CGI-Quality said:
BenVTrigger said:
CGI-Quality said:
BenVTrigger said:
I've noticed a couple problems with things people are posting in here such as how Sony releases a lot of exclusives that only sell mid tier numbers and trying to act like that's a good strategy. Actually its farthest from the truth in terms of business strategy.
Its something I've been noticeing for a while now from the gaming community, even from the press. People are acting like Sony is so ahead in terms of excluive content and such and like how MS is making a poor choices with their 1st party. In all actuallity MS 1st party strategy is FAR superior than Sony's.
MS chooses to focus on games they know will sell. Currently Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable, and Kinect titles. All those will do a minimum of 3 million with Halo and Gears hitting closer to 10 million. Their revenue and profit margins are going to be MUCH higher due to publishing and developing a slimmer offering of guarnateed sales. Per game the profit margin is higher due to far less developing costs than Sony. Sony really only has one "Big" exclusive and that is GT. Uncharted is flirting with it but until it can post numbers well over 5 million it can't be considered a top tier in terms of sales, its still at mid tier.
Basically MS makes more money by pushing a few key franchises and minimizing the amount they spend in house in comparison with Sony who will push out Socom, Twisted Metal, Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone 3, LittleBigPlanet, etc which will also see low to mid tier sales. Ever game Sony developes has a cost and these games are only seeing modest profits while MS has far lower developing costs and far higher profit margins.
MS realizes the 3rd parties and multiplats will fill in the rest of the lineup since multi-plats drive over 90% of the revenue for both 360 and PS3.
But back OT it mostly has to due with MS dominating North America which buys more games per capita than Europe, advertising, quality, and brand recognition. |
Depends on what you mean by "far superior". If it's by sales, you'd need to tally up who's franchises have, overall, garnered the highest total amount. If it's by amount of franchises, Microsoft is behind by some way. In that higher amount of franchises, you'd also have to know who's is raking in more profit, indisputably, before claims of what's a better financial strategy can even be debated.
In the long run, whether Microsoft's strategy of less 1st party studios has paid off or not won't truly be felt until the next gen, where I believe we'll see even less 3rd party exclusive titles - and exclusive content will probably require even more signing of some checks. Both strategies have seemed to work, as well as having their negatives, at points, but I don't think either is vastly superior to the other. As a gamer however, Sony's strategy has been better to me, especially in the last 2.5 years.
|
I mean profits and it isn't really an opinion its a fact. MS has been turning far bigger profits with the MS division than Sony is with the PS3 division. At the end of the day these are business and its all about making money. MS is doing a much better job of that this generation than Sony.
|
Maybe, but I'm not asking about overall profits, I said the exclusive titles specifically. Really, how much profit does Microsoft make outside of Halo? Gears of War isn't theirs, Forza doesn't outsell too many PS3 exclusives, and Fable is in a similar position. Unless you're positive the exclusive titles are the reason Microsoft is turning that type of profit, it's useless to discuss.
If you said Kinect titles, I'd imagine the argument would be stronger.
|
