There isn't a massive list of Sony exclusive and new IPs with massive sales numbers. Their best sellers are probably Metal Gear 4, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, Killzone 2 (or 3?) and Uncharted 3. Only one of those was a new IP this gen. Oh, and maybe Resistance, which has had a diminishing popularity as the series has gone on. People can say what they want about Sony having this huge list of amazing new IP exclusives, but they don't. They do have some new IPs that help round out the library, but they aren't exactly setting the world on fire with sales. Microsoft had a number of new IPs on their platform early at launch that helped carry the system to a big percentage of the market. At this point in the lifecycle, it's hard to argue with what their strategy has been. We're a couple years out from having new consoles, so development for those machines will already be in the planning stages. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would be investing huge dollars into making new games for the current gen from here forward. What you're seeing at E3 has already been in development for a couple of years, at least. The last of the unannounced titles for current gen are probably already under way.
Does MS need to support more new IPs this gen? *spawn
- Thread starter Brad Grenz
- Start date
These kind of arguments are useless. They didn't come out at the same time. If they had, would the hardware, pricing, marketing and investment in software be the same? It's absolutely impossible to know. What if A? What if B? What if C? blah blah blah
It always comes down to subjective tastes. If there are games and services I like are on the 360 and someone else doesn't then we can argue endlessly without any progress. I'll take one Gears over Killzone, LBP, Resistance combined. My time is limited and I prefer what I consider to be quality to quantity. Please note "I" not you or your buddy or anyone else.
Will MS go into next gen solely relying on multi platform games? I really doubt it. Does it make a lot of sense at this time to start loading up on studios, exclusives, etc? Will it lead to a dramatic jump in sales? Very doubtful.
Could MS blow it and end up back to Xbox 1 levels of performance next gen by poor decisions? Sure. Any company can. We don't know all the variables of next gen. Possible new competitors. Where people's mind share will shift to. Economy health. Company goals. All these will be bigger factor than what exclusives you walk through the door with.
If the biggest factor of success is your studio payroll and 1st party exclusives, the PS3's price wouldn't have been a issue. If you believe I'm wrong, please ask Sony to release another $599 console next gen and ask them to bombard it with exclusives out of the gate. Let's see how that works out again.
Will MS go into next gen solely relying on multi platform games? I really doubt it. Does it make a lot of sense at this time to start loading up on studios, exclusives, etc? Will it lead to a dramatic jump in sales? Very doubtful.
Could MS blow it and end up back to Xbox 1 levels of performance next gen by poor decisions? Sure. Any company can. We don't know all the variables of next gen. Possible new competitors. Where people's mind share will shift to. Economy health. Company goals. All these will be bigger factor than what exclusives you walk through the door with.
If the biggest factor of success is your studio payroll and 1st party exclusives, the PS3's price wouldn't have been a issue. If you believe I'm wrong, please ask Sony to release another $599 console next gen and ask them to bombard it with exclusives out of the gate. Let's see how that works out again.
Billy Idol
Legend
But the success of Xbox is due to the exclusive title they had back then...the name of this title is Gears of War!! This was the system seller! This single title imo is one of the biggest reason for Xbox success...and it is an exclusive title! I managed to sell Xbox to 5 of my friends by just showing them Gears 
I admit that the ease and functionality of Xbox Live helped to integrate those gaming newbis and helped to made them long term fans...
You guys are all discussing business aspects, like the suits...I am interesting in the gamer point of view: and as a gamer...just bring on exclusive titles! Do nor invest money in smart glass or kinect! Buy new studios, give them money abd let them do their work!
I admit that the ease and functionality of Xbox Live helped to integrate those gaming newbis and helped to made them long term fans...
You guys are all discussing business aspects, like the suits...I am interesting in the gamer point of view: and as a gamer...just bring on exclusive titles! Do nor invest money in smart glass or kinect! Buy new studios, give them money abd let them do their work!
I think exclusives do matter. The big complaint about PS3 when it came out was, "Where is God of War 3? Where is Metal Gear Solid 4? Where is Gran Turismo 5?" Those titles have gone on to be some of the biggest selling exclusives. Most of the new IPs sold ok, but only Uncharted has really come out as a big thing. You do need new IPs to find the diamonds in the rough, but that's becoming a very expensive proposition to handle the first party way. A number of misses can put you under.
Microsoft will find a way to try to pick some new IPs that they think will work and secure them for the platform. They just seemed to be less concerned about lifetime exclusives.
Also, it wasn't just Gears of War.
Microsoft will find a way to try to pick some new IPs that they think will work and secure them for the platform. They just seemed to be less concerned about lifetime exclusives.
Also, it wasn't just Gears of War.
No they are not. Because people are trying to assess if exclusive IP's were important and some conclude that they werent, based simply on the final result forgetting that the conditions were not like for like, making it more difficult to isolate how well the exclusive IP's in one console have contributed to its success vs another. Is it because people dont care about exclusive and unique IP's? Or is it because they ALSO care about price and what is available at any given time?
Its safe to say that all play their role. And IPs should be one of them.
These things happen. No worries, sir. Cheers!
What did happen is a useful discussion. What might have happened is not.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Oh certainly IPs are one of them. We have people on this forum that bought one platform or the other due soley to whatever IP was exclusive to that console.
But what Scott said was valid. Would the IP strategy that MS employed have been the same as it is now if both the X360 and PS3 had launched at the same time? We don't know.
And hence to an extent those types of arguments, while interesting, aren't terribly worthwhile. There's a lot of shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments that could be made.
But the only facts we have is that MS secured most of the exclusive new IP for this generation. And now that the generation is going on and their have solid IPs on the platform they don't feel a need to invest heavily in new IP for this generation.
If the situation was reversed (those "What If" scenarios that Scott mentioned), then it's quite likely MS would be investing heavily in new IP to try to find something big while Sony just released sequels of popular IPs until the next generation hits.
But as with all "what if" scenarios, it's not terribly relevant at this point in time.
Oh and I guess I should modify what I said earlier. MS are still investing heavily in new IP. Just not a lot of new IP for the core gamer whose interest and loyalty they've already secured. For those, they continue to give the core gamer what the core gamer is demanding they make. The new IP they are heavily investing in for this generation is to expand their install base and bring in new people.
If a core type gamer hasn't gotten an X360 by now, then new IP is unlikely to convince them to get one this late in the game. Much better to pour those developement resources into the next generation machines where you can hopefully make an impact early in the generation to get your userbase growing as soon as possible. Especially if you consider that a ground up developement of a NEW IP could potentially take 3-5 years. Of course, even with a new generation, it's good to have a solid selection of sequels from past IPs with large followings. If anything can be taken from Microsoft's performance this generation, it's that old IP (Halo for example) is just as important, if not more so than new IP (Gears for example). Especially when you consider, that despite Gears selling exceptionally well, it has never outsold any of the Halo FPS games, as far as I know.
And I think that's where Sony messed up more than anything, well except price, early in the generation. Imagine how things could potentially have been different if Grand Turismo 5 had been ready for launch or at least within a year or so of launch. But that's yet another one of those "What If" scenarios.
Regards,
SB
Claiming you know what happened without really knowing what happened, is just as not useful.
Oh I am not challenging whether MS should have invested more on exclusive IP's. I am only pointing out that they are important and they did help the XBOX brand awareness elevate. I also feel that the conclusion is floating here that Sony's extra efforts to provide exclusive IP's was a waste of money based on how successful the 360 was with less which is absurd since it is not a like for like comparison
The "gamer" point of view is very subjective. Your post is a perfect example. You don't consider Kinect games to be anything of value so for you that portfolio of games simply doesn't count. I've read posts from other "gamers" that don't consider XBLA titles equally. Then you another group who is "sick of shooters" and doesn't count shooters because they want some obscure genre that has limited appeal. The scope is different depending who you talk to.
Chasing a niche audience that is notoriously difficult to please is a poor business decision. We are discussing business aspects because that is what translates to products and decisions.
No one is praising them. I am defending against the notion that they're abandoning the hardcore when they opened up several internal studios recently and is working on multiple titles.
I also think that the vitriol against MS from clear Sony fans is funny. Isn't it to their advantage that MS milks their franchises to death, loses the hardcore, crash, burn and exits the gaming industry?
They are milking their key franchises. I dont care if Forza is open-world, most people I know are bored to death with it. What is this, their 4th 360 game? Gears 3 was quality, but even here there are reservations with #4 as a new developer is coming on board. No need for a 4th game, same as there is no need for GOW 4 or say an Uncharted 4.
I'm talking about proper games, not Lococyle and South Park.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Ah, yes, that would be absurd. Although I think Sony might have been better off if they had a popular sequel or two during the launch window in addition to all the new IP.
Relying exclusively on New IP at launch (first year or so of console life) doesn't seem to be the best idea. New IP is inherently risky. It may do well, it may not. While something like GT5 or Halo 3 were virtually guaranteed to bring people to the platform.
Of course, the balancing act there is when to release the "big" sequels in order to maximize the potential to grow your userbase, while not limiting the sales of the game too much due to insufficient ability to produce enough machines to allow as many people as possible to buy it.
MS got the release of Halo 3 just about right. Early enough to grow the user base, late enough that it wasn't terribly limited by the amount of machines produced up until it launched. Perhaps a bit late with regards to the launch window, but any earlier and they might have lost potential sales due to the smaller user base.
GT5 on the other hand released way too late to have a significant impact. MGS while launching in a similar 2 year timeframe from launch would seem to be good timing, but it doesn't have as strong a following as Halo, so probably would have had a larger effect if it had launched closer to 1 year after launch.
But that's all a bit of a juggling act. When to launch key sequels, how much to invest in new IP, cross your fingers and hope you got it right.
Regards,
SB
upnorthsox
Veteran
Does MS need to support more new IPs this gen? No.
MS has enough to get thru this coming holiday season, after that it is irrelevant as this gen effectively ends on Dec. 26th.
The only question(s) after then will be if the x360 game has a x720 version or vice versa will the x720 game have a x360 version.
MS has enough to get thru this coming holiday season, after that it is irrelevant as this gen effectively ends on Dec. 26th.
The only question(s) after then will be if the x360 game has a x720 version or vice versa will the x720 game have a x360 version.
Billy Idol
Legend
RobertR1 said:
Yeah Robert, that is true! But that is all I did...I expressed my personal and subjective opinion: I am hoping for a AAA experience, and for me the highest hopes are exclusive titles, which effectively use the Box till it melts
Btw guys, remember the end of PS2 cycle...where at least in my opinion one of the most important Sony IP was started?
Name is God of War! And I think, that GOW was not and is not a waste of Sony's money!!
I don't say it is necessary to release an Xbox exclusive! But I am certainly sure that it is never to late to release and introduce a new IP and triple A quality games! In light of this, imo MS should put out one last masterpiece
But where do you stop? Using the same logic, there was no need for an Uncharted 3, or a Gears 3, but both those games were excellent and sold a ton. Assassin's Creed now has something like 4 iterations, all of them were excellent, and it's looking like the 5th is also going to be impressive. Call of Duty routinely sells ridiculous amounts of games, and how many iterations do they have?
New IP is risky. Mass Effect could just as easily have flopped as badly as, say Too Human, or Lair. Kameo and Viva Pinata, both excellent games, basically failed to get traction, whereas cookie cutter Call of Duty and NFL games sell millions.
When launching a console, or increasing console sales, I'm pretty sure new IP is not high on the list of "must haves". Exclusives are, and exclusive sequels to beloved games are the best way to migrate a userbase. People flocked to PS3 for God of War, Gran Turismo N+1, and Killzone 2. Uncharted and Resistance were merely bonuses, although they may now help the _next_ console get up and running.
Oh, and what do you mean by "proper games"? What is your definition? Is Shadow Complex a "proper game"? How about Maw, or Splosion Man? These are games that take just as many hours to play as big AAA titles, are significantly better value for money, and provide just as much fun. How are they somehow not "proper games"?
ANd that's why catering to the "hardcore" is a wasted effort. Unless you produce games that are specific to their tastes, the "NO GAMES!!!" chants begin.
DD only games that sell tons and pack hours of gameplay is somehow not a game for people. I'll never understand it.
Even the term "hardcore" is an open case. Is someone who plays only CoD and Madden for hours each day more or less hardcore than gamers who argue on message boards? or waht about gamers who think all western games are crap and go out of their way to import Japanese games?
Not on here but I had a guy tee off on me for trading in games while they had value! As per the person, I was exactly what the industry doesn't need. People like me are the reason studios shut down..etc...So am I less hardcore for buying 100+ games this gen and trading them in?
Every time I hear, "this company isn't focused on hardcore gamers!" I honestly have no idea who the hell they're talking about except themselves. At that point, why not just say "this doesn't appeal to ME" and leave it at that.
Last edited by a moderator:
That one, at least, is easily answered. If something doesn't appeal to them, it shouldn't appeal to you either. Unless there's something wrong with you, or your point of view, of course.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Yes, it was. But in the context of this discussion, Bioshock wouldn't "count" because it wasn't a 360 exclusive.
See how stupidly abstract the entire discussion over the necessity of "new, exclusive IPs" is? Particularly at this point in time?
I guess we'll never know. Because based upon MS's lack of new IPs at E3, and based upon Sony's announcements of new IPs, I'm inclined to believe we'll see MS's next console before we see Sony's, once again.
