Fusioncode said:
Metalheadgamer said:
Fusioncode said:
Metalheadgamer said:
They have 1st party franchises. That's true. But are they enough to sell consoles by themselves during the ENTIRE lifecycles of these consoles? Think about that for a second. They have Halo and Gran turismo that sell to Nintendo levels but what else do they have that selll to that level? And you want to bring up the Gamecube sales....
Ok, so if the gamecube sales were bad....shouldn't I say that the original Xbox sales were bad as well?
It's true that Microsoft had a bigger first party presence back then than now, but did they sold those 24 millions all by themselves? If it wasn't for the third parties, the original Xbox would have sold way less than it did. Nintendo sold 21 millions Gamecubes mostly by themselves. Quite a small difference, don't you think?
Once again, look at the top selling games on on the big three's consoles to understand my point.
The reason why the gamecube lost is because of an identity crisis and a lack of hardware innovation.
|
I think you need to explain your point a little better. I'm still not sure what exactly you're arguing here. Are you saying that since Nintendo has larger 1st party franchises they will win this gen? Because that wouldn't make much sense. Are Sony and MS more reliant on 3rd parties than Nintendo? Probably. But that isn't a bad thing. Major 3rd party publishers aren't going anywhere. Yes a lot of studios have closed down over the years but that's nothing new. It happens every gen. The only major publisher that has closed shop recently was THQ and it wasn't even that big to begin with. So you think Nintendo is proud of the fact that they can sell 20 million consoles with only 1st party games? They would kill for more 3rd party support.
|
I'm not saying Nintendo will win automatically because of first party titles. You brought up the gamecube sales to prove that. Innovation is a key factor to winning. And where did I say that all major publishers are gonna die? But I do expect some to, EA in particular. You say they can sell 20 millions with only first party, but you forget that they sold100 millions Wiis by themselves. And who wouldn't kill for third parties? I never said otherwise. The difference is that Nintendo won't pay for multiplats like the other two do.
You say that HAVING to rely on third parties is not a bad thing....well, look at where Sony and Microsoft are now....financialy in their gaming division, they're not doing that well, because they spent tons of money to please the third parties.
|
The Wii actually had quite a bit of 3rd party support. I'd say they had more 3rd party exclusives than the PS3 or 360. Microsoft has clearly spent a truckload on buying exclusives but I don't think Sony is in the same boat. They lost exclusivity on FF15 probably because they weren't willing to shell out tons of cash to keep Square Enix happy. Nintendo has spent plenty of money getting games like Monster Hunter 4 and Dragon Quest exclusive to their platforms. You can't say that Sony and MS are the only ones who shell out money for 3rd party support when Nintendo has been doing it for a very long time now.
|
Nintendo does it for EXCLUSIVES. That's true. But not for multiplats. The problem with Sony and Microsoft is that they do it for multiplats as well.
But my whole point is...the fact that Nintendo are able to sell their consoles MOSTLY by THEMSELVES is a proof of strenght, not of weakness. The fact that Sony and Microsoft have to rely MOSTLY on third parties is not a proof of strenght in my eyes. I'm not saying it's bad to have good third party support. In fact, it's excellent. But if you rely MOSTLY on third parties to sell your systems, it's going to hurt you IN THE LONG RUN.
All I've said in this debate are only what I feel when I analyze the market. As a gamer, however, I have different views on the big three.