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

Forums - Sales - Microsoft's Exclusive Marketing Rights Strategy is Flawed.

ArchangelMadzz on 19 June 2015
IamAwsome said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
And even AC dropped them. They can keep getting rights but their rights will still be outsold by PS4 version. And it's getting increasingly more expensive for them to get rights. Everyone knows these games come out on PS4 because everyone knows it's the more popular console. I met someone who thought Arkham Knight was PS4 exclusive.

They have a lot of work on their hands.

I strongly doubt AC dropped them. It wouldn't surprise me if MS dropped AC. Unity was a hot dumpster fire, and despite this and all the anger surrounding the parity controversy, the XB1 version sold pretty decently. Yes I know the PS4 version sold 400k more overall, but it had a much bigger userbase. Some publishers have supported the underdog before just look at all of those exlcusive marketing/DLC deals that Sony had on the PS3. More popular console doesn't equal it getting every game; Titanfall says hi. 

The exclusive marketing deals mainly revolve around brand association. Sony had the marketing rights and exclusive DLC for all 4 Arkham games, so it wouldn't surprise me that some people think Arkham Knight is a PS4 exclusive. MS does the same thing with EA's sports games, and the sales are (were?) there to show for it. Destiny was another game that Sony pushed, and it paid off. 


Sony was not the underdog with the PS3. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=194317&page=1

EA banked on Microsoft with Titanfall before the XB1 meltdown. 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
IamAwsome on 19 June 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
IamAwsome said:

I strongly doubt AC dropped them. It wouldn't surprise me if MS dropped AC. Unity was a hot dumpster fire, and despite this and all the anger surrounding the parity controversy, the XB1 version sold pretty decently. Yes I know the PS4 version sold 400k more overall, but it had a much bigger userbase. Some publishers have supported the underdog before just look at all of those exlcusive marketing/DLC deals that Sony had on the PS3. More popular console doesn't equal it getting every game; Titanfall says hi. 

The exclusive marketing deals mainly revolve around brand association. Sony had the marketing rights and exclusive DLC for all 4 Arkham games, so it wouldn't surprise me that some people think Arkham Knight is a PS4 exclusive. MS does the same thing with EA's sports games, and the sales are (were?) there to show for it. Destiny was another game that Sony pushed, and it paid off. 


Sony was not the underdog with the PS3. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=194317&page=1

EA banked on Microsoft with Titanfall before the XB1 meltdown. 

Sure it wasn't the sales underdog, but it was certainly the brand/PR underdog, and the PS3 didn't actually overtake the 360 until 2013. After "599 US DOLLARS" happened a lot of people bet on the 360, just as the entire industry bet on the PS4 after the DRM/Kinect fiasco. Microsoft still hasn't recovered from that. 



Fusioncode on 19 June 2015
MoHasanie said:
I'm not sure what MS is thinking. Sony has chosen the right games this gen to promote (except Destiny).
AC was a good idea and the AC Unity bundle sold a lot, but they lost that partnership too. And Fallout won't have the same impact as COD, or AC could have had.

I think there were a lot of budget cuts for the Xbox division when Satya took over. They don't have the money to go crazy with 3rd party deals so they focus almost entirely on first party which should end up with higher sales for their exclusive games but not having deals with COD, Battlefront, Assassin's Creed, etc. is going to hurt console sales. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

ArchangelMadzz on 19 June 2015
IamAwsome said:
ArchangelMadzz said:


Sony was not the underdog with the PS3. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=194317&page=1

EA banked on Microsoft with Titanfall before the XB1 meltdown. 

Sure it wasn't the sales underdog, but it was certainly the brand/PR underdog, and the PS3 didn't actually overtake the 360 until 2013. After "599 US DOLLARS" happened a lot of people bet on the 360, just as the entire industry bet on the PS4 after the DRM/Kinect fiasco. Microsoft still hasn't recovered from that. 

It was more of a they lost lots of ground but still are king. (only just, but definite kings if you factor in the 1 year sales lead).

So wait are we just basically reaching the same conclusion? As this gen goes on it's going to be more difficult for microsoft to get 3rd party deals if they don't do some serious catching up to PS4 (Which isn't going to happen in mathmatical terms because in order for it to 'catch up' it has to outsell PS4) 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Rafie on 19 June 2015

Well Microsoft did great with CoD all of these years. I guess Activision wanted more money from Microsoft so Xbox can continue to get the DLC first due to PS being the market leader. Xbox probably didn't want to pay (not that they couldn't), so PS took over.

I thought MS did a great job with how they marketed for the 360. The policies was just jacked up. For Xbox One, I think Phil is spending so much time trying to ushering new policies and making great deals for Xbox that some things slip thru the cracks. Phil seems like a really good guy. It's difficult to dislike the man....even if you're a fan of the rivals.



PSN ID- RayCrocheron82

XBL Gamertag- RAFIE82

NNID- RAFIE82/ Friend Code: SW-6006-2580-8237

YouTube- Rafie Crocheron

Around the Network
Protendo on 19 June 2015
Rafie said:
Well Microsoft did great with CoD all of these years. I guess Activision wanted more money from Microsoft so Xbox can continue to get the DLC first due to PS being the market leader. Xbox probably didn't want to pay (not that they couldn't), so PS took over.

I thought MS did a great job with how they marketed for the 360. The policies was just jacked up. For Xbox One, I think Phil is spending so much time trying to ushering new policies and making great deals for Xbox that some things slip thru the cracks. Phil seems like a really good guy. It's difficult to dislike the man....even if you're a fan of the rivals.


I think it's more likely that Xbox budget was cut and they could no loner afford what they were paying.  I bet Sony just said, I'll pay what they were paying and that was that.



How are the next-gen consoles trending on social media?  Why are they popular? Join Social Media Monthly to find out what everyone is talking about!

"And everyone's Kickstarter has merit." - Malory Archer 

IamAwsome on 19 June 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
IamAwsome said:

Sure it wasn't the sales underdog, but it was certainly the brand/PR underdog, and the PS3 didn't actually overtake the 360 until 2013. After "599 US DOLLARS" happened a lot of people bet on the 360, just as the entire industry bet on the PS4 after the DRM/Kinect fiasco. Microsoft still hasn't recovered from that. 

It was more of a they lost lots of ground but still are king. (only just, but definite kings if you factor in the 1 year sales lead).

So wait are we just basically reaching the same conclusion? As this gen goes on it's going to be more difficult for microsoft to get 3rd party deals if they don't do some serious catching up to PS4 (Which isn't going to happen in mathmatical terms because in order for it to 'catch up' it has to outsell PS4) 

In a sense we are. 

It depends on the game. Certain franchises like EA Sports games will probably stay on Xbox because it's still big in North America. If Microsoft helps to fund more games like Tomb Raider they can get more partnerships, but there won't be a looong list of Xbox games with timed exlcusive DLC and stuff like there was with the 360 unless they pony up (which they can). 



Rafie on 19 June 2015
Protendo said:
Rafie said:
Well Microsoft did great with CoD all of these years. I guess Activision wanted more money from Microsoft so Xbox can continue to get the DLC first due to PS being the market leader. Xbox probably didn't want to pay (not that they couldn't), so PS took over.

I thought MS did a great job with how they marketed for the 360. The policies was just jacked up. For Xbox One, I think Phil is spending so much time trying to ushering new policies and making great deals for Xbox that some things slip thru the cracks. Phil seems like a really good guy. It's difficult to dislike the man....even if you're a fan of the rivals.


I think it's more likely that Xbox budget was cut and they could no loner afford what they were paying.  I bet Sony just said, I'll pay what they were paying and that was that.


Yeah that makes sense too. I forgot the Microsoft investors really want to cut the Xbox division off, right?



PSN ID- RayCrocheron82

XBL Gamertag- RAFIE82

NNID- RAFIE82/ Friend Code: SW-6006-2580-8237

YouTube- Rafie Crocheron

MoHasanie on 20 June 2015
Fusioncode said:
MoHasanie said:
I'm not sure what MS is thinking. Sony has chosen the right games this gen to promote (except Destiny).
AC was a good idea and the AC Unity bundle sold a lot, but they lost that partnership too. And Fallout won't have the same impact as COD, or AC could have had.

I think there were a lot of budget cuts for the Xbox division when Satya took over. They don't have the money to go crazy with 3rd party deals so they focus almost entirely on first party which should end up with higher sales for their exclusive games but not having deals with COD, Battlefront, Assassin's Creed, etc. is going to hurt console sales. 

Yeah, or maybe they have a fixed budget for third party's, and they used it all on getting Tomb Raider timed exclusivity. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

binary solo on 20 June 2015
Sticky said:

70% of the people buying consoles from now on i think will be casual... in which case exclusive marketing rights are more important now than they have been at launch.

I personally dont think any exclusive marketing deals in the past 2 years were important at all. This holiday will be different though when families start to pick them up.

It just sucks that MS bet on the wrong horse (TR)

I disagree, I think the Destiny deal was important for Sony, and the ACU deal was important for MS. Most of the other deals were of limited benefit.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix