who has the better first party/publishing strategy from Nintendo, Sony and MS?

[Osc89]

Weedlab said:

Osc89 said:

Weedlab said:
First, define 'negative games' for me. What is a 'negative game'? Are they not employing a combination strategy with respect to the games they are publishing? (In house and out). Do they not have exclusive in double digit figures? Those games appear to be oriented towards both the core and casual segments. How is that bad for gamers?  Enlighten me if you find me ignorant. I am led to believe Microsoft’s position is still better for the gamer when compared to Nintendo (but only in those narrowly defined terms), and I am by no means an Xbox enthusiast. That’s just how it looks to me as a gamer.

 

When I say "negative game" I mean they are paying for an otherwise multiplatform game to be exclusive to their platform, so money is spent taking games from other platforms rather than increasing the number for their own. It makes sense for them strategically as they close the gap between them and other platforms by 2 games for less than the cost of one, however this results in fewer games overall and is bad for gamers.

All of them are guilty of this. Microsoft is not the only one who engages in such behavior, and from the looks of things it seems their stance has shifted in favor of creating more true exclusive content than timed exclusives. It is also not always a disservice to gamers. Look at Bayonetta 2 since it apparently would not have seen the light of day as a multiplatform game. But the real question is, what proportion of games are true exclusive to timed exclusives? Added to that Microsoft seems to have a strong showing (quantitatively at least).

 

Nintendo has been forming partnerships with a lot of developers. One could argue if that wasn’t the case third parties could channel their resources in multiplatform games for the benefit of a wider group of gamers. Platinum could be making multiplatform games for all systems instead of making Bayoetta 2 exclusively for the Wii U, or NamcoBandai could channel more of their resources to other projects (multiplat) instead of providing Nintendo with assistance. On the other side of the coin these partnerships are needed since Nintendo insinuated that they need assistance with the transition to HD. These instances can hardly be decoupled, and with that said and taking everything into consideration, I still think Microsoft > Nintendo with respect to the topic.

 

In your original comment you said that it was a positive Microsoft does this, that's why I targeted them specifically. If you check my first post I acknowledge they all do this and it's bad, but Nintendo do it the least (I think) so I went with them.

You can make a case for MS being better at publishing than Nintendo, but I wouldn't say that examples like Titanfall should be used. It's looking like they paid for 1 year of exclusivity which is money spent to weaken the PS4 lineup rather than boost their own. That is the only reason I targeted your comment, I'm not debating the rest of their strategy, just saying this aspect is bad.