[MercuryLS]

I'm not including Nintendo here (Mario can still move hardware like crazy).

But in the battle between MS and Sony, it just seems like Sony's constant barrage of great 1st party games every year seems to not really shift big hardware numbers. MS has been handily outselling Sony for quite a while. Does the average gamer just not care? Is Sony's considerable investment in 1st party output just a waste in the end? It seems like MS's lack of 1st party games hasn't really hurt it over the last few years, they've really ratcheted down on creating new franchises. Its all Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza. That's it really for the hardcore, but it hasn't slowed their console momentum one bit.

[Thoraxes]

For me, and excluding Nintendo like you state, no; to me they really do not matter at all anymore.

[Izick]

They do for me. I bought a PS3 for exclusives, and I'll likely buy a WiiU for exclusives. My 360 is my multiplat machine for the most part.

[Mama Robotnik]

They would be more relevant if either MS or Sony had first-party franchises as powerful and as appealing as those wielded by Nintendo.

Alas, they don't. Even the mighty Halo is nothing compared to the might of Mario or Pokemon.

[Zabuza]

Sony's got some big ones lined up. It's what I care about. Of course they matter.

[impact]

For me, yea
For most, no, otherwise 360 wouldn't be doing so much better than PS3 in America

[Fuzzy]

I'm not including Nintendo here (Mario can still move hardware like crazy). But in the battle between MS and Sony, it just seems like Sony's constant barrage of great 1st party games every year seems to not really shift big hardware numbers. MS has been handily outselling Sony for quite a while. Does the average gamer just not care? Is Sony's considerable investment in 1st party output just a waste in the end? It seems like MS's lack of 1st party games hasn't really hurt it over the last few years, they've really ratcheted down on creating new franchises. Its all Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza. That's it really for the hardcore, but it hasn't slowed their console momentum one bit.

MS has one exclusive that trumps all others, XBL.

[chickdigger802]

It only really matters early new gen outside of nintendo.

[Sojgat]

They will at the beginning of the next gen, now not so much.

[ajvizzgamer101]

Sony makes great games but they don't make games people connect with. I will pay 250 for Wii U just to play Zelda. Not many of PS3 exclusive are like that MGS4 was the huge and maybe Uncharted but thats it.

[IrishNinja]

of course they matter, the PS3 wouldve done much worse without them. they'll continue to matter next gen too, and i'm assuming MS is relying on locking people into live and multimedia shit because i haven't seen them work much on securing studios to replace the ones they lost.

[Penguin]

I think they do

One of the reasons the 360 does better than the PS3 is because stuff like Halo and Gears of War are insanely popular compared to Sony's franchises.

And even though you excluded it, Nintendo proves how important it is every gen

[Adr1an]

I think it still matters when next-gen arrives and the ps4 and 720 are equally priced and come out around the same time, First party games will be the differentiator for some people on which consoles to purchase.

[gaming_noob]

Third parties stepped up in a big way this gen. Now, first parties aren't the only ones making money in this industry which is a huge plus. I'm more of a 3rd party gamer.

of course they matter, the PS3 wouldve done much worse without them. they'll continue to matter next gen too, and i'm assuming MS is relying on locking people into live and multimedia shit because i haven't seen them work much on securing studios to replace the ones they lost.

MS has quite a few new studios but they haven't proven themselves (no games released).

[AdventureRacing]

They would be more relevant if either MS or Sony had first-party franchises as powerful and as appealing as those wielded by Nintendo. Alas, they don't. Even the mighty Halo is nothing compared to the might of Mario or Pokemon.

This. There is nothing special about nintendo that makes their 1st party important and no one elses. It's just that MS and sony don't have any franchises that are even nearly as big as what nintendo can offer.

[MikeE21286]

Yeah, I definitely think they do. They help to define your system.

[Sophia]

1st party exclusives always matter the most at the beginning of a generation, and lose some of their importance as you near the end of a generation. They'll start mattering again with the Wii U/Xbox successor/PS successor.

[Forkball]

I would say no, unless you're Nintendo (then they're seemingly the only thing that matters). Exclusive titles are such a small fraction of a console's library these days that people willingly choose price, features, or track record with third party game performance. You do have to give Sony a lot of credit though, they've definitely created a multitude of new first party franchises and titles, but with the PS3's slow start, it didn't really seem to make a dent.

[echothreealpha]

For me, yea For most, no, otherwise 360 wouldn't be doing so much better than PS3 in America

Then again, it was Halo and Gears of War as console exclusives that arguably made the difference for the system in the US.

(other than the early release & price at the beginning of the console war)

[FallbackPants]

They will at the beginning of the next gen, now not so much.

Boom. Right here.

You use your first party titles to sell consoles for that initial user base then as the generation goes on let the third parties take over.

I'm hoping the reason there has been so little MS first part action recently is because they're all gearing up for the next console. Hoping.

[Bukana]

Classics and Re-releases is what matters most, for me.
PSOne Classics, PS2 Classics, PSP , etc.
Of course they matter, I bought 360 because of Halo 3 and Lost Odyssey, PS3 for MGS4 and exclusive RPGs.
Bought a Vita because of the things listed above.
So, YES!

[Alligatorjandro]

I bought a PS3 and a 360 to play each's exclusives

[Mario007]

I'm not including Nintendo here (Mario can still move hardware like crazy). But in the battle between MS and Sony, it just seems like Sony's constant barrage of great 1st party games every year seems to not really shift big hardware numbers. MS has been handily outselling Sony for quite a while. Does the average gamer just not care? Is Sony's considerable investment in 1st party output just a waste in the end? It seems like MS's lack of 1st party games hasn't really hurt it over the last few years, they've really ratcheted down on creating new franchises. Its all Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza. That's it really for the hardcore, but it hasn't slowed their console momentum one bit.

Not true at all, in fact its Sony that's outselling MS since 2010 despite higher entry price point. So I guess they do matter.

[benny_a]

MS has been handily outselling Sony for quite a while.

Not true.

Hardware   (Ap-Jn)'11   (Jl-Sp)'11   (Oc-Dc)'11   (Ja-Mr)'12     FY 2011       


  PS3         1.8          3.7          6.5          1.9          13.9   

  360         1.7          2.3          8.2          1.4          13.6

Hardware   (Ap-Jn)'10   (Jl-Sp)'10   (Oc-Dc)'10   (Ja-Mr)'11     FY 2010       


  PS3         2.4          3.5          6.3          2.1          14.3   

  360         1.5          2.8          6.3          2.7          13.3

[HigherLevel]

Yeah, you need something to differentiate yourself from the competition. The two biggest reasons I've stuck with the 360 over the PS3 is because of much I like Halo and Gears of War. Those aren't the only reasons but they are two of the biggest.

[stuminus3]

Here's the funny thing - you're not including Nintendo, but Nintendo are the reason why if you're a gaming hardware manufacturer, 1st party exclusives should be the main thing that matters.

What put Nintendo in the game in the 1980s where people either thought that home consoles were a fad for kids that had already passed and their competition was crumbling into dust? High quality first party exclusives. What reason was there to keep buying Nintendo when Sega swept in from nowhere and ate up their whole market with their "next gen" hardware? High quality first party exclusives. What kept them going through the HUGE paradigm shift of the PlayStation generation? High quality first party exclusives. Oh look, Apple's (ironically) non-gaming platform is going to wipe out everything we've ever known about videogames. Except Nintendo - because they still have their high quality first party exclusives. It's that perfect synergy of hardware and software that keeps them in the game, even when the game no longer resembles anything that came before.

All this talk in recent years about multiplatform being the only way to stay sustainable? Well, that's companies running themselves into the ground with stupidity that's got us all thinking that. It's going to come back and bite them in the ass when the whole "good enough" mentality of the casuals on iOS finally breaks the core.

Of course generally running a business well is important, what with Sega also having that 1st party exclusive thing going for them back in the day, but there'd have been no business for them to run in the first place without Sonic.

[The Lamp]

Maybe they don't do the biggest number in sales, but my favorite games this gen have been exclusives. Mostly PS3 exclusives. And PS3 exclusive games are often stuff you don't really see on other platforms, like LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted, God of War, etc. They've helped define the PS3's library.

But yeah it seems like the priority purchase to the average gamer these days are multiplats like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty.

[chaosblade]

I was going to bring up Nintendo, but yeah. They're exclusives (not just Mario) mean a lot to me, but I'd say none of Microsoft's do (at least on consoles) and few of Sonys (Wipeout comes to mind for one).

I think XBL is definitely where the 360 has a leg up on the PS3. And why I think Microsoft's potential services push makes sense from their point of view. Sure, most of the games might be available on both platforms, but they want to give you a social experience even with those games that is not. And the fact it's a social experience is why it can push consoles, i.e., people getting the 360 because it's what their friends have.

And it also encourages you to buy their next platform so everything carries over, rather than starting from scratch if the buyer decides to get a PS4 instead.

[Lazy vs Crazy]

I'm not including Nintendo here (Mario can still move hardware like crazy).

Yeah, ok, if we discount the best of the best first party games they don't matter much, I guess? You can't exclude something just because it disproves your point.

But no you are wrong in any case. Halo sells xboxes and God of War sells playstations.

[impact]

Not true. Hardware (Ap-Jn)'11 (Jl-Sp)'11 (Oc-Dc)'11 (Ja-Mr)'12 FY 2011 PS3 1.8 3.7 6.5 1.9 13.9 360 1.7 2.3 8.2 1.4 13.6 Hardware (Ap-Jn)'10 (Jl-Sp)'10 (Oc-Dc)'10 (Ja-Mr)'11 FY 2010 PS3 2.4 3.5 6.3 2.1 14.3 360 1.5 2.8 6.3 2.7 13.3

Yea, worldwide. I'd be scared to see US numbers

[MikeE21286]

Yea, worldwide. I'd be scared to see US numbers

not sure why US numbers would matter more than worldwide....?

[benny_a]

Yea, worldwide. I'd be scared to see US numbers

So now the thread title should be:

Do 1st-party games not matter anymore? (In the US, also ignore Nintendo)

[Kusagari]

People always say they don't because PS3 is trailing so bad.

But they fail to realize Gears and Halo tower over all PS3 exclusives in America. 360s exclusives prove quality, or at least perceived quality by the mass market, owns quantity.

[abstract alien]

Sony has come a long way, so yes, it does matter. MS needs to step up and create great content that can't be purchased elsewhere.

[Mario007]

Yea, worldwide. I'd be scared to see US numbers

and honestly who cares about one market when overall you're the top contender?

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I'm Nintendo and PC only.

Feels good.

[Izick]

Plus, I'm sure that a large majority of people only buy 360's for Halo 3/Reach, or at least they do at first, so that's something else to chew on.

[impact]

and honestly who cares about one market when overall you're the top contender?

Considering how much America is carrying MS, I'd say it's pretty important.

[Arnie]

People always say they don't because PS3 is trailing so bad. But they fail to realize Gears and Halo tower over all PS3 exclusives in America. 360s exclusives prove quality, or at least perceived quality by the mass market, owns quantity.

Exactly the point I was going to make.

It's about building a recognisable brand and a universe and keeping players hooked up to that. It's much more important to build one or two colossal IPs than to shovel out 10 standard ones.

There was a funny discussion about who Microsoft would include in their own take on a Smash Brothers style game, and the consensus largely agreed that it'd pretty much just be Master Chief versus Marcus Fenix; now whilst that may be funny, the irony is such a game would outsell the Sony All Stars title by a huge margin.

[benny_a]

and honestly who cares about one market when overall you're the top contender?

US is the main market for video games. The dominance in the main market is going to have effect on the second and third markets.

MS has two quality shooter franchises in an video game era that has shooters be the best sellers. This is huge.

There was a funny discussion about who Microsoft would include in their own take on a Smash Brothers style game, and the consensus largely agreed that it'd pretty much just be Master Chief versus Marcus Fenix; now whilst that may be funny, the irony is such a game would outsell the Sony All Stars title by a huge margin.

Even though you might think that is funny, but a fighting game with only two characters is probably not going to sell very well.

[Diablos54]

MS needs to step up and create great content that can't be purchased elsewhere.

Gears of War? Halo? Those 2 alone made millions of people pick up a 360, more than any Sony exclusive did for the PS3 at least. Their only huge first party game is Gran Turismo (And maybe Uncharted).

[staticneuron]

Yea, worldwide. I'd be scared to see US numbers

So it should be noted that maybe first party exclusives don't mater in certain regions while it may matter in other regions.

[King of the Potato People]

Thread: “Do RPGs matter any more?

I'm not including WRPGs here.”

[SykoTech]

Yes they matter. The PS3 wouldn't had been able to catch up as well as it did without them.

Most people who got a 360 either did for Halo or Gears of War.

And why leave out Nintendo? Because it ruins your argument?

[Penguin]

So it should be noted that maybe first party exclusives don't mater in certain regions while it may matter in other regions.

That's a fair point, like Halo/Gears means nothing in Japan
While I feel like something like Gran Turismo is much more important in Europe.

[Clint Beastwood]

Yeah.

I enjoy Halo/Forza more than anything on Playstation. Aside from Uncharted, I don't like any other franchise Sony has and most of their single exclusives (something like 3D Dot Game Heroes) don't interest me.

Just because Sony has more exclusives and 360 sells better doesn't mean exclusives don't matter.

[Derrick01]

Yes they help define your system. Sony has always had relatively strong 1st party games for gamers but nothing other than GT and God of War on a smaller scale that really gained outside attraction. Uncharted for this gen would be another smaller scale. They used to rely on third parties, whether it was FF or GTA or MGS or Resident Evil but the era of third party exclusive is pretty much dead now.

But when you look at 360, Halo and Gears define that system. Nintendo has all of their franchises that define theirs. Many of the biggest selling games of this gen are exclusives to one of those 2 platforms.

[abstract alien]

Gears of War? Halo? Those 2 alone made millions of people pick up a 360, more than any Sony exclusive did for the PS3 at least. Their only huge first party game is Gran Turismo (And maybe Uncharted).

Neither was made by MS, and both are on PC.

[MikeE21286]

That's a fair point, like Halo/Gears means nothing in Japan While I feel like something like Gran Turismo is much more important in Europe.

Wait, I don't think that's what this thread is about.


Aren't we asking about the concept of first party exclusives overall mattering or not, not certain 1st party exclusives.

It's easy to say that Halo/Gears matter in US/EU and not in Japan, but by logic that doesn't let us know if 1st party exclusives matter in Japan or not.

[KenOD]

As people seem to care about the Playstation All-Stars game, it has to matter somewhat.

I've seen people say they got a PSP for God of War, Vita for Uncharted, and Move for echochrome ii (okay that's a lie, I was the only one to do that), etc.

I see Fourza and Gran Turismo argued about in the same way I used to see SEGA GT and Gran Turismo. Wipeout vs Mario Kart.

Plenty of exclusives that matter and do help, but with how many more games overall that are made these days? It's not as important because they don't have to make up so much of the library any more and easily don't. I don't need Mario Kart, I have SEGA's All Star Racing for example.