Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*

[Silent_Buddha]

Like all things I’m sure there are some die hard Japanese gamers in Japan. Which is normal. I mean, just going through Tokyo you see all sorts of foreign food adjusted for Japanese tastes and they are delicious. They are very rapidly able to apply their dedication and hard work and take a foreign dish and make it their own.

So I don’t doubt that they have their Xbox fans there, but I think the “flavour” is still very American and if they could make a Japanese flavour of Xbox perhaps that’s their entry method. Right now, MS seems lost here.

As per Buddha’s note, we do see a lot more foreign purchases in japan. Thinking about initial D, and how Takumi hates how his GF visits the Benz Driver!

It's a difficult problem to solve. Unlike most electronics, a console can't just be better or cheaper than its Japanese counterpart as it also require content.

So we have a chicken and egg situation. For smaller Japanese developers to make Japanese flavored games for the console, the Xbox needs to have a large enough install base that they can't ignore it. However, for the Xbox to gain adoption there, they'll need Japanese centric games from smaller Japanese developers. However...and the circle goes round and round.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be exclusives, but to have more cross platform games include Xbox. Ni No Kuni 2 is an excellent example of a smaller developer excluding the Xbox due to low market share in Japan.

That's also why I had my previous hypothetic. When Xbox first launched in Japan. Some smaller Japanese developers took a chance on it because it was new. But Japanese sentiment at the time made it difficult for a non-Japanese electronic product to succeed.

Now that we're on the 3rd generation of Xbox and all 3 generations haven't done well, there isn't a lot of incentive for smaller Japanese developers to take a chance on the Xbox platform.

One potential avenue in is the PC. Indie Japanese game development is growing on PC, however, that's mostly on Steam or other smaller indie platforms like Kongregate or their Japanese analogs. Heck, PCs are now used for Arcade games in Japan now. Many of the Steam Japanese SCHMUPs are just Japanese arcade games localized for other languages.

Smaller Japanese game developers are also starting to embrace PC more and more. However, again, that's primarily through Steam.

So, can Microsoft get them to also release on UWP (which should allow access to Xbox) and not just Steam?

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

It's a difficult problem to solve. Unlike most electronics, a console can't just be better or cheaper than its Japanese counterpart as it also require content.

So we have a chicken and egg situation. For smaller Japanese developers to make Japanese flavored games for the console, the Xbox needs to have a large enough install base that they can't ignore it. However, for the Xbox to gain adoption there, they'll need Japanese centric games from smaller Japanese developers. However...and the circle goes round and round.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be exclusives, but to have more cross platform games include Xbox. Ni No Kuni 2 is an excellent example of a smaller developer excluding the Xbox due to low market share in Japan.

That's also why I had my previous hypothetic. When Xbox first launched in Japan. Some smaller Japanese developers took a chance on it because it was new. But Japanese sentiment at the time made it difficult for a non-Japanese electronic product to succeed.

Now that we're on the 3rd generation of Xbox and all 3 generations haven't done well, there isn't a lot of incentive for smaller Japanese developers to take a chance on the Xbox platform.

One potential avenue in is the PC. Indie Japanese game development is growing on PC, however, that's mostly on Steam or other smaller indie platforms like Kongregate or their Japanese analogs. Heck, PCs are now used for Arcade games in Japan now. Many of the Steam Japanese SCHMUPs are just Japanese arcade games localized for other languages.

Smaller Japanese game developers are also starting to embrace PC more and more. However, again, that's primarily through Steam.

So, can Microsoft get them to also release on UWP (which should allow access to Xbox) and not just Steam?

Regards,
SB

Mouse and keyboard, game pass, and cross ownership I think will go a long way to help Build the infrastructure for growth. Perhaps if more English games were translated to Japanese the following would also get larger.

 

[chris1515]

It's a difficult problem to solve. Unlike most electronics, a console can't just be better or cheaper than its Japanese counterpart as it also require content.

So we have a chicken and egg situation. For smaller Japanese developers to make Japanese flavored games for the console, the Xbox needs to have a large enough install base that they can't ignore it. However, for the Xbox to gain adoption there, they'll need Japanese centric games from smaller Japanese developers. However...and the circle goes round and round.

It doesn't even necessarily have to be exclusives, but to have more cross platform games include Xbox. Ni No Kuni 2 is an excellent example of a smaller developer excluding the Xbox due to low market share in Japan.

That's also why I had my previous hypothetic. When Xbox first launched in Japan. Some smaller Japanese developers took a chance on it because it was new. But Japanese sentiment at the time made it difficult for a non-Japanese electronic product to succeed.

Now that we're on the 3rd generation of Xbox and all 3 generations haven't done well, there isn't a lot of incentive for smaller Japanese developers to take a chance on the Xbox platform.

One potential avenue in is the PC. Indie Japanese game development is growing on PC, however, that's mostly on Steam or other smaller indie platforms like Kongregate or their Japanese analogs. Heck, PCs are now used for Arcade games in Japan now. Many of the Steam Japanese SCHMUPs are just Japanese arcade games localized for other languages.

Smaller Japanese game developers are also starting to embrace PC more and more. However, again, that's primarily through Steam.

So, can Microsoft get them to also release on UWP (which should allow access to Xbox) and not just Steam?

Regards,
SB

Ni no kuni 2 will maybe launch later in Xbox out of Japan...

 

[Recop]

I'm glad I have them to play those exceptional exclusives, but I wouldn't buy either of them over a GPU upgrade that could get me a consistent 4K60 in all games for a reasonable price even if many Xbox exclusives weren't also coming to PC.

But 4k/60fps is a massive argument... in the console world, you basically only get a higher resolution with the more powerful console.

 

[Recop]

Furthermore, even if there is a quality threshold in play, 1P games don't need to be above 3P quality, but 'on par'. Platform A gives you a choice of...16 'AAA' (or subjectively 5 star appeal) titles, while Platform B gives a choice of 14 the same plus...7 alternative titles. All else being equal, Platform B is the better purchase because there's more variety meaning more chance of getting something with greater synergy with your own personal tastes.

It's basic statistics and nothing more... this is why i don't understand this discussion.

You have statistically more chance to please the taste of a new gamer with more games.

Now as you said in the rest of your message, this very simple finding is influenced by many other factors.

But more games is always an advantage even if you don't choose a console on a single factor, it's obvious.

 

[MrFox]

I don't see how 3P games can substitute 1P games. The majority have no equivalent, and if they had they would be sort of questionable investments (investing in an already crowded space?). If you want to play Super Smash Bros, or Mario Galaxies, what do you buy from a third party? Those who want TLoU2, or Detroit, or TLG, or awesome robot dinosaurs... What do they buy instead?

I understand not being interested in a game or a genre, skipping a game that looks boring to you. But as soon as you're interested in a game enough that you want to pay $60 for it, the idea of a substitute doesn't make much sense. If there are other interesting games coming out, you'll play them regardless. And if they are so similar that you choose one over the other, that first party isn't doing it's job.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

But more games is always an advantage even if you don't choose a console on a single factor, it's obvious.

Well absolutely, no one is arguing that.

What some people like me are saying is that it isn't an advantage for "everyone." It matters a great deal for some people. It matters to a lesser extent to another group of people (nice bonus, but nothing else), and then for yet another group of people it's not a factor. I know, hard to believe. But I do know people that own a Switch and don't own a single Nintendo game. I know people with a PS4 that don't own a single exclusive. I know people with an XBO that don't own a single exclusive.

However, I don't know a single person with a Wii-U that don't own a Nintendo game.

It's the same as saying Backwards Compatibility is always an advantage. Sure, but there are plenty of people for which BC isn't a factor.

Cross Buy is always an advantage, but for some people, Cross Buy is irrelevant because they only play games on one platform.

As I mentioned before other than availability of 3rd party games (the most important factor, IMO), Exclusives are high on the list.

It isn't something like controller preference where one controller is obviously worse than the other controller depending on your controller preference. At worse any of the above are just non-factors.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't see how 3P games can substitute 1P games. The majority have no equivalent, and if they had they would be sort of questionable investments (investing in an already crowded space?). If you want to play Super Smash Bros, or Mario Galaxies, what do you buy from a third party? Those who want TLoU2, or Detroit, or TLG, or awesome robot dinosaurs... What do they buy instead?

I understand not being interested in a game or a genre, skipping a game that looks boring to you. But as soon as you're interested in a game enough that you want to pay $60 for it, the idea of a substitute doesn't make much sense. If there are other interesting games coming out, you'll play them regardless. And if they are so similar that you choose one over the other, that first party isn't doing it's job.

I think the point behind the comment wasn't that there was a direct equivalent for any given exclusive. IE - no matter how similar GT and Forza are, they aren't really a substitute for each other although they are close.

I think the main point is that unless you are sold on the exclusive, there are substitutes for the genre that the exclusive is part of. For example, there's no substitute for PUBG, but there is a substitute if you're just interested in a really good Battle Royale game.

There's no substitute for GT or Forza, but there are plenty of other good racing games.

Regards,
SB

 

[mrcorbo]

I didn't know an opinion required comprehensive market research to back it up.

My level of certainty I have is from following the gaming market closely for the past 15 years. That's enough data for me to be pretty certain of my opinion.

My years of following the console market have only made me more certain of my inability to definitively predict how consumers are going to react to a new console. The Wii and it's success (such as it was) was an eye-opening experience. As you point out yourself below, people in positions of power in the industry who do have access to market research in MS, Sony and Nintendo and have demonstrated the ability to read the market correctly have all badly misread the market at least once.

But maybe I can at least expand on why I think that exclusives matter more than raw power.

The most powerful console hasn't always been the best selling console, that's a fact.

As far as XB vs PS, XB has generally had more raw power, or has been the more capable console, and also generally cheaper as well; yet PS has sold extremely well internationally, and XB struggles outside of the US/UK. Why do you think that is? What else would make people view PS as a better purchase than XB?

Again, PS has 2 of the top 3 best selling consoles of all time... that's also a fact. PS4 will no doubt pass the PS1 and Wii and PS will hold the top 3 spots.

So why has PS been so successful? What are they known for? They weren't always the most powerful console. They weren't always the cheapest console. But what have they consistently done for all of their consoles, which includes the PS3? They were able to provide a strong 1P software lineup to compliment their strong 3P software lineup, giving them the largest and most diverse software lineup of any other company. They make games that appeal to many different gamers.

The only reason the PS3 sold poorly compared to other PS systems is because Sony, quite frankly, fucked up. They were arrogant and made a complicated HW design, priced it too high and expected everyone to be loyal to their brand. Despite this, they still went on to sell ~85M, which is by no means bad in its own right.

Preferences aside, it's a well known fact that Sony's 1P output has been one of the best in the business, arguably as good as Nintendo's. What separates Sony from Nintendo is 3P support, where Sony is clearly on top. Nintendo's strong 1P output is the biggest reason why people buy Nintendo systems... they provide very good exclusive gaming experiences not available on any other platform. They too sell well internationally. Coincidence?

Furthermore, when it comes to XB/PS anyway, I think the majority of early HW sales are from core gamers, ie the people who give a damn about graphics. Once they saturate the core market, they usually need to reduce the price to get the casual gamers to bite. Once consoles receive price cuts, or specifically reach the sub $300 or $200 marks, that's when sales start to pick up. That's why I feel that the casual gamers make up for a larger portion of sales than core gamers. And I honestly feel that casual gamers care less about graphics and more about games.

Tl;dr, that's why I feel that brand presence is the most important factor, followed by price, then power. You need high quality exclusive gaming experiences or a diverse software library to appeal to many gamers internationally and choose your system over the competition. You need your console to be priced low enough to reach out to casual gamers. You need decent hardware to make your system appealing to core gamers. The latter two are kind of a balancing act. I feel like Sony have done an excellent job of balancing all 3 with the PS1, PS2 and PS4. PS3 they failed on pricing.

I feel that Nintendo has generally been good at achieving 1 and 2, while MS has generally been good at achieving 2 and 3.

My other disagreement (aside from the stated certainty) comes from the treating of these as if they were binary states. Not only does each factor vary in importance from person to person, but it isn't enough to only consider that X is better than Y. You need to evaluate how much better X is than Y. I believe there's a benefit to having more nuanced discussions and I think you are oversimplifying. Consoles aren't more or less successful because they have or do not have specific characteristics. They are more successful when the combinations of their characteristics result in a more appealing product than the combinations of the characteristics of their competition and every product launch creates a new mix that is going to be evaluated by a new group of consumers.

 

[iroboto]

I don't see how 3P games can substitute 1P games. The majority have no equivalent, and if they had they would be sort of questionable investments (investing in an already crowded space?). If you want to play Super Smash Bros, or Mario Galaxies, what do you buy from a third party? Those who want TLoU2, or Detroit, or TLG, or awesome robot dinosaurs... What do they buy instead?

I understand not being interested in a game or a genre, skipping a game that looks boring to you. But as soon as you're interested in a game enough that you want to pay $60 for it, the idea of a substitute doesn't make much sense. If there are other interesting games coming out, you'll play them regardless. And if they are so similar that you choose one over the other, that first party isn't doing it's job.

Substitute goods by economics definition. As per Silent Buddha’s post. You’re not getting the same game, but there are other action/tps/stealth horror games out there.

Dark souls substitutes for Blood Borne. For instance.

God of war, gears of war. Ryse. TLOU/UC , tomb raider, assassins creed, evil within etc.

Horizon zero dawn? Witcher 3. Assassin Creed Origins. Red dead redemption. GTA 5.

List goes on.

Your earlier commentary on how releasing games of all the same type makes for basically the same as 0 exclusives, applies here. The more substitutes that the exclusives have to compete with (especially higher quality ones) the harder it is to stand out or hold value.

 

[Recop]

Well absolutely, no one is arguing that.

I agree with what you said but you still didn't understand my point.

Everything you said is already included in the statistics. So, it doesn't change what i said.

Let's say there are 300 gamers :

- Exlusives games matter a lot for 100 of them.

- Middle interest for 100 of them.

- No interest for 100 of them.

Statistically, the PS4 still has a higher probability to attract 2/3 of those players.

Now, many other factors will affect this advantage : price, power, controller, online service, etc.

Obviously, if everything else is bad a good advantage can be totally annihilated...

And yes backward compatibility is always an advantage. I apply the exact same reasoning. Without backward compatibility, the XB1would be less attractive.

Obviously some factors are more important than others though. For instance, a reasonnable price is a stronger argument than a good design.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I agree with what you said but you still didn't understand my point.

Everything you said is already included in the statistics. So, it doesn't change what i said.

Let's say there are 300 gamers :

- Exlusives games matter a lot for 100 of them.

- Middle interest for 100 of them.

- No interest for 100 of them.

Statistically, the PS4 still has a higher probability to attract 2/3 of those players.

Now, many other factors will affect this advantage : price, power, controller, online service, etc.

And yes backward compatibility is always an advantage. I apply the exact same reasoning. Without backward compatibility, the XB1would be less attractive.

Obviously some factors are more important than others though. For instance, a reasonnable price is a stronger argument than a good design.

Sure but on the flip side. X number of gamers.

• BC matters to A number of gamers.
• BC is just a perk to B number of gamers.
• BC is of no consequence to C number of gamers.

Replace BC with any number of various features. Exclusivity is only one in a long list of potential things to attract a person to a console.

And I've also stated that outside of 3rd party games, Exclusives probably have a larger draw than the other examples I listed before.

Hell, lack of multiplatform games on one platform most likely hurts a LOT more than less exclusives.

For example, there are a lot of multiplatform games from Japanese developers that get released on PS and PC but not on Xbox. In Japan, that likely hurts them a lot more than having less platform exclusives. And in other territories that effect is greater or lesser depending on how important Japanese developed games are. In the EU it's a large effect as Japanese games are relatively popular there. In the US, the effect is less but still there.

Of course, I can also see an argument being made that despite that, Exclusives matter more. That's fine, we're talking about subjective opinions of the relative value of X feature in promotion of Y console.

Or imagine for a second that GTA V was only on Xbox and PC. Would that affect sales? Hell yes it would. RDR being on PS and Xbox but not PC certainly affected the PC share of the pie.

Or look at the Wii-U, would it have done better if it was able to have all of the multiplatform games available on it that are available on PS/Xbox? All the Nintendo exclusives in the world couldn't save that platform. Yes, there was the Wii, but the Wii was an outlier tapping into a segment of the buying population that had never even seen or played a Nintendo game at any point in their life. Wii didn't explode in popularity because of its exclusives, it exploded because it got people who don't game to buy a console.

People are sure to point to it being under powered compared to the competition. That doesn't matter a single bit if Exclusives were more important than 3rd party multiplatform titles. It being underpowered is what kept it from getting those all important 3rd party multiplatform titles.

There is no objective measure that we can use as we do not have the data available. And even if we did, data can be interpreted in many different ways.

What we can agree on is that there are a variety of factors of which Exclusives is one of them and is relatively high on the list of important factors.

Regards,
SB

 

[BRiT]

Your first point of exclusives mattering could go the other way too, depending on the game style they prefer.

Many dont care for Sony's style of exclusives in the US. That is evident by the sale numbers of MS consoles. If they cared, the gap would be much larger in the US.

 

[Nesh]

Sure but on the flip side. X number of gamers.

• BC matters to A number of gamers.
• BC is just a perk to B number of gamers.
• BC is of no consequence to C number of gamers.

Replace BC with any number of various features. Exclusivity is only one in a long list of potential things to attract a person to a console.

And I've also stated that outside of 3rd party games, Exclusives probably have a larger draw than the other examples I listed before.

Hell, lack of a multiplatform games on one platform most likely hurts a LOT more than less exclusives.

For example, there are a lot of multiplatform games from Japanese developers that get released on PS and PC but not on Xbox. In Japan, that likely hurts them a lot more than having less platform exclusives. And in other territories that effect is greater or lesser depending on how important Japanese developed games are. In the EU it's a large effect as Japanese games are relatively popular there. In the US, the effect is less but still there.

Of course, I can also see an argument being made that despite that, Exclusives matter more. That's fine, we're talking about subjective opinions of the relative value of X feature in promotion of Y console.

There is no objective measure that we can use as we do not have the data available. And even if we did, data can be interpreted in many different ways.

What we can agree on is that there are a variety of factors of which Exclusives is one of them and is relatively high on the list of important factors.

Regards,
SB

Lack of multiplatform games on a platform makes it almost or completely an exclusive for the other. Lets not forget it is a market of olygopoly that has just 3 main consoles, out of which 2 are almost identical offers (PS vs XBOX) If one game is released on PS+PC or just PS it hurts a lot the XBOX,
So 3rd party games have a similar dynamic to 1st party exclusives. It is why the PS1 and PS2 totally massacred competition. Exclusive games werent just the 1st party games.

edit: See how Sony obliterated MS's conference with its own 1st party exclusives plus Shenmue and Final Fantasy 7

 

[Recop]

Replace BC with any number of various features. Exclusivity is only one in a long list of potential things to attract a person to a console.

I completely agree. Now, and this is my personal opinion, i think that exclusives titles have a higher impact on the general population than BC.

Exclusive titles make a lot of views on Youtube, a ton of buzz during E3, etc.

Hell, lack of a multiplatform games on one platform most likely hurts a LOT more than less exclusives.

It's quite possible.

What we can agree on is that there are a variety of factors of which Exclusives is one of them and is relatively high on the list of important factors.

I completely agree. It's a combination of factors and a console with more exclusives could still lose the market.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

edit: See how Sony obliterated MS's conference with its own 1st party exclusives plus Shenmue and Final Fantasy 7

Did it really? From what I saw, there was an equal number of outlets that were praising the MS conference as there were praising the Sony conference.

For press outlets it may have been more Sony leaning, but from Streamers and their audiences, it was pretty equal. Many also gave kudos to both conferences.

If anything Sony came out slightly ahead, but MS wasn't far behind when looking at things overall.

Regards,
SB

 

[Recop]

Many dont care for Sony's style of exclusives in the US. That is evident by the sale numbers of MS consoles. If they cared, the gap would be much larger in the US.

For the best possible comparison, it would have been interesting to know PS4 sales without those exclusive titles in the US. But we will never know.

 

[djskribbles]

My years of following the console market have only made me more certain of my inability to definitively predict how consumers are going to react to a new console. The Wii and it's success (such as it was) was an eye-opening experience. As you point out yourself below, people in positions of power in the industry who do have access to market research in MS, Sony and Nintendo and have demonstrated the ability to read the market correctly have all badly misread the market at least once.

Sony's only misstep was the PS3, and it was quite clearly the launch price and HW design, and even it managed to sell well in its own right despite its flaws.

My other disagreement (aside from the stated certainty) comes from the treating of these as if they were binary states. Not only does each factor vary in importance from person to person, but it isn't enough to only consider that X is better than Y. You need to evaluate how much better X is than Y. I believe there's a benefit to having more nuanced discussions and I think you are oversimplifying.

But what are we discussing here? I was under the impression that we're discussing the gaming market as a whole, not the importance of X vs Y in specific cases... that's completely personal preference.

Of course things vary from person to person. I'm not saying everyone prioritizes exclusives over power. I'm speaking in broad terms... that the overall gaming market.

It's hard to argue against hard numbers. The most powerful console has rarely sold the most, so I think it's pretty evident that power is not that important to most gamers.

However, the best selling consoles all have something in common; they all had very strong software lineups. MS's best selling console was the system that had the best exclusive lineup they've ever had.

Consoles aren't more or less successful because they have or do not have specific characteristics. They are more successful when the combinations of their characteristics result in a more appealing product than the combinations of the characteristics of their competition and every product launch creates a new mix that is going to be evaluated by a new group of consumers.

I never said consoles are successful because they have specific characteristics, I'm ranking them by importance. In the post I originally quoted of yours, it seemed that you were saying that power is more important than exclusives. I was simply arguing against that point.

 

[mrcorbo]

Your first point of exclusives mattering could go the other way too, depending on the game style they prefer.

Many dont care for Sony's style of exclusives in the US. That is evident by the sale numbers of MS consoles. If they cared, the gap would be much larger in the US.

Or maybe many do care and that's why Sony is ahead in the US by as much as they are. My same argument applies here. We can't say definitively what effect exclusives are having on sales because we don't know what the sales would look like without them.

 

[mrcorbo]

Sony's only misstep was the PS3, and it was quite clearly the launch price and HW design, and even it managed to sell well in its own right despite its flaws.

And Sony believed that consumers would be willing to buy that hardware design at that price. They were mistaken. And they would be expected to know their customers as well as anyone could.

But what are we discussing here? I was under the impression that we're discussing the gaming market as a whole, not the importance of X vs Y in specific cases... that's completely personal preference.

There is no gaming market as a whole. There are a large number of people making decisions based on personal preference. Even when that decision is the same, the way it is arrived at may be completely different.

It's hard to argue against hard numbers. The most powerful console has rarely sold the most, so I think it's pretty evident that power is not that important to most gamers.

However, the best selling consoles all have something in common; they all had very strong software lineups. MS's best selling console was the system that had the best exclusive lineup they've ever had.

Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe the reason that the Xbox 360 had the best exclusive lineup it ever had was because it was MS's best selling console. Maybe those exclusives actually weren't the primary driver of 360 sales and it was all forward momentum from the quantum leap Xbox Live on 360 was over what came before and what Sony's online was offering out of the gate. From there people bought the system that allowed them to play with their friends online. Also, the 360 continued to sell big numbers in spite of MS's exclusive output flatlining at the end because of Kinect which no one could have predicted would sell as well as it did, and frankly it probably shouldn't have purely on it's merits.

I never said consoles are successful because they have specific characteristics, I'm ranking them by importance. In the post I originally quoted of yours, it seemed that you were saying that power is more important than exclusives. I was simply arguing against that point.

I'm arguing that you can only rank them in importance for you and people who have directly indicated those preferences. The conclusions you are drawing about the market as a whole are assumptions based on some facts, yes, but the facts you are considering are those that fit your conclusion. You are ignoring or dismissing a lot of other facts that impacted how many of these consoles sold historically.