[bigtroyjon]

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

No, not even close. Most people who have a 360 have probably never even played a Halo or Gears game.

[BoilersFan23]

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).

The difference is Sony's own exclusive games are usually made to appeal to different audiences. They have many exclusives that sell well, just not millions of copies. I could say the different franchises combined make around the same amount of people pick up and PS3 compared to 360.

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. .

Xbox brand has been strong this gen and last gen in the US, but it has not helped at all in Japan or most of Europe. PSP did well in Japan but didn't exactly translate to the US. Genesis did well in the west and didn't sell well at all in Japan.

The main reason Xbox leads America is because MS has been very good at marketing/appealing to the US crowd. Xbox brand has been very strong while the PlayStation brand is no where near as strong compared to Japan/Europe. Part of the blame could be put on SCEA (they don't read the market as well as MS does), but it comes down to people's friends already owning a 360, so they want one too.

[Penguin]

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.

I was responding to someone else's point

That exclusives matter.. but different ones may matter on different levels.

One of the reasons Nintendo (Excluded) has been so successful is their biggest brands are golden in every territory.

[Arnie]

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

You've missed the point completely.

The point being that these two characters alone are enough to sell the mass audience on the game. That's the power of their respective brands.

[Diablos54]

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

Both are only available on Xbox consoles, which is a separate market from PC's. Neither will ever appear on a Sony or Nintendo platform so for all intents and purposes in this discussion they could be considered 1st party, even if they're not technically. (But don't Microsoft own both the IP's?)

[Barkley's Justice]

Sony goes 3rd party within next 10 years.

[Kusagari]

Xbox brand has been strong this gen and last gen in the US, but it has not helped at all in Japan or most of Europe. PSP did well in Japan but didn't exactly translate to the US. Genesis did well in the west and didn't sell well at all in Japan. The main reason Xbox leads America is because MS has been very good at marketing/appealing to the US crowd. Xbox brand has been very strong while the PlayStation brand is no where near as strong compared to Japan/Europe. Part of the blame could be put on SCEA (they don't read the market as well as MS does), but it comes down to people's friends already owning a 360, so they want one too.

It really comes down to MS putting most if it's focus on English speakers. XBL is the reason 360 dominates in America and the UK. And it does so because both speak English.

If you're not in an English speaking country it's gimped to all hell.

[The Technomancer]

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.

Basically yeah, the OP is "discounting the company with the universally compelling first party titles do either of the others have any universally compelling first party titles?"

[Grayman]

They have continued to matter for Nintendo so if Sony or MS could get the right mix of games going they can matter again for them. Mid tier games don't matter anymore though and Sony always made a great stable of those.

[benny_a]

The main reason Xbox leads America is because MS has been very good at marketing/appealing to the US crowd. Xbox brand has been very strong while the PlayStation brand is no where near as strong compared to Japan/Europe. Part of the blame could be put on SCEA (they don't read the market as well as MS does), but it comes down to people's friends already owning a 360, so they want one too.

I agree with you that the most important factor in getting a console over another is the network effect.

You've missed the point completely. The point being that these two characters alone are enough to sell the mass audience on the game. That's the power of their respective brands.

So the best test would be to have them as guest characters in already established fighting games? Then these fantastic characters would sell a shit ton more on the platform with the most appealing guest?

That never happens.

SFxT might be different, I haven't checked on the numbers.
But even if it sold more, the reason for that would be because it includes like 4 guest characters on one platform and none on the other. But that's hardly because they are more appealing and just because of quantity.

[RedSwirl]

In my opinion, most do not in terms of moving hardware. God of War might move some hardware, Gran Turismo might move some hardware, and Naugty Dog's Games definitely keep dedicated PlayStation fans, but the other franchises like Killzone or Resistance not so much. At this point I think they're just extra gravy on top, Team Ico's games even more so.

[abstract alien]

Both are only available on Xbox consoles, which is a separate market from PC's. Neither will ever appear on a Sony or Nintendo platform so for all intents and purposes in this discussion they could be considered 1st party, even if they're not technically.

Understood...it's just that MS has no actual in house talent in regards to exclusives. They always have to go to an outside source and get them to do it. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have to this. It's the reason we have Halo coming from a different team now instead of Bungie.

(But don't Microsoft own both the IP's?)

Ummm, I believe they own the Halo IP, but I'm not sure about Gears...

[jagowar]

1st party does not matter.... exclusives do still matter somewhat but even that is being eroded.

See the xbox and how it had the weakest 1st party lineup but when you included 3rd party exclusives like gears, me1 and all the exclusive content for the cod series their overall lineup was as strong as the others to most people (and in the us they had the strongest exclusive out there in xbox live). Xbox live was the exclusive Sony nor Nintendo could match and still have yet to really match.

[bigtroyjon]

Understood...it's just that MS has no actual in house talent in regards to exclusives. They always have to go to an outside source and get them to do it. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have to this. It's the reason we have Halo coming from a different team now instead of Bungie.

How was Bungie not in house talent?

[krystallinity]

Understood...it's just that MS has no actual in house talent in regards to exclusives. They always have to go to an outside source and get them to do it. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have to this. It's the reason we have Halo coming from a different team now instead of Bungie. Ummm, I believe they own the Halo IP, but I'm not sure about Gears...

343 Industries (Halo 4) is a 1st-party, in-house Microsoft game studio.

Turn 10 (Forza) is also 1st-party, in-house.

Both are quality developers.

So are Lionhead and Rare, but they aren't really that relevant these days.

Microsoft can definitely create excellent first-party studios if they wanted to. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't really care about new hardcore studio acquisitions.

They got Twisted Pixel recently, but that's about it.

(Before anyone asks, there is no such thing as a "second party developer." Studios like 343 Industries and Turn 10 are completely owned subsidiaries of Microsoft Studios).

[Papercuts]

They matter a lot more on the early stages of a console, but are still important. The only reason I have a PS3 is for the exclusive games.

[Chemo]

As long as Gran Turismo is a first party title, first party titles will matter to me.

[AgentP]

For two large groups they do not.

1. The CoD/Madden group who never venture far from their comfort food.

2. The casual crowd, waggle and Netflix.

I would hope it matters to the rest of us who love quality and variety. It does to me, without Sony's 1st/2nd party exclusives I would just be a PC gamer.

[chris3116]

I'm Nintendo and PC only. Feels good.

Same for me.

Nintendo for Mario, Zelda, ...
PC for Steam and the indies games.

Most big 3rd party multiplatform games didn't have any appeal to me.

[AAK]

Yes they do. Especially in the beginning of a console's life cycle.

If people say to look at 360, it is because of exclusives that they got the place they are. If it wasn't for exclusive games like Gears of War, Dead Rising, Lost Planet, Halo 3, among others that came out early in the life cycle, consumers wouldn't have flocked to the 360 as their default console for their generation before PS3 got its first killer app (MGS4). If those same games were multiplat 360 wouldn't be killing Sony the way they are.

[Leshita]

Yes, it does, though exclusives count almost just as much (though I cannot think of any major third-party titles that are exclusive besides Gears). I bought my PS3 for The Last Guardian primarily (poor me :p), so in my case, it does matter. I will also most likely buy a Wii-U later on just for Nintendo titles in HD too. Microsoft-wise, I cannot think of any first-party title that I would like to play (Halo is super meh to me and I have never seen the appeal, nor do I particularly like FPS games). The only thing Microsoft owns currently that I would like to play is Killer Instinct. If they ever revive that franchise in the way that the Mortal Kombat team did then I will most likely purchase an Xbox to play that.

EDIT: I meant, yes it does... for me.

[BassForever]

Not to the masses (unless it's Nintendo) but to GAF it does. I bought a PS3 just to play Uncharted series and Tales of Graces f, bought a PSP just to play Gears and Halo series, and I always buy all Nintendo platforms for Nintendo first party. I'll probably buy the Vita eventually same with all next gen platforms.

[KillGore]

Playstation and Nintendo only

No, not even close. Most people who have a 360 have probably never even played a Halo or Gears game.

Yup, you're right.

[Mooreberg]

They matter more earlier in the hardware cycle where third parties might be waiting for the install base to grow before doing anything significant. Beyond that... not nearly as much as they used to. Sony got a lot of mileage out of Grand Theft Auto only being a timed exclusive. Microsoft has gotten as much out of Call of Duty just by getting map packs earlier.

This could change in the next hardware cycle, but I'd be surprised if it did.

[Sho_Nuff82]

Compelling software is compelling software. I don't think consumers have ever cared if it was exclusive or used X amount of system resources. Nintendo just so happens to make a lot of compelling software, MS and Sony less so, making them more dependent on (and arguably, less competitive to) 3rd party content.

Edit: there has been a lot of revisionist history about the strength of Sony's first party in the PSOne and PS2 generations. Both platforms sold primarily on the strength of 3rd party content not found on competing consoles. It's only because of the dearth of 3rd party exclusives this gen that so many Sony games have gotten such a huge spotlight.

[Kusagari]

Playstation and Nintendo only Yup, you're right.

Please explain how Playstations matter and Xboxs don't.

[SykoTech]

No, not even close. Most people who have a 360 have probably never even played a Halo or Gears game.

Well, duh. Obviously Halo and Gears don't sell that much. But they were certainly games that got a lot of people to buy the system. Replace "most" with "a lot" if it makes you feel more comfortable.

[MYE]

So you're excluding the one example that disproves your point?

:/

Ok.

Here's the thing though, no matter how shitty nintendo's third party support gets, their exclusive franchises alone will keep them afloat.
Meanwhile others mostly juggle around with short-lived IPs, timed exclusives and other shitty marketing manouvers that will never ever build a solid and faithfull fanbase that sticks around for generations.

In short, yes. They mater a lot. They sell systems.

[Dragonzord]

I can't think of any first party Sony games that I would buy a system over. Or MS. Or even Nintendo. The majority of games I want on 3ds are 3rd party. Which I'm fine with. It saves me money.

[KillGore]

Please explain how Playstations matter and Xboxs don't.

Please explain to me why you question me when I mention Playstation but don't question others when they only mention Nintendo.

I prefer Gran Turismo over Forza, and Xbox's biggest franchise, Halo, is not enough for me to care about, just like Resistance and Killzone isn't enough for me to care about either, I can find first person shooters everywhere nowadays, and even better, like Bioshock. Games like Uncharted, Ratchet, Starhawk, God of War, etc I can't find copies of them on Xbox. Let's not even start talking about PS2 games.

Also, I'm talking about first party franchises.

Edit: I hope you know I was talking about personal preference, I wasn't talking about in general. Sorry if that confused you.

[Chuck Norris]

Please explain to me why you question me when I mention Playstation but don't question others when they only mention Nintendo. I prefer Gran Turismo over Forza, and Xbox's biggest franchise, Halo, is not enough for me to care about, just like Resistance and Killzone isn't enough for me to care about either, I can find first person shooters everywhere nowadays, and even better, like Bioshock. Games like Uncharted, Ratchet, Starhawk, God of War, etc I can't find copies of them on Xbox. Let's not even start talking about PS2 games. Also, I'm talking about first party franchises. Edit: I hope you know I was talking about personal preference, I wasn't talking about in general. Sorry if that confused you.

Yeah but Xbox 360 sells more in the US

[Kusagari]

Please explain to me why you question me when I mention Playstation but don't question others when they only mention Nintendo. I prefer Gran Turismo over Forza, and Xbox's biggest franchise, Halo, is not enough for me to care about, just like Resistance and Killzone isn't enough for me to care about either, I can find first person shooters everywhere nowadays, and even better, like Bioshock. Games like Uncharted, Ratchet, Starhawk, God of War, etc I can't find copies of them on Xbox. Let's not even start talking about PS2 games. Also, I'm talking about first party franchises. Edit: I hope you know I was talking about personal preference, I wasn't talking about in general. Sorry if that confused you.

Yeah, I thought you meant in general. This thread is about sales after all, so it didn't initially click you meant personal preference.

[LunaticHigh]

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.

Isn't this incorrect? I'm fairly certain for a number of years now the PS3 has been outselling the 360 WW. Not by a lot, however.

[Hey You]

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.

For the hardcore, Halo is stronger than Mario IMO.

[The Technomancer]

Isn't this incorrect? I'm fairly certain for a number of years now the PS3 has been outselling the 360 WW. Not by a lot, however.

You're right, but, funnily enough, that actually backs up his point: Sony's 1st party exclusives aren't leading to significantly higher success.

[LunaticHigh]

For the hardcore, Halo is stronger than Mario IMO.

I would say Halo and Mario have the same split for gamer demographics, both don't really get their main sales from the hardcore.

[speedpop]

I've said previously that I would not buy any new consoles because I don't play them anymore. I know the OP does not want to include the behemoth in the room, but I've had too many introspective moments where I continue playing Nintendo games. My idea that I'd still be able to enjoy their output through the handheld sphere that I adore so much probably won't work; I am still yet to play Skyward Sword, let alone finish Xenoblade Chronicles and (heaven forbid) Super Mario Galaxy 2. Will I go back to them? For sure. But I have to be realistic and understand that they are first party exclusives.

So what do I do then? Those pesky small runts otherwise known as dilemmas are hassling my wallet together with my unwavering belief that I don't need consoles anymore. I thought I was better off sticking to a diet of handhelds and PC. Perhaps it is fortunate for me then that Nintendo seem interested in bridging the gap that typically defines and divides consoles and handhelds.

[Replicant]

For me yes. Except for their FPSes, Sony's 1st party really appeal to me.

[Xplatformer]

I wouldn't have a PS3 or look forward to a PS4 if they didn't.

So, no.

To be honest....MLB the Show, Uncharted, now Starhawk and the Sly/Rachet series are worth getting a PS3. To be honest, I prefer the 360 controller, the visuals in 3rd party titles..and I think Microsoft's online experience is better than Sony's so if it weren't for the 1st party titles why the heck would I go with Sony hardware?

[Leflus]

The Wii is pretty much the proof that exclusives do matter. It would have been dead in the water if it hadn't been for Nintendo's games. You could of course argue that they are the reason for the lack of big budget third party games on the Wii, but that's another discussion.

And while they have mattered less for the 360 and PS3, they have still been important for those consoles as well. Especially early in the console cycle. Plus there's the fact that Sony has a shit ton of studios and that MS has been aquiring and establishing new studios left and right. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't value first party exclusives to some degree.

[Tylahedras]

Sony's first party line up is why I own a PS3, so I'd say they matter.

[Zeer0id]

I knew this thread sounded familiar

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=468811

[shintoki]

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. Neither company comes close to Nintendo's offerings. Its also why Nintendo still can push a system on 1st party and the other rely on 3rd party.

[MYE]

Sony is playing a dangerous game imo.

Where is Spyro, Crash, Medievil, and most of the psx era mascots that actually posed some kind of threat to nintendo's own sales proof IPs?

Gone

Maybe these teams wanted to move on to other stuff. But that means sony mostly puts its faith in new, unproven franchises instead of trying to balance between new games and maintaing quality releases of old system selling franchises.

All bets are off for next gen as well because who knows if Sony Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerilla and Sucker Punch's next bets will pay off in terms of pushing systems out of stores.

[SykoTech]

I knew this thread sounded familiar http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=468811

Heh, glad I wasn't the only one who remembered.

Nice to see that most people realize that obvious do matter.

[DjangoReinhardt]

Now that Ueda's done at Sony, there isn't a non-Nintendo first-party developer that interests me.

[Syph Medwes]

Actually they're the only thing that matters to me.

[i-Lo]

As the market demographics change and evolve so will the ability to connect with a mascot. For example, I never grew up with Nintendo franchises and so I could not care less about them regardless of how good or bad they are. As more and more new comers come to play games on HD platforms every year, the ability to relate to mascot will keep shifting as well. The one game without mascot that Sony has is GT and boy does that game sell, esp, in EU.

I think Sony is doing a great job investing in creating new IPs with new mascots of which some may indeed acquire great significance and mind share. Case in point: Nolan North is synonymous with Nathan Drake.

[Sky Chief]

I have bought every Sony console for the exclusives. Also the PS3 has been outselling the Xbox 360 for some time now, maybe that is because of first party games?

[HocusPocus]

Nope not when you get games like Bioshock Infinite, Batman Arkam City, etc. on the platform of your choice.