pikashoe said:
I think you aren't understanding what he said. He isn't saying that only 3rd party games sell Sony consoles. He is saying that they contribute to the hardware selling more. If you took gta, fifa, cod and other huge 3rd party games off of ps4 it is likely it would sell less. Which would mean that 1st party games have less people to sell to. |
That is certainly true (but he pretends also that Nintendo IPs sells their consoles, which when you consider the historic isn't true, you can say that Nintendo can only depend on their games to sell their consoles but you can't say that they make the consoles sell as a blanket statement), and he also made the claim in a way that Sony games doesn't have much to do with the console selling well and that without the extra HW sale the sony games wouldn't sell well, in a way that there is more of a net positive of the increase in SW sales by HW sales than a negative of having more competition. Considering the Sony games improved a lot in sales from PS2 to PS3 and again on PS4 with lower HW sales than PS2 and also knowing that the total SW sold on a platform sure have a strong correlation with the total HW sold (tie ratio is fairly close between successful consoles, around 12 SW per HW) the sales of stablished IPs can be observed to not have had the same increase with HW, you can pick most PS or even Nintendo exclusives and see that sure the consoles that had more HW sales those titles also sold better but it is a very light correlation.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."