By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsofts small 1st party, the reasons.

wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:
makingmusic476 said:

I agree to an extent, though I have two issues with what you say:

1.  Netflix sold a significant amount of 360s in 2008. 

We've discussed this before, and I still feel you have little evidence that this is the case.  Netflix was already available on a variety of platforms at the time, and at that time the 360 had just dropped to $199/299.  I'm pretty sure any such gains in hardware sales during that period would be more attributable to the latter than the former.

1. We've seen data posted on the forums here that Netflix subscriber numbers jumped considerably when Netflix was released and we've also seen data showing from Neilson which showed Netflix was a high useage Xbox 360 feature. So whilst Netflix was available on some rare platforms, netflix discs and on PC none of them were as convenient as the Xbox 360 which was plugged right into the TV and gave and easy to use interface. Given the strength and popularity it has to be considered a system seller as it was the first real non cable VOD service on consoles in the United States.

Not really interested in a colossal back-and-forth about the extent of Netflix' effect on HW sales, but thought I would simply point out that the bold adds absolutely nothing to your argument. The jump in subscribers could be 10% down to current 360 owners taking advantage of a new feature and subscribing to Netflix and 90% down to new consumers purchasing 360s for Netflix (as you try to suggest). Or it could be vice versa. Or it could be 50/50. Ultimately, none of us can say how the split fell, so it's just not a cogent point.

True...

Essentially we know Netflix was a significant event for the U.S. Xbox 360 userbase given some relevant data. We also know that significant (high attach rate) events can cause increases in demand especially when said high impact event hasn't taken place before which increases the likelihood of its occurence as well as the magnitude so we can infer that it is likely that Netflix had an impact on the userbase, possibly quite significant but we cannot prove this even though it is at least more likely to have happened than not.

Better?



Tease.

Around the Network
Squilliam said:

1. We've seen data posted on the forums here that Netflix subscriber numbers jumped considerably when Netflix was released and we've also seen data showing from Neilson which showed Netflix was a high useage Xbox 360 feature. So whilst Netflix was available on some rare platforms, netflix discs and on PC none of them were as convenient as the Xbox 360 which was plugged right into the TV and gave and easy to use interface. Given the strength and popularity it has to be considered a system seller as it was the first real non cable VOD service on consoles in the United States.

2. I can guarentee if not for specific third party multiplatforms the PS3 would not be mentioned in the same sentence as the Xbox 360 in terms of sales. The game which 'saved' the PS3 way back then wasn't an exclusive it was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Six of the top ten games on the PS3 are multiplatform, one is only exclusive in one major region and probably more than that would be in the top ten if not for Sony bundling of their own 1st party software. If you went further and discounted bundling and looked at the point of origin then likely nine of the ten in the top ten come from 3rd parties anyway. So even though you say the first party efforts were significant the reality is that the system is still dominated by 3rd parties.

The issue with specifically looking at exclusive sales on one platform is that you have to account for a small number of hardcore buyers who pick exclusives over non exclusives due to being either fanboys or possessing multiple consoles (which is why multiplatform sales don't scale 2:1 compared to exclusives or close to it) yet they also buy a reasonably large number of games themselves. You also have to look deeper at the idea that a smaller 1-3M release isn't merely taking a large proportion of the remainder of sales from other titles which would have sold more if not for the presence of their competition. So when you get a title which is both a high seller and high attach rate you get a completely different metric. Large titles have a tendency to create a market for themselves, like GTA or COD since #4 which have grown or remained quite large over time so they simply don't feed from the pool of potential buyers, they bring new buyers in as well.

<System seller----Halo--------Gears-Call of Duty-----Fable-----PGR4---Just another title>

Not accurate at all with positions, but theres a scale where your exclusive is actually worth a lot to the system. The earlier it is or the bigger the attach rate the more important it is as a part of the library.

The vast majority of exclusive titles simply are not effective, even the million sellers or the low multimillion sellers. To create franchise/brand loyalty you have to first create a franchise large enough to stand the test of time. Only one franchise has traveled from the first parties of either Sony or Microsoft and done better in this generation and you know what that is, GT5 still pending. So the idea of go big or go home isn't totally far fetched. Nintendo goes big with their franchises which is why they last so many generations and yet still sell. Sony in this generation was retaining what they could have potentially lost, the other two were actually gaining significant numbers of new users. Their biggest exclusive was as always their Playstation brand name and not any specific software.

How many titles will carry forwards from this generation?

3. The reason why Sony are so quick to drop their old I.P. is that they never make it big enough to actually matter to enough people to be worth the expense and risk of recreating them in a new generation because they are trying to go for more 'huge' I.P rather than carry on a strong series with a shallow impact. This is why I said it has to either sell systems, fill out the game library and make money. The minimum standard for that is 3M sales in most cases although it can be significantly less at the start of a generation when there simply aren't as many titles period.

1.  Of course Netflix subs increased significantly.  The application was suddenly available to millions of 360 owners via an easy to use means.  That isn't evidence towards your point at all.  I'm sure many 360 owners then and many new 360 owners today make use of the feature, but that doesn't mean it was pivotal in moving a significant amount of consoles.

2.  Modern Warfare, released only two months after Halo 3, somehow convinced people to buy ps3s?  Anybody willing to buy a console for an FPS would've surely gone with a 360, no?

Modern Warfare's release was well timed on ps3, coming right after the release of the ps3's first $399 model, and it did sell quite well on ps3 as a result.  However, I believe this was more a case of new ps3 owners buying Call of Duty, rather than people who wanted Call of Duty buying ps3s.

The franchise becoming the phenomenon it has also lead to more and more ps3 owners buying it through word of mouth from their 360/ps3/pc gaming friends.  Eventually picking up the next big game on your console is no surprise, however assuming people bought the console solely to play that game is one hell of a stretch.

Do I think Call of Duty may have been the tipping point for some to buy a current generation console?  I'm sure it was, but there's a reason said buyers chose a ps3 over a 360, and I'd assume it's the console's other exclusive content that interested them.  Otherwise, why would a shooter fan not go with the console that has Halo and Gears?

3.  Sony doesn't "drop" their IPs.  Their developers often decide to head in new directions, yes, much like Bungie.  This says more about the freedom Sony gives their developers than how important they feel their individual IPs are.

And they often return to their old IPs, as shown through the recent Sly 4 announcement.  Besides, Sony whoring out every IP they have on PSP implies they think they're pretty important.  Why commission third parties to make new Ratchet, Jak, and Socom games on PSP if the IPs aren't worth anything?



I'm still reading this thread and stunned by Squill's awesome responses following the OP.  I don't know where this new kick ass Squilliam attitude came from but it's turning me on.



Kudos to you Squilliam! Best Thread of the Year along with Best Post of the Year!! Your Forum Awards will be sent to you via email. :D



 How our favorite systems are just like humans and sometimes have issues finding their special someone...

Xbox 360 wants to KinectPS3 wants to Move!  Why are both systems having such relationship problems?  The reason is they both become so infactuated with desire while watching the Wii as it waggles on by. They simply want what they can't have.

 Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

makingmusic476 said:
Squilliam said:

1. We've seen data posted on the forums here that Netflix subscriber numbers jumped considerably when Netflix was released and we've also seen data showing from Neilson which showed Netflix was a high useage Xbox 360 feature. So whilst Netflix was available on some rare platforms, netflix discs and on PC none of them were as convenient as the Xbox 360 which was plugged right into the TV and gave and easy to use interface. Given the strength and popularity it has to be considered a system seller as it was the first real non cable VOD service on consoles in the United States.

2. I can guarentee if not for specific third party multiplatforms the PS3 would not be mentioned in the same sentence as the Xbox 360 in terms of sales. The game which 'saved' the PS3 way back then wasn't an exclusive it was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Six of the top ten games on the PS3 are multiplatform, one is only exclusive in one major region and probably more than that would be in the top ten if not for Sony bundling of their own 1st party software. If you went further and discounted bundling and looked at the point of origin then likely nine of the ten in the top ten come from 3rd parties anyway. So even though you say the first party efforts were significant the reality is that the system is still dominated by 3rd parties.

The issue with specifically looking at exclusive sales on one platform is that you have to account for a small number of hardcore buyers who pick exclusives over non exclusives due to being either fanboys or possessing multiple consoles (which is why multiplatform sales don't scale 2:1 compared to exclusives or close to it) yet they also buy a reasonably large number of games themselves. You also have to look deeper at the idea that a smaller 1-3M release isn't merely taking a large proportion of the remainder of sales from other titles which would have sold more if not for the presence of their competition. So when you get a title which is both a high seller and high attach rate you get a completely different metric. Large titles have a tendency to create a market for themselves, like GTA or COD since #4 which have grown or remained quite large over time so they simply don't feed from the pool of potential buyers, they bring new buyers in as well.

<System seller----Halo--------Gears-Call of Duty-----Fable-----PGR4---Just another title>

Not accurate at all with positions, but theres a scale where your exclusive is actually worth a lot to the system. The earlier it is or the bigger the attach rate the more important it is as a part of the library.

The vast majority of exclusive titles simply are not effective, even the million sellers or the low multimillion sellers. To create franchise/brand loyalty you have to first create a franchise large enough to stand the test of time. Only one franchise has traveled from the first parties of either Sony or Microsoft and done better in this generation and you know what that is, GT5 still pending. So the idea of go big or go home isn't totally far fetched. Nintendo goes big with their franchises which is why they last so many generations and yet still sell. Sony in this generation was retaining what they could have potentially lost, the other two were actually gaining significant numbers of new users. Their biggest exclusive was as always their Playstation brand name and not any specific software.

How many titles will carry forwards from this generation?

3. The reason why Sony are so quick to drop their old I.P. is that they never make it big enough to actually matter to enough people to be worth the expense and risk of recreating them in a new generation because they are trying to go for more 'huge' I.P rather than carry on a strong series with a shallow impact. This is why I said it has to either sell systems, fill out the game library and make money. The minimum standard for that is 3M sales in most cases although it can be significantly less at the start of a generation when there simply aren't as many titles period.

1.  Of course Netflix subs increased significantly.  The application was suddenly available to millions of 360 owners via an easy to use means.  That isn't evidence towards your point at all.  I'm sure many 360 owners then and many new 360 owners today make use of the feature, but that doesn't mean it was pivotal in moving a significant amount of consoles.

2.  Modern Warfare, released only two months after Halo 3, somehow convinced people to buy ps3s?  Anybody willing to buy a console for an FPS would've surely gone with a 360, no?

Modern Warfare's release was well timed on ps3, coming right after the release of the ps3's first $399 model, and it did sell quite well on ps3 as a result.  However, I believe this was more a case of new ps3 owners buying Call of Duty, rather than people who wanted Call of Duty buying ps3s.

The franchise becoming the phenomenon it has also lead to more and more ps3 owners buying it through word of mouth from their 360/ps3/pc gaming friends.  Eventually picking up the next big game on your console is no surprise, however assuming people bought the console solely to play that game is one hell of a stretch.

Do I think Call of Duty may have been the tipping point for some to buy a current generation console?  I'm sure it was, but there's a reason said buyers chose a ps3 over a 360, and I'd assume it's the console's other exclusive content that interested them.  Otherwise, why would a shooter fan not go with the console that has Halo and Gears?

3.  Sony doesn't "drop" their IPs.  Their developers often decide to head in new directions, yes, much like Bungie.  This says more about the freedom Sony gives their developers than how important they feel their individual IPs are.

And they often return to their old IPs, as shown through the recent Sly 4 announcement.  Besides, Sony whoring out every IP they have on PSP implies they think they're pretty important.  Why commission third parties to make new Ratchet, Jak, and Socom games on PSP if the IPs aren't worth anything?

2. No, a compelling game is a compelling game whether it is exclusive or not. Games like Madden NFL sells consoles inspite the fact that it comes on more than one. The next best thing to a huge exclusive is a huge multiplatform release. So do I think that Call of Duty 4 convinced people to buy PS3s? I sure do. Like pachter said, a lot of people spend hundreds of hours playing a game like Call of Duty online so the idea that people would buy a system to play one game where they invest so many hours is logical and it is irrelevant that the game also came on the 360 and PC platforms.

3. Developers heading in new directions = dropping that I.P. The only I.P. they really carried forward and promoted significantly was I.P. which sold a lot in the case of GT5 and God of War 3 and Ratchet and Clank or niche titles which they promoted online. They dropped everything else on their main console for good reasons, they thought they could do better financially with new I.P. and that is purely a business decision.





Tease.

Around the Network
d21lewis said:

I'm still reading this thread and stunned by Squill's awesome responses following the OP.  I don't know where this new kick ass Squilliam attitude came from but it's turning me on.

Thems fightin' words!

You know behind every good captain is a harem of beautiful women, right?



Tease.

it is funny.you guys (and i remember even which one of you)were arguing 2 years ago that xbox is best because it has the Exclusves and PS3 has no good excluisve games.

 

two year later: PS3 has more exclusive and much more comig in near future.

 

now xbox fans are like we don 't care about excluisves.Exclusives are not important.

 

you guys never  cease to amaze me.Honestly first time i hear gamers saying less game for me is better because the company of my choice doesn't care much about gaming in general(lack of true exclusives  and closing down studios/letting go of their biggest studio shows that)

BTW lack of true exclusive(timed exclusivity,...)will bite them big time next gen.Many of their own userbase will not be buying the next xbox due to this very reason.(since they have experienced it first hand).They ll say ok i ll buy another console,,,I ll get the games on xbox maybe a year later but i ll get many more games that will neve  show up on xbox



 

 

 

kitler53 said:

a well thought out argument but i'm not sure i completely agree.  maybe it is just because i value exclusives but i think they are quite important. 

either way, MS has earned themselves a reputation of exclusive only meaning timed exclusive.  next generation i don't intend to buy the next MS console as i feel confident that any game they advertise as exclusive will eventually end up on a sony or nintendo console as well - consoles that also have a wide range of titles the MS console will never see.

so yeah, their policy has worked quite well for them this gen.  I can't argue that.  but eventually i think this policy is going to come back to bite them in the ass.


i agree with kitler53, but still see the marite in your post OP. what you said makes alot of sence and only partially true.



Squilliam said:
d21lewis said:

I'm still reading this thread and stunned by Squill's awesome responses following the OP.  I don't know where this new kick ass Squilliam attitude came from but it's turning me on.

Thems fightin' words!

You know behind every good captain is a harem of beautiful women, right?


And behind every harem of beautiful women, there's me....begging them for some sex!



Some people in this thread seem to have reading comprehension issues, or I do, because I don't see where Squilliam said exclusives are not important.  He said they become less important as you get later into the generation.  Gamers on forums such as this one may love to throw exclusives lists around to show who has the bigger epeen but the average consumer doesn't care all that much about exclusives.  Putting Nintendo aside because I feel it's not exactly the same demographic as the HD twins which seem to share the shame demographic the biggest selling franchises this gen have been the multiplat games.  Sure an Uncharted 3 or a Halo Reach MIGHT convince someone to get the competing console but this late in the generation I think that's less likely to happen. 

The biggest reason, whether some like it or not, is not games but price/value.  Xbox might end up costing more in the long run when you factor in Xbox Live but the price of entry right off the bat is lower. 

Also to those saying the timed exclusives will hurt MS next gen I think that'll have very little effect.  You can be sure MS will make sure gamerscores and friends lists carry over so unless they pull a Sony from earlier this gen and alienates a lot of their former fanbase I think MS will be just fine.  Who cares if the competition gets a game a year later, you've already played it and moved on to something else.  I don't think the average consumer is buying more than 5-10 games a year.