NPD Sales for July 2015

Aug 10, 2013
1,826
0
0
SF Bay Area
Because the original topic of the conversation was:



And the argument in support of the assertion is:



Which then implies that Microsoft's MAIN CONCERN with the Xbox One is remaining relevant enough for third party indie and Japanese game developers to continue to support it.

The counter-argument is that the titles being brought up as evidence:



Are not significant enough to cause such concern.

The games are not being discounted. The argument surrounds these titles being used as the example in support of the basic argument that Microsoft's main concern with the Xbox One is that they're losing titles like DOA Extreme 3 to PS4.
Yes, this is the main argument that started this whole debate (and what i responded to).

And no, I'm fairly certain it's not MS' main concern for the reasons stated (cosmic covered all of the points I was going to make as to why they (MS) shouldn't be, and probably aren't, concerned).
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
The sad thing is that we don't have data to reach a proper conclusion, at least by what I've seen on these threads. But we have already accepted that NPD or someone in their place needs to reach the digital market the sooner the better for a clearer image.
That's certainly the case. And that's an entire industry problem. Challenge on the data is the source of the data. NPD can reach agreements with retailers that allows them to get detailed packaged consumer sales data. They cannot get similar data from the first parties in the same way. If anyone will be able to do this it's NPD, but unfortunately it's not easy.

And no, I'm fairly certain it's not MS' main concern
Can completely agree with this.
 
Dec 12, 2013
5,143
0
0
Who is discounting games?
Some of the post read smaller Japanese games, or smaller games in general, don't matter since they have no market presence.


Didn't the argument start with generation defining games and "heavy hitters"?
I honestly don't think it matters if a game fits that criteria or not.....

Because the original topic of the conversation was:


And the argument in support of the assertion is:



Which then implies that Microsoft's MAIN CONCERN with the Xbox One is remaining relevant enough for third party indie and Japanese game developers to continue to support it.

The counter-argument is that the titles being brought up as evidence:



Are not significant enough to cause such concern.

The games are not being discounted. The argument surrounds these titles being used as the example in support of the basic argument that Microsoft's main concern with the Xbox One is that they're losing titles like DOA Extreme 3 to PS4.

Eh. That's still a good amount of games not coming to XB1. And there's plenty others coming to PS4. Yeah, MS is probably not too worried about those, but i would think the console with a large library to choose from of different kinds of games gives consumers more reasons to buy over another console no? In that sense it should be sort of a concern.

Also did everyone forget MS got all those exclusive JRPG's on 360 last gen? You could make the same argument that those games were nothing for Sony to be concerned about, but it did make the 360 more appealing for those types of games which i'm sure was the point of theme doing that.
 
Aug 10, 2013
1,826
0
0
SF Bay Area
I agree with that too, but I think nobody said that was their main concern. It should be just a concern.
Actually someone did:
To be fair, PS4's success worldwide does affect the reasons why Sony might drop the price of the PS4 in the US market. At this point, the Xbox One can be seen as a regional competitor to the PS4 and even then, one that is seemingly second even in the region Xbox One can compete in. As such, Sony's main concern with PS4 is making sure the system hits internal sales targets and makes money whereas MS's main concern with Xbox One is remaining relevant enough for third-parties to support. MS has more of a reason to have deals and price drops because Sony is eating their lunch. However, this isn't to say Sony will not have deals and price drops to hit internal sales targets, but it does mean that the PS4 could lose to Xbox One in the US market and still do better than the Xbox One as a whole.
Which is what started this entire debate.

The argument is not that these games don't matter, or that it is not at least a concern for MS. But it is not their main concern.

Especially since many of these games have never appealed to Xbox gamers very much. Or because the Xbox has never been all that successful in Japan. Or because many of these games have never even been on the Xbox platform before (how can you be concerned about losing something that you never even had?).

It's great that PS4 is getting these types of games. People that love them have a place to play them. But for the vast majority of gamers in the west, it is not a huge deal.

This statement isn't mean to discount the games as worthless (as I agree they can be great games that are worth owning a platform for) - but I'm also realistic about the niche market that most of these games are a part of in the west (and even in Japan for some), and realize that the success of console platforms, for the most part, is determined by big 3rd party exclusives - which MS is in no danger of losing (even if they were losing by a much bigger margin, they'd still be getting most/all of these games).
 
Jul 18, 2014
764
0
0
The answer is SFV.

Heavy hitter in more than just Japan? Yes

Not on Xbox? Yes

Reason for not being on Xbox about market share? No

Ps4 is definitely my go to platform, and all the titles from Japan are usually my favorite games to play. I'm actually surprised how many exclusives Ps4 is getting, but U.S market is different. Xbox has sold well and has a market that third party devs would never ignore. I do think going forward, Sony can take a larger portion of the market than people think. They have platforms to sell and capture the market. A highly rated GT7/UC4/SFV with a cheaper entry point could really push ps4. And an Wii sport equivalent for morpheus would likely get a ton of early adopters to buy the peripheral for family. On the other side, MS just has Minecraft Imo. There other IP and brands seem too U.S focused like Gears and Fable.

My predictions this is going to be one of Xbox best holiday, but will get weaker and weaker as the Gen goes on while the opposite will happen for Sony.
I don't think they will have the best holiday again. Fallout 4, Call of Duty, and Star Wars are going to dip into those sales if you ask me. But you could be right. MSFT doesn't have the COD bundle like they did last year to help when the AC bundle flopped. I think they are hoping Tomb Raider is going to fill that void. Aren't Tomb Raider and Fallout scheduled to release the same day or with a week of each other? But Sony will definitely clean up with Star Wars.
 
May 16, 2006
6,562
1
1,000
I don't think they will have the best holiday again. Fallout 4, Call of Duty, and Star Wars are going to dip into those sales if you ask me. But you could be right. MSFT doesn't have the COD bundle like they did last year to help when the AC bundle flopped. I think they are hoping Tomb Raider is going to fill that void. Aren't Tomb Raider and Fallout scheduled to release the same day or with a week of each other? But Sony will definitely clean up with Star Wars.
AC bundle flopped? Sales of this bundle was amazing, ask people that has access to NPD data.

Microsof is better positioned than last year, they have a huge exclusive unlike 2014. The diff is that Sony will have better bundles than last year.
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
I don't think they will have the best holiday again. Fallout 4, Call of Duty, and Star Wars are going to dip into those sales if you ask me. But you could be right. MSFT doesn't have the COD bundle like they did last year to help when the AC bundle flopped. I think they are hoping Tomb Raider is going to fill that void. Aren't Tomb Raider and Fallout scheduled to release the same day or with a week of each other? But Sony will definitely clean up with Star Wars.
Have you seen Halo?


(Also the bundle didn't flop as Allan said. It was super successful!)
 
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
0
0
Which is what started this entire debate.

The argument is not that these games don't matter, or that it is not at least a concern for MS. But it is not their main concern.

Especially since many of these games have never appealed to Xbox gamers very much. Or because the Xbox has never been all that successful in Japan. Or because many of these games have never even been on the Xbox platform before (how can you be concerned about losing something that you never even had?).

It's great that PS4 is getting these types of games. People that love them have a place to play them. But for the vast majority of gamers in the west, it is not a huge deal.

This statement isn't mean to discount the games as worthless (as I agree they can be great games that are worth owning a platform for) - but I'm also realistic about the niche market that most of these games are a part of in the west (and even in Japan for some), and realize that the success of console platforms, for the most part, is determined by big 3rd party exclusives - which MS is in no danger of losing (even if they were losing by a much bigger margin, they'd still be getting most/all of these games).
To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.

However, I do think it should still be concerning for MS that something like Street Fighter has become console exclusive to PS4 and that Final Fantasy is starting to shift that way given the sales of Type-0 on XB1 compared to PS4 and that only Type-0 and FF15 are known to be coming to XB1. I mean games like Star Ocean and Tales might be niche, but MS did get timed exclusives from both franchises on the 360.
 
Feb 12, 2015
564
0
0
To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.
The bolded.

I know this is an NA sales thread but it so sweeping and inaccurate from an EU gaffers point of view.
 
May 16, 2006
6,562
1
1,000
To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.

However, I do think it should still be concerning for MS that something like Street Fighter has become console exclusive to PS4 and that Final Fantasy is starting to shift that way given the sales of Type-0 on XB1 compared to PS4 and that only Type-0 and FF15 are known to be coming to XB1. I mean games like Star Ocean and Tales might be niche, but MS did get timed exclusives from both franchises on the 360.
Sony is paying for SF V and 360 only had japanese timed exclusives because Microsoft made a big push to be succeed in Japan (and failed).

Losing games like Tales of and Star Ocean means virtually nothing for the situation of Xbox One on the market.
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
it so sweeping and inaccurate from an EU gaffers point of view.
What is? I don't understand what part of that statement you're talking about or what you're saying about it.

To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.
True. You could also say that not only is the PS4 just as viable an option but rather that the US market has shown an overall preference for the PS4 among a majority of consumers. Would certainly agree that niche consumers will have their needs met more fully on the PS4.

However, I do think it should still be concerning for MS that something like Street Fighter has become console exclusive to PS4.
Ehhh, the Street Fighter thing has a lot of side agreements on it. It's not a case of a pub just deciding to go exclusive without other incentives being attached. And on JRPGs it looks like MS has thrown in the towel on trying to compete for that space. It's not like they're losing much from it, however. They never really got traction there to begin with.
 
Aug 13, 2014
1,182
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.

However, I do think it should still be concerning for MS that something like Street Fighter has become console exclusive to PS4 and that Final Fantasy is starting to shift that way given the sales of Type-0 on XB1 compared to PS4 and that only Type-0 and FF15 are known to be coming to XB1. I mean games like Star Ocean and Tales might be niche, but MS did get timed exclusives from both franchises on the 360.
Interesting that you mentioned FF Type-0. Considering that sales of the PS4 and X1 versions was about 4 to 1 respectively, the PC version only recognizes the 360 or X1 controllers, to my great annoyance. I personally think that it is bullshit that Type-0 only recognized Xbox controllers on PC but I'm also running into the same f-ing issue with Grandia 2 on Steam (because it is published by Square Enix).

I am honestly puzzled as to why Square Enix isn't supporting the DualShock 4 controller on PC more consistently. I am also at a point where I'm about to rage violently because the 360 controller's d-pad is a crock of shit to put up with especially when I need to swap active characters during combat in Type-0.
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
Agree with Cosmic. Xbox has never attracted JRPG fans, they tried with the 360 in order to appeal to that audience and get Final Fantasy but once they had FF they gave up on trying to get other JRPG's because they just don't sell.

A lot of the exclusive JRPG's on 360 sold in the region of 100k-200k whilst Lost Odyssey, the best selling game, didn't even crack half a million in the US.
 
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
0
0
The bolded.

I know this is an NA sales thread but it so sweeping and inaccurate from an EU gaffers point of view.
Do not misinterpret my statement. Just because PS4 and XB1 are effectively the same for a majority of customers does not mean they will sell on par with each other. There are a number of reasons why customers might choose one over the other, but these are all niche reasons compared to the third-party AAA multiplatform games that sells consoles nowadays.

Ehhh, the Street Fighter thing has a lot of side agreements on it. It's not a case of a pub just deciding to go exclusive without other incentives being attached. And on JRPGs it looks like MS has thrown in the towel on trying to compete for that space. It's not like they're losing much from it, however. They never really got traction there to begin with.
While SF5 is a unique situation, it is still concerning that the biggest franchise among the Fighting Game Community is not coming to the XB1.

As for JRPGs, I admit MS gave a valiant try on them and failed. I just think it is concerning that smaller games in genres that PlayStation is better known for like JRPGs are not on the XB1 at all even as a multiplatform release while the smaller games in genres that Xbox is better known for like FPSs and WRPGs do appear on the PS4 as multiplatform games. PlayStation seems to have a decent sized FPS and WRPG fanbase nowadays while Xbox has never had a JRPG fanbase.
 
Aug 31, 2013
4,962
0
0
You sure you're not using the term "price cuts" in place of "demand generation"?
Yes? No? Maybe? lol

Seems like bundles and price cuts are just methods for generating demand, and the former typically precedes the latter. You launch your product, and after you run through the initial demand, you do some bundling to generate more. Once that demand is met, you do some price cuts to generate more. After that, you're back to bundling again, and so on. Granted, if you're burning through demand too quickly, you might skip steps — bundling from day one, maintaining bundles in spite of price drops, etc. — but as a general rule, demand-generation/-maintenance will follow the bundle-cut-bundle-cut cycle.

Therefore, I'd say bundles indicate we're a step closer to cuts rather than a step further away.

I agree with your point on positive impact for the market leader with a decisive advantage in share, but why do you say "and their customers"? What customer benefits are you thinking of?
Most obviously, more exclusive software which — as a general rule — can be produced at higher quality and lower cost. So no only do you get better games, you get more of them. This, on top of the multi-platform games, of course. Plus, more money to invest back in to the platform means more subtle benefits like #BetterPSN, more OS features, and better games on the IGC, to name a few.

Reinvestment also means more 1st-party development, which has all the benefits of exclusive software with the added bonus of technically not needing to even turn a profit. The primary goal of first party development is to attract interest in the platform, from developers and users alike. If a 1st-party game breaks even, it's effectively free advertising for the platform, and way better than a simple commercial which doesn't generate revenue directly. If the game turns out to be a huge hit, bonus.


By market share you hopefully mean "global market share" not an individual market.
Yeah, but remember global share is built one market at a time. While the size of the US market is large enough that Microsoft's competitiveness there means they also have a fairly significant chunk of the global market, it also leaves MS in a somewhat vulnerable position. If Sony were able to significantly shift the balance of sales in that single market for an extended period of time, that would leave MS with precious few sales throughout the rest of the world. Plus, even regional dominance can have benefits, whether Sony achieve global dominance or not.


I would say though that the US, whilst an important market, is not the be all and end all of the console market.
Not for Sony, no, but it sorta is for MS. Basically, MS are lingering on the strength of their success there, and a large chunk of said success was the direct result of being significantly cheaper than PS4 last Christmas. If Sony do drop to $300, then it becomes very difficult for MS to be "significantly cheaper," and MS are currently being outsold there while being "somewhat cheaper." So if somewhat cheaper is the best MS can manage through the holidays, one would expect Sony to continue to come out ahead in sales. Add in pent up demand at the $300 price point, and Sony could have a significant sales win this year.

Given that win would be even more decisive outside the US, to a large extent, Sony's fate is very much in their own hands here. It seems like they're in a position to really put the screws to MS, if they choose to.


You seriously think that is their main concern? And you think 3rd parties wouldn't support them even if they were more behind? I honestly doubt that very much. Especially since the XB1 is basically just a W10 PC now - porting has never been easier in the history of consoles.
The new "Everything is Windows" may mean easy ports, but if everything is written for W10 and then magically bulit for phones, tablets, and XBoxen too, that would put XBox development on a Windows schedule, which doesn't always match up with the console schedule. Sometimes it does, but often indies come to Windows first, and sometimes AA games come a few months later. It varies, but it seems now that XBox is just another extension of Windows, like the phones and tablets.

MS number 1 concern is to make money, in the long run. They're likely taking a financial hit (not sure how much) to sell their consoles at a loss, but the idea behind that is to bring you into their ecosystem. Especially as a digital customer.
I think the ecosystem they're primarily focused on these days is Windows itself.


None of this games are big japanese titles for west, with the exception of DQ XI (maybe).

Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Dark Souls... this franchises that has good market outside of Asia are and will be present on Xbox One in the most part.

And no, DOA Xtreme 3 is not a heavy hitter, it's a small launch even in Japan.
What qualifies a game as "big"? Making it to the Bone? That seems a bit arbitrary, and rather convenient.

Who is discounting games?
You and others, when you say the Bone will continue to get the games which are "big," "significant," and "meaningful." This discounts the other games as being none of those things. Again, pretty convenient that the only games not on XBox are collectively meaningless.


To be clear, I've since reconsidered that remark and retract it. I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers since PS4 is just as viable an option as the XB1 for a majority of consumers and for a niche of consumers, PS4 is the only option.
A shorter way of saying that would be, "PS4 is the better choice." Most people have some sort of niche tastes, and whatever it is that tickles your fancy, it's likely to have better representation on PlayStation, plus better versions of all the "big, significant, and meaningful" that can be had on the other platform.

Some may be fans a specific franchise and/or platform and that passion will outweigh all other considerations, but I'd argue those are the real outliers with little overall effect on the market. Every franchise has its fans, but large libraries appeal to everyone.
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
What qualifies a game as "big"? Making it to the Bone? That seems a bit arbitrary, and rather convenient.

You and others, when you say the Bone will continue to get the games which are "big," "significant," and "meaningful." This discounts the other games as being none of those things. Again, pretty convenient that the only games not on XBox are collectively meaningless.
I seriously don't understand this conspiracy thing you have.

It was a discussion in regards to Guru's initial argument that MS' main concern with the Xbox One was in losing third party support.

The arguments against were that titles being mentioned in support of this argument were not significant enough in terms of sales in the US market to make this issue MS' main concern.

Not that MS is fine, or the Xbox is fine or anything else. Just that this particular issue, losing niche titles from the system, is NOT MS' biggest problem.

We got to a resolution, Guru adjusted his position to one I think almost everyone can agree with.

No one discounted the PS4, no one was having console warz arguments. No one was calling the games in discussion "meaningless". They were only identified as being niche products in the overall market, and not worthy, among all the problems with the Xbox One right now, of being identified as MS' "main concern". That was it.
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
I seriously don't understand this conspiracy thing you have.
Serversurfer, I love you and all, but you're really starting to sound like a PS4 fanboy who doesn't know how the industry works.

Especially after I just said its not all about most units sold you put forward an argument which purely talks about most units sold. It's one part of a larger equation.
 
Aug 31, 2013
4,962
0
0
I seriously don't understand this conspiracy thing you have.
What conspiracy thing? I never said anything about a conspiracy. Allan said nobody was discounting games, and I explained how people were doing precisely that, himself included. However, sour grapes grow naturally, so it never occurred to me that multiple people making this claim might be the result of a conspiracy.

So, are you trying to tell me that I've unwittingly stumbled across a conspiracy here, or that you chose a poor basis for your ad hominem attack? You tried to accuse me of "having a conspiracy thing" when I wondered why it was mostly English speakers who bought XBox.

It was a discussion in regards to Guru's initial argument that MS' main concern with the Xbox One was in losing third party support.
So it was just nitpicking over semantics? Fair enough. If the third party support they've lost is fairly inconsequential, and they're not at risk of losing support that actually counts, then in your estimation, what is their "main" concern at this point?


Serversurfer, I love you and all, but you're really starting to sound like a PS4 fanboy who doesn't know how the industry works.
Why do you guys find it so difficult to disagree with me without the personal attacks? Do you really believe your positions to be so weak? It's not sufficient to disagree? You must also discredit?

Especially after I just said its not all about most units sold you put forward an argument which purely talks about most units sold. It's one part of a larger equation.
Yes, I know it's part of a larger equation. Pray, tell, what am I missing here?
 
Jul 14, 2015
319
0
0
get Final Fantasy but once they had FF they gave up on trying to get other JRPG's.
This is horrendously untrue, and is made up fantasy. They gave up on Japanese games in general. If you look at MS published games, Lost Odyssey (2008) and Ninja Blade (2009 not an Rpg) where the last japanese games pushed and published by MS.

Now I'm not defending Microsoft, I just want you to realize the situation is far more grave. Final Fantasy didn't change anything, MS did not touch ONE Japanese game after Ninja Blade (which came out the same year as FF) and even then, only the first FF did well on the 360 relatively WW. If getting FF was the goal the goal failed after only one game. Which still got destroyed by the sales on a competing platform.

MS just gave no craps about the Japanese, they didn't even publish or push the sequel to their own IP N3-2. They went the next 6 years pretending Japan didn't exist for the 360.

I do see they are kind of doing better with the One, Kind of... But it still is clear they aren't trying and I feel the games such as Scalebound and Recore, will either flop or have niche sales getting them nowhere.
 
Feb 24, 2014
14,512
0
370
Final Fantasy 13 didn't even launch on the 360 in Japan until a year later as an international re release, and this was after Square saying that the game would be a PS3 exclusive in Japan for quite a while.

Sure, it came out in western countries alongside the PS3 version, but in Japan, well, it was nothing.
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
What conspiracy thing?
You used the term "convenient" twice in what I responded to and have implied other places in the thread that there's some kind of pro-MS agenda being pushed. If that's incorrect and I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize.

So it was just nitpicking over semantics? Fair enough.
It isn't about semantics. We were debating a specific claim. No one was attacking anyone. It was a very civil conversation.

If the third party support they've lost is fairly inconsequential, and they're not at risk of losing support that actually counts, then in your estimation, what is their "main" concern at this point?
I agree with GameGuru's points. In particular:

I should have instead said that MS's main concern is to have XB1 remain relevant among consumers.
Which includes a number of factors including software variety, pricing, etc. Basically, how do they achieve mass market adoption of the non-core market.
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
This is horrendously untrue, and is made up fantasy. They gave up on Japanese games in general. If you look at MS published games, Lost Odyssey (2008) and Ninja Blade (2009 not an Rpg) where the last japanese games pushed and published by MS.

Now I'm not defending Microsoft, I just want you to realize the situation is far more grave. Final Fantasy didn't change anything, MS did not touch ONE Japanese game after Ninja Blade (which came out the same year as FF) and even then, only the first FF did well on the 360 relatively WW. If getting FF was the goal the goal failed after only one game. Which still got destroyed by the sales on a competing platform.

MS just gave no craps about the Japanese, they didn't even publish or push the sequel to their own IP N3-2. They went the next 6 years pretending Japan didn't exist for the 360.

I do see they are kind of doing better with the One, Kind of... But it still is clear they aren't trying and I feel the games such as Scalebound and Recore, will either flop or have niche sales getting them nowhere.

I'm confused by your post. You say that my post is horrendously untrue and made up but then go on to say that MS stopped releasing Japanese games after Final Fantasy.

So which one is it? Because that's what I said as well.

The Xbox One is doing worse for Japanese games so far. The Xbox One has no exclusive JRPG's this gen.

Why do you guys find it so difficult to disagree with me without the personal attacks? Do you really believe your positions to be so weak? It's not sufficient to disagree? You must also discredit?


Yes, I know it's part of a larger equation. Pray, tell, what am I missing here?
I'm not trying to discredit you at all. I'm just saying some of the things your using to fuel the case you're putting forward aren't right.
 
Mar 19, 2013
20,733
25
415
Brazil
Well a lot of guys are reporting it on review thread... they are playing it.

I know mid-east shops have the release set to Aug 27 but seems like some US and EU are shipping/selling the game already.

This is from Qatar's stores...

Edit - Links found on Goggle.

http://gearnuke.com/metal-gear-soli...-date-broken-early-twitch-streams-going-live/
http://thisgengaming.com/2015/08/27/metal-gear-solid-v-street-date-broken-by-uk-retailer/

Edit 2 - Sold out in a store in Las Vegas.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=176720643&postcount=5166

Edit 3 - My friend list on PS4 have 5 guys playing the game... most of them are my dear Destiny's friends :)

Edit 4 - I asked to a friend... he bought on Simplygames and it was on his mail this morning... the delivery is happening before the release.
 
Aug 31, 2013
4,962
0
0
You used the term "convenient" twice in what I responded to and have implied other places in the thread that there's some kind of pro-MS agenda being pushed. If that's incorrect and I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize.
Err, use of a convenient argument doesn't imply some sort of conspiracy. On the contrary, its convenience sorta makes it a go-to for anyone who decides to jump in. I was just pointing out that, "Well, of course that stuff counts, but it just doesn't count for anything that actually counts," is a weak and useless rebuttal at best, and disingenuous at worst. Perhaps ironically, that's precisely the same reasoning that's been used to hand-wave market share out of the conversation.

It isn't about semantics. We were debating a specific claim. No one was attacking anyone. It was a very civil conversation.
Right on. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Which includes a number of factors including software variety, pricing, etc. Basically, how do they achieve mass market adoption of the non-core market.
So, market share, and its effect on their library and overall value proposition? ><


I'm not trying to discredit you at all. I'm just saying some of the things your using to fuel the case you're putting forward aren't right.
Then why not correct me and show everyone how smart you are instead of spending the same effort to call me names and show everyone you don't have a rebuttal?
 
Feb 16, 2010
14,234
0
0
Mars
Perhaps ironically, that's precisely the same reasoning that's been used to hand-wave market share out of the conversation.
Are your referring back to the why COD partnered with Sony on the marketing deal conversation? Market share was identified, if I recall correctly, as being one of the factors that could influence a decision like that. The amount of support is another, the willingness of other parties to compete with other offers another. And then it was argued that, if I remember it right, the dollar figure of the offer to support matters most, particularly in the US market, as share between the two boxes really isn't all that different.

But you seemed to take offense at this challenge that market share was the absolute and only meaningful reason why this deal happened? Is that right?

So, market share, and its effect on their library and overall value proposition? ><
Market share is really the result of the strategies of going to market, including library and value proposition. So no, kind of, but not really.

By the way, what is your position on all of this anyways? Like, we're having a lot of discussion but I really don't understand what perspective or argument you're trying to make.
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
Then why not correct me and show everyone how smart you are instead of spending the same effort to call me names and show everyone you don't have a rebuttal?
Chill bro.

I'm just pointing out that you seem to be putting too much emphasis on trying to push one certain narrative regarding market share being the main issue for everything + you are saying that some users who posted about big games are saying all other games are insignificant.

The posts you have made about market share don't cover the fact that Sony are not using the same strategy that they had during the PS2 era. They are looking at maintaining their position as the cumulative leader in all markets whilst trying to maintain high margins on hardware sales.

Instead all your posts fail to take this into consideration and make it too much about "winning" and Sony vs Microsoft in terms of unit sales. It's not all about that as I mentioned earlier, you did agree with me but then went back to the whole market share thing and you come across like it's the only thing that matters.

You come across like you're trying to prove that Sony will drop the price to increase market share and that they have to do it. I don't disagree with you but as before the evidence you've put forward isn't exactly definitive proof a price drop will happen.


What qualifies a game as "big"? Making it to the Bone? That seems a bit arbitrary, and rather convenient.
You and others, when you say the Bone will continue to get the games which are "big," "significant," and "meaningful." This discounts the other games as being none of those things. Again, pretty convenient that the only games not on XBox are collectively meaningless.
There are such things as big games. Lets use obvious examples. Call of Duty is massive in the US with each game being a multi-million seller. This game is on PS4 and Xbox One. A game like Dragon Quest Heroes has done really well in Japan and Asia and is a big game there but in the USA It is expected to get nowhere near sales of Call of Duty which therefore means it's not a "big hitter" or "significant game".

Users will buy a PS4 for it, but not as many people who will buy either a PS4 or Xbox One to play Call of Duty.

So no one is being "convenient [and only mentioning] games not on Xbox One" as insignificant or meaningless. It's because the majority of best selling titles are multi-platform these days compared to say gen 6 for example.
 
Nov 18, 2013
4,304
0
355
Knives out.

Nice to see that this months thread is a slow burner, but this discussion about 3rd party niche game support is fatiguing.

Xbox might get problems getting retail support from publishers for some games in some european countries or japan (i can imagine). But in the US they should be safe
 
May 23, 2013
5,915
0
0
twitter.com
Xbox might get problems getting retail support from publishers for some games in some european countries or japan (i can imagine). But in the US they should be safe
Agreed.

We're already starting to see it after the initial launch of both consoles that new titles being developed in 2016 are moving to PlayStation platforms over being multi platform on home console.

Japanese publishers being the most notable example. But even a number of Independent developers and other Western developers are making games just for PlayStation.

PlayStation are certainly going all out to get more game creators and developers onboard.
 
Nov 18, 2013
4,304
0
355
Agreed.

We're already starting to see it after the initial launch of both consoles that new titles being developed in 2016 are moving to PlayStation platforms over being multi platform on home console.

Japanese publishers being the most notable example. But even a number of Independent developers and other Western developers are making games just for PlayStation.

PlayStation are certainly going all out to get more game creators and developers onboard.
Well, Playstation doesn't have to do much as Xbox is making this decision quite easy. Parity clause being a reason for the smaller ones. Marketshare and gamer demography another.
 
Dec 12, 2013
5,143
0
0
Users will buy a PS4 for it
There's going to be tons of those kinds of games that PS4's will be bought for. Knock-on effect? Variety is king my man.

Xbox might get problems getting retail support from publishers for some games in some european countries or japan (i can imagine). But in the US they should be safe
Games which will come to U.S. too. So it will felt there also.
 
May 16, 2006
6,562
1
1,000
What qualifies a game as "big"? Making it to the Bone? That seems a bit arbitrary, and rather convenient.

You and others, when you say the Bone will continue to get the games which are "big," "significant," and "meaningful." This discounts the other games as being none of those things. Again, pretty convenient that the only games not on XBox are collectively meaningless.
No, it's when a game has a big market. I think that convenient is ignoring that.

And I'm not discounting any game, just giving the importance that actually have in the market.
 
Nov 18, 2013
4,304
0
355
Of course, but you can't compare Call of Duty and another game like Dragon Quest Heroes in the USA in regards to the impact they have on driving console sales.
You can always compare two things.
But I know what you mean. But in case both consols have all AAA games equally, the bigger (and more diverse) library could be an additional selling point among others like
Price
Design
My mate's brand
VR helmet
Controller
Loyalty
Marketing
Online Service
Better looking CEO
1st party games
Market leadership
Whatever

Good night
 
Aug 31, 2013
4,962
0
0
Are your referring back to the why COD partnered with Sony on the marketing deal conversation? Market share was identified, if I recall correctly, as being one of the factors that could influence a decision like that. The amount of support is another, the willingness of other parties to compete with other offers another. And then it was argued that, if I remember it right, the dollar figure of the offer to support matters most, particularly in the US market, as share between the two boxes really isn't all that different.
It was used there, but it was used here as well. Market share won't affect Microsoft's third party support. Well, it will, but not in any way that matters. Really, I'd argue that's the same argument anyway, because the awarding of marketing deals is itself a form of third party support.

But you seemed to take offense at this challenge that market share was the absolute and only meaningful reason why this deal happened? Is that right?
When the CoD deal leaked, the people who leaked it said it went to Sony because of market share, specifically to correct those wondering if it was related to things like the amount of support or the willingness of one party to match the offer of another. If you were unaware of this, then I see no reason to take offense at your efforts to "correct the assumption" it was primarily about market share. However, in this particular case, there doesn't seem to be much need for speculation, as what seems likely to be the primary factor in a decision like this was confirmed to be such by those in the know.

Market share is really the result of the strategies of going to market, including library and value proposition. So no, kind of, but not really.
So, market share isn't the problem, it's the goal? You say software variety is one of the strategies used to drive market share, but also argue that games like DOAX, DQ, and Persona not being on XBox is insignificant. Yet without them, it falls to MS to provide that missing variety to attract users. Even if we ignore their failure to do so in the past, the limited revenues currently being generated by their limited market share just further limits the money they have to invest in the first parties being depended on to provide that variety. So again, market share seems kinda relevant here.

If feel like we're arguing in circles here. =/

By the way, what is your position on all of this anyways? Like, we're having a lot of discussion but I really don't understand what perspective or argument you're trying to make.
My position on what, exactly? The significance of market share? Seems like it's pretty significant, whether you see it primarily as a means or an end. Not only does holding a majority of the market make the platform holder richer, it makes the platform itself better and more appealing, so there's a snowball effect. Such effects can often be quite significant indeed.

You're the one who started with the name calling — long ago, I might add — but if you wanna pretend that part didn't happen, that's fine. FYI, it'd be easier to pretend if you stopped doing it.

I'm just pointing out that you seem to be putting too much emphasis on trying to push one certain narrative regarding market share being the main issue for everything + you are saying that some users who posted about big games are saying all other games are insignificant.
Market share is a pretty huge factor. I'd say it's a driving factor, because market share determines where the money is being spent. Obviously, that's where people looking to make money are going to gravitate. Some may be lured away with the promise of cold, hard cash today, but there's only so much cash you can come up with. Especially when your revenues are down — you know, because market share.

The posts you have made about market share don't cover the fact that Sony are not using the same strategy that they had during the PS2 era. They are looking at maintaining their position as the cumulative leader in all markets whilst trying to maintain high margins on hardware sales.
I'd agree they're not eager to leave money on the table by dropping the price before it's necessary, but I've seen no evidence they intend to transition to a boutique pricing strategy for PlayStation hardware. Do you have links for this?

Instead all your posts fail to take this into consideration and make it too much about "winning" and Sony vs Microsoft in terms of unit sales.
"Winning" is just shorthand for achieving a large enough share of the market that it has the knock on effects of attracting more development, bringing more money for reinvestment, etc. Sorry if you take offense to the term. It's use really isn't as significant as you might imagine.

It's not all about that as I mentioned earlier, you did agree with me but then went back to the whole market share thing and you come across like it's the only thing that matters.
It's not the only thing that matters, but since it's the basis for all other calculations, I'd argue it's pretty important in general.

You come across like you're trying to prove that Sony will drop the price to increase market share and that they have to do it. I don't disagree with you but as before the evidence you've put forward isn't exactly definitive proof a price drop will happen.
Do I? Sorry, that's not what I meant. I was just responding to the idea that Sony had nothing to gain by pressing their advantage and trying to grab a larger share of the market. Seems like they do. But hey, like I said, they don't want to leave money on the table either, so maybe they'll wait until spring, or even later. Personally, I have a hard time imagining them going more than 24 months without lowering the barrier to entry, but I guess we'll see.

There are such things as big games. Lets use obvious examples. Call of Duty is massive in the US with each game being a multi-million seller. This game is on PS4 and Xbox One. A game like Dragon Quest Heroes has done really well in Japan and Asia and is a big game there but in the USA It is expected to get nowhere near sales of Call of Duty which therefore means it's not a "big hitter" or "significant game".

Users will buy a PS4 for it, but not as many people who will buy either a PS4 or Xbox One to play Call of Duty.
As a general rule, people will chose having more options over having fewer options, so trying to argue that Dragon Quest's absence on XBox is insignificant is disingenuous. It would be more accurate to argue it's one of the primary differentiators between the two platforms. Xbox gives you everything you'd expect, and PlayStation gives you all of that plus shit you never even imagined.

So now that I've again explained why market share seems like a significant factor in these matters, again I ask you to please explain why it isn't.

So no one is being "convenient [and only mentioning] games not on Xbox One" as insignificant or meaningless. It's because the majority of best selling titles are multi-platform these days compared to say gen 6 for example.
That's because market share. /sigh
 
Aug 20, 2015
90
0
0
Agree with Cosmic. Xbox has never attracted JRPG fans, they tried with the 360 in order to appeal to that audience and get Final Fantasy but once they had FF they gave up on trying to get other JRPG's because they just don't sell.

A lot of the exclusive JRPG's on 360 sold in the region of 100k-200k whilst Lost Odyssey, the best selling game, didn't even crack half a million in the US.
I think it was more so due to MS's reluctance to admit the Xbox 360 didn't have the traction in Japan that kept them so entrenched in that region for years instead of pulling out altogether.
 
Dec 12, 2013
5,143
0
0
Of course, but you can't compare Call of Duty and another game like Dragon Quest Heroes in the USA in regards to the impact they have on driving console sales.
The simple fact is DQH will be another game of many not available on XB1. Eventually all these titles add up to make PS4's game library look more diverse and attractive to consumers.

As a general rule, people will chose having more options over having fewer options, so trying to argue that Dragon Quest's absence on XBox is insignificant is disingenuous. It would be more accurate to argue it's one of the primary differentiators between the two platforms. Xbox gives you everything you'd expect, and PlayStation gives you all of that plus shit you never even imagined.
For example a game like this alone isn't going to push console sales that much-

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X8XVJJ2/ref=twister_B00X8XOOM6?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

But when you add that to games like Tales, DQH, Disgaea 5 and the other weird niche titles, i can't imagine having that varied a library doesn't have an affect on consumers choosing which console to buy.
 
Sep 6, 2013
209
0
0
But when you add that to games like Tales, DQH, Disgaea 5 and the other weird niche titles, i can't imagine having that varied a library doesn't have an affect on consumers choosing which console to buy.
varied = a bunch of JRPGs.

Those games will make sure the JRPG fan audience goes to PS4, just like it went to PS3, just like it went to PS2, etc. Having 10 exclusive JRPGs isn't a huge difference from having 3 exclusive JRPGs, either way you're the console that caters to that niche.
 
Jul 31, 2015
256
0
0
They matter, but they can't be use in context of "Microsoft worried for losing support" or "It's PS1 and PS2 again"

Japanese games that aren't niche in west are coming for Xbox One.
For example: Is a game like Dragon Quest "niche"? Because it sold well over a million in the west, ist a blockbuster in japan and it won't come to the Xbox One.