My impression would be that if it happened three or more times it would viewed as a trend. Regardless of the logistics behind such a situation, I think the impression that would be left with consumers is that one console always gets it first. If that were the case, and other platform's version comes out has no compelling differences, I think that it could have a material effect.
Effect of multiplatform titles
- Thread starter ERP
- Start date
You go where the money is.
Take your install base of 5million and release the game to them. Let it get out in circulation which will in turn start revenue generation for the company which puts things at ease and you can go concentrate on your other platform(s).
Financially, it makes no sense to hold back your product from the market when it could be making you money.
Take your install base of 5million and release the game to them. Let it get out in circulation which will in turn start revenue generation for the company which puts things at ease and you can go concentrate on your other platform(s).
Financially, it makes no sense to hold back your product from the market when it could be making you money.
Momentum is a powerful thing, indeed.ERP said:
Anyway, this is something I have seen, so I think it deserves a significant reply. Granted, most of the titles so far have been high-concept/low-experience games like Elveon, but Smackdown vs. Raw is a larger issue. Combine that with companies like Pandemic who have gone from staunch pro-PS3 verbage at E3 to more mild pro-next-gen verbage recently. It's slight, but it's there. If it stays slight, I don't expect much market effect. SvR will eventually hit all platforms. Elveon will probably not see the light of day let alone be a good game. Mercenaries 2 is almost assuredly going to all next-gen consoles anyway.
Launching earlier on a more popular system is almost guaranteed to make that SKU's sales the highest of all SKUs. You can only really launch once. Marketing a 4 month ago product just falls flat. That tends to snowball both from a hardware purchasing point and a software publishing point. Microsoft bent over backwards to try to be the default development platform for console games, and this is the result.
I would say a delay of a few months won't matter as long as people know they're getting it. In the EU we regularly get games 6-12+ months later than the rest of the world, and I don't think it stops them selling. Somewhat different, but it shows that being old by a few months doesn't stop it being good. Taken to competing platforms, if I want console X because of it's exclusives, and console Y has multiplatform games I also want but 3 months earlier, I'd go with console X. How many people really can't wait 3 months to own a game?
So I guess it'd be a factor in purchasing decision, but low on the list. You'd be looking first at exclusives, then (or maybe even moreso if there's a large discrepency) quality of titles, and if those are even-stevens, maybe then at likelihood of delays. It'd only matter if the games were both equal on the platforms and the exclusives weren't a deciding factor, or if the delays weren't announced and the publisher decides not to tell console X owners that game V is also coming to console X 3 months after appearing on console Y. There may be a few cases where it really would matter though, like missing an event (FIFA World Cup 3 releasing before the finals on one console and after on another). Those must be very few and far between.
So I guess it'd be a factor in purchasing decision, but low on the list. You'd be looking first at exclusives, then (or maybe even moreso if there's a large discrepency) quality of titles, and if those are even-stevens, maybe then at likelihood of delays. It'd only matter if the games were both equal on the platforms and the exclusives weren't a deciding factor, or if the delays weren't announced and the publisher decides not to tell console X owners that game V is also coming to console X 3 months after appearing on console Y. There may be a few cases where it really would matter though, like missing an event (FIFA World Cup 3 releasing before the finals on one console and after on another). Those must be very few and far between.
There may be a case otherwise actually. You have to advertise the product. Do you advertise the product for console X and get those sales, and do no advertising for console Y and lose sales? Or do you combine the advertising for both platforms and maximise market reach at the point when the game is out and the 'new thing'?RobertR1 said:
Depending on how much marketting you're going to spend, the delayed joint-release could make a lot of sense. A late game may fade into obscurity.
There actually needs to be some proper research into where the main sales come from. Do they come from the top ten list in the Game stores, or based of hardcore gamers reading reviews online? Will getting your game talked about generate enough interest that those who have to wait are happy to? Or will talking about your game now leave no impression at all 3 months later when it's released? If most sales are browasing stores, I don't think it makes a difference - people see the game and buy it. The only people that follow releases are 'hardcore' and I would guess these people are educated enough on release dates that if they know games are coming for a platform even a few months late, they won't mind. I don't know which makes up the bulk of sales though. Of my console owning friends, none keeps track of release dates. They see games and buy them. I guess that's how casuals behave and they buy the console based on what's on the shelves. In that case, if console X has 3 games they want on the shelves, and console Y isn't getting those games for another 3 months but Joe Public doesn't know that, it might swing the sale for them in favour of console X. I do think there's loads more important forces at play though, and console sales aren't affectde any great deal by release schedules.
Powderkeg said:
true, but you also lose alot of the hype factor. Games are normally only really hyped once on their initial release. You effectivily charging console Y full price for a "dollar theatre" experience. Basically you can only sell a product as a brand new experience once.
great games will 9 out of 10 times sell well regardless. But if it's shovelware you might as well not even spend the money to develope it if your not gonna ride the big wave.
If we are assuming same prices X == Y then I lean towards simultaneous release.
If Y is going to be greater than X in price, then I release X first. Probably a quarter ahead of Y, to give users enough time to forget how much we priced X.
The downside being the inevitable backlash of pricing also the contention with the used game market with respect to X. The A's will be ok, but the B's, well, maybe the B's have greater downloadable content readied for them...
If Y is going to be greater than X in price, then I release X first. Probably a quarter ahead of Y, to give users enough time to forget how much we priced X.
The downside being the inevitable backlash of pricing also the contention with the used game market with respect to X. The A's will be ok, but the B's, well, maybe the B's have greater downloadable content readied for them...
Ubisoft with Rainbow Six: Vegas.
And Ubisoft with GRAW 2.
Similar threads
