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

[ShadowRunner]

The problem is that this is a dead strategy. It makes no sense to funnel untold millions into exclusive games when you have an audience as small as the PS3's. The reality check is that multi platform games this gen are incredibly good, and as a result the exclusives simply don't stand out. You don't risk $1000 to earn $1050, and that's what exclusives have become this gen. Paying for exclusive joker dlc on Batman AA, now that was a great move on Sony's part. Paying to fund exclusives though is dead. I can see them still trying for a while since they made their bed and are kind of stuck in it this gen, but I'd expect that strategy to be heavily revised next gen. I'd understand them bankrolling a single studio like Naughty Dog, since they can serve as a tech house as well, beyond that there is no point. 3rd parties are plenty smart, support them well and they will deliver the best games, which is exactly what we have seen this gen.

If PS3 did not have exclusive games it would be a lot worse off. As long as they are not loosing money on the games they make they are worth having. Sure 3rd partys have done well this gen but that doesnt make a new Halo or Gran Turismo a waste of time. Should nintendo also give up 1st party development?

 

[Carl B]

but I'd expect that strategy to be heavily revised next gen.

It could be, but I'm not sure I agree. If at the end of the day on a stand-alone basis Sony's internal studio teams were able to emulate the performance of an external third party developer, generate net benefit to the aggregate bottom line and/or platform, and as a side result in addition provide exclusive system content, then certainly I would not see the purpose in jettisoning the internal studios. Successful studios would be kept, and broken houses jettisoned or folded - same as with a pure play publisher. As I stated cash flow is not SCE's issue, so decisions based on cash flow concerns don't play, IMO.

The role internal studios play, and exclusives themselves, will be much more affected by the direction we see next-gen consoles take relative to the world around them in terms of networking, portal competition, and media convergence. Or more specifically, I wonder how 'core' pureplay gaming experiences will be in terms of the sales approach taken with next-gen systems, and what competing platforms may look like.

PS - It's not an issue of exclusives not 'standing out,' it's more a matter of mindshare. Call of Duty is a massive franchise. Uncharted, for example, is not. And in my mind critic accolades and forum heat do not equate to 'on the street' excitement. Halo has that sort of mindshare, which is why it of course will always be "the" benchmark exclusive.

 

[Rangers]

I think with advertising it'll initially be a gimmik that will sell extremely well and boost Xbox 360 hardware sales more than Halo ever would (that game sells to existing 360 owners - and a second/third party game that sells 10 million units, but hardly pushes the hardware is not as valuable as a first party game that does relatively well and pushes the hardware). It'll then become more than a gimmik with good software from all publishers. I expect it to do very well and sell to consumers much better than Sony's sticks.

Natal is like PSN Home to me.

A lot of things in gaming I know, or at least think I know, how they're going to turn out, popularity wise.


With Home, I really had no idea (I thought it might really take off, it appears to not have). Same with Natal. I just have to wait and see. Flop, success, what types of games will come out for it, will they be compelling, will family consumers buy into it like they did Wii, I just dont know. All I can do is wait and see.

 

[PARANOiA]

I actually think MS will clean up 2010. They'll drop the price significantly in time for Reach, which will encourage more on-the-fence people to pick up a 360 - or even upgrade their existing 360 if it's a Slim-like double-dip. They'll ride this wave out with Call of Duty Whatever and no doubt a number of other sequels that are multi-platform. I also think Fable 3 will likely bomb.

Sony will have a hard time competing with this price-jump, and most of their big hitters seem to be weighted towards 1H. I do hope GT5 is delayed until Xmas since it will hopefully get a bit more recognition and make things more interesting however.

Oh and there will be another random Wii game that no one on B3D will really care about which will beat all other sales, of course

Edit: are people really suggesting God of War 3 will have more sales 8-9 months after release than other titles like Halo, CoD, etc, in their release month? Can you justify why on earth you think this is the case?

 

[Billy Idol]

The problem is that this is a dead strategy. It makes no sense to funnel untold millions into exclusive games when you have an audience as small as the PS3's. The reality check is that multi platform games this gen are incredibly good, and as a result the exclusives simply don't stand out. You don't risk $1000 to earn $1050, and that's what exclusives have become this gen. Paying for exclusive joker dlc on Batman AA, now that was a great move on Sony's part. Paying to fund exclusives though is dead. I can see them still trying for a while since they made their bed and are kind of stuck in it this gen, but I'd expect that strategy to be heavily revised next gen. I'd understand them bankrolling a single studio like Naughty Dog, since they can serve as a tech house as well, beyond that there is no point. 3rd parties are plenty smart, support them well and they will deliver the best games, which is exactly what we have seen this gen.

I honestly hope that you are wrong on this...because for me, it is all about exclusives: and in this context, 2009 was a PS3 year...looking forward to 2010, I am expecting that MS matches up and we have a draw (and for me a reason to more frequently switch on the Elite). If I am hearing exlusive, I am immediately interested and this is the reason why I am so exited about 2010 (Sony+MS)!

So, as a gamer I really hope that Sony stays with its strategy (pump out exlusives) and that MS does this as well...and I am wondering if Sonys strategy offers some benefits for game developers as well (after reading all this threads about evil game publisher, I think it is better to invest in game developer studies a la Sony compared to shuting them all down a la MS and cut off all the jobs)!!

Regarding 2010, I hope we get a new Mirrors Edge (because the first one was brilliant!!!)


EDIT: oh and please, I hope you guys don't equal number of sales with quality of the title (then you are no better then the suits!), or would you say as well that Britney Spears makes better music compared to...lets say Billy Idol ;-)

 

[Crossbar]

I sense this thread is wandering towards a lock as well.

Anyways I think first party studios will always be relevant to help show off unique capabilites of the hardware and therefore they will never go away as long as the consoles don´t go totally generic.
Here´s an example.

Bach also confirmed Microsoft's first party studios were currently very focused on releasing early Natal titles that will "show the way" to third parties,

And what kind of statement is this?

It makes no sense to funnel untold millions into exclusive games when you have an audience as small as the PS3's.

What´s wrong with developeing great games and make money from them and fuel more console sales? And how large must the installed user base be to make game development worthwhile? Should there be no games when the console is launched? The PS3 has a considerable larger user base than what the 360 had one year ago, but I guess the 360 was not really worth developing exclusives for back then either, maybe all developers should abandon the PS3 and 360 for the Wii?

The fact Sony runs more game studios than MS and Nintendo may also have a background in that Sony also run Movie studios and those businesses have some aspects in common.
The sweet spot number of studios per console maker may differ from time to time, Sony has been supporting 3 console platforms for a few years, though that may be about to change as the PS2 sales number is dropping, though they just started selling it in South America.

First party studios do also have the advantage of being able to do more experimental titles with high financial risks that indepentant studios rarely are willing to take on their own. Experimental titles are essential to keep expanding the console market to new audiences. Singstar, Eyetoy and Wii Sports are successful examples with regard to that.

 

[Crossbar]

EDIT: oh and please, I hope you guys don't equal number of sales with quality of the title (then you are no better then the suits!), or would you say as well that Britney Spears makes better music compared to...lets say Billy Idol ;-)

I was thinking of bringing this up in another thread that got locked. With regard to marketing budget and game sales there is a VERY strong correlation link.

Marketing influences game revenue three times more than high scores

I know a few games that had ridicilous marketing budgets.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Gamers who avoid the best games of the year and play a game like MW2 only...don't really deserve the console . And who's belittling MS exclusives?

/sigh. I realize you were probably only joking, but it's elitist thoughts like those that make me regret reading anything related to games/consoles on the internet. The whole thought that, if you prefer a different type of game than another person, you're obviously someone that has no clue what makes a good game. And it's so bloody commonplace on elitist boards, that it gets sickening to see it, even if it's just in joking reference.

MS might have sold more copies of games, but they haven't sold more units this year. They're almost 2 million units behind worldwide for 2009. And the reason is...there weren't many great exclusives. 2010 will be a much better year for the 360 because the line-up is significantly stronger - Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2, Fable 3, Halo Reach, Natal...

Again has NPD for Dec. been released yet so we actually have an idea of how 2009 compares to 2008? Last I was aware of, 2009 numbers for MS were still up over 2008 numbers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well, how much do you expect GOW3 to sell? I can't see it pass 3 million units. Compared to the hype on discussion forums that wouldn't be too much.

Well to be fair, 3 million units is still quite good solid sales. It's certainly not runaway blockbuster category, but that's definitely not something a company would hang its head about.

At this point, I'm doubting whether anything other than GT5 will have runaway blockbuster potential on PS3. And even then, I'm not sure GT5 will sell nearly as many titles during it's lifetime as Reach. Added to that with respect to the thread, it's not a Holiday 2010 title, so it's not going to be a factor at all for Big Holiday 2010 games.

I'm sure Sony will have something for Holiday 2010, but at this point, I have no clue what that will be. As said, this thread is hugely premature. Would have been better to have started this thread after E3.

Regards,
SB

 

[Squilliam]

Again has NPD for Dec. been released yet so we actually have an idea of how 2009 compares to 2008?

Regards,
SB

I suspect they are slightly under for the year or flat. NPD releases in two days and we have the end of year financials for calendar year shipments coming on the 23rd I believe. It will be interesting to see what kind of profit margin they pull as well.

 

[deepbrown]

The problem is that this is a dead strategy. It makes no sense to funnel untold millions into exclusive games when you have an audience as small as the PS3's. The reality check is that multi platform games this gen are incredibly good, and as a result the exclusives simply don't stand out. You don't risk $1000 to earn $1050, and that's what exclusives have become this gen. Paying for exclusive joker dlc on Batman AA, now that was a great move on Sony's part. Paying to fund exclusives though is dead. I can see them still trying for a while since they made their bed and are kind of stuck in it this gen, but I'd expect that strategy to be heavily revised next gen. I'd understand them bankrolling a single studio like Naughty Dog, since they can serve as a tech house as well, beyond that there is no point. 3rd parties are plenty smart, support them well and they will deliver the best games, which is exactly what we have seen this gen.

I think you are very wrong.

Sure in a one console world, these first party exclusives wouldn't matter. But a console needs to differentiate itself.

Having exclusives does a number of things apart form selling the games themselves. It forms the console's brand, with mascots, advertising for the console when advertising these exclusive games, it shows multi-platform developers what they can do on the platform (the performance of GG and ND has no doubt a powerful effect on developers who turned their nose up to the PS3) and also makes money to reinvest.

Let alone the most obvious fact - a first party video game doing relatively well, makes far more money for Sony than a third party game doing very well. Overlooking that seems a little mad to me.

 

[deepbrown]

/sigh. I realize you were probably only joking, but it's elitist thoughts like those that make me regret reading anything related to games/consoles on the internet. The whole thought that, if you prefer a different type of game than another person, you're obviously someone that has no clue what makes a good game. And it's so bloody commonplace on elitist boards, that it gets sickening to see it, even if it's just in joking reference.

Again has NPD for Dec. been released yet so we actually have an idea of how 2009 compares to 2008? Last I was aware of, 2009 numbers for MS were still up over 2008 numbers.

Regards,
SB

Even if I was being serious, your inference of what I might have meant is off the mark. I know many gamers would love such highly rated exclusive games, if they only gave them a go. It's not about their tastes or otherwise, it's about taking the step to try the best games out there.

 

[Dregun]

GOW-I was released in 2005; at that time the 360 was or was very close to being released; I as well as many other gamers sold/gave away or stopped playing our PS2 at that time. Then in 2007 GOW-II was released and as you could guess the 360 was already out and getting great praise by then.

SOTC was another game that was released after I gave away my PS2, I never had the opportunity to play it..in fact I can think of 100's of games I wanted to play after I gave away my PS2 (was into PC gaming).

Fast forward to today and I already purchased the GOW collection and loved just about every moment of it and am extremely excited for GOWIII. The new Team ICO game has me wanting it as well and considering the game that caused me to buy the PS1; the game that made me buy the PS2 is going to be released soon I'm thinking GT is going to sell a tremendous amount of copies.

First Party titles are very important, just ask any Halo fan; MGS fan, FF Fan, Mario fan, GT fan, etc etc. Without first party exclusives why would anyone even buy a PS3? The 360 was out longer and already had a larger library of games and if the PS4 where to come out before the next Xbox why would anyone buy the next Xbox?

Although I might have missed the point of the thread (Holiday 2010) I wouldn't sell short PS3's exclusive lineup. In fact Neither did MS with going after Grand Theft Auto; my how things would be different if it was only a PS3 exclusive!

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Without first party exclusives why would anyone even buy a PS3?

We've already given plenty of reasons. Bluray playback, Sony brand, PS brand, less prone to hardware failure, free online play.

And let me please ask the opposite: if so many people supposedly buy the PS3 for its exclusives, why aren't they actually buying those games then?

 

[Carl B]

Different thoughts, one post.

They'll drop the price significantly in time for Reach,

What level of price drop are you thinking?

It's not about their tastes or otherwise, it's about taking the step to try the best games out there.

To be fair though there are a lot of people on the reverse - those that *only* play exclusives it seems, and let other games go on by because they are on other systems as well. I'll be honest and say to an extent I'm one of these people. But of course I realize that it has nothing to do with relative quality or worth of the titles - just more simply the perceived 'aesthetics' (and lack of time) of my gaming lifestyle.

I'm sure Sony will have something for Holiday 2010, but at this point, I have no clue what that will be.

I'm going to guess Resistance 3 may be out by this year - it would seem in keeping with the Tic-Toc Ratchet/Resistance thing Insomniac has going. Maybe some other random stuff as well.

 

[assen]

What level of price drop are you thinking?

Eventually the Arcade will be $99, that's what it's made for.
But I don't think we will see it this year; $150 with Natal for the Arcade, and $250 with Natal for the HDD variant is more likely.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because of all this, one would expect to have Sony with a lot of games above 4-5 million units

Why? As I asked, what games last gen exceeded 10% of install base? I just had a look at PS2 titles on VGChartz. You've got GTA and GT and FF. That's it. Everything else is below 10%, including all Sony's first-party exclusives sans GT. I don't see any reason to think this generation, Sony's first-party efforts should be outperforming their previous efforts.

In the case of UC2, it's arguably one of the best games of the year, certainly in terms of review scores and graphics. I'd also say that it has very wide appeal - it's easy to get into, it looks wonderful, and so on.
So it would be reasonable to expect that it can outdo any other PS3 exclusive, including MGS4...

Look back at the best titles of all time. It doesn't seem to me that story-strong titles have sold particularly well. U2 isn't a straight-up shooter, meaning shooter fans who don't want platforming won't be interested. U2 also went up against MW2 which was bound to win over the majority of shooter fans. GT and Forza are pure racers, which have sold lots to the extreme car fanatics. GoW and Halo are shooters which sell to the shooter fanatics. Outside of these extreme genres, what has done similarly well on XB360? Do you think if U2 were exclusive to XB360 it'd have sold 6 million? I don't!

I think the games Sony produces just aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with perhaps the fringe exception of GT. I think the games MS produces aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with the exception of their shooters and Forza. That's because these genres can attract large audiences. Deviating from racing or shooters mean no chance of >10% sales, while of cause creating a racer or shooter doesn't guarantee >10% sales either!

I think your expectations are too high, and you're comparing successful titles to phenominal titles. The fact that the XB360 crowd are happy to buy Gears and Halo in such numbers if great news for MS's bottom dollar, but looking at their other first-party titles, they generally haven't hit phenomenal success. Viva Pinata, Banjo Kazooie, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. are all MS investments that haven't sold >10% of install base. That's because it's hard! The market is fickle, and will only ever support a few runaway successes. We shouldn't be looking to every top-tier title to sell that much. XB360 is just fortunate in having a user-base that are keener gamers who buy more software thanks to positioning by XB, marketing, etc.

 

[Carl B]

Eventually the Arcade will be $99, that's what it's made for.
But I don't think we will see it this year; $150 with Natal for the Arcade, and $250 with Natal for the HDD variant is more likely.

Yes, eventually it will. But I would more expect that Natal (or whatever) be bundled with the Arcade at $200 than for it to be bundled with the Arcade for $150. Standalone Arcade's might drop to $150. And of course, there are increments that MS can use other than $50 increments. $179 is a figure that is not too offensive to the senses; I'd believe that number for the bundle or otherwise.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Why? As I asked, what games last gen exceeded 10% of install base? I just had a look at PS2 titles on VGChartz. You've got GTA and GT and FF. That's it. Everything else is below 10%, including all Sony's first-party exclusives sans GT. I don't see any reason to think this generation, Sony's first-party efforts should be outperforming their previous efforts.

Look back at the best titles of all time. It doesn't seem to me that story-strong titles have sold particularly well. U2 isn't a straight-up shooter, meaning shooter fans who don't want platforming won't be interested. U2 also went up against MW2 which was bound to win over the majority of shooter fans. GT and Forza are pure racers, which have sold lots to the extreme car fanatics. GoW and Halo are shooters which sell to the shooter fanatics. Outside of these extreme genres, what has done similarly well on XB360? Do you think if U2 were exclusive to XB360 it'd have sold 6 million? I don't!

I think the games Sony produces just aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with perhaps the fringe exception of GT. I think the games MS produces aren't the sorts of games that can sell above 10% of install base, with the exception of their shooters and Forza. That's because these genres can attract large audiences. Deviating from racing or shooters mean no chance of >10% sales, while of cause creating a racer or shooter doesn't guarantee >10% sales either!

I think your expectations are too high, and you're comparing successful titles to phenominal titles. The fact that the XB360 crowd are happy to buy Gears and Halo in such numbers if great news for MS's bottom dollar, but looking at their other first-party titles, they generally haven't hit phenomenal success. Viva Pinata, Banjo Kazooie, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc. are all MS investments that haven't sold >10% of install base. That's because it's hard! The market is fickle, and will only ever support a few runaway successes. We shouldn't be looking to every top-tier title to sell that much. XB360 is just fortunate in having a user-base that are keener gamers who buy more software thanks to positioning by XB, marketing, etc.

Very well said there Shifty... most of what i was going to say you already mentioned. I would also assume that the differences in installed base demographics may also play a large role in the sales potential of various game genres on each platform.

Also, game franchise brandnames play a huge role too. It's no use comparing the sales of U2 to MGS4, as it's not an apples to apples comparison. Despite U2 projected capacity for appealing to a wider audience (moreso than other Sony titles like KZ2, but maybe not MGS4), it is also a fairly new IP highly lacking in the strength of it's brand name as opposed to something like MGS4. Remembering that MGS4 is a game whose previous entries have been released on the two previous Sony plaform as well as the Xbox and Gamecube.

MGS as a series is huge, and it's appeal in all territories would give the game a far broader scope for capturing it's sales audience than a game whose first entry was for a long time only really recognised amongst core gamers from the start of this generation.

Even though i don't want to tout the same "marketing dollars" card that many would attempt, i do think that for what it's worth Microsoft has shown itself exceptional at not only creating games and game franchises but making them into brands from which the company can further profit.

 

[NRP]

Id also say its mostly own to userbase than anything. From the PS3 owners i know most are not as clued up on whats good and whats not compared to 360 owners and dont follow gaming sites etc. 360 got the hardcore crowd early. Expectations should be adjusted according to userbase in my opinion.

I've seen this rationale suggested a few times before on this Forum, and I just don't buy it. What you are essentially claiming is the PS3 userbase is (collectively) stupid, and I just don't buy that.