By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
enrageorange on 11 January 2014
Edit Thread
S.T.A.G.E. said:
enrageorange said:


Sony has a strong foothold by name, but sales were slow because Microsoft stepped in on their third party showing by having the same games and having them earlier, while keeping other third party games away for Sony for what..a year to three years?  Possibly even longer for some games. Microsoft since the first Xbox has had a strong foothold in America. I know which games were heavy hitters on the PS3, but Sony's exclusives were another decider.  Sony never had the "better" multiplatform titles (especially graphically speaking). A multiplatform title is only a multiplatform title. It can be played anywhere applicable. Sony has been advancing on Microsoft since the start and took a eight million console lead down to two million in a five year time frame. Microsoft forced Sony to dig deeper within themselves than they ever have before and build more high quality first party games. Once Sony did that Microsoft was at a loss. Kinect couldn't save them. It only delayed the inevitable, especially at the end.

That's one of the big reasons I believe xbox caught up to playstation this generation.

The average gamer this generation isn't someone with 30 games, 15 of which are exclusive.
The average xbox 360 owner has 10.74 games, 2.1 of which are exclusive. The average ps3 owner has 9.74 games 1.7 of which are exclusive.
 

This generation 15 of the 20 best selling ps3 games were multiplatform.
Last generation 9 of the 20 best selling ps2 games were multiplatform. 3 timed exclusives
Before that 0 of the 20 best selling playstation games were multiplatform.

Another example. Sony first party games sold 211mil on the playstation and it had very strong third party exclusive support(150mil+ third party exclusive software sales). Sony first party games sold 187million on the playstation 2 and it had very strong third party exclusive support (150mil+ third party exclusive software sales). Sony first party games sold 128mil on the playstation 3 and it's only relevent third party exclusive was Metal Gear Solid 4. 

The last two gens people bought playstations for their exclusives which is why sony thrashed the competition. This gen sony failed the secure the third party games people wanted and didn't pick up the slack with their first party exclusives, which is why the playstation had 72% of the console marketshare, the playstation 2 had 78% of the console marketshare, and the playstation 3 only had 31% of the console marketshare.

But the thing is Microsoft wasn't much better off than Sony. It secured very few major third party exclusives, and it's first party software sales weren't much better than sony's. The majority of people mostly bought multiplatform titles. So why did the 360 manage to catch up so much despite gaming libraries being identical for most people. Because the third party games ran better and the price difference. The price difference was negated for many people by sony having free online gaming. But the multiplatform difference wasn't negated till much later on. That is why a significant amount of playstation 2 owners moved to the xbox 360 instead of the ps3 despite the fact that they could have played the games they are playing right now on the playstation 3 instead.