frybread said: Games standpoint? In-house. Look at Nintendo, hardware and software are designed together. Sony is the same, all 1st party games take advantage of cell. Business standopint? Paid exclusive. Most of the advantages, none of the risk.

 

Lets not forget Microsoft's developer support is miles ahead of it's competitors in the console industry.  This allows developers to make games for their system quicker and cheaper than the PS3 counterpart.  The Wii has an advantage with it's very familure design (it's really suped up GC) so developers don't have to learn new ways to use the hardware... unfortnantly some developers don't seem to be using the new power

Sony for sure, cause "exclusive" content for 360 actually means it's content the 360 build will be able to download but the PC version will have it included... while PS3 exclusives... stay exclusive. It's not a hard choice there. PS3/PC all the way =)

@Cueil

Good point. MS works with 3rd parties from the earliest stages of hardware design. No wonder they're shedding game development, they have no need for it.

Nintendo and Sony aren't nearly as good with 3rd parties. They're secretive - Nintendo didn't bother sharing MotionPlus technology, and they're cocky - Sony didn't listen to developers when designing Cell. They need in-house devs since they can't listen to anyone else.

Um, Maxwell, you do realise that Microsoft doesn't actually mind their games going to the PC, sure they don't directly get any money, but quantity of games is one of the few advantages that Windows has over MAC OS or Linux

@ scottie, having more games than mac is certainly a major factor for them. When I was in a mac store recently, one of the main games that they were displaying was Call of Duty 2! for the same price that it launched on the Xbox 360 at £40

Anyway, I think Sony's is the much better strategy, especially as most of the 3rd party exclusives seem only timed, and when it is a much more even market than past gens (I know Wii is winning, but PS360 is doing far better than GCXb) not many publishers are want to only want to put games on one system. Sony's 1st party (+ Insomniac) is why I bought my PS3, and I just hope the expand Naughty Dog so they can make 1 game a year...

I slightly prefer Sony's approach as I don't like timed/paid for third part exclusives as they do not favour the individual consumer. I'd prefer to see each company take total responsibility for their exclusive content and most third party games to be exclusive unless the developer (like Insomniac or Epic with Gears) decide to focus on one platform for cost/quality reasons (which is of course their right).

Sony's approach may have higher costs however (depends on how much MS has to pay for exclusives of course) and it does perhaps lower chance for innovation as MS can spot independent talent and 'back it' for an exclusive - although Nintendo have shown this doesn't have to be the case.

MS approach leaves them slightly open to loss of exclusives or having the cost of exclusives soar as a 'hired' studio can easily decide to go multiplaform. As PS3 install base grows and developers see PS3 versions sell as well they will of course (unless stupid) demand ever increasing sums from MS to cover the lost revenue from PS3.

Both work as approaches though even though each has pros/cons.

For the gamer's perspective, I prefer Sony's approach by a mile. I'd take 1st party exclusives and new IP's over timed exclusives and DLC any day.
From a buisness perspective, MS's is better in the short term, Sony's in the long term.

depents what type of games you like, if you like shooter and RPGs 360 is what you need, but if you are a football, platformer or GT fan PS3 is the way to go...

Putting money into first and second party development is always better than using it to buy exclusives.

First and second party games bring in by far more profits. Look at the Gamecube, for example. It had the least third party support last generation, and yet, it was the only console to turn a consistent profit all the way through. The reason for this is that it had the strongest first party.

For all the money MS has thrown around, all that it's really managed to do is get several PS2 exclusives to go multi-platform and secure a few big name exclusives, and the 360 has still failed to turn a consistent profit.

The only way to guarantee massive exclusive third party support is to have the marketshare of the NES, PS1, or PS2, something that MS isn't going to accomplish any time soon.

Lastly, it takes a steady stream, a strong, standing library of games that appeal to everyone to move hardware and make a console successful, not just a few big name exclusives that appeal only to core and hardcore gamers.

MS doesn't have the market share to obtain the kind of exclusive third-party support that they are seeking no matter how much money they pay, and this is also going to hinder them when it comes to profits.

Personally like Sony's business moedel, but it makes more sense the way MS is doing it

MS is building strong relationships with third party vendors this will ensure them a strong third party line up at all times.

MS can ramp up exclusives and ramp down depending on the economy (there cash flow), as you all mention in lean times just dont buy as many exclusives, they will still come out on there system cause they have such a good relationship with the publishers.

Its a bold new strategy, and they are thinking about console gaming in a different way. How it will pan out long time I am not sure.