The "what is a successful game?"/"are exclusives worth it?" cost/benefit thread

[Silent_Buddha]

The answer here is, you just avoid MS and Nintendo consoles because they are in your eyes artistical barren. MS and every other publisher will continue to invest in studios and contracts in ways that they hope will maximise returns on their investment. There's no argument against that as it's the nature of the beast, and discussion about whether that's right or not belongs in the RSPCA forum.

Added to that, the best way to make a good return on investment is not only to control cost of developement, but as important, and even more so for a AAA title, is to please as many gamers as possible.

Which oddly enough, means making games that gamers like to play. You don't sell million+ copies of games without them having gameplay that is addictive and fun. Word of mouth, especially on X360 with universal chat will kill most sales of any mediocre title.

Granted if it's a game targetted at children that goes out the door, but so far this generation neither of the HD consoles has catered to that demographic...

Regards,
SB

 

[assen]

You are commenting from an economics PoV, not from a gamer's one. What you are saying, is that MS or any other game company should make games at the lowest possible cost to the company. A good ol' fashioned american capitalist way. Everything else doesn't matter, including providing gamers diverse lineup of games.

There's no other POV than the economics POV. Is your ideal "gamer" a little kid that cries "I want a pony I want a pony dammit I want a pony", stomping their feet?

I hate the current all-games-are-$60 system - I would prefer a world where you would be able to express your support for diverse/wacky/non-shooter games by paying $200 for them, and allowing studios and publishers a choice whether to reach for the mass market, or make niche products at a premium - just as in cars, for example.

You are blatantly wrong (but not alone) in your conviction that "all current games at the top are crap" and its sister "all you need for crap to sell is marketing". All current games above 90 Metacritic are blatantly better in terms of game mechanics, polish, storytelling, presentation and useability than their counterparts of 5 and 10 years ago. There are plenty of examples of well-marketed games which didn't sell well - most high-profile third party efforts on the Wii, for example; most recent PC MMOs; some of the earlier Sony exclusives.

If sales depended mostly on marketing, it would be the marketing departments of publishers that crunch day and night, not the developers

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Please don't put words into my mouth...

What you are saying, is that MS or any other game company should make games at the lowest possible cost to the company.

No, that is not true. What I am saying is that Sony isn't faring well with its exclusives when you consider how much money was spent on them overall. Lair was a flop, Heavenly Sword admittedly failed to break even, and so on, we've been trough this on B3D a few times.

The reportedly huge amount of money spent on developing games with overly ambitious but useless technology, expensive Hollywood talent, and such stuff could have been used to create the more innovative and better games you miss instead.
Or at least making a better development environment earlier, to allow third parties a quicker start. How long did it take to get UE3 work well enough on the PS3, kow many subHD multiplatform releases and inferior conversions have we seen in the first year or two of the system... It could have been avoided, perhaps, if Sony would not have concentrated on the 1st party games instead?

MS has made a different choice and their third party sales are the best. A relatively smaller investment in the dev tools and relationships, and all they have to do now is to cash in the license fees, while gamers have a wide selection of high quality titles... I still consider this to be the better choice so far, compared to Sony's. I also think that Natal will prove to be another pretty good investment.

 

[(((interference)))]

But is it really that necessary to have a lot of strong first party devs? The way I see it, MS is doing pretty well with their current approach.

I also don't think that those studios are that important, just look at what Bizarre has done recently: far from impressive. Digital Anvil and FASA were just the same, I wouldn't cry for them. Ensemble might have been a loss, but it sounds like their entire company culture was a big hindrance in actually delivering games. Bioware might be the only big thing here, but as good as their games are, you still can't say that they'd sell that well.

I disagree perhaps Digital Anvil and FASA are not great studios, but Bizarre is definitely a AAA dev their games are always polished to near perfection, just see Geometry Wars (a title which practically defined XBLA).

PGR4 is also still a better looking game than Forza 3 despite being 2 yrs older. And much of Forza 3's MP features ('cat and mouse' races) were inspired by PGR.

And Blur is definitely innovative and fresh and has been getting pretty positive previews:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/blur-final-hands-on?page=1
It also does 4 player splitscreen which is rare for a racing game.

Fact is not many reviewers or core gamers would put MS 360 exclusives at the same level of titles like KZ2, Uncharted, GT5, God of War, LittleBigPlanet, MGS4 etc. (especially not technically). In fact on 360 the best looking games are often multiplat titles or run on MP engines (ie. Gears, Mass Effect, COD, Assassins Creed) or are made by independent studios (ie Alan Wake or Metro 2033), the first party, platform exclusive studios should be at the graphical forefront like is the case on PS3.

Also, the best games on PS3 apart from the few AAA multiplat titles (COD, GTA etc) are all platform exclusives.

What are the most popular titles on 360? COD, GTA, all the sport games, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3/Oblivion, the LEGO games with platform exclusives pretty much being Halo, Gears and to a lesser degree Forza and Fable (largely helped by console bundling).

Don't forget that the PS3 is catching up to the 360 in sales and will likely overtake it, MS poor first party support is definitely not helping. Sony has the upper hand in hardware (which is to be expected) but why are they also coming out on top with software? I mean it is Microsoft.

And whats the point of shelling out for exclusive DLC like the 50 million they paid for a year's exclusivity on the 2 GTA4 episodes, did that lead to an commensurate increase in sales for the 360 version? Not really, 6.5 m vs 7.7m an extra 1.2 million copies but the 360 had a significant lead in console sales when the game launched
That was a waste of money, you could develop a whole new AAA title for $50 million

I dislike Microsoft's new direction on exclusive titles (compared to the original Xobox), perhaps its better from their accountants standpoints but its worse for us gamers.
On Xbox there were so many

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I disagree perhaps Digital Anvil and FASA are not great studios, but Bizarre is definitely a AAA dev their games are always polished to near perfection, just see Geometry Wars (a title which practically defined XBLA).

Disagree, but I can't get into details...

Fact is not many reviewers or core gamers would put MS 360 exclusives at the same level of titles like KZ2, Uncharted, GT5, God of War, LittleBigPlanet, MGS4 etc. (especially not technically).

And who the hell cares? Customers voted with their wallets and MS exclusives are selling just as well, if not better, making a better ROI as well.

the first party, platform exclusive studios should be at the graphical forefront like is the case on PS3.

And why is that? Just because it's been Sony's tradition?

Also, the best games on PS3 apart from the few AAA multiplat titles (COD, GTA etc) are all platform exclusives.

Actually both X360 and PS3 have 3 exclusives in the top10 at Gamerankings (Mass2, Gears, Halo3 vs. UC2, MGS4 and LBP). So both lists are similarly dominated by third party MP titles...
And if you look at sales, both have 4 exclusives in the top 10, but with MS titles selling a lot more (granted, they're all Halo/Gears).

Don't forget that the PS3 is catching up to the 360 in sales and will likely overtake it, MS poor first party support is definitely not helping.

Doesn't have anything to do with the exclusives, as they're not selling as well. The PS3 is good value with the BR playback and the Sony/PS brand is a lot more popular in Europe and Japan, these are the reasons. But the PS3 will never catch up to the 360 in the US.

Sony has the upper hand in hardware (which is to be expected) but why are they also coming out on top with software? I mean it is Microsoft.

Show me some statistics please. AFAIK MS is still making more money on the X360, and Natal is coming. Or were you talking about something else here?

And whats the point of shelling out for exclusive DLC like the 50 million they paid for a year's exclusivity on the 2 GTA4 episodes, did that lead to an commensurate increase in sales for the 360 version?

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. At the time of the deal, noone knew what exactly to expect from GTA4 sales.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Also, Sony is less and less relevant for Microsoft anyway. Nintendo is the one they want to take on now and they're far better set for that with Natal then Sony is with their wand.

If MS can pair their excellent 3rd party support with the new, more user friendly control scheme, then they can do what Nintendo has failed at and swarm the market with games aimed at a far, far larger audience compared to the current hardcore owners of the HD consoles. This is what they are interested in now, this is what they need resources for and not another bunch of God of War or MGS clones to "counter" the PS3's exclusives. Which is why they aren't interested in Bizarre or even Bioware.

 

[Arwin]

No, that is not true. What I am saying is that Sony isn't faring well with its exclusives when you consider how much money was spent on them overall. Lair was a flop, Heavenly Sword admittedly failed to break even, and so on

Isn't that basically it already? Maybe Motorstorm 2, though sequals are typically much less expensive. Resistance 2 didn't do super, but wasn't that expensive I think either. Most exclusives have done more than well enough?

such stuff could have been used to create the more innovative and better games you miss instead.

That's certainly true, though obviously that goes for all non-Nintendo platforms, basically - there could have been a lot more 'new' stuff done with bigger budgets. (Same goes for Hollywood)

Or at least making a better development environment earlier, to allow third parties a quicker start. How long did it take to get UE3 work well enough on the PS3, kow many subHD multiplatform releases and inferior conversions have we seen in the first year or two of the system... It could have been avoided, perhaps, if Sony would not have concentrated on the 1st party games instead?

I don't think they could have overcome this with the current PS3 design - it was just too different from the PC platform in comparison with the 360. That hardware disadvantage could not easily be overcome with programming - the investment that they have made into getting the most out of the Cell/RSX combo through their exclusives development is now paying off and was the only thing they could do once the hardware was set, imho. There wasn't enough time to do this earlier - not at least unless they would have taken this into account during the hardware design phase (as I'm sure they'll be doing more in the future).

I also think that Natal will prove to be another pretty good investment.

You are more optimistic about Natal than me. I think it could be anything from basically the end of the 360 right up to being a runaway success.

The risks I currently see are that Natal is taking up too large a part of overall 360 related software and hardware investments at the cost of maintaining their current position in the market. The hardware/software may end up being short of good enough, and the synergy between the more compatible Nintendo and Sony 3D motion controls may put them at a disadvantage in the third party space as well.

Then in addition to this, the Live model and 360's imagine in general risks not attracting casuals, while the hardcore on the 360 may well end up not caring about Natal either beyond being an expensive non-controller user interface for Netflix.

I'm not saying that I know which way it goes - but there are significant risks. The biggest benefit Natal currently has is purely a PR one, in that it is more 'new and exciting'. But the actual games will have to prove the technology. In terms of actual user impressions, Move looks pretty good, but it hasn't caught quite as much 'casual' attention yet clearly.

E3 is definitely going to be interesting, and I'm also curious how and if 3D is going to be a factor - its value is definitely augmented by 3D motion controls and vice versa.

Getting off-topic though!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

My super cool reply just self-destructed... will get back to it tonight...

 

[liolio]

Don't forget that the PS3 is catching up to the 360 in sales and will likely overtake it,

It's depend on the relevance of "world wide figures" in your statement, Sony is unlikely to overtake MS in US. Ms is close to Sony in Europe. Then there is Japan and by watching the games charts it's close to irrelevant to most gamers and so to editors choices.
In any case whether Sony it set to lead in some months or not I can't see it having an impact on editors choices. The 360 will stay relevant as a platform.

MS poor first party support is definitely not helping.

I'm happy with MS exclusives first party or not it's irrelevant imho

Sony has the upper hand in hardware (which is to be expected) but why are they also coming out on top with software? I mean it is Microsoft.

I disagree with the first part of your post especially the "which is to be expected" and actually with the second part too, Microsoft comes on top if you consider tools and the environment surrounding the system.

 

[Rolf N]

Then there is Japan and by watching the games charts it's close irrelevant to most gamers and so to editors choices.

Not true.

With quite some regularity now, the number of PS3 titles in the Media Create top 50 exceeds the number of Wii titles. Hardware-wise the PS3 sits stable in the 25k~30k range and is trading blows with the Wii, with differences typically below 15%. YTD they are 600k vs 545kish. Nier Replicant (PS3) topped the charts last week.
And to show it's not all driven by new releases: in the Apr-5 week, where the only new release in the top 40 was a PSP game at #13, PS3 hardware still outsold Wii hardware, and had 11 games in the top 50 vs Wii's 8. In the same week, the Famitsu software pie showed the PS3 leading the Wii with 21.2% vs 18%. Etc etc.

PS3 is trucking along just fine in Japan now. Stop living in 2008.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

What he's saying are these:
- most western games aren't selling at all in Japan
- most Japanese games developed for the Japanese market aren't even released in the west
- very few Japanese games developed for the western market have significant sales in Japan
- there aren't that many Japanese games on the western market at all, and many games from Japanese publishers are completely developed in the west (Sega, Bandai Namco, Capcom etc)

Japan is almost a completely different world, there isn't much connection to the western markets and thus the conditions there are close to irrelevant. They just happen to have the same hardware in stores.

 

[Arwin]

And finally, sales for the home consoles are so low they are almost insignificant.

(I'm not saying that I agree with all those points - there are still enough titles that sell well in both regions - but yeah, there are plenty of good arguments to consider Japan irrelevant or less relevant)

 

[Laa-Yosh]

None of the top Sony titles seem to have passed 1 million in Japan, in fact only MGS4, GT5 prologue and FFXIII seem to have any significance. And I wouldn't really call them Japanese games developed for the Japanese market anymore, their target audience is the US and the EU.

 

[dobwal]

First party are always important. The most important franchises for the big three are all first party titles (MS-Halo, Sony-GT and Nintendo-all things Mario). However, the breadth of your first party development groups has to fit well with the overall dynamics of your console and its userbase.

Nintendo has a huge publishing arm. But Nintendo has always had the luxury of a userbase with a huge appetite for first party titles and always a #1 console, handheld or both every gen.

Sony has a huge publishing arm and the PS1 and PS2 justified the breadth of Sony's development group. However, this gen the PS3's and PSP's userbases aren't consuming first party titles at rates similar to previous gens, thereby Sony development group has become a huge drain on Sony's operating costs. Sony can't justify maintaining a first party operation as big as previous gens.

MS doesn't have a handheld and its never had a console that sold in the 100s of millions. This is why MS has streamlined its development arm and prioritized IPs over developer investment. The bigger your development team the bigger the fixed costs associated with them.

Your first party development has to be tailored to the size and appetite of your userbase.

 

[corduroygt]

Sony has a huge publishing arm and the PS1 and PS2 justified the breadth of Sony's development group. However, this gen the PS3's and PSP's userbases aren't consuming first party titles at rates similar to previous gens, thereby Sony development group has become a huge drain on Sony's operating costs. Sony can't justify maintaining a first party operation as big as previous gens.

As long as first party titles are profitable, what's the problem? Although PS2 was huge, so was piracy on it, hence Gow3 selling more than GoW2 to a much smaller userbase. If they could afford the first party stuff during PS2, I say they can also afford it for PS3. Besides, Sony is still buying studios like media molecule...

Not to mention first parties were a necessity due to the Cell architecture. I mean if even Sony isn't willing to spend money on Cell development, who will?

 

[Arwin]

None of the top Sony titles seem to have passed 1 million in Japan, in fact only MGS4, GT5 prologue and FFXIII seem to have any significance. And I wouldn't really call them Japanese games developed for the Japanese market anymore, their target audience is the US and the EU.

Yes, ok, but what's the point of this? Are you trying to say:

- Japan doesn't buy enough games to be relevant as a separate market
- Japan doesn't buy enough games to be relevant as a main market with EU and US as secondary markets
- Japan doesn't buy enough games to be relevant as a secondary market to EU and US markets?

Don't forget, games Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles are still crossover titles. For those titles, being able to sell them both in Japan and in the West still matters. How much? That's difficult to argue - I have no idea. It is enough to make patsu happy and a bunch of geeks on Neogaf, but beyond that probably not many people (though still apparently totalling 260.000 ?).

Microsoft is largely successful because it has addressed the U.S. audience so successfully, even if for a large part they mostly were only really successful there (with the EU being a decent secondary market and Japan not relevant). It doesn't necessarily need even its secondary market to be successful.

But take it to the other extreme. If only Sony had exclusives and Microsoft none, what would have happened? And perhaps even more significantly, if only Microsoft had exclusives, and Sony none, what would have happened? I'm thinking that if Sony's exclusives haven't won the war, they have still very probably saved its life.

 

[dobwal]

As long as first party titles are profitable, what's the problem? Although PS2 was huge, so was piracy on it, hence Gow3 selling more than GoW2 to a much smaller userbase. If they could afford the first party stuff during PS2, I say they can also afford it for PS3. Besides, Sony is still buying studios like media molecule...

Not to mention first parties were a necessity due to the Cell architecture. I mean if even Sony isn't willing to spend money on Cell development, who will?

I highly doubt that every first party title out of Sony is profitable. And we talking more than revenue generated for a specific title being more the cost of development of that title. We are talking all first party titles being able to support the development infrastructure. We talking enough profits to support all current development and future development, year in and year out across the board.

When you consider the fact that almost all third party publishers have struggle with losses from 2008-2009. Even, Activision with WOW and COD:MW2 failed to pull in a profitable 2009. Its easily can be surmised that Sony's is struggling with its internal team. While Sony's profit per unit is larger than third party pubs, third party pubs have a choice of 50 million, 75 million or 120 million consoles while Sony is targeting 35 million userbase thats tends to consume third party titles more readily than first party titles over the last 3.5 years. At this moment in time, a huge development arm can definitely hurt.

PS2 has huge piracy but it didn't stop Sony from selling 15 million units of GT3 or 11 million units of GT4 nor raking in licensing fee from 35 million units of GTA franchise sales.

Undoubtly Sony has to have stealth nerfed it development group, production has slowed dramatically for some Sony developers and people must have been cut. Sony is not producing as many smaller less hype titles as it once a couple of years back. And buying more studios isn't simply a sign of more growth. Companies like Sony will still make strategic investment while moving toward a smaller footprint.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

But take it to the other extreme. If only Sony had exclusives and Microsoft none, what would have happened? And perhaps even more significantly, if only Microsoft had exclusives, and Sony none, what would have happened? I'm thinking that if Sony's exclusives haven't won the war, they have still very probably saved its life.

Agreed 100%. If not for the Sony exclusives (even if some of them ended up not making back the initial investment, IE loss) I think the PS3 as a platform would be largely irrelevant.

Each pending exclusive is a dangling carrot to keep the Playstation faithful from defecting over to another console.

Likewise for MS, each exclusive was key in attempting to woo away staunch Playstation owners and generate buzz for it's own console.

What really doesn't matter a rats arse however, is whether the exclusive is first or third party.

As long as it's exclusive to one console (PC is irrelevant in this case) it's always going to be a potential reason to buy one console over (or in addition to) another.

Regards,
SB

 

[assen]

But it's not the faithful that decide the war, it's the masses.
Do you think the Wii Fit moms are "Nintendo faithful"?
Or do you think that people who know all the jumps in Super Mario XXX by heart, and actually think Metroid Prime is a competent shooter, have made the Wii what it is?

 

[ShadowRunner]

The problem with 3rd party exclusives is that they are not guaranteed. There is little doubt that relying mostly on 3rd partys has worked out for MS this gen, but at the same time this does not mean it isnt a risky longterm strategy. Releasing the 360 early and building a lead in userbase, being a cheaper device and being easier to develop for made an environment where securing exclusives became an easy task for MS, the problem with this is all of these points a reliant on the competition screwing up on their side as Sony did initially with PS3. Next gen where its possible competition may release first, with a cheap console and an easy to develop for system securing 3rd party exclusives will no longer be so easy.

We have been saying for a long time on here that 3rd party exclusives could become a thing of the past, and we have seen lots of previous Sony exclusives go multi platform. Sony managed to pull through this due to the first party offerings making them still relevant, a company without 1st party support doesnt have this resilience. Relying on 3rd parties is putting all your eggs in one basket in a sense and wishing for a perfect storm.