| Squilliam said: 1. We've seen data posted on the forums here that Netflix subscriber numbers jumped considerably when Netflix was released and we've also seen data showing from Neilson which showed Netflix was a high useage Xbox 360 feature. So whilst Netflix was available on some rare platforms, netflix discs and on PC none of them were as convenient as the Xbox 360 which was plugged right into the TV and gave and easy to use interface. Given the strength and popularity it has to be considered a system seller as it was the first real non cable VOD service on consoles in the United States. 2. I can guarentee if not for specific third party multiplatforms the PS3 would not be mentioned in the same sentence as the Xbox 360 in terms of sales. The game which 'saved' the PS3 way back then wasn't an exclusive it was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Six of the top ten games on the PS3 are multiplatform, one is only exclusive in one major region and probably more than that would be in the top ten if not for Sony bundling of their own 1st party software. If you went further and discounted bundling and looked at the point of origin then likely nine of the ten in the top ten come from 3rd parties anyway. So even though you say the first party efforts were significant the reality is that the system is still dominated by 3rd parties. The issue with specifically looking at exclusive sales on one platform is that you have to account for a small number of hardcore buyers who pick exclusives over non exclusives due to being either fanboys or possessing multiple consoles (which is why multiplatform sales don't scale 2:1 compared to exclusives or close to it) yet they also buy a reasonably large number of games themselves. You also have to look deeper at the idea that a smaller 1-3M release isn't merely taking a large proportion of the remainder of sales from other titles which would have sold more if not for the presence of their competition. So when you get a title which is both a high seller and high attach rate you get a completely different metric. Large titles have a tendency to create a market for themselves, like GTA or COD since #4 which have grown or remained quite large over time so they simply don't feed from the pool of potential buyers, they bring new buyers in as well. <System seller----Halo--------Gears-Call of Duty-----Fable-----PGR4---Just another title> Not accurate at all with positions, but theres a scale where your exclusive is actually worth a lot to the system. The earlier it is or the bigger the attach rate the more important it is as a part of the library. The vast majority of exclusive titles simply are not effective, even the million sellers or the low multimillion sellers. To create franchise/brand loyalty you have to first create a franchise large enough to stand the test of time. Only one franchise has traveled from the first parties of either Sony or Microsoft and done better in this generation and you know what that is, GT5 still pending. So the idea of go big or go home isn't totally far fetched. Nintendo goes big with their franchises which is why they last so many generations and yet still sell. Sony in this generation was retaining what they could have potentially lost, the other two were actually gaining significant numbers of new users. Their biggest exclusive was as always their Playstation brand name and not any specific software. How many titles will carry forwards from this generation? 3. The reason why Sony are so quick to drop their old I.P. is that they never make it big enough to actually matter to enough people to be worth the expense and risk of recreating them in a new generation because they are trying to go for more 'huge' I.P rather than carry on a strong series with a shallow impact. This is why I said it has to either sell systems, fill out the game library and make money. The minimum standard for that is 3M sales in most cases although it can be significantly less at the start of a generation when there simply aren't as many titles period. |
1. Of course Netflix subs increased significantly. The application was suddenly available to millions of 360 owners via an easy to use means. That isn't evidence towards your point at all. I'm sure many 360 owners then and many new 360 owners today make use of the feature, but that doesn't mean it was pivotal in moving a significant amount of consoles.
2. Modern Warfare, released only two months after Halo 3, somehow convinced people to buy ps3s? Anybody willing to buy a console for an FPS would've surely gone with a 360, no?
Modern Warfare's release was well timed on ps3, coming right after the release of the ps3's first $399 model, and it did sell quite well on ps3 as a result. However, I believe this was more a case of new ps3 owners buying Call of Duty, rather than people who wanted Call of Duty buying ps3s.
The franchise becoming the phenomenon it has also lead to more and more ps3 owners buying it through word of mouth from their 360/ps3/pc gaming friends. Eventually picking up the next big game on your console is no surprise, however assuming people bought the console solely to play that game is one hell of a stretch.
Do I think Call of Duty may have been the tipping point for some to buy a current generation console? I'm sure it was, but there's a reason said buyers chose a ps3 over a 360, and I'd assume it's the console's other exclusive content that interested them. Otherwise, why would a shooter fan not go with the console that has Halo and Gears?
3. Sony doesn't "drop" their IPs. Their developers often decide to head in new directions, yes, much like Bungie. This says more about the freedom Sony gives their developers than how important they feel their individual IPs are.
And they often return to their old IPs, as shown through the recent Sly 4 announcement. Besides, Sony whoring out every IP they have on PSP implies they think they're pretty important. Why commission third parties to make new Ratchet, Jak, and Socom games on PSP if the IPs aren't worth anything?
