Squilliam said:
The console makers have found out it is better to sell one game to people who buy between 1 and 4 titles per year or even increase the numbers of titles they buy than to sell 2 or more games to people who buy 5-15 titles a year. Cue Nintendo for the former and Sony for the latter, Nintendo of course being the more successful at moving units of the two given the fact that the thick edge of the wedge is a much better side of the market to work on. This is the market reality and here what you prefer doesn't really factor into anything. |
In your previous post you stated:
"You as a game buyer would also prefer one sublime game to three good games, wouldn't you?"
That's more what I was responding to (should have made that clearer). It read more like you were stating that it's better for consumers to have less games, less choice and potentially, less innovation. From the manufacturers POV this is not neccessarily the case but they each seem to recognise the value of having exclusives in a range of genres. Yes, it's very important to sell large numbers of units (and to sell to the 1-4 title per year group), but exclusives for console manufacturers also have the added incentive of expanding the consumer base. By having stand-out titles in a range of genres you effectively make the console more attractive to a wide array of potential customers.
The other plus side to this is that 3rd-party software in the same genres are likely to get a boost if an exclusive can garner interest. How many purchased more FPS' due to their experience with Halo for instance?








