Sony and Microsoft first party strategy

[Deleted member 11852]

If that's true, why does the subject of the lack of exclusives keep coming up?

Fanboys.

Gaming website roll with that narrative, talking about it as a problem. This thread wouldn't even exist if people didn't care about it.

Clicks = revenue.

I genuinely think that's 95% of it. Like I've said before, the gaming market is dozens of millions yet the even the biggest online gaming communities are an insignificant relative to the market. Most gamers are actually gaming and enjoying it, and not complaining about perceived slights to their preferred platform online.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well of course they're gaming and enjoying it. They're not going to sit there in defiance, refusing to have fun until MS releases more exclusives! The question is one of market perception and whether 1) these customers would be happier if they had (big name) exclusives and 2) MS lose mind-share to Sony when articles appear saying how awesome Sony's exclusives are and how lacking MS's are. For 1), I think cross-play with Windows for the 3rd party library will be worth more in the long run if MS can make that a thing. But for 2), I can't see how that's not an issue. Joe Gamer is looking for a console. He goes online. He reads "XB1 lacks exclusives" and "PS4 has loads of awesome exclusives coming." One platform is seemingly offering a better library to chose from, of the primary purpose of a console - games.

 

[BRiT]

For 2 it all depends on Joe Gamers preference of games. If he doesnt care for typical Japanese style games or he didnt grow up playing the initial Sony exclusives (the PS1 or PS2 or PS3 games that are now being remade on PS4 or the sequels to them being made on PS4) then they wont matter to him. If someone never played Uncharted or Killzone the new games wont be a draw, the same way if they didn't play Gears or Halo then it likely wont be a draw.

There's few exclusives that do have a draw to those who didnt play the earlier versions. This means looking at newer IP and what has the draw. Horizon Zero Dawn has a strong draw. Days Gone has potential to be a strong draw.

If someone is into sports titles from EA then having the EA Access service to get ability to play games for cheaper has a stronger draw.

It all depends on Joe Gamer and what his interests are. Not every Joe Gamer is going to be won over by quantity.

 

[iroboto]

I’m with DSoup on this one.
Looking at the biggest titles, it’s been a long time since An exclusive was a big title.

Today we are dominated by F2P and indie titles and mods of games. I’m not taking franchises either, just single titles. The only exception to that rule has been Blizzard titles which are largely developed to be made for the masses. None of them have any story or narrative, all of them are online MP titles.

DOTA2, LOL, CSGO, PUBG, Minecraft, hearthstone, world of Warcraft, path of exile, fortnite:BR, Overwatch

Then you have AAA 3P juggernauts like GTAV following in.

These are the games that consistently and continually get the most play time in the world. Have no story and continue to grow each year despite having no major graphical improvements other than some upkeep.

Most gaming forums this one included largely ignored PUBG when it was announced to Xbox. Where is it now? Between 1-4 million players in the 1st week
Of sales. It didn’t fit the standard “exclusive models that everyone should be hyped for”. It is an ugly terribly optimized game that people can’t stop playing.

And now we are here.
Discussing 1st party strategy as if MS has none. It’s clear it does, it’s been trying to make MP game like the ones up on this list for some time now. It’s just not easy to strike gold. There is no formula that will give you viral success like these titles have. The only company that can consistently do it is Blizzard from what I can see and they still cancel games too.

The emphasis on 1st party has largely been to round out the library. I agree with this sentiment. In which if this is the focus of discussion I agree with it. Sony does a great job in providing those single player experiences that are narrative to round their library out. But if people are trying to make it seem like exclusives wield the influence of these games that have been around for over a decade and continue to generate millions of dollars per month then they are greatly mistaken.

They don’t hold a candle to these titles. And the first console to properly support all these titles I just listed will have a significant leg up over their competitors because both consoles are missing out on these massive juggernauts.

 

[bunge]

70 million people may disagree.

 

[iroboto]

70 million people may disagree.

With?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree if Joe Gamer does a decent bit of research into what he likes and doesn't like and what the titles are. However, is he that well informed? My expectations of the typical pundit is they'll be moderately clueless, know they like COD and FIFA and a bit of other stuff, plus maybe something for the kids. Goes online, sees a fair bit of talk about exclusives on PS4 and none of XB1, thinks something along the lines of, "well, I don't want less games," and will feel an incentive to buy PS4 due to that. I don't think the average pundit, especially this far into a generation when the fanboys have already bought their consoles and the companies are selling to the platform-neutrals, is really researching (through hundreds of games) the best platform with the best games for their tastes. Similarly, playground banter will be about the headline titles, not the full libraries. Brit can dig all he likes at PS2 remakes (only a small percentage of the first party exclusives in reality) but the truth is PS4 is outselling XB1 by a large margin - are we to believe the lack of exclusives narrative isn't contributing at all to that?

The argument in favour of the current situation is saying MS shouldn't invest more in exclusives and this situation should continue and ultimate get worse as PS accrues more exclusives. I can't see that as a safe business position. I'd counter that personally by really pushing BC and ensuring consumers know the XB library will extend to new machines but MS aren't really doing that, perhaps not wanting to completely commit to a promise they may not be able to keep. But without that, the theory is that MS can concede the Exclusives part of the face-offs and still come out on top. For games consoles that seems to me the one area you can't relax on.

 

[BRiT]

If you don't expect Joe Gamer to be well informed then he'll end up walking out of the store with a Nintendo Switch.

/thread

 

[iroboto]

I agree if Joe Gamer does a decent bit of research into what he likes and doesn't like and what the titles are. However, is he that well informed? My expectations of the typical pundit is they'll be moderately clueless, know they like COD and FIFA and a bit of other stuff, plus maybe something for the kids. Goes online, sees a fair bit of talk about exclusives on PS4 and none of XB1, thinks something along the lines of, "well, I don't want less games," and will feel an incentive to buy PS4 due to that. I don't think the average pundit, especially this far into a generation when the fanboys have already bought their consoles and the companies are selling to the platform-neutrals, is really researching (through hundreds of games) the best platform with the best games for their tastes. Similarly, playground banter will be about the headline titles, not the full libraries. Brit can dig all he likes at PS2 remakes (only a small percentage of the first party exclusives in reality) but the truth is PS4 is outselling XB1 by a large margin - are we to believe the lack of exclusives narrative isn't contributing at all to that?

The argument in favour of the current situation is saying MS shouldn't invest more in exclusives and this situation should continue and ultimate get worse as PS accrues more exclusives. I can't see that as a safe business position. I'd counter that personally by really pushing BC and ensuring consumers know the XB library will extend to new machines but MS aren't really doing that, perhaps not wanting to completely commit to a promise they may not be able to keep. But without that, the theory is that MS can concede the Exclusives part of the face-offs and still come out on top. For games consoles that seems to me the one area you can't relax on.

MS needs to do something sure. It’s important that all the experiences are covered so that everyone gets to play something.

Does it need to be exclusives if 3P is managing that well? That is the question. What is a good 1P title? How is that defined? Trying to do something other games don’t ? Catering to your hardware ? (PSVR/Kinect)

What if MS decided to enable full M/KB and being over a complete subset of games previously not found on console and have been locked to PC this whole time ? Is that not a bigger deal than to have the next TLOU on your console?

Change is coming to the gaming landscape. The traditional model is changing and I’m expecting a lot of cross over/play/merging to happen.

Imo, You want to succeed financially and build a huge platform? Skip the the investment in exclusives tied to your platform and sell it on everyone’s. Growing the user base has much larger implications than most forum debaters give credit for.

The traditional license/revenue model is not as successful as it once was and we are seeing more and more profits come from games that are built once and supported for longer periods of time. Perhaps the release of COD Modern Warfare remake should have been a sign.

 

[Recop]

There's few exclusives that do have a draw to those who didnt play the earlier versions. This means looking at newer IP and what has the draw. Horizon Zero Dawn has a strong draw. Days Gone has potential to be a strong draw.

Since when do you need to have played UC1 to be interested by UC4 ?

It all depends on Joe Gamer and what his interests are.

Obviously... but if you have a much larger and diverse library of games, then you have a much higher probability to please everyone.

As simple as that...

These are the games that consistently and continually get the most play time in the world. Have no story and continue to grow each year despite having no major graphical improvements other than some upkeep.

No story in GTA5 ?

They don’t hold a candle to these titles. And the first console to properly support all these titles I just listed will have a significant leg up over their competitors because both consoles are missing out on these massive juggernauts.

- Uncharted 4 is close to 10 millions.

- F2P games should be available on all consoles since there are free.

- You still need exclusive titles to distinguish your console from other ones.

Why did people buy a Xbox One before PUBG ? For third party games ? For the power ?

Please note that this chart is now completely outdated. For instance, the E3 2017 trailer of Spiderman has now over 40 millions of views.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you don't expect Joe Gamer to be well informed then he'll end up walking out of the store with a Nintendo Switch.

/thread

Why? Because of the games. Nintendo exclusives.

 

[BRiT]

Why? Because of the games. Nintendo exclusives.

Because of portability.

Also, if someone was competely uneducated about game consoles and only knew there was Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation they would search google by simply typing in those words and would be directed to the appropriate official websites as the first hits. The next few search results might direct to Twitter accounts or Wiki or such and then perhaps a few ads for retail stores or Amazon or GameStop would show up. No where during their initial research would uninformed Joe Gamer ever be directed into the hell of online forums in at least the first pages that Joe Gamer would ever bother with.

Your premise situation is overly complex and will never happen as it requires entirely way too many moving pieces and a few giant leaps to arrive at forum fanboy list war threads.

 

[iroboto]

Because of portability.

I was going to respond in similar fashion.
Wii was a big platform win.
WiiU failed
Switch was a big platform win.
All 3 had nintendo exclusives. And Nintendo owns the portable space.
Not saying it's anecdotal, but confidant that if Switch wasn't portable at all, it would not be as successful as it is now.

 

[Recop]

Also, if someone was competely uneducated about game consoles and only knew there was Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation they would search google by simply typing in those words and would be directed to the appropriate official websites as the first hits. The next few search results might direct to Twitter accounts or Wiki or such and then perhaps a few ads for retail stores or Amazon or GameStop would show up. No where during their initial research would uninformed Joe Gamer ever be directed into the hell of online forums in at least the first pages that Joe Gamer would ever bother with.

You still did not explain why people bought a XB1 instead of a PS4 :

- More expensive at launch
- Less powerful
- Inferior third party games

The only possible anwser, is that they like the Xbox brand for its specificity.

Several things allow your console to distinguish from the concurrence and this includes exclusive games.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ames-decide-console-purchase-for-uk-consumers

I would not say it's the most important factor, but definitely among the most decisive factors :

- Brand popularity

- Price

- Hardware (power, controller)

- Exclusive games

Edit : I didn't see that the survery was biased toward hardcore gamers lol...

 

[Nesh]

I was going to respond in similar fashion.
Wii was a big platform win.
WiiU failed
Switch was a big platform win.
All 3 had nintendo exclusives. And Nintendo owns the portable space.
Not saying it's anecdotal, but confidant that if Switch wasn't portable at all, it would not be as successful as it is now.

The WiiU would have sold even less if it wasnt for those exclusives though.
They were system sellers and had great sales despite the low userbase

 

[iroboto]

The WiiU would have sold even less if it wasnt for those exclusives though.
They were system sellers and had great sales despite the low userbase

it has no other games on the the platform. 3P doesn't really exist on WiiU so... yes that would be expected.. There would be no games on the system if there weren't 1P

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because of portability.

I'd argue its huge success is mostly due to Zelda. Being portable is worth squat if you have no games (see Vita).

No where during their initial research would uninformed Joe Gamer ever be directed into the hell of online forums in at least the first pages that Joe Gamer would ever bother with.

Your premise situation is overly complex and will never happen as it requires entirely way too many moving pieces and a few giant leaps to arrive at forum fanboy list war threads.

My typical Joe Gamer asks his 'gamer' mates, who are the ones who read gaming websites and 'inform' their circle of friends. My typical Joe Gamer is in the office having a coffee break and asks the resident nerd which console to get for Christmas. My typical Joe Gamer reads newspapers like the Independent...

"Although the PS4 has already launched in the US (and is coming to UK shores on the 29th) the Xbox One will be hitting shops on the 22nd November. With 22 launch titles and more exclusives than Sony's next-gen console, we take a look at the best launch titles for Microsoft's latest."​

Or maybe general 'tech' sites like Geek.com

"Interestingly, the PS4 will launch with three MMOs, all of which are free-to-play, while the Xbox One wont launch with any. The PS4 also has a much larger list of launch window games, and along with the hard push Sony is making in the indie market, it would appear that if you like a wide variety and large amount of games close to, or at, launch, the PS4 is the way to go."​

It's not forum list-wars alone comparing these, but the general media, because exclusives is one of the major aspects to a console.

it has no other games on the the platform. 3P doesn't really exist on WiiU so... yes that would be expected.. There would be no games on the system if there weren't 1P

But that's missing the point, that it's the exclusives that attracts Nintendo's fans. How well would Switch be doing if the only games on it were 3rd party cross-plats? If Zelda never existed, or was available on PS4 and XB1 too? We don't really know, but it's pretty certainly not a zero sum and exclusives have pushing power.

 

[BRiT]

If Joe Gamer has friends or coworkers who game then the question won't even get beyond "What console do you have?" and that will be that assuming Joe Gamer wants to game with friends. If the console is for Joe Gamer's children then the question will be "What console is good for kids of ages X to Y?". I don't see any of them going deep enough to the point where Joe Gamer is going online and looking at articles. Perhaps social and work circles operate differently in my area but that's how things unfold in the Mid-West USA. The moment one even tries to go into details about pros and cons of the respective systems the eyes of Joe Gamer starts to roll into the back of their head.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Well of course they're gaming and enjoying it. They're not going to sit there in defiance, refusing to have fun until MS releases more exclusives! The question is one of market perception and whether 1) these customers would be happier if they had (big name) exclusives and 2) MS lose mind-share to Sony when articles appear saying how awesome Sony's exclusives are and how lacking MS's are. For 1), I think cross-play with Windows for the 3rd party library will be worth more in the long run if MS can make that a thing. But for 2), I can't see how that's not an issue. Joe Gamer is looking for a console. He goes online. He reads "XB1 lacks exclusives" and "PS4 has loads of awesome exclusives coming." One platform is seemingly offering a better library to chose from, of the primary purpose of a console - games.

I agree there are people who think this, what I question is whether that is a significantly large number to matter. You're talking about that small slither of consumers who even research products before they buy and don't just make a choice because a colleague or family member bought product X and was happy.

Since when do you need to have played UC1 to be interested by UC4 ?

You don't but there will be some people who don't want to enter a franchise, whether it's movies, books or video games, halfway through the story. Story driven narrative adventures are more likely to appeal to people who appreciate those narratives and narratives have a past. I'm sure I would have enjoyed Uncharted 4 if I hadn't played the predecessors but would I have enjoyed it as much? Definitely not. The characters histories and motivations were established in the previous three games.

You still did not explain why people bought a XB1 instead of a PS4 :

- More expensive at launch
- Less powerful
- Inferior third party games

This is unanswerable. Why doesn't anybody chose one product over another? If you like the Xbox controller, like Xbox Live, you liked the sound of TV integration and Kinect functionality, your friends are buying Xbox consoles or you had one previously and enjoyed it; then that's enough for many people.

As I've posted many times on these forums, I've yet to see a jot of evidence that - all things being equal - specifications are important except for a minority of gamers. The fact that Xbox One sold well despite being less powerful and more expensive should be sufficient measurable evidence that the reasons for people choosing one console over another are not primarily about price or power. If it was, Xbox would be dead by now. They are definitely factors for some, but for tens of millions of people who bought Xbox Ones? Obviously not.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree there are people who think this, what I question is whether that is a significantly large number to matter. You're talking about that small slither of consumers who even research products before they buy and don't just make a choice because a colleague or family member bought product X and was happy.

I'm not sure. It's probably more important in the first few years while trying to get established as the de facto console and want to differentiate. Logically, I think it matters if you're in a tight race too as the best differentiator. Worldwide, XB1 is shafted, but in the US with a few landmark exclusives, perhaps XB1 could pull ahead of PS4 still given the right motivations? I think that's the only thing MS could do to become number one in sales, anyway. Selling cheaper, unless massively cheaper, won't do it, and there's little they can do to differentiate in features and experience, but being the only place to play a few games that the mainstream want to play absolutely would. I'll even argue that that's their plan, to take a few small GAAS titles and hope to grow them through social media into must-play experiences to attract new players.

As I've posted many times on these forums, I've yet to see a jot of evidence that - all things being equal - specifications are important except for a minority of gamers. The fact that Xbox One sold well despite being less powerful and more expensive should be sufficient measurable evidence that the reasons for people choosing one console over another are not primarily about price or power. If it was, Xbox would be dead by now. They are definitely factors for some, but for tens of millions of people who bought Xbox Ones?

It'll have been the exclusives.