| DarthVolod said: These Xbox 360 vs. PS3 arguments over exclusives leave me wondering about the future when Nintendo will, presumably, enter the HD market on equal footing with Microsoft and Sony with the WiiU. This gen has seen Nintendo largely written off from the exclusive debates because motion controls and non-HD graphics put their games into a different category in the eyes of core gamers. Nintendo's greatest strength has always been its memorable and timeless first party exclusives that seem to attract both gamers and non gamers alike. Assuming that the WiiU has a comprable online system, I wonder how Sony and Microsoft will compete. If all of the big multiplats will be on WiiU it will come down to exclusives which Nintendo easily wins out on in terms of number and quality. If people can buy a WiiU and play their Madden, CoD, and ect. along with all of the Nintendo first party exclusives (and maybe a third party exclusive here and there) I don't see any reason to own a Xbox 720 or Playstation 4 unless Sony and Microsoft can develop some new quality first party exclusives. Microsoft may move some 720s on Halo and Gears, and Sony has its supporters, but if Nintendo does things right (securing a quality online framework) they could have a very good thing going for them next gen ... all of the power and HD/online abilities of Microsoft and Sony coupled with the extensive exclusive lineup that Nintendo has always and will always have unless they go bankrupt. Speaking as someone who doesn't care for any exclusives really (third party games make up my favorite and must play list). I could see those unloyal to a particular brand would find Nintendo rather appealing since it will get all the third party games anyways along with all the Nintendo exclusives ... which, I think we can all agree, are at least a decent lineup of titles. It was Zelda, Mario, Brawl, and ect that got me to turn on my Wii even though my gaming options on Xbox and PS3 were of much higher quality at least graphically and onine connectivity wise. |
I agree with this and this is why I think S.T.A.G.E has a point. The market is asking for quality in exclusives, multiplats and value-adds on a console, but when these exclusives don't need to be new IPs per se, could this lead to deterioration of the relevance of gaming as a form of media, where new content and new worlds are no longer asked for?
But the questions gets slapped in the face and in the back of the head, when Sony, despite launching a good number of new IPs this gen, has been unable to muster as much interest as MS with a different strategy. It begs two questions.
1) Are Sony's new IPs, though being undeniably high quality, enjoyable and capable of mass appeal? Compare Sony games to a piece from hollywood: Avatar. Avatar is a new hollywood IP which attracted much interest from the general audience. If Sony hasn't reached that kind of interest with its IPs, are they missing something or doing something wrong?
2) Is there some kind of middle ground Sony isn't meeting between new IPs and exclusive/multiplats/value-adds from a marketing perspective? Again I insist, the industry is not a charity. You can't just make deep content for the sake of it, if it doesn't bring substantial revenue.
Though what S.T.A.G.E is advocating for is noble, is there a way to achieve it more properly than how Sony is going about it at the moment? That's my question. And maybe MS (or Nintendo) have found the answer, until they are totally dominant enough to take the risks Sony is currently taking in the realm of new IPs, my two cents for what they're worth ;)
