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

[Osc89]

Weedlab said:

Osc89 said:

Weedlab said:
Well ... I don't see that issue as a clear cut one. It is in some sense like the used game problem that is regularly discussed, and that's why I said it can't be decoupled from more positive actions. One may say that implementing a timed exclusive strategy is bad in the sense that it excludes a group of gamers from experiencing games. That's fair, but gamers will still get to experience the game(s) since it is temporary, and one could also argue they're doing this with the aim of increasing their foothold  and installed base (a benefit to them) of which influences the risks and number of titles they're willing to publish (benefit to gamers).  I can’t discount the positive ripple effects from those actions.

 

Surely it reduces the risks and titles they publish? If the timed exclusive strategy is effective, they'll keep doing it. There will always be fewer games than there would have been. Or it isn't effective and they have to boost their first party to catch up, so all they have accomplished is wasting money and time better spent on their own games.

If it is timed then they won't be fewer – they will just arrive at a later date. If it is not timed then it is an outhouse exclusive and that still brings benefits to gamers not unlike Sony’s partnership with studious such as ThatGamingCompany.

 

In my view, that argument would hold weight with Microsoft's actions on the 360, but so far I am inclined to think otherwise with the Xbox One based on their divulgates. Plus, their resources are significantly deeper than their competitors (one would be tempted to say virtually limitless), so I don't see it as wasting time or resources, especially when they're pushing a lot of games both in house and out. The timed exclusive bit is just a part of their strategy to shore up the console in the early stages before throwing their full weight on the system. The great majority of the games they showed follow this pattern. Their war chest allows them to do quite a lot of things simultaneously. They're building the base with the aid of a temporary measure - which will end up on other consoles so it is not a zero sum situation – in order to support their system with their own content later. In the opening phase of a platform timed exclusive content serve a purpose. If you were telling me this about the Xbox 360 in its twilight years I would totally agree with you, though.

 

I don't really see the building the base with a temporary measure thing as positive. It gives the impression that they can produce more exclusives that they actually can, so is kind of dishonest. With this they can pad out the install base then abandon them later in the generation. If however they had more first party studios, they would have to be using them constantly meaning a steady flow of exclusives, rather than the short bursts.