Do first party games matter in the console race?

@undefined: I think 1st-party offerings are an important factor, but after voting I do wonder if the middle choice is more fair.

A large percentage of games are multiplat, or are console exclusive but are also on PC. Exclusives matter, but I think other factors definitely come into play.

Only for the gamers that go on websites such as this. The biggest market buy what ever console is the most popular. Shows when all top 10 lists month after month and year after year are third party games.

Sorry folks, first party matters in the end. Sure multis get the biggest share of the pie, but first party games are the deciding factor for many, and what gives a console its identity. Look at Nintendo. The strength of their first-party alone sells consoles and handhelds for them. There's no downplaying it. Most gamers would rather have more games for choice then not.

The goal posts on this started moving hard once MS's exclusive content stated dwindling to a drip. With the narrative moving to power with the X. Look, not that many people are going to buy an X1X. What does MS having a more powerful console do for the 95 percent of Xbox owners that aren't gonna get the console? You still need content. Good stuff. Not just games that are made to milk you beyond an initial purchase. Games with real effort put into them, not just sandboxes with repetitive fetch quests for busywork.

When you come to the point that you downplay getting good exclusives, then you're enabling that platform holder to be lazy. The idea is to have a game library that separates itself from the pack. Being a corporate slave and dismissing this does nothing for you as a consumer of the platform. So instead of sitting up and being salty at another platform for actually providing content and begging them for crossplay they don't owe you, it's time to get a console that provides that.

Go with the platforms that actually have games until the competitors can sort themselves out. Don't just suffer with dwindling content to prove a point. Being a hipster rebel in gaming is stupid. You are not your favorite company's cross to bear. The point of gaming is to enjoy yourself.

While I think that they matter I don’t think that they are the end all be all. I voted for the middle choice.

They matter and they matter a lot. If they didn’t matter the Xbone would be getting destroyed in sales right now by Switch and the PS4. MS currently has the best hardware with the X, the cheapest console with the S, they get all the multiplat games, and they are still getting destroyed. With that said, exclusives aren’t the only thing that matter, price and 3rd party support are still important.

Edit: Also the quality of exclusives matter. Trashy low quality exclusives for the sake of having exclusives isn’t where it’s at. You still need the exclusives to be of high quality.

They matter most, but only slightly if their quality does not exceed that of partners’ titles. Nobody is out there proclaiming that they own a PS4 so they could play middle-of-the-road titles. Exclusives have to be of comparative high quality to be relevant.

Sure they do. It is one of the weaknesses of Xbox right now and the strength of Nintendo and Sony. I feel Microsoft has learned from this and they are about to swing it back in the right lane. Not sure if that will happen this gen or next, but I do believe they will get it back again. I love my Xbox One X as my multiplat box and Switch/Pro for exclusives. It is a nice combo for me this generation. Unlike the Sony fanboys on here I believe the Xbox One X is selling fine and I would love to see how those sales compare to the Pro.

Exclusives in general, Sony gets many that interest me that are 3rd party, same for Microsoft. Even multiplats on PC that aren't on Xbox but on PS4 matter to me as I don't game on PC, but if I want the game, I'll play it on whatever I can.

With Nintendo products, at party exclusives matter to me most since that's the whole point of getting a Nintendo anything, western AAA games matter less here but third party Japanese exclusives are a secondary consideration.

MS exclusives next, Halo and Gears franchises might be their core IP aside from Forza but they're important ones to me, and their focus on them is at least offers consistency in expectations.

Sony products, first party exclusives are great but matter less in their pull with me as they are constantly shifting focus to new IPs, it's a strength to be adaptive but it becomes a wild card of sorts. Glad to see God of War get a sequel. Horizon Zero Dawn's success came at the expense of another Killzone sequel. DriveClub came at the abandonment of a the Motorstorm series. Years of F1 games in years prior meant Wipeout releases became spotty. And though they have plenty to make up for it, it becomes somewhat unpredictable at the start of a generation to know what to expect from them. Their third party exclusive games on other hand are a bit more predictable. I knew I'd need a PS4 to play newest Persona game, and that was enough reason for me to get one.

I only got my Ps4 for Spider-Man and God of war. Otherwise I would of just stuck with my xbox.

@Xabiss: Good post. Refreshing to see someone admit the shortcomings of their chosen platform for once.

Thanks. I have always been honest about it and it is pretty easy to see what the issue is with the Xbox. There first party titles are lacking compared to the competition. I think Microsoft is just out of touch what consumers want from first party titles right now and they will figure it out. I have faith in them.

Now first party exclusives are not everything you need to be successful. Look at the WiiU for example. That system suffered from poor 3rd party support, bad hardware, terrible marketing, and bad indie support. They got it right with the Switch because they now have good hardware, great indie support, awesome marketing, and A+ exclusives. So technically Nintendo was worse off then Microsoft trying to get back into shape. I feel if Nintendo can make it back from the debacle the WiiU was for them, then Microsoft can easily do the same.

Will it be this generation, hell no. The PS4, it prints money machine, is to far ahead and rightfully so, but they can show gamers they have learned their lesson and show what great things they could create for next generation. I feel like they are already doing it with the awesome backwards compatibility and the game services they have created. They just need a couple of impressive announcements at this next E3 and I hope they have it in them.

Yes

@Xabiss: Yeah, MS most certainly has the capability and resources to rebound. The only snag, is when some bean counter decides that the investment required to rebound is better spent elsewhere. MS could lose their gaming department, and it would be a minor hiccup really. Nintendo can’t say the same. I’m super interested to see what MS does next gen. Will they make a huge investment in first party? Or really push to be the first gaming as a service provider to hit critical mass? We know they have the infrastructure (azure) and finances to make it happen.

Most gamers play most if not entirely multi-platform games. If first party were only where its at, Sony would not have spent millions holding exclusive advertising rights to multi-platform games. First party games are typically geared mostly to the dedicated fanboys that haven't grown up.

Still waiting for the day where the older gamers as a whole freaking grow up and realize that gaming is all about the games not the platform.

1st party games are important, but I don't think it's the most important factor. I think too much emphasis is put on them (and before cows jump all over me, I've always thought this - even last gen when 360 was in the lead for most of the gen).

Most people didn't choose PS4 at launch because of its 1st party offerings... I think things like the power advantage it had over the competition was a more important factor.

Power advantage? More like that $100 less advantage. That held more weight than anything at the start. The power advantage simply made it worse for the Xbox One.

@Pedro: Yes, that too.

At the start the PS4 was $100 cheaper and it was more powerful. After a couple of years it started growing the exclusives against Microsoft and they didn't have anything to combat it. They screwed up going all in Kinect, TV crap, worse hardware, and then trying to charge more for it. Sony really did it better by keeping it cheaper and focusing in on what was important and that is gaming. Xbox is making a comeback with the X focusing the hardware only on gaming, but they need to pick it up now on the 1st party exclusives. They need to create something special that will appeal to gamers and make them want to buy the system. I have faith they know what they need to do and I am hoping they show something special at E3.

If they don't make a stand at this E3 I really have a feeling they will be holding everything back for next generation. That is fine with me also since the X is perfect for my multiplat machine, but they better be prepared for hardware sales to take a major hit if that is the case.

Of course they do. They're the only differentiating factor between consoles.

@Xabiss: In aus the price was the same at release what really got most people on board the ps4 over the one was the DRM shit when they announced it.

Stupid Thread/poll............of course they matter. It's what attracts a gamer to it's preferred console.

Duh, of course it matters becuse its the selling point in consoles.

First-party exclusives are important but it's not the defining factor that sells a system.

A 1st-party library was easily the best thing going for the Wii U yet it still failed as a console.

There are many different factors that play vital role in the success of any platform, not just exclusives.

Incidentally part of the reason why the Switch is becoming a huge success is because people are excited to play multiplatform games on it, not just because it's another Nintendo console packed with 1st-party exclusives.

Of course they do when there is competition. People using ps4 as an example they are missing the point. Saying well ps4 is not winning because of exclusive is missing the point. The point is multi-plats went to ps4 therefore xbox could have made it close if there first party were at worst on the level of Sony. And might have really made it interesting if they were on the level of exclusive kings Nintendo. When there is competition first party can always help a console compete. Sony have blanket almost all of multiplats market and at the same time provided better exclusive line up then MS.

I voted that they matter. Though I think it should have been a 4th option. They matter a lot, but they aren't the end all be all of a system. Take the Wii U. It had quality exclusives, but it still flopped. In that case, hardware matters along with multiplats. Though they are important since the PS4 and Xbox One have similar hardware and multiplats, but the PS4 continues to dominate due to their exclusives.

Those who voted no are basically lemmings who don't even know what 1st party is.

Of course, when you buy a system, it's not random. You look at what games it has that you can't get else where.

This question seems more of a justification for Xbox than anything else. But I know the main thing I'm looking at with the PC, Playstation and Nintendo systems are the games.

Of course it does. As a PC gamer, it's the ONLY thing that matters with consoles.

They only matter if they fail, like Sea of Thieves did. That sort of fail always lessens sales of the host console.

They matter, as a showcase of tech and as someone else mentioned to help create the personality/brand, attracting gamers who like and enjoy those type of games.

I just want to point out that where were these threads the first 3 years of this generation when Sony had next to nothing besides indies?

Also all the games cows are bragging about hardly any are first party from Sony and many were just handed to them from Japanese devs.

The PS4 had a lower price, more powerful hardware, better PR in the eyes of gamers after Microsoft's DRM shit, and still had a larger lineup of games than the Xbox One.

It stands to reason that over time as the game libraries became more established that the focus would become more on the games. Power advantage is an easier sell at the beginning of the gen rather than in the middle of it after the console libraries have been well established and people start buying the console their friends have.

I'm not sure what indie games have to do with it either when most of the best Microsoft published games this gen have been indies (including the best selling ones). Sea of Thieves wishes it had as much content as some indies games.

@medicinal420: Thanks for bringing up the power! Which was always the comeback then before the X. Which is huge compared to OG One and PS4.

Just proving my point on the narrative switching to Sony's benefit all generation.

Sea of Thieves is fun. me and my friends are lots of laughs. But I forget most Cows play alone, on the lonely station.

Another narrative that irks me. Where are MS single player games? Well where are any MP games from Sony? They charge for online yet put nothing into it.

They definitely matter. A system is only as good as it's games imo

They always matter. And they really always matter to a PC gamer when it comes to buying a console just to play that 1st party game and without 1st party, what's the point of buying a console when you have a PC?

That's saying a lot about 1st parties on consoles, especially on a Nintendo console!!!

Sony's biggest selling console bundels: Call of Duty, Star Wars, Destiny, Batman.

Joke thread?

well its more about exclusives rather than first party. its about having the right exclusives to attract people to your console. it doesnt really matter if its made by a studio owned by a console manufacturer of it the manufacturer pays a 3rd party developer/publisher to make the game for them.

i voted for the middle option. generally the most successful platform has a combination of all the major 3rd party support combined with its own exclusives that attract people to that console. the overall objective is to make your console the go to console for people to play games on.

services are also a factor but its more of a case of it has to work and do what people want. having more services wont make a platform more successful and it wont have people choosing one platform over another. but a complete lack of services would sting (especially with 3rd party multiplats. if one version has MP and the other doesnt and its something like COD then chances are people will go with the version that has MP).

The only impact they have on me is in deciding which one will I purchase first, this gen I got PoS4 first because it had two exclusives I wanted while Xbox didn’t have any, once Xbox had Halo 5 I just went and purchased one. Last gen was the other way around, I got X360 first.

Of course they do.

Yes. That is why i own multiple systems

Lol lemmings keep pressing the No button. Hilarious.