Phil Spencer: Sony buying third party games, all to do with money, not market share

[patronmacabre]

I feel like if you could simply buy exclusivity for the same price regardless of market share, then both Sony and Microsoft would have adopted Nintendo's policy for selling consoles (by that, I mean Sony and Microsoft generally, at least at first, sell consoles at a loss to ensure a larger market share, whereas Nintendo sells their consoles at a profit). While it is undeniable that having a larger number of consoles sold to customers increases the revenue stream received from software and services, I think, under Phil Spencer's argument, it would be more logical to take Nintendo's route. As such, Microsoft and Sony would therefore get a much more substantial revenue stream in the early years, which they can use to buy exclusives (which, following Spencer's logic would cost the same regardless of market share). Said exclusive would then ensure a larger market share for the purchaser in the long run, especially since the early years are usually the most important for determining the dominant console for the generation.

I think Phil Spencer's statement is only applicable when the console manufacturer is paying for the entirety of the development costs of the game, and usually when it is a new franchise. I think with things like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Street Fighter V, market share is highly relevant.