Microsoft Proves Exclusivity =/= Sales: Generation Evaluation

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

All your points are wrong, especially the whole idea of "casuals". There is no such thing, sorry. As gamers we should be a more welcoming community to new players, we are the veterens here so we should show more respect.

Plus many of these so called "casual" gamers may start off playing easy games but they often get interested in the more complex and challengeing games.I'm glad the game industry is growing, it's the only way for it to get respect in the world as a true art form.

I want future generations to study games just like they do movies and books, I want games to be a source of inspiration for people, it's an art form.And choosing to close your door to the so called "casuals" isn't going to make that happen.

And Sony has a great reputation, what world do you live in? The Playstation brand is a house hold name.

ShadowMoses900

I never said casuals weren't gamers, casual gamers are those who do not game very much and don't spend time discussing the industry. There is no "division" or "discrimination", just a simple term for a group of people.

Also, you said all my points are wrong...but you didn't say why.

And I didn't say Sony had a bad reputation, in fact I'm pretty sure I said they had a fantastic one from the PS2.

Come on Shadow, you can do better than that :P

You missed the big point, that the more one plays on Playstation the more cool and attractive and rich they become, while the more one spends playing Xbox the more less cool, and unattractive, and poor they become.

Studies have proven this so there is no diputing, you can't argue with sceince sorry.

I disagree ;) Mostly because all your points are incorrect.

And I can argue with science, I use a little something I like to call religion :o

[spoiler] Yeah, that's right, I'm going there :x :P [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

I never said casuals weren't gamers, casual gamers are those who do not game very much and don't spend time discussing the industry. There is no "division" or "discrimination", just a simple term for a group of people.

Also, you said all my points are wrong...but you didn't say why.

And I didn't say Sony had a bad reputation, in fact I'm pretty sure I said they had a fantastic one from the PS2.

Come on Shadow, you can do better than that :P

XVision84

You missed the big point, that the more one plays on Playstation the more cool and attractive and rich they become, while the more one spends playing Xbox the more less cool, and unattractive, and poor they become.

Studies have proven this so there is no diputing, you can't argue with sceince sorry.

I disagree ;) Mostly because all your points are incorrect.

And I can argue with science, I use a little something I like to call religion :o

Yeah, that's right, I'm going there :x :P

Well I believe in God and sceince, so I don't have a problem. I see no conflict between them.

So I win :P

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

You missed the big point, that the more one plays on Playstation the more cool and attractive and rich they become, while the more one spends playing Xbox the more less cool, and unattractive, and poor they become.

Studies have proven this so there is no diputing, you can't argue with sceince sorry.

ShadowMoses900

I disagree ;) Mostly because all your points are incorrect.

And I can argue with science, I use a little something I like to call religion :o

Yeah, that's right, I'm going there :x :P

Well I believe in God and sceince, so I don't have a problem. I see no conflict between them.

So I win :P

What if my religion is that there is no religion and I used my religion against science?

Then who wins?

[spoiler] The answer is me [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

I disagree ;) Mostly because all your points are incorrect.

And I can argue with science, I use a little something I like to call religion :o

Yeah, that's right, I'm going there :x :P

XVision84

Well I believe in God and sceince, so I don't have a problem. I see no conflict between them.

So I win :P

What if my religion is that there is no religion and I used my religion against science?

Then who wins?

The answer is me

Hmm....well that would make you a militant atheist I think. It's an odd paradox, but your religion is not my religion so I still win :P

I'm so confused....

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Well I believe in God and sceince, so I don't have a problem. I see no conflict between them.

So I win :P

ShadowMoses900

What if my religion is that there is no religion and I used my religion against science?

Then who wins?

The answer is me

Hmm....well that would make you a militant atheist I think. It's an odd paradox, but your religion is not my religion so I still win :P

I'm so confused....

If my religion is not your religion, then who's religion do we use as evidence in order to combat science?

My weapon cannot be your weapon, therefore if my weapon is not your weapon then you have no defence against my weapon which means that you don't win since you don't have my religion. You have yours. ;)

Maybe you're right, but how does this benefit the gamers? But I guess it doesn't matter as long as they have teh sales, so are we gonna keep hoping they will use that money for the benefit or enjoyment of the gamers???johnlennon28

There really is noclear downside to it, it's just companies trying to get the upper hand of the market. You can argue whether it's good for some gamers and bad for others, but there's a long list of good/bad points that may even contradict each other. That's where it gets complicated, and I tried to avoid treading that territory :P.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

What if my religion is that there is no religion and I used my religion against science?

Then who wins?

The answer is me

XVision84

Hmm....well that would make you a militant atheist I think. It's an odd paradox, but your religion is not my religion so I still win :P

I'm so confused....

If my religion is not your religion, then who's religion do we use as evidence in order to combat science?

My weapon cannot be your weapon, therefore if my weapon is not your weapon then you have no defence against my weapon which means that you don't win since you don't have my religion. You have yours. ;)

Umm.... "THE"

I think that answers everything. Oh and "The Power of Cheese" I think defeats your uhh....religion that isn't a religion that is against science that is also a weapon to defeat uhh...other weapons....I think....

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Hmm....well that would make you a militant atheist I think. It's an odd paradox, but your religion is not my religion so I still win :P

I'm so confused....

ShadowMoses900

If my religion is not your religion, then who's religion do we use as evidence in order to combat science?

My weapon cannot be your weapon, therefore if my weapon is not your weapon then you have no defence against my weapon which means that you don't win since you don't have my religion. You have yours. ;)

Umm.... "THE"

I think that answers everything. Oh and "The Power of Cheese" I think defeats your uhh....religion that isn't a religion that is against science that is also a weapon to defeat uhh...other weapons....I think....

No. My weapon is not a weapon in order to combat weapons, on the contrary it's a weapon among other weapons designed to fight the mainstream weapon that is "science". I'm using the weapons available to me to take down your logic by countering it with my own. This method works exceptionally and I cannot be proven otherwise since evidence against my weapon does not exist. Do you follow my logic and how it differs from your logic in terms of differentiating logical terms?

its really a case of sony fumbling big time at the start. the games came out a little too late, the exclusives that they did loose was a big blow for people on the fence, and the price.

ive seen a lot of 360 converts to ps3 but thats cuz a lot of us who game already had ps3's so it was easy for them to convert.

The 360 has been the lowest selling console most years since the Wii and Ps3 released, proving that the 360 is less attractive than any other console.

They may be selling more now since Kinect released. i don't know the numbers, but all that proves is appealing to larger audience leads to more sales. That much is obvious.

Pug-Nasty

Yes, Sony's Move was marketed with far less money and directed to core gamers which didn't expand the PS3 base nearly as well as the opposite approach we saw Nintendo take with the Wii, or Xbox take with Kinect. On the plus side, Sony also isn't relying on Move soley to expand it's user base, asd seemingly never did.

Kinect was marketed with over half a billion dollars and directed to the opposite, appealing to non gamers/casual gamers...and those that wouldn't be interested in XBL. Not to mention a variety of Kinect 360 bundles.

So, M$ has two strategies, focusing on XBL timed content and keeping those $60 annual subscriptions renewing and going, and then they have Kinect to appeal to brand new, younger, non gaming/casual gaming Xbox gamers...who they hope will turn into XBL sub gamers in time.

On the flip side, it's true, Sony's sales are below but neck and neck with the earlier released, cheaper on launch day, and cheaper to manufacture Xbox 360 (a few million apart in sales), so something can be said for the power of exclusives for those that watched the sales this entire gen....but if we are arguing which is more effective, obviously appealing to more is better than appealing to less.

We saw that many times in history with a variety of products, and the Wii and Kinect just enforce that...

Is this good for the main gaming market? That remains to be seen, but it does mean that companies are using a lot of resources directing them towards cheaper to manufacture and design games that are easy and appeal to a more general audience. It means moving away from multi million dollar budget high production value games that are riskier unless backed by a strong brand.

I thought this was obvious and evident, but I guess in SW we like to discuss and reevaluate what we already should know.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

The 360 has been the lowest selling console most years since the Wii and Ps3 released, proving that the 360 is less attractive than any other console.

They may be selling more now since Kinect released. i don't know the numbers, but all that proves is appealing to larger audience leads to more sales. That much is obvious.

SolidTy

Yes, Sony's Move was marketed less and directed to core gamers which didn't expand the PS3 base nearly as well as the opposite approach we saw Nintendo take with the Wii, or Xbox take with Kinect.

Kinect was marketed with over half a billion dollars and directed to the opposite, appealing to non gamers/casual gamers...and those that wouldn't be interested in XBL.

So, M$ has two strategies, focusing on XBL timed content and keeping those subs going, and Kinect to new Xbox gamers...who they hope will turn into XBL gamers.

On the flip side, it's true, Sony's sales are below but neck and neck with the Xbox, so something can be said for the power of exclusives for those that watched the sales this entire gen....but if we are arguing which is more effective, obviously appealing to more is better than appealing to less.

We saw that many times in history with a variety of products, and the Wii and Kinect just enforce that....

Oh Ty, you lurker :P

Grace us with more of your System Wars wisdom! :o

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

The 360 has been the lowest selling console most years since the Wii and Ps3 released, proving that the 360 is less attractive than any other console.

They may be selling more now since Kinect released. i don't know the numbers, but all that proves is appealing to larger audience leads to more sales. That much is obvious.

XVision84

Yes, Sony's Move was marketed with far less money and directed to core gamers which didn't expand the PS3 base nearly as well as the opposite approach we saw Nintendo take with the Wii, or Xbox take with Kinect. On the plus side, Sony also isn't relying on Move soley to expand it's user base, asd seemingly never did.

Kinect was marketed with over half a billion dollars and directed to the opposite, appealing to non gamers/casual gamers...and those that wouldn't be interested in XBL. Not to mention a variety of Kinect 360 bundles.

So, M$ has two strategies, focusing on XBL timed content and keeping those $60 annual subscriptions renewing and going, and then they have Kinect to appeal to brand new, younger, non gaming/casual gaming Xbox gamers...who they hope will turn into XBL sub gamers in time.

On the flip side, it's true, Sony's sales are below but neck and neck with the earlier released, cheaper on launch day, and cheaper to manufacture Xbox 360 (a few million apart in sales), so something can be said for the power of exclusives for those that watched the sales this entire gen....but if we are arguing which is more effective, obviously appealing to more is better than appealing to less.

We saw that many times in history with a variety of products, and the Wii and Kinect just enforce that...

Is this good for the main gaming market? That remains to be seen, but it does mean that companies are using a lot of resources directing them towards cheaper to manufacture and design games that are easy and appeal to a more general audience. It means moving away from multi million dollar budget high production value games that are riskier unless backed by a strong brand.

I thought this was obvious and evident, but I guess in SW we like to discuss and reevaluate what we already should know.

Oh Ty, you lurker :P

Grace us with more of your System Wars wisdom! :o

Lurker? I just hopped on just now, and this was just a thread in SW that caught my eye as it was at the very top! :P I didn't even need to lurk, the thread was very popular and sitting there.

Price was the BIGGEST thing that hurt Sony's PS3 though in overall sales, releasing at $600 ensured many would move towards other alternatives...so that fumbling near the beginning of the generation cost them, when talking purely sales. The high price cost them consumers, which in turn cost them install base, which in turn cost them 3rd party confidence resulting in announced exclusives going multiplatform...it was a whole domino effect. The fact they managed to recover though and close the gap was due to those high quality exclusives Sony has been pounding out, and of course, dropping the PS3's price and getting the PS3 cost down for consumers to consider the machine, and the Blu-Ray widespread HD adoption which goes hand in hand with HDTV sales. In fact, looking at the dollar amounts, PS3's been the console with the most price drops this generation. I bought my PS3 for $600, and today people can buy a PS3 for $250. I bought my 360 for $400 in 2005, and today in 2012 I would go out and buy for $300, or spend $400 and get Kinect Bundled in.

It should be noted, there was a $500 PS3 available, as well as a $300 360 back then, but I didn't buy those as they lacked features I needed.

I am about to go watch some Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory original but I thought I would drop by and leave a post for my pal, XV. :P

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Yes, Sony's Move was marketed far less money and directed to core gamers which didn't expand the PS3 base nearly as well as the opposite approach we saw Nintendo take with the Wii, or Xbox take with Kinect. On the plus side, Sony also isn't relying on Move soley to expand it's user base, asd seemingly never did.

Kinect was marketed with over half a billion dollars and directed to the opposite, appealing to non gamers/casual gamers...and those that wouldn't be interested in XBL.

So, M$ has two strategies, focusing on XBL timed content and keeping those $60 annual subscriptions renewing and going, and then they have Kinect to appeal to brand new, younger, non gaming/casual gaming Xbox gamers...who they hope will turn into XBL sub gamers in time.

On the flip side, it's true, Sony's sales are below but neck and neck with the earlier released, cheaper on launch day, and cheaper to manufacture Xbox 360 (a few million apart in sales), so something can be said for the power of exclusives for those that watched the sales this entire gen....but if we are arguing which is more effective, obviously appealing to more is better than appealing to less.

We saw that many times in history with a variety of products, and the Wii and Kinect just enforce that...

Is this good for the main gaming market? That remains to be seen, but it does mean that companies are using a lot of resources directing them towards cheaper to manufacture and design games that are easy and appeal to a more general audience. It means moving away from multi million dollar budget high production value games that are riskier unless backed by a strong brand.

I thought this was obvious and evident, but I guess in SW we like to discuss and reevaluate what we already should know.

SolidTy

Oh Ty, you lurker :P

Grace us with more of your System Wars wisdom! :o

Lurker? I just hopped on just now, and this was just a thread in SW that caught my eye as it was at the very top! :P

I am about to go watch some Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory original but I thought I would drop by and leave a post for my pal, XV. :P

Willy Wonka? Good choice, c-lassic movie. Willy scares me though, he looks like a rapist.

Anyways, stop hopping and start lurking :x :P

Exclusives are a tricky thing. On one hand, it's easy to overestimate their value. It's a game you can't get anywhere else, easy to justify buying a platform if it has exclusives you are simply dying to play. That's the basis for every platform I ever bought, it had a game (or hopefully a few games) I just had to play. Behind every console under the Christmas tree was the game that was more definitive of the era to come than the actual console itself. That's one of the reasons I've always liked consoles. But exclusives are on the way out.

For as many mistakes that Sony has made in their run in the console race, I can't help but like them because they put some real effort into developing a well-rounded publishing catalog that included eastern and western games. What MS did in the first few years of the 360 was try and replicate that, remember games like Blue Dragon and whatnot. They made a real effort as well too develop a well-rounded catalog of exclusives. It was not terribly successful. Sony has been more successful but they can barely compete with the multiplatforms. Sony has their little family of developers and they can make spectacular games but they can't compete with the sales and the money that the multiplatform guys are pulling in. It also doesn't help that there is no evidence to support the claim that exclusives are any better than multiplatforms, there is no real gain from funneling everything into a single platform because platforms have no relationship, neither correlational nor causational, with game quality.

I like what Sony has done with their publishing, even if they tend to release a few more shooters than I'd like to see, they have a great mix of games that you just cannot find on a 360. But you can find everything else on the 360, and that has more weight. I have to give some credit to Soy with their own take on Steam-play with what they've done with the Vita, but still.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

Oh Ty, you lurker :P

Grace us with more of your System Wars wisdom! :o

XVision84

Lurker? I just hopped on just now, and this was just a thread in SW that caught my eye as it was at the very top! :P I didn't even need to lurk, the thread was very popular and sitting there.

Price was the BIGGEST thing that hurt Sony's PS3 though in overall sales, releasing at $600 ensured many would move towards other alternatives...so that fumbling near the beginning of the generation cost them, when talking purely sales. The high price cost them consumers, which in turn cost them install base, which in turn cost them 3rd party confidence resulting in announced exclusives going multiplatform...it was a whole domino effect. The fact they managed to recover though and close the gap was due to those high quality exclusives Sony has been pounding out, and of course, dropping the PS3's price and getting the PS3 cost down for consumers to consider the machine, and the Blu-Ray widespread HD adoption which goes hand in hand with HDTV sales. In fact, looking at the dollar amounts, PS3's been the console with the most price drops this generation. I bought my PS3 for $600, and today people can buy a PS3 for $250. I bought my 360 for $400 in 2005, and today in 2012 I would go out and buy for $300, or spend the same $400 I spent ini 2005 and get Kinect Bundled in.

It should be noted, there was a $500 PS3 available, as well as a $300 360 back then, but I didn't buy those as they lacked features I needed.

I am about to go watch some Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory original but I thought I would drop by and leave a post for my pal, XV. :P

Willy Wonka? Good choice, c-lassic movie. Willy scares me though, he looks like a rapist.

Anyways, stop hopping and start lurking :x :P

Willy Wonka is a bit creepy, but I think the new Wonka is more Rapist looking. :P

All your points are wrong, especially the whole idea of "casuals". There is no such thing, sorry. As gamers we should be a more welcoming community to new players, we are the veterens here so we should show more respect.

Plus many of these so called "casual" gamers may start off playing easy games but they often get interested in the more complex and challengeing games.I'm glad the game industry is growing, it's the only way for it to get respect in the world as a true art form.

I want future generations to study games just like they do movies and books, I want games to be a source of inspiration for people, it's an art form.And choosing to close your door to the so called "casuals" isn't going to make that happen.

And Sony has a great reputation, what world do you live in? The Playstation brand is a house hold name.

ShadowMoses900

Have I ever told you how bad of a troll you are?

You are the equivalent of LoosingENDS losing all body functions and becoming a vegetable.

No, because at least people would still somehow fall for his sh*t

You are worse. It's as if Jesus himself got drunk and pissed out the waste of oxygen that is known as you.

You should really invest into getting this new thing called friends, because god knows your wasting time derping here.

No one with functioning brain cells falls for your sh*t. We just laugh at the pitiful pile of dog fecies you call a Gamespot Account.

What worries me most is that there are people on this forum that somehow fall for your moronic derp that you call "lol trolling"

Our world was in a sh*thole before.

But goddamn now it's in a bigger one when there are actually people out there who fall for your sh*t.

"Hurr durr, buy da PS3 and you'll be coolz like me"

Please, you are about as cool as the Devil's scrotum. You have the likability of spoiled bread and you probably have the same IQ.

[spoiler] Happy XV? [/spoiler]

So Kinect isn't exclusive? And exclusives do matter but only in the console's early life cycle. You think the 360 would be where it is without Gears and Halo 3 coming out in 2006 and 2007? I think what you wanted to say is that exclusives don't matter at the end of the consoles life cycle when it comes to console salesexiledsnake

Exactly. Your comment pretty much summarized a part of what I said. :P

Seems more like "when your competitor shoots itself in the foot multiple times = better sales for you" type of thing to me.

Tough to say, TC. I'd say the 360 has shown a system doesn't have to rely on exclusives to maintain momentum, given the large multiplat focus that has developed this gen. But it was a year headstart and a significant price advantage that got the ball rolling. Would the same be true if other factors were different? Who knows. With the evolution of the gaming industry's business model, it'd be hard to project much of anything going forward as a test...

So is this good or bad for most of us gamers?

Duh? Exclusives on a sales standpoint only really matter early on when you're trying to establish yourself, and if those exclusives are box movers. Like a Mario or a Halo or a Gears of War. Reality is so long as you have all the third party support(which the 360 got this gen, from both western and eastern devs this time) and limit it to a first party battle you're in the clear.

Microsofts established userbase guarantees that platform third party games so it's not like that userbase will be going through droughts. The big thing this gen changed in my mind is how little you get out of being a multiplatform owner. With how close the lineups are for the PS3/360 the difference in library really comes down to which group of exclusives you like more, because realistically you could be just fine without the other platform. Come next gen I don't even know if I want something other than my PC. Especially now that gamefly has a way of letting me rent PC games.

So is this good or bad for most of us gamers?

SOedipus

Neither. Although a constant influx of exclusive games is good (since you're getting a lot of great content for your system), a focus on innovation is also good. Eventually all the exclusive content is going to get bland, you'll need a gimmick sooner or later to keep things fresh.

I don't like how Microsoft treated their console this gen, but it certainly worked out well for them. This means more launch day goodies for gamers, and less focus on exclusivity in the long run, that's how things should be.

Exclusives equal sales, there is a difference between having a lot of little exclusives consisting in mostly new ips and franchises with limited selling power, if Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, Ace Combat, Virtua Fighter, Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest and all of the other former Playstation exclusive franchises were still exclusive to the PS3 it would be millions ahead of the Wii. The only big remaining exclusive the PS3 has is Gran Turismo, since MGS4 was the last one in the MGS Saga.

The Playstation 3 lost all of the meaningful third party franchises that pushed the PS1 and PS2 millions ahead of the competition, plain and simple. Now Nintendo has mario and zelda, Microsoft has Halo and Gears and Sony was left with new ips, the most expensive system at launch and multiplats.

Exclusivity =/= Sales, that's true

Things People Want to Buy = Sales

It doesn't matter if it's exclusive, multiplat, or whatever. The **** just has to be what people want.

People here are just confused. "Quantity" isn't what sells, and it never has been that way since the industry began.

Exclusivity =/= Sales, that's true

Things People Want to Buy = Sales

It doesn't matter if it's exclusive, multiplat, or whatever. The **** just has to be what people want.

People here are just confused. "Quantity" isn't what sells, and it never has been that way since the industry began.

SW__Troll

Also when something becomes popular it doesn't actually need to be the best device on the market. Look at the iPad for instance--there are better, more versatile tablets on the market, but it still is the first thing to come to mind. It become almost a status symbol thing. Your kids don't want a ASUS Transformer Prime or any other high-end tablet. They want an iPad 2 (or 3 when it comes out) because its still a good product and its popular so they can show off a bit.