Sony and Microsoft first party strategy

[Deleted member 11852]

But you don't go from 1,7 millions to 6 millions without new players (Witcher 3)... And if you speak about the casual gamer, he probably doesn't even know that Uncharted 4 has a story based on previous games.

The casual player also doesn't know it doesn't.

The context was old IPs not being attractive to new platform customers because new customers aren't going to buy into them... The evidence, what we have, shows a good franchise can attract new buyers, no? That a new Uncharted or Halo can attract gamers to buy your console over the rival even if you haven't played the previous iterations.

No it doesn't, because..

They're missing info like how many people sought out the previous games or such, but I think they do at least show factual evidence that old IPs can be an exclusive draw for a platform and you don't just need new IP.

This. When my cousin got his PS3 around 2010, I lent him a ton of games, including Uncharted 1 and 2 and Infamous. So greater numbers for sequels later in the generation are to be expected because of the larger user base, but you can't assume the greater numbers are people new to the franchise what with friends lending games, rental services and PS+. edit: I'm sure some are, but how many? Again, you just can't tell if it's a significant number.

It's an assumption wrapped in your preferred narrative. Evidence: 0% Supposition 100%

 

[Billy Idol]

X360 was successful as it had amazing exclusives back in its glory days imo. X1 is extremely lacking...I really hope that MS makes a 180 and invests in exclusives again. Heck, PUBG does not push me to buy a X.

Nowadays, where AAA game devs fail in delivering good games due to their push to MTx and the destruction of game design/progression and value, exclusive titles are more important than ever imo.

 

[iroboto]

X360 was successful as it had amazing exclusives back in its glory days imo. X1 is extremely lacking...I really hope that MS makes a 180 and invests in exclusives again. Heck, PUBG does not push me to buy a X.

Nowadays, where AAA game devs fail in delivering good games due to their push to MTx and the destruction of game design/progression and value, exclusive titles are more important than ever imo.

To be fair back in the glory days, they were the main player in console MP space.

Then call of duty MW arrived. The rest is history as we know it.

 

[Nesh]

Yea for sure I don't disagree with this sentiment. My only issue with it is putting a 100% weighting behind it as being the sole reason to purchase any console.

I mean looking at Nintendo in isolation, the same exclusives has existed on it for some time now, Wii to WiiU to Switch. But WiiU is largely considered a failure where Wii and Switch were not. Despite having the same exclusives it didn't take off for some reason.

And on Xbox One, we see a general lack of exclusives, but they aren't exactly considered the failure that WiiU was. Far from actually.

So I'm okay with the exclusives move platforms argument, I just don't think it's anywhere weighted as high as most of these exclusives discussions tend to be.

On the topic of exclusives, you look at Nintendo ones, and they are heavily about game design. Sony pushes for that cinematic experience. And MS seems to try to focus on MP.

the nice thing for both Sony and Nintendo is that they are major players in those categories, whereas the MP space is significantly crowded by comparison.

I didnt follow everything on this thread. But was it implied that the XBOX One is a failure?
I think what people are only pointing that the XBOX is losing steam in relation to the Playstation because it lacks current gen exclusives that differentiate it. I am curious how well the Switch is doing compared to Playstation and XBOX. Probably its doing pretty well thanks to its form factor, exclusive games and some healthy 3rd party support (or so I think). I am sure Nintendo would have been another Sega if it wasn't for the massive success of its exclusive titles (even though Wii U flopped, the Wii died prematurely and the GC did mediocre).
I agree that many factors are important for a console's success or healthy market performance. I suspect that the One managed to hit an initial critical mass due to people's expectations that it would have eventually received it's exclusive popular franchises (like Halo and Gears that were hardware sellers) and also thanks to the 360's XBOX Live adoption. That initial back bone helped it mature into a very good product by itself. Feature wise it is pretty solid.
I think MS has built a strategy to protect itself from losing completely its market share.

They are betting a lot on retaining it's 360 userbase with its BC which also helps the 360 owner carry over his Digital and Disk purchases,
They are trying to attract as many average joes as possible with a cheap price and a 4K Blu Ray player
Finally thay are trying to make a portion of demaning gamers question whether they should buy a Pro or PS4 when they have the option to purchase a premium console that can run games at much higher quality as well as have a 4K BR player all in one. The PS4 consoles are sandwiched between cheaper and premium value propositions but it has won the hearts of the consumer with everything the One offers in terms of current gen games plus more, still at a great price.

 

[Billy Idol]

To be fair back in the glory days, they were the main player in console MP space.

Then call of duty MW arrived. The rest is history as we know it.

Halo I played for SP.

Mass Effect as well.

Gears campaign, with the coop option was insane. Also brutal graphics, amazing.

Gears was also the first MP that hooked me night and day to the TV...also, Gears made 5 friends of mine insta buy a X360 after I showed them the game, even though they had no HD TV back then and played for month on a SD TV.

The true power of amazing exclusives imo...sold tons of X360s.

 

[BRiT]

But now there are so many amazing multiplatform games on amazing hardware making it so much harder to get a big exclusive hit, especially with more titles hitting the PC market. That wasn't the situation back in 2000-2003.

That's what makes its such an amazing thing that Sony has done with some of their exclusives today.

 

[iroboto]

I didnt follow everything on this thread. But was it implied that the XBOX One is a failure?

I'm not too sure. Sometimes we like to speak in extremes but not really mean it. Sometimes people really think it. Sometimes not. It's hard to say. But the losing steam remark is probably on target for most folks.

I agree that many factors are important for a console's success or healthy market performance. I suspect that the One managed to hit an initial critical mass due to people's expectations that it would have eventually received it's exclusive popular franchises (like Halo and Gears that were hardware sellers) and also thanks to the 360's XBOX Live adoption. That initial back bone helped it mature into a very good product by itself. Feature wise it is pretty solid.
I think MS has built a strategy to protect itself from losing completely its market share.

Yea I ultimately think this is what is at debate here; the importance of exclusives vs how MS has shored itself. They've made a good foundation on platform, but at this point in time it does feel like exclusives are the last thing they really need to deliver on to make a great platform for this generation.

 

[CSI PC]

It is interesting that the top selling console by a huge margin is the PS2 and since then sales have never reached that peak, although one could argue there is still some life with PS4 with sales currently at 70million but I cannot see it massively increasing unless there is a big price drop.
The PS2 reached over 155million sales.
According to wiki that can be right/wrong at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles

 

[Nesh]

It is interesting that the top selling console by a huge margin is the PS2 and since then sales have never reached that peak, although one could argue there is still some life with PS4 with sales currently at 70million but I cannot see it massively increasing unless there is a big price drop.
The PS2 reached over 155million sales.
According to wiki that can be right/wrong at times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles

How does the PS2 and PS4 compare in the same lifecycle?
If the PS4 is close that would be pretty impressive, because the PS2 barely had a worthwhile competition at the start of its life, and when the XBOX and GC were released, I think their combined selling performance were less than the XBOX One's. PS4 had significant competition from the start

 

[Deleted member 11852]

How does the PS2 and PS4 compare in the same lifecycle?

According to Zhuge, as of August 2017, sales were roughly alligned.

 

[CSI PC]

How does the PS2 and PS4 compare in the same lifecycle?
If the PS4 is close that would be pretty impressive, because the PS2 barely had a worthwhile competition at the start of its life, and when the XBOX and GC were released, I think their combined selling performance were less than the XBOX One's. PS4 had significant competition from the start

PS4 had even less competition because of the debacle involved with the launch of Xbox One and the mixed narrative of its purpose and conflicting focus in terms of HW design; worth noting 40% of the PS2 sales happened after launch of Xbox360 and PS3.
XBox One only sold 25-30million compared to current 70million from PS4, although it is now fair to say PS4 has a decent competitor with very latest Microsoft console.

 

[bunge]

Personal computers and cell phones are a bigger competitor than thy were in the PS2 era.

 

[CSI PC]

Personal computers and cell phones are a bigger competitor than thy were in the PS2 era.

Most likely cell phones are complimentary to home consoles rather than taking away sales, you could be right about PCs although they do miss out on some key exclusives and for many general homes there is an ease of use and accessible price with consoles compared to gaming PCs - context general/mainstream home consumer.

 

[Nesh]

PS4 had even less competition because of the debacle involved with the launch of Xbox One and the mixed narrative of its purpose and conflicting focus in terms of HW design; worth noting 40% of the PS2 sales happened after launch of Xbox360 and PS3.
XBox One only sold 25-30million compared to current 70million from PS4, although it is now fair to say PS4 has a decent competitor with very latest Microsoft console.

The PS2 had zero competition for a year and even more depending on the territory. The DC was barely any competition. Not the case with PS4. The XBOX was a noteworthy brand during launch, and MS later revised the price and features as a response to critique. It is still a more powerful brand thanks to the 360's "success". The OG XBOX not so much
By Nov 2005 (360 launch) PS2 was already 100 million. In March 2004 it was around 70 million, 4 years after release. Just like the PS4. I suspect that the PS2's sales picked up hugely because Sony opened the market to other territories very late.

 

[Pixel]

Also PS2 sold so many because it could drop to a lower pricepoint than PS3 & PS4 could ever reach.

For PS2 Sony fabricated and diffused their own cpu/gpu. Nowdays TSMC does that.
Sony designed their own cpu and gpu chips in house. Nowdays they use AMD IP and AMD gets royalties on each chip sold.
PS3 & PS4 have HDD, PS2 did not.
Cost per transistor steadily decreased with each node shrink revision during the early to mid 2000s. Nowdays future finFET shrinks below 14/16nm are not expected to brink substantial reductions in cost per transistor.
RAM fab costs are not dropping as quickly as they were in the early to mid 2000s.
Wifi controllers in PS3 and PS4.
Coupled with those shrink had the snowball effect of smaller chassis, lower TDP, smaller PSU, less power regulation, cheaper cooling.

 

[CSI PC]

The PS2 had zero competition for a year and even more depending on the territory. The DC was barely any competition. Not the case with PS4. The XBOX was a noteworthy brand during launch, and MS later revised the price and features as a response to critique. It is still a more powerful brand thanks to the 360's "success". The OG XBOX not so much
By Nov 2005 (360 launch) PS2 was already 100 million. In March 2004 it was around 70 million, 4 years after release. Just like the PS4. I suspect that the PS2's sales picked up hugely because Sony opened the market to other territories very late.

The PS2 had one year without competition, the PS4 has had 3 years without much of a competition for the reasons I mentioned why the Xbox One was a disaster.
The PS2 sold 20 million when there was no XBox, but importantly like I said sold around 39% total sales for PS2 after the PS3 and XBOX360 launched; a lot more than when there was no xbox.

Worth noting as well with the modern era the PS4 has global access sales a lot quicker than the PS2 did, the data for PS4 already includes Japan, North America, South America, Europe, Asia.

 

[CSI PC]

Also PS2 sold so many because it could drop to a lower pricepoint than PS3 & PS4 could ever reach.

For PS2 Sony fabricated and diffused their own cpu/gpu. Nowdays TSMC does that.
Sony designed their own cpu and gpu chips in house. Nowdays they use AMD IP and AMD gets royalties on each chip sold.
PS3 & PS4 have HDD, PS2 did not.
Cost per transistor steadily decreased with each node shrink revision during the early to mid 2000s. Nowdays future finFET shrinks below 14/16nm are not expected to brink substantial reductions in cost per transistor.
RAM fab costs are not dropping as quickly as they were in the early to mid 2000s.
Wifi controllers in PS3 and PS4.
Coupled with those shrink had the snowball effect of smaller chassis, lower TDP, smaller PSU, less power regulation, cheaper cooling.

Yeah totally agree, why like I mentioned I cannot see the PS4 matching sales unless they manage to do a notable price drop, but how can they do that comparable to the PS2.

 

[Globalisateur]

The PS2 had one year without competition, the PS4 has had 3 years without much of a competition for the reasons I mentioned why the Xbox One was a disaster.
The PS2 sold 20 million when there was no XBox, but importantly like I said sold around 39% total sales for PS2 after the PS3 and XBOX360 launched; a lot more than when there was no xbox.

Worth noting as well with the modern era the PS4 has global access sales a lot quicker than the PS2 did, the data for PS4 already includes Japan, North America, South America, Europe, Asia.

No.

PS2 was a very cheap DVD player and had to compete against kiddy Nintendo consoles and struggling first MS console.

PS4 is still only a main game machine and has to compete against a established Xbox brand (with aggressive price cuts and deals during the whole gen, now more than ever: A PS4 costs $300, a XB1 + UHD player costs $200. The year the successful Switch is released, PS4 sells the most.

And PS4 also has to compete against the powerful Steam and mobile gaming. And they are doing that while making more money via PSN than they ever have. Comparatively Sony didn't make that much money with their PS2s.

 

[iroboto]

https://www.engadget.com/amp/2017/12/28/xboxs-lack-of-compelling-games-wont-be-fixed-next-year/

Worth discussing, echos some complaints in this thread but in written form.

The number of internal studios and software projects is so low that the company had to announce it would be going on a shopping spree for new studios and games next year. The problem is, on average, games take between two and three years to make, and big AAA tentpoles can easily spend double that time in development. Xbox's dearth of fresh games you can't play anywhere else isn't going to be fixed in 2018.

 

[bunge]

It would be much more interesting and exciting to hear that they’re going to build new studios and games rather than try and buy current ones.