rokkerkory
Regular
I am hoping some great things out of MS' 5 new studios. The Initiative will likely be next-gen debut however but at least for some of the other studios, they can release something to send off the One in a nice way.
Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*
- Thread starter Globalisateur
- Start date
We've discussed lots and never reached consensus.One presents a list of numbers. Another says it's quality not quantity. The next line of discussion is that even the top sellers only sell to a small percentage of the audience (eg. well below 20%, very often below one in ten). There's no point entertaining the same discussion - it's going nowhere.
The current line comes from MS's announced acquisition of 5 studio, and is specifically observing that MS had a different strategy and have changed strategy. I think most are happy with that, but some are contesting it. Evidence - MS had significantly less studios than Sony and Nintendo. MS has significantly less exclusives than Sony and Nintendo. MS has significantly less upcoming exclusives than Sony are Nintendo. How can that not be taken as a difference in philosophy and investment??
Everything changed for MS when Satya took over, thus we have seen the largest dramatic shifts in strategy across Microsoft for all their products once he became CEO.
Unlike Sony and Nintendo, where gaming was the biggest driver for them, and a matured part of their business, Xbox was not the biggest driver for MS, it's clearly a larger part of their strategy now however.
And so, to that, I say, sure there has been a change, they've done everything else under the sun as well, and approval for these studios still had to come from the CEO.
Correlation isn't causation here. The reasons for MS not having as many first party studios, or having lower quality games, and now moving towards investing towards those may not change the landscape for them has so many more factors to it than just possibly just a philosophy change. Phil says in the Giant Bomb interview, he has freedom to do this now. That's fairly telling of their previous situation. All strategies are based on constraints, they've done what they could within the bounds of what their leadership team was letting them do.
I'm not really sure where this debate is going. It should be closed, it's clear that in this age of consoles, they still have impact and significance. Significantly more impact and significance if they are GOTY titles that can't be found elsewhere and not so much if they aren't.
ie. Sea of Thieves and Dreams are pretty unique titles, but I doubt that these titles are big drivers out there, even though the experiences they offer are pretty special and distinct.
ti's a relatively pointless debate because there are so many factors here, I'm almost positive every single reason under the sun has some form of positive correlation to sales, some stronger than others. In which that case, no one is entirely wrong or entirely right either. If the debate is about whether exclusives trump all other factors, that is where i see the debate coming from. In which we have no way to prove it anyway.
The theme for me has always been some saying exclusives, especially Sony's, weren't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Completely different take-home to you who feels the discussion has been that exclusives trump all! Without reviewing the entire thread, I couldn't cite the posts that made me approach the discussion with the theme I was reading. A cursory glacne sees this as post number four:
Edit: There was never a clear question asked as the thread was spawned, which means contributions were coloured by those discussing in the previous thread that spawned this, followed by those joining this thread without prior context. I think all good threads need to start with a question!
The thread itself was basically done, but the news from MS was very relevant so I mentioned it. As of now, every console company is looking at the value add and potential returns of exclusive content. Before E3, MS weren't as invested and looked to add value through other means, but now all the companies are aligned to the same overall strategy, even if their execution of exclusives ends up different. But where you and I agree that MS had a different strategy, some are still contesting that which is the current talk. I guess if you're done with it, save you're time. I'm pretty talked out which is why I just presented that very visual of the different strategies as argument.
Edit: There was never a clear question asked as the thread was spawned, which means contributions were coloured by those discussing in the previous thread that spawned this, followed by those joining this thread without prior context. I think all good threads need to start with a question!
The thread itself was basically done, but the news from MS was very relevant so I mentioned it. As of now, every console company is looking at the value add and potential returns of exclusive content. Before E3, MS weren't as invested and looked to add value through other means, but now all the companies are aligned to the same overall strategy, even if their execution of exclusives ends up different. But where you and I agree that MS had a different strategy, some are still contesting that which is the current talk. I guess if you're done with it, save you're time.
I'm pretty talked out which is why I just presented that very visual of the different strategies as argument.
Last edited:
If you have both, it's even better. People have different tastes and the more games you have, higher is the probability that you will please someone's tastes.
People that bought Street Fifgter 5 aren't necesseraly the same than those who bought Detroit, etc.
I think more or less how this spawn/spin off happened. It's been all over the place though.
The language has been everywhere and we did factor in things like platform etc. whether you could survive without 3rd party titles.
But people tend to just zero in on exclusives, as if that made up 100% of Sony's strategy, but if you took away online gaming and 3P titles where would they be at. And that's mainly been the crux of the argument, proponents of "exclusives have huge impact" are, fairly to a degree, base-lining Sony and MS platform features and hardware features as being equivalent and just zero'd in on exclusives.
Exclusives which, some posters gave those titles higher value because they had exclusivity, which was also a pet peeve when reading for several reasons; exclusivity doesn't correlate to being GOTY quality, exclusivity is novelty, and exclusivity is somewhat anti-consumer.
Which is the quick way to do things, but those arguments still hinged on the fact that their platform and hardware offerings were equivalent, which can be properly debated, has slowly been changing over time in favour of MS with the releases of their platform features, OS, services, and their latest hardware.
I don't think Brit has been against the idea of more exclusives on Xbox. We all know Xbox needs to round out their library, they certainly could use more titles in which the library is lacking. In particular games that are both, fun and brilliant to play, but also something that would showcase the hardware.
I would pose a question back to you though, given where MS is today. Where else should they improve if not the software space (where they stand the most to gain now) ?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
When Bungie was a Microsoft studio, they got a paycheck and some bonuses. Profits driven from Halo channelled into Microsoft not Bungie. Independent Bungie gets to keep all of the profits.
They are certainly doing much better now they are independent again.
Personally I like both the PlayStation and Xbox exclusive games. I own a PS4 and have not bought an Xbox One yet in part because I like the PS4 exclusives more and while I've missed out on some games I enjoy there just haven't been enough coming from Microsoft to warrant a purchase.
When I look at my software purchases going all the way back to OG Xbox and PS2, my libraries have largely comprised almost all the exclusive content for both platforms and a decent number of third party titles like FIFA to round out my collections.
My Nintendo systems and software purchases however have been almost exclusively first party. But I have not bought a Nintendo system since the Wii. Perhaps it's burn out or an over reliance on first party...
My immediate conclusion is for me right now Sony is offering the best balance between first party and third party titles. Microsoft backwards compatibility and more attention to first party could shift my interest next generation especially if they offer more competitive hardware relative to PlayStation but my decision will most likely be exclusives and third party support which Sony has consistently been balancing very favorably from my perspective and interest.
When I look at my software purchases going all the way back to OG Xbox and PS2, my libraries have largely comprised almost all the exclusive content for both platforms and a decent number of third party titles like FIFA to round out my collections.
My Nintendo systems and software purchases however have been almost exclusively first party. But I have not bought a Nintendo system since the Wii. Perhaps it's burn out or an over reliance on first party...
My immediate conclusion is for me right now Sony is offering the best balance between first party and third party titles. Microsoft backwards compatibility and more attention to first party could shift my interest next generation especially if they offer more competitive hardware relative to PlayStation but my decision will most likely be exclusives and third party support which Sony has consistently been balancing very favorably from my perspective and interest.
Its good numbers but its a game that launched on an 80m install base and was remastered for a 40m install base and still took 5 years to hit it. Perhaps the sequal will do better
I think expanding their software library is the strongest move they can make with the best ROI. Done well, not only does it promote and grow the platform, but also generates revenue itself, so it's a win/win. MS can also couple that with cross-play on PC and get an incredibly solid platform. Without the exclusives, without viable alternatives to what gamers are finding on PS and Nintendo, cross play could only take them so far. So what if I can play all my games on XBox and PC when there's no Mariokart nor Rabbids nor Zelda. But if XB has its share of 'Mariokart' and 'Zelda' and 'Rabbids' (ignoring the enormous brand identity) that were also cross-play, then it makes a lot of sense to go the XB route rather than the NSW or PS4 route to ones entertainment.
The problem with MS to date is they haven't handled their internal creations so well, leading them to give up a bit on the idea. The move by Spencer suggests a more positive future with better use of the studios - MS is more adaptive now because they are no longer king of all they survey, facing competition on every front and having to adapt a lot more. I think. My ill informed arm-chair analysis.
It is the first game of a franchise. This is huge. UC4 is probably around 10 to 14 millions+. It was 8,7 millions the 22th of December 2016. It was in top 20 2017 sales of multiple european country. Horizon Two Dawn sold over 7,6 millions in one year. God of War over 5 millions in one month.
When The Last of US remastered launch in 2014 the PS4 was not at 40 millions sales. It was less than one year after PS4 release only 9 months. It had just sold a little more than 10 millions.
http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/the-last-of-us-sales-pass-7-million-with-new-dlc-coming
TLOU and God of War sales are great in US, Uncharted not so good and it sold more in Europe. I am sure HZD is not exactly the same not exactly the same consumer probably more girl playing the game than other Sony exclusivity
This three title will all be 10+ millions sellers and TLOU, UC4 and God of War will maybe finish above 14/15 millions sales.
This is better sales than Halo peak sales with the 13+ millions of Halo 3.
And I only talk about the best sales some game like Detroit cover another niche, japanese game too and so on.
Last edited:
djskribbles
Legend
17M sold for a new IP are numbers studios can only dream of.
Install base doesn't matter as much as you may think, as when they grow, they get more and more diversified. Since Playstations always sell well globally, that is especially true.
Sure it was remastered and re-released, but there's no downplaying 17M sold for a new IP.. that is VERY good no matter how you look at it.
I doubt TLoU2 will sell as much as the first. TLoU is a special case because it was remastered for a much more popular platform. X360 owners that switched to PS4 can now experience it, as well as fans that want to experience it again with higher quality. TLoU2 won't have that luxury.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone would disagree with you here. Phil Spencer included lolI think expanding their software library is the strongest move they can make with the best ROI. Done well, not only does it promote and grow the platform, but also generates revenue itself, so it's a win/win. MS can also couple that with cross-play on PC and get an incredibly solid platform. Without the exclusives, without viable alternatives to what gamers are finding on PS and Nintendo, cross play could only take them so far. So what if I can play all my games on XBox and PC when there's no Mariokart nor Rabbids nor Zelda. But if XB has its share of 'Mariokart' and 'Zelda' and 'Rabbids' (ignoring the enormous brand identity) that were also cross-play, then it makes a lot of sense to go the XB route rather than the NSW or PS4 route to ones entertainment.
The problem with MS to date is they haven't handled their internal creations so well, leading them to give up a bit on the idea. The move by Spencer suggests a more positive future with better use of the studios - MS is more adaptive now because they are no longer king of all they survey, facing competition on every front and having to adapt a lot more. I think. My ill informed arm-chair analysis.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
When Bungie was a Microsoft studio, they got a paycheck and some bonuses. Profits driven from Halo channelled into Microsoft not Bungie. Independent Bungie gets to keep all of the profits.
They are certainly doing much better now they are independent again.
A bit, they are still under exclusive publishing with Activision. They should get a greater percentage of the profits, but Activision still funnels away a fairly sizeable amount of it. They got the creative freedom to start a new IP, but now they are locked into that IP (like they were with Halo) for, I'm guessing, at least 3 mainline titles.
Regards,
SB
It's a trap, it's as serious a comment as the analysis of the Xbox exclusives. Next we'll be hearing how game can't be really good if it doesn't sell (quickly checks the numbers) more than 17mm in less than (checks the time) five years. SMH
Joke post? Has any other 18 rated console exclusive game sold this many? Let alone a new IP.
I think expanding their software library is the strongest move they can make with the best ROI. Done well, not only does it promote and grow the platform, but also generates revenue itself, so it's a win/win. MS can also couple that with cross-play on PC and get an incredibly solid platform. Without the exclusives, without viable alternatives to what gamers are finding on PS and Nintendo, cross play could only take them so far. So what if I can play all my games on XBox and PC when there's no Mariokart nor Rabbids nor Zelda. But if XB has its share of 'Mariokart' and 'Zelda' and 'Rabbids' (ignoring the enormous brand identity) that were also cross-play, then it makes a lot of sense to go the XB route rather than the NSW or PS4 route to ones entertainment.
The problem with MS to date is they haven't handled their internal creations so well, leading them to give up a bit on the idea. The move by Spencer suggests a more positive future with better use of the studios - MS is more adaptive now because they are no longer king of all they survey, facing competition on every front and having to adapt a lot more. I think. My ill informed arm-chair analysis.
Its from a dev with a good stable of award winning games and like I said its been rereleased already. I'm not aware of any rereleases for the uncharted on the ps4.
Like I said sony had 80m ps3s sold for TLOU and it was rereleased to a platform with 40m+ systems sold. It has a massive base to sell too
djskribbles
Legend
I don't care what dev team you are... selling 17M is insane for a new IP.
And like I said, install base =/= sales. Some of the best selling exclusives this gen are on NSW, which has the smallest install base of the 3.
I would also argue that releasing a game on the PS3 in the same year that the successor is released is not a good idea. Just look what happened to Gran Turismo 6. While GT6 still sold well in its own right, it sold significantly less than previous titles.
Uncharted has a remastered trilogy for PS4, but those sales won't count towards the individual titles in the series.
well we both have different opinions here. Fortnite , pub g and other games are all new ips that have sold a shit ton. 17m for a title released on two platforms doesn't seem like a great deal to me and comparing it to titles on a single platform makes little sense
djskribbles
Legend
Fortnite is F2P and available on pretty much every platform. PUBG is available on 3 platforms and is a budget priced title. TLoU is basically a cross-gen game, released at the end of one platform and the launch of another.
If PUBG is your standard for successful new IP, then the large majority of new IPs are complete failures.