Sony and Microsoft first party strategy

[iroboto]

Ok, but Sony is supposed to act differently than MS now, right ? So, Sony is supposed to announce their games way too early too. Yet, we don't see a lot of cancellations... the only one i have in mind is Deep Down.

Sony indicated that they also may announce their projects too early. I posted a quote. What's your problem with the statement from Sony?
I'm saying if you're going to do list wars and one company is posting projects early (2019 projects) and one isn't posting them at all until ti's about ready to launch, don't you expect 1 list to be significantly larger than the others?

MS list can't possibly be that long, your'e talking about a 12 month turn around, it's on the futures list and then it's off. For that list to be long and stay longer you need projects to be on there for longer than 12 months.

 

[bunge]

As I said and as you shown lacks in verb form means "to be without" which is exactly what I said. Thanks for saying exactly what I said.

Lie about the context here all you want but it’s still just a bunch of crap from you.

 

[Recop]

Sony indicated that they also may announce their projects too early. I posted a quote. What's your problem with the statement from Sony?
I'm saying if you're going to do list wars and one company is posting projects early (2019 projects) and one isn't posting them at all until ti's about ready to launch, don't you expect 1 list to be significantly larger than the others?

I don't understand your logic :

- So if Sony doesn't act differently than MS, why don't you accept that Sony has more projects than MS ? Both constructors announce their games in the right time, yet Sony has far more projects than MS...

- If Sony announces their games too early, where are all the cancelled games ? Since it was an excuse for MS...

And last question : how can you know that MS is reliable ? After all, they cancelled many games and they lied about Kinect...

 

[Nesh]

because that was announced way too early. They stopped doing that thus it likely lead to a lot of cancellations. Those titles were announced back in 2014 or something, possibly 2015. We're entering 2018 now.

Since 2016 they stopped doing the early announcements pointing to many project cancellations in 2016.

Sony has been announcing exclusive AAA games of which most of not all have been released or will be released. Every year there are some interesting big exclusive games to look forward to which isnt the case for XBOX.
Even if Crackdown, Sea of Thieves and Sate of Decay were announced later, it doesn't change the fact that exclusive games on XBOX are lacklaster in both scale and quantity.
The problem with XBOX was never about announcing games too early.

 

[BRiT]

Lie about the context here all you want but it’s still just a bunch of crap from you.

So you're saying it doesn't mean "to be without"? If thats the situation then you're going with the aspect of "deficient". If so, then what is the measuring mark that determines what the passing level is? It's not stated in the original statement context of "MS lacks exclusives" [full statement], so that aspect of the interpretation of the definition doesn't make any sense.

 

[iroboto]

I don't understand your logic :

- So if Sony doesn't act differently than MS, why don't you accept that Sony has more projects than MS ? Both constructors announce their games in the right time, yet Sony has far more project than MS...

- If Sony announces their games too early, where are all the cancelled games ? Since it was an excuse for MS...

And last question : how can you know that MS is reliable ? After all, they cancelled many games and they lied about Kinect...

I never said Sony didn't have more games than MS. Where did I say that? I just wanted to point out that a massive list on Sony's side and a barely noticeable list on MS side may not be reflective for an actual comparison. Sony's 1P title amount is larger for sure. It's just better to look backwards for released titles and count there, than it is to do forward titles that aren't released and look at it that way. If you want 'real' accurate numbers, you only want to count the games that are out.

Cancelled games aren't an excuse for MS that doesn't apply to Sony. MS made the switch to stop announcing early, because they didn't know wtf they were doing and it lead to cancellations because they couldn't manage development.

As for how do I know MS is reliable? wtf is the purpose of such a question. Don't get stupid on me.

 

[iroboto]

Sony has been announcing exclusive AAA games of which most of not all have been released or will be released. Every year there are some interesting big exclusive games to look forward to which isnt the case for XBOX.
Even if Crackdown, Sea of Thieves and Sate of Decay were announced later, it doesn't change the fact that exclusive games on XBOX are lacklaster in both scale and quantity.
The problem with XBOX was never about announcing games too early.

Pretty sure this means for you, and pretty sure you are counting them out before they are launched.

Once again, 2 awards for 1P games on TGA for MS in categories that Sony (both racing and Indie) had exclusives in.

 

[Recop]

I never said Sony didn't have more games than MS. Where did I say that? I just wanted to point out that a massive list on Sony's side and a barely noticeable list on MS side may not be reflective for an actual comparison.

But unfortunately, a rational discussion is based on facts... otherwise, i can promise you the Moon if i want...

Here is the reality : you don't how many projects MS prepares if they don't show anything and it's the same thing for Sony.

How can you know that Sony doesn't have more undisclosed projects that MS ? You can't !

Based on the evidence we have, Sony is far above MS in terms of projects.

Any other discussion is purely based on speculation and this kind of discussions don't interest me...

MS made the switch to stop announcing early, because they didn't know wtf they were doing and it lead to cancellations because they couldn't manage development.

Why don't we see cancelled games with Sony ? Can you make a clear answer please ?

You will have to admit one of this point in your answer if you want to be logic :

- Sony doesn't announce their games too early. So this sentence is compeltely pointless : "I just wanted to point out that a massive list on Sony's side and a barely noticeable list on MS side may not be reflective for an actual comparison."

- Sony announces their games too early, yet we don't see cancellations. So, Sony is more reliable than MS and announcing a game too early is not an excuse for cancellation.

As for how do I know MS is reliable? wtf is the purpose of such a question. Don't get stupid on me.

No, i'm serious... PR damage control is a real thing, i'm sorry to disappoint you.

 

[iroboto]

But unfortunately, a rational discussion is based on facts... otherwise, i can promise you the Moon if i want...

Here is the reality : you don't how many projects MS prepares if they don't show anything and it's the same thing for Sony.

How can you know that Sony doesn't have more undisclosed projects that MS ? You can't !

Based on the evidence we have, Sony is far above MS in terms of projects.

Any other discussion is purely based on speculation and this kind of dicussions don't interest me...



No, i'm serious... PR damage control is a real thing, i'm sorry to disappoint you.

The problem with our arguments is that you’re leading them from a conspiracy theorist point of view. There is no way I can ever respond in which you are wrong. MS admits there’s nothing in the pipeline you are right. MS denies that there is nothing in the pipeline because they haven’t announced anything you are right. As long as MS doesn’t announce a project you are always right.

I have on multiple occasions agreed that Sony 1P is larger if you look backwards. But looking forwards isn’t going to give you An accurate count because you don’t know when those games get released. This is not a debatable point, I manage a reporting and analytics team this is how you report on things. Anything else is a forecast.

No one was intereeted in Kinect so they abandoned it and repurposed their money elsewhere. Launched a 2 subscription services, a proper piece of hardware, cross purchasing, and one of the most successful backward compatibility programs and they need a PR fix? Lol wtf? That’s already a massive turnaround.

 

[BRiT]

Why don't we see cancelled games with Sony ? Can you make a clear answer please ?

Like the threads on this site about Sony closing down entire game studios? Its out there, you just need to open your eyes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For all the emphasis of no games on xbox, and all games on Sony, I think MS came away with more wins in the 1P space than Sony did at the Game Awards this year.

That's besides the point. One movie can win 10 Oscars, but would you choose a film company that produces one great film over another that produces 20 good films is you had to pick one?

That's not an argument against MS's games, but against the idea that awards show something meaningful. If Switch only had Zelda, we'd say it has no games. If you love Zelda, get a Swtich. If you don't, at least not enough for that to be your only game (and that was the only game in this hypothetical scenario), then get something else without that awesome Zelda game but plenty of other entertaining games.

#I'm not saying that to drum up console wars, but I want to remind everyone that you like certain games on your platform and you are interested in games on your platform, doesn't mean there aren't good games on a competing platform, or.. no games at all.

This is where these discussions always go AWOL, with generalised comments about libraries! We should be addressing specific points and consequences.

At this point I think consensus is that XBO has (significantly?) less XBO specific games*, and Sony does not just release remakes (). Total number of games weighing in BC titles is who-knows-what. That leads on to questions about how that impacts desirability of the machine and whether MS should change that up as some suggest or not. It may be that a few massive games is all it needs, new style platform sellers. PUBG sort of thing, except that may well appear on PS4 next year when out of EA. But I'm not convinced.

* If this isn't true, someone needs to present the evidence now, or forever hold their peace.

 

[Recop]

As long as MS doesn’t announce a project you are always right.

True, but more importantly, you are unable to prove that Sony has a different strategy than MS...

You can't conclude that Sony has a different strategy than MS simply because MS has nothing to show... it could simply means that Sony has way more games than MS to show and it's not a question of games announced too early or not.

You have to be coherent. So far, this argument is pointless : "I just wanted to point out that a massive list on Sony's side and a barely noticeable list on MS side may not be reflective for an actual comparison."

I have on multiple occasions agreed that Sony 1P is larger if you look backwards. But looking forwards isn’t going to give you An accurate count because you don’t know when those games get released. This is not a debatable point, I manage a reporting and analytics team this is how you report on things. Anything else is a forecast.

We have release dates for many first party games.

No one was intereeted in Kinect so they abandoned it and repurposed their money elsewhere. Launched a 2 subscription services, a proper piece of hardware, cross purchasing, and one of the most successful backward compatibility programs and they need a PR fix? Lol wtf? That’s already a massive turnaround.

Let me show you what PR is : https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-one-will-never-sell-without-kinect/

When you're in a bad situation you just do damage control. Phill Spencer is paid for that, it's his job.

 

[iroboto]

That's besides the point. One movie can win 10 Oscars, but would you choose a film company that produces one great film over another that produces 20 good films is you had to pick one?

That's not an argument against MS's games, but against the idea that awards show something meaningful. If Switch only had Zelda, we'd say it has no games. If you love Zelda, get a Swtich. If you don't, at least not enough for that to be your only game (and that was the only game in this hypothetical scenario), then get something else without that awesome Zelda game but plenty of other entertaining games.

It's a choice one has to make. If we look back to 2013, Xbox should have been dead as a platform by now. And yet... this November they sold their all time high.

This is where these discussions always go AWOL, with generalised comments about libraries! We should be addressing specific points and consequences.

At this point I think consensus is that XBO has (significantly?) less XBO specific games*, and Sony does not just release remakes (). Total number of games weighing in BC titles is who-knows-what. That leads on to questions about how that impacts desirability of the machine and whether MS should change that up as some suggest or not. It may be that a few massive games is all it needs, new style platform sellers. PUBG sort of thing, except that may well appear on PS4 next year when out of EA. But I'm not convinced

• XBO has significantly less delivered titles by MS as a FP than Sony does
• XBO is forecasting to have less titles as a FP than Sony will
• There are likely just as many if not more remakes on Sony's FP side, but even though it may or may not be true, overall discounting these remakes they will still likely have more than XBO.

Anything else is really just preference.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That all depends on the definition of "lacks".

Insufficient to serve the gamer's interests. People are right that it all depends on whether it has the exclusives of the sort you like or not. However, with more exclusives the chances of having something you're interested in increases. Let's say a typical gamer is interested in...10% of titles out there. Console A with 10 exclusives offers 1 that'll interest them. Console B with 50 offers 5 that'll interest them, allowing them to be even more selective and get a better personal experience. That's why people like exclusives. Of course, if in the grand scheme of things these console have 10 and 50 exclusives and 5000 3rd party titles, it's kinda moot except for bragging rights! But there is opportunity for library diversification through first parties which is what Sony seems good at; games that wouldn't get an appearance via 3rd parties. The poster-child for that is of course Nintendo who shows how much value a first party can bring. Imagine if MS had the sort of output of Nintendo in terms of quality experience - XB1X would have a competitive advantage over what it offers now.

Is there any one who'd dispute that? Who'd say that MS backing more exclusives games would not be beneficial for the platform?

 

[djskribbles]

Insufficient to serve the gamer's interests. People are right that it all depends on whether it has the exclusives of the sort you like or not. However, with more exclusives the chances of having something you're interested in increases. Let's say a typical gamer is interested in...10% of titles out there. Console A with 10 exclusives offers 1 that'll interest them. Console B with 50 offers 5 that'll interest them, allowing them to be even more selective and get a better personal experience. That's why people like exclusives. Of course, if in the grand scheme of things these console have 10 and 50 exclusives and 5000 3rd party titles, it's kinda moot except for bragging rights! But there is opportunity for library diversification through first parties which is what Sony seems good at; games that wouldn't get an appearance via 3rd parties. The poster-child for that is of course Nintendo who shows how much value a first party can bring. Imagine if MS had the sort of output of Nintendo in terms of quality experience - XB1X would have a competitive advantage over what it offers now.

Is there any one who'd dispute that? Who'd say that MS backing more exclusives games would not be beneficial for the platform?

This is really all that needs to be said.

 

[iroboto]

True, but more importantly, you are unable to prove that Sony has a different strategy than MS...

You can't conclude that Sony has a different strategy than MS simply because MS has nothing to show... it could simply means that Sony has way more games than MS to show and it's not a question of games announced to early or not.

You have to be coherent. So far, this argument is pointless : "I just wanted to point out that a massive list on Sony's side and a barely noticeable list on MS side may not be reflective for an actual comparison."

I didn't conclude. I just know the probability of all those games on those lists landing in 2018 is below 100%. And everything on the list for MS is definitely going to arrive in 2018.

MS has no titles announced ready for 2019.
So what you're saying is that they have 0 games go forward. The likelihood of this is slim and next to nothing. Which is why it's just better to just wait for games that are released to do any sort of counting.

 

[iroboto]

Is there any one who'd dispute that? Who'd say that MS backing more exclusives games would not be beneficial for the platform?

I thought we agreed that no exclusives was better for all gamers. I'm still on that train. To the benefit of the platform, I hope it's not the only method. I would prefer to see exclusives on other platforms and let players choose the platform and services they want to play the games on.

 

[BRiT]

Insufficient to serve the gamer's interests. People are right that it all depends on whether it has the exclusives of the sort you like or not. However, with more exclusives the chances of having something you're interested in increases. Let's say a typical gamer is interested in...10% of titles out there. Console A with 10 exclusives offers 1 that'll interest them. Console B with 50 offers 5 that'll interest them, allowing them to be even more selective and get a better personal experience. That's why people like exclusives. Of course, if in the grand scheme of things these console have 10 and 50 exclusives and 5000 3rd party titles, it's kinda moot except for bragging rights! But there is opportunity for library diversification through first parties which is what Sony seems good at; games that wouldn't get an appearance via 3rd parties. The poster-child for that is of course Nintendo who shows how much value a first party can bring. Imagine if MS had the sort of output of Nintendo in terms of quality experience - XB1X would have a competitive advantage over what it offers now.

Is there any one who'd dispute that? Who'd say that MS backing more exclusives games would not be beneficial for the platform?

But then thats fully subjective so then whats open to discussion if its all centered around "feels"?

What you said is also why MS sees value in Backwards Compatability because that means there so many additional titles gamers can play on their current generation console that the other platforms can't handle. In that regards should Red Dead Redemption and BioShock and all those awesome 3rd party titles be listed as an Xbox One exclusives since many of them are not playable locally on Playstation 4?

 

[djskribbles]

But then thats fully subjective so then whats open to discussion if its all centered around "feels"?

What you said is also why MS sees value in Backwards Compatability because that means there so many additional titles gamers can play on their current generation console that the other platforms can't handle. In that regards should Red Dead Redemption and BioShock and all those awesome 3rd party titles be listed as an Xbox One exclusives since many of them are not playable locally on Playstation 4?

There really is nothing to discuss here. Fact is, Sony has a higher output and more diverse library of exclusives. They may or may not appeal to every gamer, but more diversification leads to more sales. Having a large and diverse library of exclusives is one of the main reasons why PlayStations consistently sell well worldwide, they appeal to a large audience of gamers.

Backwards compatibility is a really nice feature, and I do wish Sony would add it back to PlayStation. But let's face it... old games don't sell consoles, new games do.

 

[Recop]

I didn't conclude. I just know the probability of all those games on those lists landing in 2018 is below 100%. And everything on the list for MS is definitely going to arrive in 2018.

But still more exclusive titles than MS in 2018... much more...

So what you're saying is that they have 0 games go forward. The likelihood of this is slim and next to nothing. Which is why it's just better to just wait for games that are released to do any sort of counting.

And what makes you think that Sony won't announce even more games for 2019 ?

This is why you have to stick on actual evidence, otherwise anyone can say what he wants.