Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Hence the A+ ratings for Nintendo in my list. 
Clash of the Titans (1st Party 10+ million selling franchises)
- Thread starter Johnny Awesome
- Start date
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
On further reseach inFAMOUS qualifies, but Wipeout is a fan favorite that's not even close.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It didn't sell over 100 million copies. Only 90 million or so.
Pffft... Why does Nintendo even bother with such paltry sales numbers.It didn't sell over 100 million copies. Only 90 million or so.
The irony of this list is that some of the games in the MS list existed as multiplatform games that sold millions on many consoles and PCs in a much bigger span.
Remove those and what does XBOX have?
Barely any games came from MS studios.
Compare that with Sony's and Nintendo's games and you see a lot of creative force that reached 10 million on just one platform. And there are games that were successful but didnt reach 10 million.
4 console generations and MS barely brought anything. They acquire existing titles that sold well.
It shows a lot about the contribution in the industry in terms of game content by each company.
Sony is more prominent in getting out more original titles and IPs though than Nintendo.
But what is amazing about Nintendo is their ability to use existing IPs all these decades and still make people play them and have fun. Often many of these titles feel fresh and original too. Their game design and presentation is something special.
There is something unique about how Nintendo does things its own way and works fabulously. From hardware to software. Even their recovery model works splendidly. After the fall of Wii sales and then the disaster of the WiiU they came back stronger than ever and continue to sell impressively well.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Well, I didn't intend this as a creative analysis thread. It's marketplace relevance I was interested in, but I can address a couple things.
There's nothing wrong with buying talent by the person (Sony nowadays and Nintendo) and buying talent via many people at once ie. whole studios. It's funny that so many people think there is something inherently virtuous about buying people over buying studios. It's ridiculous IMO. Microsoft used their "home grown" talent to make tons of money (Windows, Office, etc...) so they could buy tons of creative people all at once (ie. Bethesda) to make games. It's like complaining that Nintendo used the money they acquired in the playing card industry in the early 1900s to "muscle their way" into the gaming market. How dare they use their hard earned corporate cash to muscle in on Atari's territory! LOL.
As far as the marketplace is concerned, gamers don't care that Elder Scrolls VI won't be made by MS game studios employees from 2001 or Bethesda via acquisition. They just know they want it. People here can complain all they want that Sony bought Naughty Dog and MS bought Bethesda etc..., but it doesn't change the fact that Fallout and The Last of Us are powerhouse games that sell really well and drive people to those ecosystems.
I'm sure that's not going to stop people from continuing to grind some axes about it.
There's nothing wrong with buying talent by the person (Sony nowadays and Nintendo) and buying talent via many people at once ie. whole studios. It's funny that so many people think there is something inherently virtuous about buying people over buying studios. It's ridiculous IMO. Microsoft used their "home grown" talent to make tons of money (Windows, Office, etc...) so they could buy tons of creative people all at once (ie. Bethesda) to make games. It's like complaining that Nintendo used the money they acquired in the playing card industry in the early 1900s to "muscle their way" into the gaming market. How dare they use their hard earned corporate cash to muscle in on Atari's territory! LOL.
As far as the marketplace is concerned, gamers don't care that Elder Scrolls VI won't be made by MS game studios employees from 2001 or Bethesda via acquisition. They just know they want it. People here can complain all they want that Sony bought Naughty Dog and MS bought Bethesda etc..., but it doesn't change the fact that Fallout and The Last of Us are powerhouse games that sell really well and drive people to those ecosystems.
I'm sure that's not going to stop people from continuing to grind some axes about it.
It has nothing to do with virtue. It's about healthy market growth and creation of new experiences.
Buying out huge established studios and their established IPs and deprive competitors from what was originally or would have been widely accessible VS creating or buying a small studio and give them the freedom and resources to create new IPs, arent even remotely close.
Fallout pre-existed. It was a multiplatform game. Not anymore. People will rightfully complain their platform will no longer play it.
The Last of Us is a result of Sony giving Naughty Dog the freedom and resources to create a new game. Complain about what?
Buying out huge established studios and their established IPs and deprive competitors from what was originally or would have been widely accessible VS creating or buying a small studio and give them the freedom and resources to create new IPs, arent even remotely close.
Fallout pre-existed. It was a multiplatform game. Not anymore. People will rightfully complain their platform will no longer play it.
The Last of Us is a result of Sony giving Naughty Dog the freedom and resources to create a new game. Complain about what?
Last edited:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
The marketplace at large doesn't care about any of that, so it's not really relevant to the discussion about who controls what powerful IPs. The fact that you're moaning about people losing established IPs on their chosen platforms proves my point that these IPs have industry wide importance.
Besides, I'm pretty sure Bethesda is going to create some new unique experiences for the Xbox ecosystem. Starfield will probably be just such a game. MS has been giving the freedom and resources to Rare to make new games for 15+ years. Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Kameo, and Sea of Thieves are good examples. All good games, but only Sea of Thieves has been wildly successful. There's nothing different: Nintendo, Sony and MS have all bought creative talent and they use it to make games.
Besides, I'm pretty sure Bethesda is going to create some new unique experiences for the Xbox ecosystem. Starfield will probably be just such a game. MS has been giving the freedom and resources to Rare to make new games for 15+ years. Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Kameo, and Sea of Thieves are good examples. All good games, but only Sea of Thieves has been wildly successful. There's nothing different: Nintendo, Sony and MS have all bought creative talent and they use it to make games.
What about buying a studio (Insomniac) and having them work on an existing IP (Spider-man) and depriving your competitors from an IP that would have been widely accessible? Sounds like exclusives are the real problem, not studio acquisitions.
This game wouldnt have existed anyways without the deal and Spider Man is not owned indefinitely or exclusively by Sony for Playstation.
https://screenrant.com/spider-man-playstation-exclusive-rights-marvel-sony-insomniac/
According to IGN, Sony Vice President of Product Development Connie Booth met with Insomniac to discuss the development of a Marvel game. It’s likely Sony spoke to Marvel prior to this conversation in order to gain exclusivity rights for this one title alone. However, Sony never went in to speak about a Spider-Man game specifically. Insomniac was allowed to pick any Marvel superhero to work with and ultimately decided that Spider-Man was their best bet. Sony was never given the exclusive rights to produce a Spider-Man game. They were given the ability to make an exclusive title for the PlayStation platform and Insomniac just so happened to go with Spider-Man. This led to Marvel’s Spider-Man being a PlayStation 5 exclusive when it launched in 2018.
Although Sony now owns Insomniac Games, neither company has any exclusive game rights to the Spider-Man character, nor did Sony ever have said rights to begin with. Presumably, Marvel has owned the video game rights to the superhero this entire time. A temporary partnership between Sony and Marvel is what granted Sony the ability to launch Marvel’s Spider-Man as an exclusive on their own platforms. It’s likely a similar deal was orchestrated to allow Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales to launch as a PS5 exclusive. At the end of the day, it seems Marvel is the sole proprietor of the Spider-Man video game rights.
Insomniac mainly worked for Playstation beforehand with no huge multiplatform IPs.
Through Sony they brought out possibly the best Spider Man game we ever got. A franchise which CAN exist on other platforms. Just not this game.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I reckon the vast majority of game players, they don't pay a lot of at attention to games on platforms they don't own. Say for example, Elders Scrolls VI never comes to Nintendo or Sony platforms (or Stadia etc), the appeal and relevance of the Elder Scrolls IP will dwindle to those in the platform on. If Microsoft ever decide to sell the IP, it'll be worth less than what its perceived value when they bought it.
People only know what the The Last of Us is because of critical acclaim and awards. In the round, it's not like some massively influential IP outside of PlayStation. This is why owners of mainstream IPs are generally not keen on any form of long-term exclusive distribution. If it's not easy to see Marvel films, because they're available on Disney+, these IPs will suffer in appeal.
IPs are not invulnerable fading away. For the most part, if you want an IP to remain in the hearts and mind of people, it has to be everywhere.
Fortunately xCloud is available statistically everywhere once you add in Android, iOS, and PCs. The platforms its not available on is statistically irrelevant.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
This statement can't be true as Mario and Zelda are still super relevant even though you can only get them on a Nintendo system. Spider-Man is a draw to the PS ecosystem. It made me think twice about picking up a PS5 at launch (along with Uncharted series and few other Sony gems). I only passed on it due to time constraints. I really only have time for one ecosystem.
Are you trying to tell me that if GTA VI were only on Xbox that this wouldn't have a marketplace impact? It surely would, and for years on end.
In the end I agree that IPs can fade. Halo has faded from a 15 million seller to a 5 million seller. It's still relevant, but less relevant than it used to be. But properly nurtured, like Uncharted, IPs can remain exclusive AND relevant for decades. All of the IPs I listed at the beginning of this thread CAN remain relevant across the broader marketplace if they are nurtured properly. Nintendo is very good at this and Sony is lately as well. MS has some catching up to do. Forza Horizon is a good example of where they went right. We'll see if they can revive Halo, Fable and Forza Motorsport and keep Elder Scrolls as vibrant an IP as it is right now.
Last edited:
Platform/vendor agnostic is where the future lies imo.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Other streaming solutions have been widely accessible, but it's steaming. Many will not get past the 'streaming is slow' mentality or real latency issues.
Outside some mobile experimentation and the console market crash of the early 1980s, Mario was only ever been available on Nintendo platforms. You say you "almost" bought a PS5 but ultimately you didn't. There you go. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There have not really been that many massive IPs of their time that were acquired. The only one I could really think of was Wipeout, which was synonymous with PlayStation even though Psygnosis was independent originally so Wipeout was released on PC and the SEGA Saturn. Back in that generation Wipeout was massive, then Sony bought Psyghosis and the franchise became PlayStation-only. Sales plummeted over time because it was now only on one platform and the IP just fades away despite the games getting great Metacritic scores. And bear in mind Sony has often had the biggest console markets. Together, Sony and Nintendo represents about 80% of the entire console market.
Some IPs need the inertial that only exits across multiple console platforms. When you look at games like Skyrim ad the sales numbers, they're huge. Now look at the same on Nintendo and Sony platforms, now imagine them gone. I'm sure many will think about getting a platform that plays Starfield and I'm sure many, for a number of reasons, you like will not.
Actually Psygnosis was acquired by Sony in 1993. Before the PS was even released.
Psygnosis IPs were released on the Saturn and the N64 even after Wipeout XL/2097 was released on the Playstation.
Its one of those peculiar rare examples
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You're right, I mentally sync'd their acquisition to their name change.
Regardless, the IP dwindled when it ceased to the multi-platform and sometimes the economics and IP mindshare requires that cross-platform market. An example is Assassin's Creed Odyssey, launched in November 2018 and by March 2020 it had sold 10 millions across console and PC - with the largest single share being PS4.
I don't know if WipeOut's multiplatform status had anything to do with it's status in the market or even sales in a big picture type way. It's a futuristic hovercraft racing game with a thumping techno soundtrack first released with both of those things were very popular. Sony kept making WipeOut games and they became niche releases, but so has every other futuristic hovercraft racing game in recent memory. Even the multiplatform one. It's just a genre that's waning. Kudos to Sony for feeding their fans; Nintendo hasn't been doing that for F-Zero fans.
Did halo fade or did xbox ? Halo 3 was the pinnacle but it was also released on the most successful xbox console.
