-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I don't see elder scrolls and Starfield being exclusive to EGS so I'm not sure what kind of war they think they are going to win.
Both strong exclusive lineup and strong third party support is vital for a console's success i think.
Xbox One: Strong third party support, but weak exclusives. Good sales but not that great compared to the competition and previous xbox.
Wii U: Strong exclusives but weak third party support. Poor sales.
PS4/Switch: Strong exclusives and strong third party support. Crazy good sales.
Of course many other factors are important as well.
Xbox One: Strong third party support, but weak exclusives. Good sales but not that great compared to the competition and previous xbox.
Wii U: Strong exclusives but weak third party support. Poor sales.
PS4/Switch: Strong exclusives and strong third party support. Crazy good sales.
Of course many other factors are important as well.
So you're basing your argument on not seeing a hardware sales bump around exclusives, not around other hard numbers like PS4 consistently tracking higher than PS2 sales for most of its lifetime?
The Wii's exclusives are intrinsically tied to its hardware concept. You can't separate the two. People bought the Wii for Wii Sports, which they played with motion controls. The appeal was in the full package. So yes, Wii won because of its exclusives.
Xbox 360 was the best selling in the US thanks to the boost from Kinect. PS3 was a very distant 3rd. For some reason I remember it being over 10m behind 360 and Wii. Worldwide was much closer and I don't think anyone knows who won between Xbox and PS3, but it's moot because Wii outsold them both.
People obviously bought into the PS4 at high numbers all throughout its life on the strength of its library, but this is literally completely meaningless. The Wii also tracked higher than PS2 for most of its life and ended 50m below it in the end.
Look at the sales charts spanning the 32-bit generation. The disparity there is pretty crazy. PS1 won by sheer overall volume, but the top of the software lists are utterly dominated by Nintendo published N64 titles who regularly sold upwards of 8 million copies or more. Very few PS1 titles ever reached above 2 million.
Depends on who you ask, but there seems to be a small contingent of fanboys who love to push the narrative that it's competing with both and winning both.
XBO was doomed to second or third place before the generation even started, based entirely on Microsoft's self-immolation in the run-up to release:
- the DRM stuff
- the used game stuff that Sony gleefully dunked on them for
- the price (due to packed in Kinect 2.0)
- the inferior specs
- the shambolic messaging around the box that initially focused on anything but games.
- Xbox had already lost some steam in the last couple years of the 360 generation, because they largely stopped investing in first-party software beyond Halo/Gears/Forza. This lack of investment eventually came home to roost around late 2016-early 2017, in the form of "Xbox has no games lol".
A generally superior launch window lineup wasn't going to be nearly enough to save Microsoft from all of that. Sony probably could've just sat back at that point, but they also delivered a few really great E3 shows in those first few years that put the boots in even more. Speaking from personal experience I absolutely got a PS4 at launch after being primarily a 360 guy in the previous generation, because Xbox One just looked like an embarrassing mess at the time. I eventually impulse bought an XBO a few months later because I happened to be at Best Buy and they had a huge stack of them available, but it mostly sat unused for a long time.
Imho PS1 is the only case that somewhat fits the topic. But the exclusives were also only just one of many parts that lead to its success.
Maybe you can make the case for the NeoGeo as well if you reduce the definition of "market" to Arcade / Fighting games.
Maybe you can make the case for the NeoGeo as well if you reduce the definition of "market" to Arcade / Fighting games.
I think this is a bit more nuanced than this. By the end of the generation, yep, the PS3 had shifted more units. However, by far, the 360 was the machine with the greater attachment rate due to the hardware gap. That is where the money was, and why the MS strategy pivoted away from exclusives towards maintaining and creaming off the third party. Their entire strategy for the XB1 was to bake in features to make the PS4 more undesirable in its feature set.
But there is a big caveat here. Sony recognised that they were absolutely hammered on the third party front, and they put in a huge shift on making exclusive content. A lot of this was middling, but a lot started to become leading edge titles. When combined with PSN+, the platform became really valuable, and that was the late lifecycle shift to the platform. This also create a whole load of good will, so when the XB1 misfired, people flocked to the PS4.
Over this generation, the role has been reversed, but Microsoft did not respond with software, they've been attempting to claw back the hardware and service edge again. Which is only working "ok" at the moment, because fundamentally titles sell systems. It worked for the 360 early days, plus all their third party title "wins" from Sony. We'll see how it goes once the big acquisitions are in place, because that could start to make a tipping point.
Also, the Wii won that generation, and Nintendo's USP is their exclusive IP. That was just the fight for second place.
Last edited:
I think the main angle of my point is that PS3 clawed back a huge deficit to nearly level or barely ahead on the strength of building their software portfolio. Because it was properly floundering with most titles performing worse, the machine being more expensive, and tentative first titles in now flagship titles being "ok". All of which also helped when they launched PSN+, giving away their catalogue to late adopters, and a wave of good will for when the PS4 launched.
ZhugeEX said that we still don't know if PS3 sold more than Xbox 360.
but in this case the point is moot, since Wii sold more than 100 millions of units with Wii Sports.
Remove exclusives and you're left with third party, generally speaking. Nintendo has done incredibly well with the Wii and Switch. Are you ready to argue that those systems enjoyed better third party support than the competition?
I think he used that phrase specifically because the 360 led for most of the generation and only narrowly lost at the end.
Not necessarily, since exclusives couldn't close the massive gap to the 360 in the US.
It did put them in great stead for the PS4/Xbox One generation, though.
The issue with this type of discussion is that the conditions of "winning" are not defined. What is winning ? Hardware sales ? Does this mean Steam and Epic can never win ?
It is a known fact that software is where the business is, while hardware is not that much of an indication of anything. PS4 sold less than PS2 but generated four times the revenue. Wii sold gangbusters but software sales were not that exceptionnal.
Valve doesn't publish a lot of games, would anyone contest the dominance of Steam ?
It is a known fact that software is where the business is, while hardware is not that much of an indication of anything. PS4 sold less than PS2 but generated four times the revenue. Wii sold gangbusters but software sales were not that exceptionnal.
Valve doesn't publish a lot of games, would anyone contest the dominance of Steam ?
nah it's mainly due to the hardware.
same games on the wiiu and you move nothing.
MK8 literally showed that.
great software helps hit to go to 100m+ though.
how do you explain the Wii U and Switch?
half of the Switch library is Wii U ports but those have sold way better on Switch. bad hardware can sink good games. the same games that barely made a dent on Wii U and now setting records on Switch. you need both the games and the hardware to suceed and lacking either of the two leads to failure.
Anecdotally:
From a European / German standpoint, the marketing of the X360 always seemed to focus on US gamers. And the lack of new and interesting IPs plus the RROD disaster and noise of the OG X360 destroyed my and the interest of all my friends.
So IPs were a factor but not the main one.
The Wii on the other hand was basically a Parents/Grandparents-Tennis machine... Yes I know that it had very good exclusives but 3. Party was so crappy that most people I knew that used consoles chose the PS3 version instead.
From a European / German standpoint, the marketing of the X360 always seemed to focus on US gamers. And the lack of new and interesting IPs plus the RROD disaster and noise of the OG X360 destroyed my and the interest of all my friends.
So IPs were a factor but not the main one.
The Wii on the other hand was basically a Parents/Grandparents-Tennis machine... Yes I know that it had very good exclusives but 3. Party was so crappy that most people I knew that used consoles chose the PS3 version instead.
Read it again. I didn't say games were the only factor, I said games were the No. 1 factor. The Switch began it's life Day One with an extremely well-regarded game, and also finished that same year with another extremely well-regarded game. That set the tone.
Poor Wii getting slandered in here. The best selling PS3 game is GT5 at almost 12 million, then Uncharted 3 and TLOU at close to 7 mil. On the 360 side of the equation, Halo 3 is the top selling exclusive at a bit over 12mil. Interestingly, the COD games from MW2 to BLOPS2 did very well on 360, in the 14mil range, outselling all MS exclusives unless you consider Kinect Sports.
In comparison, Mario Kart Wii sold 37 million copies. NSMBWii sold 30 mil, Wii Sports Resort, 33mil, Wii Fit, 22 mil. If you think about it in terms of attach rate, these exclusives absolutely smoke that narrative as clearly more people resonated with specific exclusives on Wii. If the arguement is "the Wii's exclusives didn't do shit", the numbers don't back it up. It doesn't matter if those games don't directly appeal to some people in this thread, cause they certainly appealed to many others.
To the OP, access to exclusives is part of the plan, but definitely not the the sole aspect. Exclusives are one of the factors a platform holder can really control and are a direct strike against the competition, however as alluded to in the thread the Wii U had this benefit and still fell on it's face. This is because with regards to consoles, timing, marketing, perception, pricing, and to a degree hardware, also matters. And probably more!
In the Wii U example, it
Exclusive games should matter but the exclusivity of a game is not the only factor that will sell it and the platform. It needs to be a good game firstly, and the game and platform relatively accessible and known as well. A perfect example of this is Among Us - it didn't blow up until people actually knew about it. Half Life: Alyx is an amazing game for VR, but people aren't running out and buying VR headsets for the game, presumably due to cost and/or lack of hardware for sale. Our hobby is filled with people looking for hidden gems. I think there is an understanding that not every good game sells, for whatever reason. While I and others would like for it to be so simple, frankly we can't be that reductive.
In comparison, Mario Kart Wii sold 37 million copies. NSMBWii sold 30 mil, Wii Sports Resort, 33mil, Wii Fit, 22 mil. If you think about it in terms of attach rate, these exclusives absolutely smoke that narrative as clearly more people resonated with specific exclusives on Wii. If the arguement is "the Wii's exclusives didn't do shit", the numbers don't back it up. It doesn't matter if those games don't directly appeal to some people in this thread, cause they certainly appealed to many others.
To the OP, access to exclusives is part of the plan, but definitely not the the sole aspect. Exclusives are one of the factors a platform holder can really control and are a direct strike against the competition, however as alluded to in the thread the Wii U had this benefit and still fell on it's face. This is because with regards to consoles, timing, marketing, perception, pricing, and to a degree hardware, also matters. And probably more!
In the Wii U example, it
- came out too late - one year before PS4 and Xbone
- came out too expensive for their consumer base at the time
- came out with poor hardware
- came out with poor messaging and marketing - even gaming media at E3 had no idea what it was at the unveiling initially
Exclusive games should matter but the exclusivity of a game is not the only factor that will sell it and the platform. It needs to be a good game firstly, and the game and platform relatively accessible and known as well. A perfect example of this is Among Us - it didn't blow up until people actually knew about it. Half Life: Alyx is an amazing game for VR, but people aren't running out and buying VR headsets for the game, presumably due to cost and/or lack of hardware for sale. Our hobby is filled with people looking for hidden gems. I think there is an understanding that not every good game sells, for whatever reason. While I and others would like for it to be so simple, frankly we can't be that reductive.
It's kind of a moot point because you "win" the race by having a combination of factors including hardware, software, price, brand reputation and more. I guess to answer the question, no console has ever "won" the race by simply having exclusives.
What is clear and unarguable is that exclusive content significantly boosts adoption, even in the face of strong competition. The PS4 had probably the greatest line-up of exclusive software last generation and cleaned up against its major competitor. The 360 came out of the gate with an incredibly strong exclusive line-up that did wonders for its adoption and market share (relative to its previous console) in parts of the west. Nintendo's entire success is built on a few key pillars, one of which is its exclusive IP which it uses each generation to enhance the unique hardware features it is selling.
Simply put any platform investing in exclusive content will stand a greater chance of increasing its market share. It's not a guarantee and doesn't counter-balance a poor platform, but it's a huge part of the puzzle.
What is clear and unarguable is that exclusive content significantly boosts adoption, even in the face of strong competition. The PS4 had probably the greatest line-up of exclusive software last generation and cleaned up against its major competitor. The 360 came out of the gate with an incredibly strong exclusive line-up that did wonders for its adoption and market share (relative to its previous console) in parts of the west. Nintendo's entire success is built on a few key pillars, one of which is its exclusive IP which it uses each generation to enhance the unique hardware features it is selling.
Simply put any platform investing in exclusive content will stand a greater chance of increasing its market share. It's not a guarantee and doesn't counter-balance a poor platform, but it's a huge part of the puzzle.
