Quality content is still important if a company wants my money. I'm not sure if it needs to be exclusive content though. I do think a platform holder can differentiate in other areas (robust, easy to use online services, movies, TV, integration across multiple devices, etc). I don't know. My answer would have been different 5 years ago. Times are changing though. As I get older and have less free time to game, the convenience factor is even more appealing to me. Locking down content I want on to an exclusive device can be at odds with that convenience factor.
PS4 proves that Sony should cut 1st party production
- Thread starter babybumb
- Start date
These random calling for the closure of studios have no supporting metric. It's all crazy conjectures using made up numbers and weird hypotheticals. Polls would give an interesting partial info about the influence of first parties on console sales to gamers, and how they improve brand prestige (then it would be basically rejected by naysayers as a "vocal minority"). In any case, general arguments about exclusives applies to all 3 companies, so what do we have in this thread which wouldn't be better served in the "pros/cons about exclusives" topic?
We have very little data about Sony's first parties (other than the sum is profitable, some are hits, some aren't, just like other platforms). Sony are the ones with the the hard data to make the best use of these studios, to support and extend their platform user base, and to counter their competitor's offerings. The only reason they would have an obviously bad strategy would be because they have an incompetent management. The incompetence theory is quickly squashed by the PS4 dominating this gen. Proof is in the pudding. There's enough evidence to support the opinion that Yoshida and Boyes continue to have a winning strategy, so I don't see how some internet posters "feelings" can contradict this, or how anyone can claim to "know better" which studio to keep and which one to close.
We have very little data about Sony's first parties (other than the sum is profitable, some are hits, some aren't, just like other platforms). Sony are the ones with the the hard data to make the best use of these studios, to support and extend their platform user base, and to counter their competitor's offerings. The only reason they would have an obviously bad strategy would be because they have an incompetent management. The incompetence theory is quickly squashed by the PS4 dominating this gen. Proof is in the pudding. There's enough evidence to support the opinion that Yoshida and Boyes continue to have a winning strategy, so I don't see how some internet posters "feelings" can contradict this, or how anyone can claim to "know better" which studio to keep and which one to close.
First party titles can't be measure by how well they sell consoles alone. They are an additional revenue stream and developing them has other ancillary benefits.
Plus, we live in reality where both Sony and MS act as first party. There is a difference between choosing between Sony vs. MS first parties. And choosing between a console that has first parties and one that solely relies on multi-platform games.
Plus, we live in reality where both Sony and MS act as first party. There is a difference between choosing between Sony vs. MS first parties. And choosing between a console that has first parties and one that solely relies on multi-platform games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think there should be a 3rd option. Keep 1st party, but allow them to be released on PC as well. 
With a 3-12 month delay for the PC version, to give console first dibs.
Regards,
SB
With a 3-12 month delay for the PC version, to give console first dibs.Regards,
SB
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I think there should be a 3rd option. Keep 1st party, but allow them to be released on PC as well.
Regards,
SB
Well if we're in the spirit of asking for 3rd options, I'd ask for Sony, MS and Nintendo platform holders combining their strengths to produce a single platform to rule them all. One with the benefit of all 1st Party games between ND games, Halo and Mario/Zelda.
Hey, it would be just as likely as the option the OP is lobbying for. ;-)
Collusion amongst an oligopoly doesn't usually benefits its customers in the long run. I don't see how a console cartel can be the best option for gamers.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I was really only thinking about having all first party content available on a single box. The economics of a single console platform oligarchy didn't really come into it...
... thanks for ruining my dream with your flagrant pragmatism man
FarticusMaximus
Newcomer
I'm with you on the single platform dream, however impractical a business proposition it may be.
Promote competition through software rather than hardware. Have fanboys rallying to developers rather than platform holders. Reduced development costs and larger userbase would allow for a much richer developer landscape IMO.
Back on topic though, without a strong 1st party portfolio I think Sony would have been in very serious trouble last gen.
It seemed to me like Uncharted marked the turnaround for them. Ultimately I believe PS3 sold the way it did because of it's value proposition - free online and PSN+ were a deciding factor for many of my gaming friends*.
However, I feel the momentum the PS3 needed to catch the attention of the larger audience was initiated by good press regarding 1st party titles, even though many of them did not set the world alight with respect to sales.
* Purely anecdotal evidence
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Actually Sony has quite a few AAA franchises that are high sellers (i.e. routinely do between 4 - 10 million units a title): from your TLOU, to Uncharteds, to your GOW's, to your LBP, and then you have their Gran Turismo behemoths. They also have lots of medium selling games (1-3 million sellers).
So I'm not sure where this myth that Sony's first party titles don't sell well comes from.
FarticusMaximus
Newcomer
Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that Sony games generally sell badly. I was referring primarily to the time before Uncharted. PS3 hadn't hit it's stride yet.
Before Uncharted and after the PS2 it was a small window when the PS3 had a slow launch and sales issues. It shouldnt even be brought as an example.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Beta me to it. Yes, Uncharted was released in November 2007 so a year after the US/Japan PlayStation 3 launch and barely 8 months after the European launch. Given the cost of the machine Uncharted was never going to sell gangbusters with such a small user base.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Games were selling very well during the PS2 era until late 2006 which was a transition period. There was an early lack of games and lack of user base on PS3 (as with any new generation)... then Ratchet and Uncharted came out in 2007. Releases were at a steady pace and sales were keeping up. New franchises sell poorly with the first game and sequels sell much better. The impression that Sony has no games was barely a 12 month period within the last 15 years, and it's crazy that the impression still hold today. It's a myth.
Last edited by a moderator:
FarticusMaximus
Newcomer
Why?
The PS3 was under-performing in both software and hardware sales during that time. Launch supply constraints were resolved but it wasn't gaining much traction. The dire software situation was widely known about, both in terms of 1st and 3rd party.
2008 marked the real upturn, and I would argue that the emergence of strong 1st party software at that time had almost as much effect as the price cut. With sub-par multiplatform titles and a rudimentary online system at the time, the PS3 was not going to compete on price alone so a price cut would not have given it the boost it got.
In the US at least, PS3 didn't start to really take off until 2009. 2008 was better than 2007 in terms of non holiday monthly sales but during Nov-Dec months, the PS3 sold better in 2007 than 2008. During those two years the PS3 sold around 1.1 million during those two months, but 2009 saw the PS3 hit the 2 million mark during Nov and Dec NPD while hitting around 1.8 million in 2010 and 2011.
If you look at a best selling PS3 games, its chocked full of 1st party titles but the vast majority of the top selling first party titles are from fall 2009 and later.
If you look at a best selling PS3 games, its chocked full of 1st party titles but the vast majority of the top selling first party titles are from fall 2009 and later.
I am confused with your point. Are you saying that 1st party helped too or it did not?
The biggest PS3's launch issues werent related to supply constraints. Demand was not high enough. Userbase was small. This is one of the primary reasons why the console wasnt selling much software in general 3rd or 1st party. Obviously this does not help to get a clear picture. Sotware sales are diluted by a too small userbase and low hardware sales growth. The H/W price was too high to let people purchase the console for any exclusive game.
I think we might be saying the same thing here. 1st party did help the console (once it reached the right price point).
The window between PS3's launch and the release of Uncharted cannot be used as a sample to infer if 1st party games are worth/selling succesfully. It was a short troublesome period. After and before that period when issues were resolved[edit: did not exist] (like price) we see clearly that 1st party games were indeed selling well and a good investment to promote a unique value. People were looking for exclusives to justify the purchase
At least this thread has proved one thing for sure.
Either beyond3D has 10 millions users or that's possible to tamper with the poll data of a thread...
Either beyond3D has 10 millions users or that's possible to tamper with the poll data of a thread...
