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

Forums - Gaming - Whats with the third party matters in a console success???

Tetsuya on 15 July 2007

im really a little kind of fustrated over the fact that third party sells consoles is that true??? did the following consoles have third party support....just answer yes and no k???

Nintendo 64

Sony Playstation

Sega Dreamcast

Sega Saturn

Nintendo Gamecube

Sony Playstation 2

Microsoft Xbox

Nintendo DS

Sony PSP (IMO it has alot of third party support but isnt selling well)

Microsoft Xbox 360

Sony Playstation 3

Nintendo Wii

so what everyone is telling me is that if many and many third party developers support a system it will sell well???

is it like this

System sells = third party support or having good connections with third parties

or

Third party support = good selling system

am i right or wrong???

please help me out!!!



Around the Network
misterd on 15 July 2007
Tetsuya said:

im really a little kind of fustrated over the fact that third party sells consoles is that true??? did the following consoles have third party support....just answer yes and no k???

Nintendo 64 No. Cost too much to make a catridge based game; much cheaper to develop for PSX; plus bad will leftover from agressive tactics used by Nintendo in NES/SNES days. Without 1st party and 2nd party games, N64 would have been dead in the water.

Sony Playstation Yes. Without 3P support the PS would never have beaten the Saturn, let alone the N64.

Sega Dreamcast Yes. Arguably the best launch lineup and 1st year software of any console in recent memory. Killed not for lack of support but by its own history of bad decisions and Sony's remarkable hype for the PS2.

Sega Saturn Yes, so far as I can recall, but Sega had shot it's credibility with the fanbase and released a notoriously difficult console to program for. Once it was clear that Sony was a viable option (between Sega's fumbles and Nintendo's need for control), it was pretty well doomed.

Nintendo Gamecube Yes, at first, then no. Wasn't terribly strong to begin with, but was looking better than N64. Marketing blunders by Nintendo hurt overall sales. Only Nintendo die hards went for the console, and they preferred 1st party games. PS2 was most popular console, MS paid for exclusive content, and therefore GCN versions almost always sold worse than the competition. After the 1st year 3rd party support evaporated.

Sony Playstation 2 Absolutely. The hype alone sold PS2s in the first year, even there was only one solid title (SSX, 3rd party). In 2001, had a killer lineup to fight off launches of Cube and Box - GTA3, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear  Solid 2, FFX, and Grand Toursimo 3. Only GT3 was 1st party. 

Microsoft Xbox Yes. Not at Sony's levels, but they paid for exclusive content and extra attention. Their versions always looked best, and consistently outsold GCN.

Nintendo DS Yes. Everyone develops for Nintendo hand helds.

Sony PSP (IMO it has alot of third party support but isnt selling well) Yes. PSP is doing quite well, just not as well as DS. 1st handheld in 20 years that could compete with Nintendo for more than a few months.

Microsoft Xbox 360 Yes. Even more support than the Xbox, thanks in part to improved relations with Japanese developers, early launch, and Sony missteps. Landing formerly exclusive series such as Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry and Resident Evil will help bunches.

Sony Playstation 3 Yes, but not as much as PS2. Losing exclusive titles is making PS3 less of a "must buy" than PS2. Will still have a solid lineup as long as they don'tlose titles completely.

Nintendo Wii Hesitant support at first, much more now that the system is skyrocketing. Cheaper development cost and larger possible base means 3Ps can see more profit on the Wii than on the competition, and this is translating into more (and hopefully better) titles.

so what everyone is telling me is that if many and many third party developers support a system it will sell well???

is it like this

System sells = third party support or having good connections with third parties

or

Third party support = good selling system

am i right or wrong???

please help me out!!!


What you have is a positive feedback loop between third party support and overall sales.

Very simply, gamers want games. The more games, the more variety, the more attractive the console is.

Third parties want profit. More consoles sold means more potential sales means more profit and thus more support.

Thus whoever is leading in a console race tends to get more 3rd party support, which gives more desirable games, which sells more consoles, which increases 3rd party support, and so on.

The catch is that 3rd parties benefit most when the competition between consoles is relatively even. If one console dominates (Nintendo and Sony in the past), the console developer holds more power over the third parties because they know the 3Ps need to develop for them. If the battle between consoles is close, it is the console makers who need the third parties, either to gain an advantage over the competition, or at least to keep the competition from gaining an advantage over them.

 



Tetsuya on 15 July 2007

so like i said at the above post...having third party makes a system sell well...



robjoh on 15 July 2007
Tetsuya said:
so like i said at the above post...having third party makes a system sell well...

 Actualy depends on the consol, it isn't 3rd party that sells the DS it is mainly first party. But the 3rd party means that you wont leave the consol during the time you wait for the next first party. What you can state is that exclusive games sells consols, independent if it is 3rd party or first party. You also need tons of games just taking shell space so that you can show the consumer that you have more games than the competition.



 

 

Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!

Tetsuya on 15 July 2007
robjoh said:
Tetsuya said:
so like i said at the above post...having third party makes a system sell well...

 Actualy depends on the consol, it isn't 3rd party that sells the DS it is mainly first party. But the 3rd party means that you wont leave the consol during the time you wait for the next first party. What you can state is that exclusive games sells consols, independent if it is 3rd party or first party. You also need tons of games just taking shell space so that you can show the consumer that you have more games than the competition.


i agree and your truly right...exclusive games is what sells consoles...and having lots of games on shelfs at the game stores proves to the consumer that this speific system is better than the others...i understand now..im a dumb ass..for bringing this forum up!!



Around the Network
WiteoutKing on 16 July 2007

Wrong again.

The Atari had buttloads of games sold on it, vast amounts of which were unlicensed.  It nearly collapsed the video game market. Quantity does not beget quality.



PS3: 5.51m/51w, avg 108,039/w (up 239)
360: 12.93m/102w, avg 126,764/w (up 625), leads PS3 by 7.42m (up 70k), avg lead 18,725/w (up 386)
Wii: 13.52m/51w, avg 265,098/w (dn 1,102), leads PS3 by 8.01m (up 90k), avg lead 157,059/w (dn 1,341)

If 360 sales stabilize, PS3 sales increases needed to pass 360 by...
01/08: (008w) +875.8%, 04/08: (021w) +344.4%, 07/08: (034w) +219.3%, 10/08: (047w) +163.5%
01/09: (060w) +131.8%, 04/09: (073w) +111.4%, 07/09: (085w) +098.1%, 10/09: (099w) +086.7%
If Wii sales stabilize, PS3 sales increases needed to pass Wii by...
01/08: (008w) +1072.%, 04/08: (021w) +498.4%, 07/08: (034w) +363.4%, 10/08: (047w) +303.1%
01/09: (060w) +269.0%, 04/09: (073w) +246.9%, 07/09: (085w) +232.6%, 10/09: (099w) +220.3%
If PS2 sales freeze, Wii sales increases needed to pass PS2 (as of Mar07, 108.4m) by...
2008: (008w) +4373.8%, 2009: (060w) +0496.5%, 2010: (112w) +0219.6%, 2011: (165w) +0116.9%
2012: (217w) +0064.9%, 2013: (269w) +0033.1%, 2014: (321w) +0011.5%, 2015: (376w) -0004.8%
At +0% it will pass it in 358w, the week ending September 19th, 2014, at an age of 409w (7y44w).
Current age of PS2: 7y37w.

Last update: Week ending November 3, 2007

HappySqurriel on 16 July 2007
WiteoutKing said:
Wrong again.

The Atari had buttloads of games sold on it, vast amounts of which were unlicensed.  It nearly collapsed the video game market. Quantity does not beget quality.

Imagine if you walked into a store today and saw an XBox 360 display with "Gears of War" right next to "The Gears of War" and "Gears of the War Machine" do you think that it would be easy for someone to pick out which was the good game from the piece of crap? Most unlicenced games were bug filled third rate clones of popular games which made it impossible for parents (and consumers in general) to find the games they were looking for.

Since Nintendo created the modern licence based system there has always been a corelation between the system which sells the best and the system with the strongest third party support ... Generally speaking, third party publishers follow system sales which means that (typically) strong third party sales are a result of high system sales and not the cause.



Xyrax on 16 July 2007
WiteoutKing said:
Wrong again.

The Atari had buttloads of games sold on it, vast amounts of which were unlicensed. It nearly collapsed the video game market. Quantity does not beget quality.

You dont seem to have any idea what your talking about. And worse yet, why that situation doesnt apply today. You need to revisit videogame history and see WHY the shelves were packed with garbage. The main reason was the licensing issues. That was remedied when Nintendo changed/fixed things with the NES.

 

I dont disagree with your last statement, it was your reference to the crash that was just terrible and completely off.