Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*

[Shifty Geezer]

Honestly, the recipe is quite simple and is based on 3 basics : price, power, games.

You can also try to find success with innovative features, but it's more risky. One example is the Wii.

Another important factor is brand popularity.

There's more to it like services, friends, history/loyalty, all playing an influencing role to a different amount depending on who the consumer is.

As for Iroboto's mathematical model, I don't think one can be created. I don't think the metrics align - for example, there's no way to know how successful a game will be despite several decades of reference materials. If Sony were to set out to make a GTA type game, it could be a huge success, or it could fail horribly and lose crazy money. If such a model were possible, the console companies would be pursuing something along those lines to help with decision making, I guess. And in that regards, Sony has looked at the numbers for their hardware and software and decided exclusives make enough of a difference to be a priority. At the same time, MS looked at their data and decided exclusives weren't. Some would correlate PS4's better sales with PS4's different library (it's about the only real difference at this point), though mathematically it's not enough data to prove correlation. For the general onlookers like myself, a history of platform exclusives and game diversity for PS and PS's market leading sales, plus Nintendo's exclusives and Nintendo's ability to sell hardware that can fail in a lot of other criteria, is enough of an indicator that exclusives are not just a value-add but a significant decider. I also agree with you that if the 3rd party libraries covered all the bases and provided enough diversity and quality, that wouldn't matter, but it seems the first-party contributions manage to fill a void or raise a bar and continue to be a way to bolster a platform.

Going forwards, the value of exclusives versus the value of a persistent, ongoing, cross-device library may become quite the deciding factor above all else - we just don't know at this point. I do wish MS would make more of the future-proofing of their library rather than just leave it implied and for the concept to grow organically.

 

[steveOrino]

Another important factor is brand popularity.

Historically speaking, brand popularity means little. The industry went Atari being a cultural icon to Nintendo on top the world holding 3rd parties by the balls with from NES-SNES, two generations of Playstation dominating the console install base then a somewhat equal distribution of install bases to another dominate Playstation system. So from my observation over that span of video game history it would seem Software > Price >>>>>Hardware power.

 

[Recop]

There's more to it like services, friends, history/loyalty, all playing an influencing role to a different amount depending on who the consumer is.

Obviously, but these factors seem to be less important.

MS looked at their data and decided exclusives weren't.

I don't think we can say that. In my opinion, it's a rather a by product of the XB1 sales and their inability to get high sales with their exclusive games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think we can say that.

I don't see the logic in that. You're saying MS looked at their data, saw exclusives were important, but decided not to invest in them anyway and willingly concede market presence?

 

[iroboto]

Obviously, but these factors seem to be less important.



I don't think we can say that. In my opinion, it's a rather a by product of the XB1 sales and their inability to get high sales with their exclusive games.

It depends
For services if you look at Game Pass and EA Access.
For a nominal fee of $144 a year, you can get a lot of games and ones that have same day launch. Next month with the 2nd time they launch a 3rd party game on it and it will be their 2nd time launching a 1P title on it. If you suddenly start churning out quality titles onto this service, this service jumps in value very quickly. The same can be said about EA Access for instance.

Or online services could matter, the fact that Nintendo struggled so much with it, it just never became this online place to play.
And at one point in time Sony was not charging for it, and MS was. That's a substantial difference as well.

So while i agree price, power and games are highly determinant factors. Services that directly support these determinant factors will play a role in bolstering their value.

 

[Recop]

I don't see the logic in that. You're saying MS looked at their data, saw exclusives were important, but decided not to invest in them anyway and willingly concede market presence?

No, they tried but they failed. And when your product doesn't work as well as it should do, it's harder to get money to finance your projects.

In my opinion, the Xbox brand reached a point where it became less relevant for MS. But it's slowly changing with Phil Spencer and i expect to see more exclusive titles in the future.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No, they tried but they failed. And when your product doesn't work as well as it should do, it's harder to get money to finance your projects.

If MS as a corporation sees exclusives are important, they'll fund them. They're not strapped for cash - they bought Minecraft for $2.5 billion. At no point has MS looked at the gaming space, crunched the numbers, seen they need a few third-person cinematic games and quirky left-field games and moody QTE fests, looked inside their wallet and seen their too strapped for cash and they'll just have to let Sony have all that glory to themselves.

 

[Recop]

If MS as a corporation sees exclusives are important, they'll fund them. They're not strapped for cash - they bought Minecraft for $2.5 billion. At no point has MS looked at the gaming space, crunched the numbers, seen they need a few third-person cinematic games and quirky left-field games and moody QTE fests, looked inside their wallet and seen their too strapped for cash and they'll just have to let Sony have all that glory to themselves.

But it doesn't work like that. You need to convince other excutives. It's not only a matter of cash.

When a product doesn't perform as expected, then investors are less enthusiat to put money on the table.

 

[chris1515]

Historically speaking, brand popularity means little. The industry went Atari being a cultural icon to Nintendo on top the world holding 3rd parties by the balls with from NES-SNES, two generations of Playstation dominating the console install base then a somewhat equal distribution of install bases to another dominate Playstation system. So from my observation over that span of video game history it would seem Software > Price >>>>>Hardware power.

Sorry software, price and hardware power were not favorable to Sony with the PS3 for a long time. And launch aligned they sold all the time more PS3 than Xbox 360 in continental Europe...

 

[iroboto]

A little commentary on MS behaviour, do they behave a lot more like a large competitive enterprise and less like a game company. They are much more likely to purchase a company to gain talent/capability and work out integrating them into the organization then to try to develop and nurture talent slowly from within.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

A little commentary on MS behaviour, do they behave a lot more like a large competitive enterprise and less like a game company.

There is a lot of traditional creative industry (music, movies etc) DNA in Sony. As a company they likely attach a different value to creative endeavours than Microsoft and are used to this because they have multiple businesses where every investment in such a creation is a huge risk.

They are much more likely to purchase a company to gain talent/capability and work out integrating them into the organization then to try to develop and nurture talent slowly from within.

Yup, And IP like Minecraft, brands like Nokia and customer bases like Skype. Although it's difficult to see Microsoft ever making back that $2.5Bn on Minecraft (even with merchandising) or that $7.6Bn on Nokia. At the time the acquisitions probably made sense to Microsoft. But how do you account the risk and ROI on exclusive games? I recall a Sony statement made last gen which, IIRC, suggested most exclusives don't even break even so are they self-financing across the board? If not, how do Sony weight their value to their platform given even Sony can't know how much their exclusives play into people's decisions to buy a PlayStation. If their exclusives collectively lose them money, at what point do they decide to dial it back a little. They've some of some pretty non-mainstream stuff over the years.

Sony know I've bought PlayStation consoles and bought exclusive games for my PlayStations but they can't know that one of my reasons for buying PlayStation is for exclusives. I bet plenty of PlayStation owners buy their console based on other reasons and buy exclusives because they are just games that appeal.

 

[iroboto]

Yup, And IP like Minecraft, brands like Nokia and customer bases like Skype. Although it's difficult to see Microsoft ever making back that $2.5Bn on Minecraft (even with merchandising) or that $7.6Bn on Nokia

Yea, Satya sees Minecraft as education as opposed to just gaming. So I can see why the expenditure there can be more justified, it lines up with the rest of the stack very well.
And then of course:
Kinect, Hololens, Mixer (Beam), Lionhead, Visio, LinkedIn, Massive, Hotmail, Rare... the list literally goes on for nearly as long as their patent lists. Standard business practice for them certainly.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Here's something to add that doesn't really add anything statistically, but I was just thinking about it.

With Sega remaking the Yakuza games (Yakuza Kiwami series) for PS4, if all previous Yakuza games get remade, I'll finally have a reason to buy a PS4. Outside of Persona 5, it's by far the most compelling exclusives on the Sony platform for me. Persona 5 isn't worth a 200+ console purchase, but Personal 5 + the entire Yakuza lineup would be. Outside of those, there isn't another exclusive on the platform that I'd want to play at 30 FPS.

But, what got me thinking more than that. If PS4 had BC, I'd buy the PS4 in a heartbeat as I wouldn't have to hope for the entire Yakuza library to get remade for PS4 (I'm definitely not buying a PS3 just for the Yakuza games that were on it).

Of course, the optimal situation is if those games would get a PC release so I wouldn't have to suffer through 30 FPS gameplay or having to use a console controller. But those games are good enough that I'd be willing to suffer through that.

Really wish PS4 had BC.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Although it's difficult to see Microsoft ever making back that $2.5Bn on Minecraft (even with merchandising)...

I've been thinking about this. And while I was originally highly skeptical (originally thought it'd be a major money loss, but perhaps worth it in terms of marketing and increasing MS mindshare in a certain population demographic), I'm think there's a chance they might make back that 2.5 billion USD and then some, but perhaps not to the point where they'd make a profit (revenue - (initial purchase + ongoing development and operating costs)).

As of the start of this year 144 million copies have been sold (NOTE - this includes sales from before Microsoft purchased the IP). Over a million people still play it daily across a variety of platforms. With merchandising (Minecraft plushies and T-shirts are still quite popular), DLC, and microtransactions I think there's a reasonable chance they can remake that initial investment. While you don't need DLC or microtransactions on PC, a lot of parents on console and mobile buy DLC and microtransactions for their children.

It's another situation where we'll never get the information from MS about it, but I'd dearly love to know where it ends up after the last bit of Minecraft related merchandise has been sold.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xbat]

What Sony is also doing with all there exclusives is building and maintaining a diverse first party stable of developers. The more experienced devs you have the more likely you going to get the next big thing. At the moment Sony is picking up the slack when it comes to single player cinematic games and thank God because I love me some single player games.

I play multiplayer as much as the usual gamer, for instance I have played a shit ton of overwatch and have put in about 300hrs into PUBG, at this point in time though I'm loving God of War. It is a fantastic game for me and the only place I can play it is on PS4.

 

[tuna]

With Sega remaking the Yakuza games (Yakuza Kiwami series) for PS4, if all previous Yakuza games get remade, I'll finally have a reason to buy a PS4. Outside of Persona 5, it's by far the most compelling exclusives on the Sony platform for me. Persona 5 isn't worth a 200+ console purchase, but Personal 5 + the entire Yakuza lineup would be. Outside of those, there isn't another exclusive on the platform that I'd want to play at 30 FPS.

I do not get it, if you like the Yakuza games why haven't you got a PS3 and PS4?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I do not get it, if you like the Yakuza games why haven't you got a PS3 and PS4?

I'm not about to drop 200+ USD just to play a couple of games. Nothing else on PS3 (other than Ni No Kuni) or PS4 other than those games really interests me. Just like nothing on XBO really interests me. At least the PS4 has those games which appeal to me, which is more than can be said for the XBO. Even if Gears 4 and Ori and the Blind forest weren't on PC, those games alone wouldn't be enough to get me to buy an XBO, and I LOVE Ori and the Blind forest.

Spend 249-299 USD (not including price of games) for a PS4 just to play 3 or 4 games? Not worth it. With all the Yakuza games (7 of them?) plus Persona 5, that's almost palatable, enough that if I had extra cash after budget spending, I'd be tempted to get one.

And a PS3? That thing is so butt ugly there's no way my fiancé would allow one in the house. At least the PS4 looks like it fits in an entertainment center.

Hell, I still have 20+ games in my Steam Library that I haven't even had a chance to install, much less play. So it's not like I lack for things to play.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There's been something bothering me when people bring in Metacritic to bolster the importance of 1p exclusives. It's taken me a bit to figure out why.

For the most part user and industry reviews of a game aren't going to be conducted by people that aren't attracted to that type of game in the first place. So Metacritic is like an echo chamber of people that like whatever genre the game is in. For instance, reviews of StarCraft 2 aren't going to contain reviews from people who don't like RTS games.

As such Metacritic is more about how well games please the people who are already into those types of games and has little bearing on how many people are drawn to those games. LoL which draws more players than any single console game, for example, only has a 78 Metacritic score.

I get that people like to use Metacritic to feel good about their game or to get an idea of whether a game in a genre they like may be a good fit for them.

Or to put it another way. Are more people going to be drawn to GTA V (97), Zelda (97), God of War (94), Witcher 3 (93), HZD (89) or LoL (78) on a per platform basis (IE - each SKU and not all platforms for multiplats)?

While critical reviews are certainly important, and will definitely boost the sales of a game, they aren't the be all end all with regards to customer draw. Unfortunately, the far more important statistic to look at (unit sales) are often difficult or impossible to get for most games.

One thing I think we can all agree on. Legend of Zelda BOW using both metacritic and sales performance is the best exclusive this generation by far. That's if we want to insist that Metacritic and sales performance are important.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xbat]

Yes and Zelda definitely helped push the Switch's sales a lot. Isn't that the point of this thread?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's been something bothering me when people bring in Metacritic to bolster the importance of 1p exclusives. It's taken me a bit to figure out why...

If you want to go statistical analysis on it, you have to go whole-hog to get any meaningful data. You can't just correlate score to sales, but average score to average sales. LoL would likely be an outlier. How much does the average '78' game sell? How much does the average '94' game sell? There's very likely a high correlation between score and sale on average (you'll still get critically acclaimed games that don't sell) which is why publishers have gone on to use Metacritic as a performance measure for their games, wanting higher average scores because those lead to higher average sales.

Yeah, without proper data we can't prove that, but we don't get adequate sales data to even perform such an analysis. We do get landmark sales figures of games that do well though, which tends to correlate to high scores. Thus I'm confident the theory is solid and the use of Metacritic is meaningful, until disproven. I think the burden of proof would be to discredit the theory the higher Metacritic score leads to higher sales on average.