exclusives are in their collection. Not because they tried them and didnt like them. But because they dont know them and its not the game that their friends play.

I have also noticed that the majority of average joe's that I know and bought a 360 "recently" (Except the "hardcore" ones) are not familiar with many 360 exclusives either. It is mostly the ones that bought the console when it was the only console available or when the competition was still too young that are familiar with 360 exclusives.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

I believe that multiplatform games tend to do better because they can become known easier to a large portion of gamers regarding of console ownership.

Exclusives are mostly discussed by those that own the console (which is a problem when they arent many enough) and are advertised mostly by outlets related to that specific product.

The existence of a multiplatform game is communicated to consumers through much more outlets.

I was just about to respond in a similar fashion. Thank goodness I decided to read the other posts below before posting.

 

[dobwal]

I believe that multiplatform games tend to do better because they can become known easier to a large portion of gamers regarding of console ownership.

Exclusives are mostly discussed by those that own the console (which is a problem when they arent many enough) and are advertised mostly by outlets related to that specific product.

The existence of a multiplatform game is communicated to consumers through much more outlets.

Its not just that people arent interested to many exclusives. In many cases they dont even know about them. The casual consumers (as in those that dont search the internet and magazines for the best games ever but care about good and popular games in general) often dont know about some certain exclusives, and a quick glance of one at a store shelf might not pick their attention until its too late.

They will buy the game that everyone knows and plays instead now.

The majority of Average Joe gamers I meet know and play CoD. Few exclusives are in their collection. Not because they tried them and didnt like them. But because they dont know them and its not the game that their friends play.

I have also noticed that the majority of average joe's that I know and bought a 360 "recently" (Except the "hardcore" ones) are not familiar with many 360 exclusives either. It is mostly the ones that bought the console when it was the only console available or when the competition was still too young that are familiar with 360 exclusives.

Your phenomenom doesn't hold true for the Wii, 360, PS2, PS1, N64, Genesis/MegaDrive, GC or Xbox1. All or almost all were able to put up killer exclusive titles within the time frame that exists for the PS3 right now. At 2.5years or less these consoles gave us Halo, Gears, Golden Eye, FF7, Wii Fit, alot of Mario, Sonic, TombRaider II, etc.

In fact, look at the top selling titles in history and they are dominated by exclusive titles.

 

[DrJay24]

In fact, look at the top selling titles in history and they are dominated by exclusive titles.

Exclusives are far harder to come by this gen. In the past it is quite possible that games like Assassin's Creed, GTA4, DMC4, etc. would have been exclusive.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How many historical top exclusives were first/second party versus third? I may be wrong, but by my reckoning most of the time its the console company that publishers the killer games.

 

[assurdum]

Your phenomenom doesn't hold true for the Wii, 360, PS2, PS1, N64, Genesis/MegaDrive, GC or Xbox1. All or almost all were able to put up killer exclusive titles within the time frame that exists for the PS3 right now. At 2.5years or less these consoles gave us Halo, Gears, Golden Eye, FF7, Wii Fit, alot of Mario, Sonic, TombRaider II, etc.

In fact, look at the top selling titles in history and they are dominated by exclusive titles.

On the playstation? What the hell do you talking about? The era of the exclusive titles were top selling is passed at the time of the snes On the playstation first parties exclusives selling 'poorly' compared third parties performance. GT a part.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

On the playstation? What the hell do you talking about? The era of the exclusive titles were top selling is passed at the time of the snes On the playstation first parties exclusives selling 'poorly' compared third parties performance. GT a part.

I suppose in this case then it's just an unwillingness of 3rd parties to create exclusives for the PS3?

As it doesn't appear the X360 has any problems with 3rd parties creating killer large selling exclusives for the X360.

Regards,
SB

 

[assurdum]

I suppose in this case then it's just an unwillingness of 3rd parties to create exclusives for the PS3?

As it doesn't appear the X360 has any problems with 3rd parties creating killer large selling exclusives for the X360.

Regards,
SB

To be honest I prefer the actual choice of sony. I found the actual first parties exclusive of a lot better quality to the ps2 era where only third parties had the point. imho. But now sony at least try to create its ip, an own identity, I prefer this. I'm not interesting for the rest. Remember me the time when nintendo was a glorious company not a supermarket enterprise.

 

[Nesh]

Your phenomenom doesn't hold true for the Wii, 360, PS2, PS1, N64, Genesis/MegaDrive, GC or Xbox1. All or almost all were able to put up killer exclusive titles within the time frame that exists for the PS3 right now. At 2.5years or less these consoles gave us Halo, Gears, Golden Eye, FF7, Wii Fit, alot of Mario, Sonic, TombRaider II, etc.

In fact, look at the top selling titles in history and they are dominated by exclusive titles.

Yeah thats because unlike today, Nintendo and Sega were the biggest marketing forces behind their creations. We were buying a SEGA Mega Drive, a Nintendo NES, a SEGA Master System, a Super Nintendo. We were buying a SEGA system for SEGA games, or a Nintendo for Nintendo games. Nintendo left a legacy that carries on even today.

The more we move forward the more people get detached to the companies that make the consoles. The consumers dont buy Sony or MS (or Sega or Nintendo) anymore. They buy XBOX and Playstation to play games from whoever makes them. They play games that are communicated to them through the media. The presence of third party developers through outlets is as strong as that of the console makers themselves today. But those can advertise their games on two platforms.

Third party developers were more often developing exclusive games for older consoles (not necessarily under a deal) so chances seeing an exclusive from a third party developer doing extremely well werent extraordianry. Games didnt even need to sell 3 million then to be considered killer aps.

And even as such you can check that the overall trend is downward with only a few exceptions doing well. Nintendo and Sega games werent doing well for the past few years. Not even on the DC. Galaxy did and that could be partly due to the Wii's popularity which is reminiscent that of the PS consoles (For reference Twilight princess did crap on the GC but sold 5 times more on the Wii. Wind Waker sold around 4 million. It shows how much the circumstances, marketing and popularity can increase sales and its not just about giving people the game they want to play).

PS1 and PS2 that had a huge userbase and the popularity helped people get familiar with exclusives and multiplatform alike. Not to mention that the N64 and PS1 were technically different and thus more exclusives were released on both (many just happened to be one console exclusives because of the large userbase of one console). The outlets simply advertising on a PS1 or 2 was like advertising to the whole market.

Even the PS2 that had such a large userbase and games that were considered platform definitive didnt reach the 5 million threshold or they barely reached/surpassed that number.

Halo 3 is an extraordinary achievement helped also by a very strong marketing campaign and the success of the originals. Picking exclusives here and there that managed to do great isnt that hard. There are always exceptions which were either great or were helped by the circumstances (ie being released at launch or before competition).

The majority of exclusives on both the 360 and the PS3 dont sell as great as Halo or even Gears even though they are quality titles.

 

[dobwal]

Yeah thats because unlike today, Nintendo and Sega were the biggest marketing forces behind their creations. We were buying a SEGA Mega Drive, a Nintendo NES, a SEGA Master System, a Super Nintendo. We were buying a SEGA system for SEGA games, or a Nintendo for Nintendo games. Nintendo left a legacy that carries on even today.

The more we move forward the more people get detached to the companies that make the consoles. The consumers dont buy Sony or MS (or Sega or Nintendo) anymore. They buy XBOX and Playstation to play games from whoever makes them. They play games that are communicated to them through the media. The presence of third party developers through outlets is as strong as that of the console makers themselves today. But those can advertise their games on two platforms.

Console manufacturers dominate marketing now and have for a long time. The biggest E3 events are still by far the Sony, MS and Nintendo conferences. And its the console makers themselves that power alot of the marketing behind these video games, which have become more noticeable this day and age as they want their console brand next to top 3rd party titles. MS and Sony use third parties to market their consoles and do so because they lack the ability to produce like Nintendo.

Third party developers were more often developing exclusive games for older consoles (not necessarily under a deal) so chances seeing an exclusive from a third party developer doing extremely well werent extraordianry. Games didnt even need to sell 3 million then to be considered killer aps.

Third party titles powered the PS1 and PS2 and became one of the defining reasons to want a playstation. Combined with the huge first party titles from Sony, their presence allowed a more consistent stream of good games in the pipeline versus the N64, xbox and GC.

And even as such you can check that the overall trend is downward with only a few exceptions doing well. Nintendo and Sega games werent doing well for the past few years. Not even on the DC. Galaxy did and that could be partly due to the Wii's popularity which is reminiscent that of the PS consoles (For reference Twilight princess did crap on the GC but sold 5 times more on the Wii. Wind Waker sold around 4 million. It shows how much the circumstances, marketing and popularity can increase sales and its not just about giving people the game they want to play).

There is no downward trend outside of Sony. The Xbox1 produced only about 4 titles (all exclusives) which rang up 3 million of more in unit sales. The 360 has about 9 titles above 2.6 million (6 exclusives) with ~4 breaking the 5 mil mark (3 exclusives) and we not anywhere near the EOL of that console.

What you are seeing is the top publishers putting the majority of the top franchises into the second and third place consoles. This is a new phenemnom that mostly has to do with the fact that the PS3 and 360 caters to the traditional crowd of gamers. Nintendo dominates the top selling Wii titles with all top ten titles being Nintendo titles ranging from 3 million to 18 million (unbundled titles). Wii Fit and Mario Kart sold more by themselves then the top ten selling GC titles combined. The Wii Fit alone is worth about 6 or 7 of the top selling titles for the PS3.

PS1 and PS2 that had a huge userbase and the popularity helped people get familiar with exclusives and multiplatform alike. Not to mention that the N64 and PS1 were technically different and thus more exclusives were released on both (many just happened to be exclusives or they were released on PC and console. SO they werent exactly one platform only).

Even the PS2 that had such a large userbase and games that were considered platform definitive didnt reach the 5 million threshold or they barely reached/surpassed that number.

The top first and third party franchises (outside of maybe GOW) don't drop at the EOL of a console lifespan. Tomb Raider I sold 7 million on the PS1 and it dropped on Nov 1996 when the US PS1 userbase was roughly 3.5 million consoles. FF 7 was release on Sept 07 in the US and went on to sell 9.8 million copies with a US userbase of 7.8 million. Tomb Raider II drop in Nov of 97 and went on to sale 8 million copies. GT and MGS drop the next year and moved millions to a worldwide PS1 userbase of between 35-50 million PS1, who had just the summer before had worldwide totals of just 17 million.

There was just 20 million PS2 in the world when GTA III was released and there were only ~5-6 million PS2 in the US when GT3 Aspec was released. Infact both these titles including MGS2 were released at or before the PS2 was a year old in the US and all sold above 7 million.

Halo 3 is an extraordinary achievement helped also by a very strong marketing campaign and the success of the originals. Picking exclusives here and there that managed to do great isnt that hard. There are always exceptions which were either great or were helped by the circumstances (ie being released at launch or before competition).

The majority of exclusives on both the 360 and the PS3 dont sell as great as Halo or even Gears even though they are quality titles.

Thats a given. But nevertheless, an elite set of exclusive titles have had a major influence on just about every console in history.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think Shifty made a good point and it's why I stayed out of this thread.

I don't understand the logic behind focusing on first party. I understand that is the set of parameters that the OP made to have this discussion so it has its merits as any arbitrary set of parameters might.

But as Nesh said, we bought Sega systems to play Sega games, Nintendo systems to play Nintendo games.

The last two generations, I bought playstations to play the games available. Most of them were not made by Sony. Without doing any research at all, I'd say the biggest games on the PS2 were either 3rd party exclusives or 3rd party timed exclusives.

I can't think of a SONY game that I've ever cared about. Maybe Gran Turismo, but I'm not even sure that is marketed as a SONY game. So most people wouldn't even know.

Honestly, does anybody care that Microsoft doesn't make Gears of War?

 

[Nesh]

Console manufacturers dominate marketing now and have for a long time. The biggest E3 events are still by far the Sony, MS and Nintendo conferences. And its the console makers themselves that power alot of the marketing behind these video games, which have become more noticeable this day and age as they want their console brand next to top 3rd party titles. MS and Sony use third parties to market their consoles and do so because they lack the ability to produce like Nintendo.

We are talking about different things. What Sony and MS do they are not the focus of the consumer anymore. I am not refering Sony's and MS role in promoting the console. I am pointing to the perception of the consumer regarding the offerings of the console. Its not about MS and Sony games. Its just about games regardless of who is making them and who makes the console.

Third party titles powered the PS1 and PS2 and became one of the defining reasons to want a playstation. Combined with the huge first party titles from Sony, their presence allowed a more consistent stream of good games in the pipeline versus the N64, xbox and GC.

Thats a superficial observation that doesnt say much about how the PS2 became what it was. And that will need a whole new chapter of discussion.

There is no downward trend outside of Sony. The Xbox1 produced only about 4 titles (all exclusives) which rang up 3 million of more in unit sales. The 360 has about 9 titles above 2.6 million (6 exclusives) with ~4 breaking the 5 mil mark (3 exclusives) and we not anywhere near the EOL of that console.

What you are seeing is the top publishers putting the majority of the top franchises into the second and third place consoles. This is a new phenemnom that mostly has to do with the fact that the PS3 and 360 caters to the traditional crowd of gamers. Nintendo dominates the top selling Wii titles with all top ten titles being Nintendo titles ranging from 3 million to 18 million (unbundled titles). Wii Fit and Mario Kart sold more by themselves then the top ten selling GC titles combined. The Wii Fit alone is worth about 6 or 7 of the top selling titles for the PS3.

I observe a general downward trend. Sony just happens to do worse that the others and more significantly because of a bad late start and they came with mostly new unproven IP's, a great deal of which came when the console was not affordable.

I dont know what you are trying to say with top publishers in relation to what I tried to point there but regardless.

The 360's successful exclusive franchises were sequels to big XBOX1 games and/or came when competition was non-existent or too young. We knew Halo, Forza and Fable from before. Gears and Gears 2 are the only completely new IP's that did great. Everything else bombed or did just ok. Sales also indicate to what I stated in my previous post. Only Forza 2 and Gears 2 reached and surpassed the 4 million mark with Gears 2 being a sequel to a 2006 game when competition was almost zero. Everything else released after the maturity of competition are in the range of 2.+ millions.

And just to see the trend PS1 had more successful stories than the PS2 and the PS2 more successful stories than the 360 in the same lifespan.

The top first and third party franchises (outside of maybe GOW) don't drop at the EOL of a console lifespan. Tomb Raider I sold 7 million on the PS1 and it dropped on Nov 1996 when the US PS1 userbase was roughly 3.5 million consoles. FF 7 was release on Sept 07 in the US and went on to sell 9.8 million copies with a US userbase of 7.8 million. Tomb Raider II drop in Nov of 97 and went on to sale 8 million copies. GT and MGS drop the next year and moved millions to a worldwide PS1 userbase of between 35-50 million PS1, who had just the summer before had worldwide totals of just 17 million.

There was just 20 million PS2 in the world when GTA III was released and there were only ~5-6 million PS2 in the US when GT3 Aspec was released. Infact both these titles including MGS2 were released at or before the PS2 was a year old in the US and all sold above 7 million.

But as I said earlier there are always exceptions to pick and both GT3 and GTA are the super exceptions. They are the ten million sellers that very very few games manage. Not only that but these games were released on the PS2 before the GC and the XBOX.

Where do you get your numbers?Tomb Raider 1 sold 7 million including PC units and worldwide sales I believe. Why do you mix worldwide software sales with US hardware sales? Many of the PS1 games you mention and the 360 games we know today were released at similar lifespans. So I dont know what you are trying to say with EOL. Sales tend to decrease often too the more we approach the console's end of life. Actually the figures you use if accurate show that new exclusives on the PS1 did better than what they do today on the 360. Even though based on a chart I saw the PS1 hardware was growing slower. Which if true it may indicate that things arent getting better nowadays.

 

[TheChefO]

I just looked up ww sales of gt3 and gt4 to get an idea where the trending is heading for these games and to test a theory.

GT1 10.85
GT2 9.37
GT3 14.87m
GT4 9.66m

When PS2 came out, frankly it looked like a dog. None of the games lived up to the ps2 hype and in fact, they had a tough time keeping up with Dreamcast.

...

And then GT3 came out. That's when sales spiked for this IP and for ps2. It wasn't just a GT game for car buffs, it was a reason to own a ps2 (killer app). It looked phenomenal and was a great game to boot, but the sales figures for gt3 don't reflect the true market for GT games.

The true market seems to be right around 10 million.

GT5 prologue sold around 3 million. Granted, it's a "glorified demo", but it does say something. If I were that interested in GT5, wouldn't I want gt5 prologue? As a point of contrast, Halo3 laid the foundation for Crackdown becoming a successful franchise just by allowing gamers to demo Halo3 multiplayer.


I do think GT5 will move ps3 boxes even at their current price, but the franchise is moving into a much more difficult environment to compete in.

My estimation:

PS3 $400 = GT5 3-4million
PS3 $300 = GT5 4-7million
PS3 $200 = GT5 7-9million
PS3 $150 = GT5 9-10million

 

[Shifty Geezer]

GT5 prologue sold around 3 million. Granted, it's a "glorified demo", but it does say something. If I were that interested in GT5, wouldn't I want gt5 prologue?

If you were that interested yes. Just as if you were that interested in Gears, you'd buy a collections edition with some extras. Most people aren't that interested though, and only interested enough to play the game proper. According to Wiki, GT4 prologue sold 1.36 million copies as a prelude to 9.66 million full game sales. I doubt there's any predetermined relationship between them. Heck, just look at your own example...

As a point of contrast, Halo3 laid the foundation for Crackdown becoming a successful franchise just by allowing gamers to demo Halo3 multiplayer.

If people were that interested in H3, wouldn't they have bought Crackdown to play it early? Out of 10 million H3 owners, only 1.5 million bought Crackdown to play the demo (assuming no-one at all bought the game to play the game...). I can well believe GT5 won't have the same impact as previous GTs, because it isn't head-and-shoulders above the competition any more, but I certainyl wouldn't try to predict GT sales based on prologue sales.

Regards your predictions, what are you predicting? How many PS3's would be sold on the weight of GT5 given a price point? Aggregate GT5 sales given a changing price for PS3? Again I go with the damper on making predictions (aren't I the killjoy!) but we don't know at all how GT is going to evolve as a franchise. Will there be a GT6 when PS3 is $200, or will GT5 just be Gran Turismo and from this point in, DLC and expansions will be constantly rolled out like SingStar?