[KillGore]

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

Yeah, sorry about that, if we're talking in general then I think they matter mostly with Nintendo. Sony keeps releasing quality exclusives and the public doesn't seem to care, so I think Microsoft has convinced the consumer that exclusives don't matter. Of course there is the exception, but the majority don't seem to care if we look at 360 sales.

[staticneuron]

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.

Considering Consoles sell worldwide and not in one region alone, a boost in one or multiple regions justify their existence. In the end, the mission is accomplished. To draw more attention to the console and hopefully make a profit.

Yeah, sorry about that, if we're talking in general then I think they matter mostly with Nintendo. Sony keeps releasing quality exclusives and the public doesn't seem to care, so I think Microsoft has convinced the consumer that exclusives don't matter. Of course there is the exception, but the majority don't seem to care if we look at 360 sales.

They are the lifeblood of nintendo consoles. The public cares about sony releases, just varies depending on which region we are talking about. MS exclusives also matter but the XBL service is an attractive exclusive feature on its own that allows the 360 owners to receive an exclusive benefit even with third party titles.

In short the all matter, but are of different importance to each company.

[McLovin]

Doesn't matter in the US... matters everywhere else.

[Punchpudding]

I'm going to agree that it matters at the beginning of the generation when consoles are trying to gain traction in the market.

BUT.. personally I'm not a huge fan of any first party games right now and I think the reason is that they are specifically made to sell hardware. That is, their only reason for existing really is to sell something else... like a Mcdonald's happy meal toy. Now maybe games aren't art to everyone but it is refreshing to see games created by the passion of the developer's vision and a sense of expression. While third party games (companies in the business of selling games for the sake of games) can be hit or miss, sometimes a developer's vision comes through and it pays off... but you're rarely going to see a happy meal toy that's a masterpiece.

I still enjoy some first party games but looking down the list (Halo, Fable, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, Starhawk, etc ...) they now feel like corporate attempts at pushing the company's other product and appealing to the lowest common denominator. I think of the story that Uncharted was supposed to be a fantasy game but Sony wanted a more marketable game to compete against Gears at the time. First party can be great for the company pushing their devices but they don't matter much to me anymore.

tl;dr: they don't matter to me because they place sales and promotion of the console above developer expression

[Chet Rippo]

I buy games that are interesting to me.

[toastyToast]

Not as much anymore

The existence of games I can't play won't make the ones I have access to any less enjoyable

[staticneuron]

I still enjoy some first party games but looking down the list (Halo, Fable, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, Starhawk, etc ...) they now feel like corporate attempts at pushing the company's other product and appealing to the lowest common denominator. I think of the story that Uncharted was supposed to be a fantasy game but Sony wanted a more marketable game to compete against Gears at the time. First party can be great for the company pushing their devices but they don't matter much to me anymore. tl;dr: they don't matter to me because they place sales and promotion of the console above developer expression

Doubt that is true especially when talking about Sony because not only do they let their devs have freedom but they also support some unique and risky IP. The last Guardian, folklore, and titles like datura,fat princess, flower, flow, journey and many other quirky titles indicate that Sony really does let their devs have a great amount of control over their vision.

I mean, if the only mandate was to make a game look more realistic.. then that really doesn't seem like a huge noose especially when they are footing the bill.

[Fancy Corndog]

Not when no one knows about them. Sony has done a really bad job of marketing this gen, and Microsoft has done a really good job of it.

How many people on the street do you think have heard of Starhawk, Uncharted, or Killzone 2 versus how many have heard of Gears of War?

[Penguin]

Not when no one knows about them. Sony has done a really bad job of marketing this gen, and Microsoft has done a really good job of it. How many people on the street do you think have heard of Starhawk, Killzone 2, and Uncharted versus how many have heard of Gears of War?

I wouldn't say Sony has done a terrible job, I think Sony attempts to push all of their games equally, which is fair on paper, but not really sensible.

Like with Nintendo, Punch-Out and Excitebots (as much as I love them), weren't pushed nearly as hard as the Galaxies or Donkey Kong Country Returns.

Halo and Gears are given a lot more publicity than Forza or Fable

Where as Sony, inFamous and Uncharted and Killzone and Resistance all kind of got the same push.. Recently, Uncharted has been more at the forefront, but like 3rd game in

[Allonym]

If Sony can create that "live like" experience with the PSN while maintaining the free price and throwing in bonuses and other incentives like discounted games and early demos and exclusive content then that will only help their exclusive games. Also Sony lacks that community feeling that Live customers get so if they get that then it'll make the battle against Microsoft all the easier.

To answer the question though yes exclusives matter, for me its what has kept me with Sony and for many others I'm sure its what has kept them with Microsoft be it Gears, Halo, Kincet or most likely Live

[muu]

Of course it still matters. Halo is a very strong franchise that sold people a lot of consoles. If they keep God of War and Uncharted properly nurtured it'll do the same in the future generations. If it seems like it matters less because of the standstill between MS and Sony, it's because the latter mishandled its assets from PS1 outright. Games like Parappa, Poporocrois, Jumping Flash, Arc the Lad, etc. all died because they didn't receive the attention they deserved. Mario is still with us because Nintendo puts 100% into their Mario games; franchises come and go because they can't keep that momentum going all those years. Sony loosened its grip during the PS2 period because they were the indisputable king, and they're paying for it now. They likely won't make the same mistake the next time around, and the likes of Nathan Drake, Kratos and Sackboys, while not having as long a history as the plumber, will hopefully keep polishing their game to make the hardware choices more difficult for everyone.

[Ra1den]

I think Kinect has proven that the only thing that matters now is advertising budgets.

[mujun]

They matter to list wars people. Jokes aside, I think they matter early on in a console life cycle but get 4+ years in and third party stuff diminishes their importance considerably.

[les papillons sexuels]

of course they do, it's why microsoft has been doing so well this generation.

They learned to follow nintendo's strategy.

[Erethian]

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

"Excluding the times when 1st party exclusives matter, do 1st party exclusives matter?"

So far as Microsoft and Sony go, though, Halo is still a pretty big deal but on the other hand being under the MGS branding is usually a death knell. And Sony bungled Gran Turismo this generation, which was far and away their biggest IP during the PS1/PS2 era.

So it's not that they don't matter, it's that companies aside from Nintendo have actively got worse at leveraging any 1st part IPs they might have.

[Dark_AnNiaLatOr]

The truth about Sony, personally I love most of their first party this gen. They just didn't do any substantial marketing. That has to be the only problem.

[Punchpudding]

Doubt that is true especially when talking about Sony because not only do they let their devs have freedom but they also support some unique and risky IP. The last Guardian, folklore, and titles like datura,fat princess, flower, flow, journey and many other quirky titles indicate that Sony really does let their devs have a great amount of control over their vision. I mean, if the only mandate was to make a game look more realistic.. then that really doesn't seem like a huge noose especially when they are footing the bill.

I don't doubt that both companies have made some good moves (especially when indie games took off and both companies were getting into that space... you can never have to many smaller experimental games). But I don't think you can ignore the difference between a developer that just makes games and one that makes games to sell consoles. There is going to be some downward pressure from something above who is highly invested into a "console war". MS or Sony would be stupid not to exert that pressure to make sure their brand is as successful as possible (while that pressure would not exist for say, Valve).

Here is the quote we're talking about: "The demographic was older and gritty shooters were really dominating. Sony wanted very much to get into that market share, it pushed all of its developers in this direction." (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...a-fantasy-game). It sounds like downward pressure to me. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it comes with the territory of being a first party dev and IMO (can't stress this enough) it tends to make for more mundane games.

[Zuly]

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

Because the U.S. is the only country that matters, amirite?

[JB1981]

This gen has taught me that they are never a reason to buy a system. 3rd party support is a lot more important

[King Boo]

don't matter to me. nintendo/pc person here

[Freezie KO]

Yes, it matters. First party exclusives will be among the first reasons people use to choose their platform of choice.

There are two faults with the OP:

1. The generation is 5 years in. This is when new IP sells the least, and gamers are less likely to try out new stuff for their old hardware.

If you expect Sony's moderately larger first-party output to mitigate a number of other factors, including MS's output at the beginning of the gen, then you aren't thinking of how generations work. It's very difficult to suddenly turn the tide, unless a platform totally falls off like the Wii.

2. Kinect is a first-party exclusive that has moved a lot of hardware late in the generation, but you're only naming Halo, Gears, etc.

[Mario007]

Not when no one knows about them. Sony has done a really bad job of marketing this gen, and Microsoft has done a really good job of it. How many people on the street do you think have heard of Starhawk, Uncharted, or Killzone 2 versus how many have heard of Gears of War?

Actually Uncharted series stands maybe a million behind the Gears of War series so I'd say the recognition is there. The problem is that Gears sells well in America mainly whereas Uncharted is a huge seller in Europe. This is kinda the case for many Sony franchise and since many posters here seem to be from America, they discount this fact.

Yes, it matters. First party exclusives will be among the first reasons people use to choose their platform of choice. There are two faults with the OP: 1. The generation is 5 years in. This is when new IP sells the least, and gamers are less likely to try out new stuff for their old hardware. If you expect Sony's moderately larger first-party output to mitigate a number of other factors, including MS's output at the beginning of the gen, then you aren't thinking of how generations work. It's very difficult to suddenly turn the tide, unless a platform totally falls off like the Wii. 2. Kinect is a first-party exclusive that has moved a lot of hardware late in the generation, but you're only naming Halo, Gears, etc.

And yet that is exactly what Sony has done this gen mainly thanks to the great first party output, with the help of one third party exclusive (MGS4)

[Platy]

They matter about how awesome your smash bros close will be.

Thread: “Do RPGs matter any more? I'm not including WRPGs here.”

This

Also, that kinect thing sold considerably ... I guess it counts as exclusives since sony's camera was a total failure if you compare both

[MrCookiepants]

PS3 is currently the best selling console worldwide. The exclusives have everything to do with that.

[Phoenician_Viking]

If Sony can create that "live like" experience with the PSN while maintaining the free price and throwing in bonuses and other incentives like discounted games and early demos and exclusive content then that will only help their exclusive games. Also Sony lacks that community feeling that Live customers get so if they get that then it'll make the battle against Microsoft all the easier. To answer the question though yes exclusives matter, for me its what has kept me with Sony and for many others I'm sure its what has kept them with Microsoft be it Gears, Halo, Kincet or most likely Live

Vita has "Live like" experience, for free, and has some discounts.

[zoukka]

They matter if they sell enough consoles to warrant the huge costs.

[Endo Punk]

When you hav to take Nintendo out of the discussion you pretty much prove that First Party matters.

[Slayer-33]

To me Forza matters, as long as MS keeps it going I'll definitely get a MS system over anything else (not to say that I wouldn't get something else though)

In general I don't think that if matters much anymore.

I love the Forza franchise.

[evangd007]

If you compare MS to Sony, MS puts out less games, but treats each one as a bigger deal. So regardless of the perceived end quality of the games, MS titles core to their business strategy and pushed to the moon (Halo, Forza, Fable) tend to perform better than Sony titles and end up being system sellers. Sony a few months back said that they were looking into adopting a similar strategy, focusing on fewer, bigger titles.

Nintendo, of course, shows that first party still matters, a lot. Look at Media Create threads and figure out what the "Holy Trinity" means.

[kevm3]

Exclusives DO matter, but they have to be ones that people actually want to play. Sony's exclusives never really caught the eye of much of the gaming public as Microsoft's for some reason... where sony really got ahead in the previous generations was by procuring the best 3rd party exclusives. For some reason, Sony thought to go the Nintendo route, but their franchises aren't nearly as established.

[Figboy79]

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.

Correction: they don't make games you connect with.

I've been a Nintendo gamer since I was 6 years old, when the NES launched in 1985. I have a deep love and appreciation for Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

On the flip side, PlayStation entered my life in high school (I was about 16 when the PS1 launched in 1995), and it kept me playing games.

I've connected with franchises like Alundra, Gran Turismo, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, inFAMOUS, Uncharted, PaRappa the Rapper, God of War, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Flower, Journey, Fat Princess, wipEout, Twisted Metal, Dark Cloud, etc, etc.

Sony doesn't need one or two franchises that sell 8 million copies each. They have a wide variety of studios, making a wide variety of games, that appeal to a wide variety of people.

Not every game will catch on, but thank Christ for that variety. I mean, imagine if you didn't love Mario, Zelda, Metroid, or Pokemon? You'd kind of be shit out of luck when it came to Nintendo franchises. You'd have to rely more on third party franchises to carry your system, which is what Microsoft has been doing this generation, and it's worked for them, but I can't see that strategy working for Nintendo and Sony.

I know why people love Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, etc. I can understand it, but it seems like people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that people can also love Sony franchises just as fervently.

I think first party exclusives matter a whole lot. We've gotten some of the most technically impressive console games of this generation because of exclusivity. I can't complain there. Each platform maker has a unique focus when it comes to the software they produce for their platforms. I appreciate that from all of them, and it gives us a lot of reason to own more than one console.

I didn't get a Wii this generation, because I'm 100% HD this generation, but I'll keep my eye out on the Wii U and it's games. I own a PS3, 360, and Vita, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on much. Generally, I like to own all the consoles for that very reason.

[Freezie KO]

I mean, imagine if you didn't love Mario, Zelda, Metroid, or Pokemon? You'd kind of be shit out of luck when it came to Nintendo franchises.

I don't love Zelda, Metroid, nor Pokemon, but I love a lot of Nintendo franchises. A whole lot more than just Mario.

I know you listed a bunch of Sony franchises, and I respect that you enjoy those. But listing Flower is about as equal as listing PushMo, which I wouldn't be surprised if you were completely unaware of. I'm not going to get into list wars, but Nintendo's depth of franchises is way deeper than you give it credit for.

[olimpia84]

Yeah they matter. It's the reason why I have a PS3 over a 360.

[DR2K]

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.

Well that's not really the case since PS3 outsells 360 in terms of WW sales. Not sure if it's because of superior first party or just brand name recognition, but it does have some impact.

It's the only reason Nintendo is allowed to make hardware. So I think 1st party itself does impact buyers.

[OldJadedGamer]

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.

Hmmm.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450142

Do we need to make a new 2012 thread?

[Mario007]

Hmmm. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450142 Do we need to make a new 2012 thread?

Yup, when Sony posted their financials it showed that PS3 was on the top for the financial year and that Microsoft simply waaaaay overshipped Xboxs for holidays.

[Always-honest]

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.

For me, YES!!! In general the best quality games.

[JaxJag]

Sony's games are usually good, but forgettable to me.

Outside of Naughty Dog, I just don't think the Sony Studios know how to make interesting/iconic characters.

[dragonelite]

Hmmm. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450142 Do we need to make a new 2012 thread?

So 360 outsold the ps3 in 2011?
Getting mixed feelings from that thread like first it was party mode sony has best selling/shipping console and at the end it is like Ms comes too the party and throws shit around to ruin it.

/Sales-gaf

[alexandros]

For me no, they don't really matter any more. Sure, console exclusives may drive some hardcore fans of a specific series towards a console but, as a whole, they're not that important in the long run.

These days there's a lot of overlap between the libraries of the three "core" gaming platforms (PC, PS3, 360). Besides, it's highly debatable whether each hardware maker's exclusives are really the best in their respective genre (excluding Mario, because Mario games are still the best).

I'm a PC gamer exclusively so I don't have access to 360 or PS3 exclusives. Out of those I would maybe be interested in, what, 7-10 games? Let's say Halo, Forza, Killzone, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, maybe a couple more. So I would have to buy two consoles to play these games, when I could use that money to buy tens (if not hundreds) of games on Steam. It's just not worth it.

These days price and quality of service trump exclusives. For me, both of these factors are in favor of the PC.

[kswiston]

If exclusives (first or third party. Not sure why their needs to be a distinction), didn't matter I wouldn't own any consoles. I do most of my gaming on PC, but when a console hits the right price and has enough exclusives that I want, I will buy it.

So far I have a 3DS. I am waiting to see if Vita will be worth a purchase going forward. I will probably pick up the next gen consoles starting a year or two after release.

[davepoobond]

i think they do for people who care about the policies and game production styles that are offered by the three companies.

Nintendo is more about Mario and quirky games in general, sony is more about cinematic/"mature"-themed games. Microsoft is all about Halo.

so ::shrug::

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

2. Kinect is a first-party exclusive that has moved a lot of hardware late in the generation, but you're only naming Halo, Gears, etc.

Bingo, it only took three pages on a forum filled with people who allegedly understand how this industry functions.

First, let me say that exclusives matter less than what some people believe. They matter more at the start of the generation, that much is true, but even then the biggest and longest lasting hardware sales increases usually occur around price drops and new hardware revisions, not around exclusive game releases. You might want to argue that those are the points at which people jump in because they want to play exclusive games, but we have no way of proving that - it very well might be because of exclusive experiences (for instance, Blu-ray playback, Wiimote or Kinect functionality and so on), brand familiarity and better support or some other reasons. Again, I'm not saying that exclusive games don't matter, they just don't matter as much as some people think they do.

Secondly, the OP seems charmingly oblivious to anything outside of the hardcore segment that he's personally invested in. When you only look at one small piece of a puzzle like that, you're bound to get confused. The thing is, this far into the generation most hardcore gamers already have a console (in fact, many of them have a few) so hardware primarily sells to other people, folks that Sony hasn't managed to reach out to as successfully as Microsoft and especially Nintendo have. Microsoft does have a lot more than Halo, Gears, Fable and Forza, they have a number of new Kinect franchises (plus smaller games like Alan Wake and Crackdown, third party exclusives and all those XBLA games, but that's less important for the point I'm trying to make). In some ways those games are more akin to Nintendo releases (although they're not nearly as popular as Nintendo's top franchises, at least not yet) in that they don't sell huge numbers initially, but keep shifting copies steadily over long periods of time.

So exclusives are there, but Microsoft's strategy adapts to the current market situation. When the next generation launches, you're going to witness another period with plenty of exclusive core franchises, both new and old, only this time they'll probably be accompanied by actually successful releases aimed at more casual audiences, too.

[Shtof]

Sony has gotten a little out of hand with the exclusives lately. They should do fewer and better exclusives. Instead of Twisted Metal, Datura and Starhawk they should have had another top tier exclusive like Journey.

But who knows, without the current exclusives PS3 may have been far worse off. We don't know that.

[Valnen]

Sony has gotten a little out of hand with the exclusives lately. They should do fewer and better exclusives. Instead of Twisted Metal, Datura and Starhawk they should have had another top tier exclusive like Journey. But who knows, without the current exclusives PS3 may have been far worse off. We don't know that.

Uhh, Twisted Metal WAS top tier and was an amazing game, are you crazy?

[snoopeasystreet]

Not at this late stage in the life cycle. If you're new to the HD consoles, there's enough 3rd party games that you could have a great time without ever having to dip into first party games. For the hardcore, this gen has been long enough and the quality of both console's output is high enough that if you like games more than companies, you should probably have both.

[FuKuy]

Exclusive games are only bare a 1% of the game catalog, so it's not as important as used to be...

[Yalstromo]

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.

It's enough when your 1st Party titles are selling around 5 Mio.
You still make good money and you have a great game for each genre.
If you call that bad, you have no idea.

[StuBurns]

Clearly it matters, Wii won and it had no third party support.

I expect it to matter more between Sony and MS going forward too.

[NemesisPrime]

Not true. Hardware (Ap-Jn)'11 (Jl-Sp)'11 (Oc-Dc)'11 (Ja-Mr)'12 FY 2011 ....

There always is one...