The Abominable Snowman
Member
For third parties?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Media Create Sales: Week 41, 2014 (Oct 06 - Oct 12)
- Thread starter Chris1964
- Start date
For third parties?
Sammy Samusu
Member
Kurokos Basketball: Ties to the Future announced for 3DS.
Didn't they just release one like, two weeks ago? :lol
Didn't they just release one like, two weeks ago? :lol
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=910295
According to some calculations done by sales agers on this forum, nearly 2/3 of wii software sales (900m units) was third party. They just didn't support it with their a game (or their b game, or even generally their c game)
What alternative are you suggesting?
This is getting really dumb.
If 100% of the major console publishers with products aimed at the west are making games for your console, you have a viable product in the west.
I think that it's a great (and obvious) definition of a viable product in this context, and it's the last thing I have to say about this argument.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Sure, but the biggest 3rd party sellers were games made for the Wii base in mind. I'm not going to go into the "Core vs Casual" or "Traditional Gaming" debate, but the majority of those top selling games couldn't have had the same success on any other platform
Doesn't hurt that most of them were also made with smaller budgets and required way less resources to make.
What are the major publishers in Japan? Namco Bandai, Square Enix, Konami, Capcom, Sega, maybe Koei Tecmo? Well 100% of them are supporting PS4 and Xbox One.
You're right, determining viability by 3rd party support is really dumb.
aw yiss <3
It's kinda surreal that somehow we've arrived in a place where we're pretending that anything other than the 3DS is a healthy, viable platform in Japan. Not only that, but apparently the PS4 is the only healthy, viable platform in the west.sörine;134589502 said:
Seems like arguing just for the sake of it to me. Any other week and people have no issue admitting everything is dead in Japan except 3DS. Any other thread and suggesting the XBone is a dead platform in the west would get you roundly mocked.
shinra-bansho
Member
It should be roundly mocked in this thread too, because it's a nonsense notion.
Gaiaknight
Member
probably not but dammit do i want an AC on wii u they villagers look so nice in HD in the animal crossing app
I'm not actually speaking to viability of any console in console in any market. I'm just pointing out that trying to determine viability through the level of 3rd party support doesn't really work.
I don't see the notion of Xbox One being less than viable mocked too much in the PAL charts thread. Just check the thread wjenever the German charts come in. Or Spain. Or Italy. Or France. Or Scandinavia. Or...
Cosmo Clock 21
Banned
Rank 85 on top grossing currently.
shinra-bansho
Member
Western publishers aren't typically looking at the national markets of continental Europe discretely to determine the viability of their wares on a platform. The only single country market that likely has that sort of sway is the US market, because it constitutes some 30-40% of the global market in dollar value, and likely more than that in terms of share of the products these companies make. They don't typically create products specifically for the German, French or Spanish markets; they localise them, sure. But even France-based Ubisoft isn't making products targeting the French market.
I'm not really sure if people are seriously suggesting that the XBO isn't a viable platform for third party titles, or they're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm not really sure if people are seriously suggesting that the XBO isn't a viable platform for third party titles, or they're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I was kind of leaning toward "is it viable to keep on the market for the console manufacturer?" IE if it's viable in a region, it will be profitable over the lifetime sales in that region. I do see what people were getting at now in context of third parties now though. Sorry for disrupting the conversation with my misunderstanding. It still seems silly to me, because by that definition Xbox One is almost as viable as PS4 in Europe because of similar releases but in truth mainland europe is probably around 5:1 in the PS4's favour or something. I think context is important, but it's not worth continuing this discussion because at this point we're simply debating the term "viable"
What? Since when. I see plenty of people say it in other threads, and I myself have done. Go check out the 7:1 Spain thread if you don't believe me if you want the most recent example. You're more likely to get called out for calling the Xbox One successful.
Major Japanese publishers don't seem to be looking at their home national market either for determining support. I'm not sure why you or Dave keep having this disconnect, It's not exactly a uniquely western position that 3rd party support is determined by elements beyond simply specific national viability.
And trying to shut down discussion with casting "arguing for the sake of arguing" is totally lazy and disingenuous. Please drop that.
Mmh...It's low currently, but we should wait a few days to see where it actually goes.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure how it's lazy and disingenuous. On occasion I'm sure I'm being contrarian for no particular reason, and I'm certain other people on here do it too.
Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The Xbox One is a viable platform for third party titles.
The Xbox One isn't a resounding success.
It's not an abject failure.
And it's a viable platform for third party publishers' wares, at least if we're talking about Western third parties and/or global properties. It's obviously non-viable in Japan.
What determines if a platform is viable for a third parties complementary goods? Whether or not sufficient business case can be made to produce those complementary goods for the platform.
If you're not talking about viability in terms of continued support, and instead are simply talking about the viability of the platform product in the global marketplace, the sheer size of the markets that it does perform well enough for continuation are sufficient to justify its continuation.
In either scenario it's a viable product and platform.
Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The Xbox One is a viable platform for third party titles.
Lots of people saying something nonsensical doesn't validate it.
The Xbox One isn't a resounding success.
It's not an abject failure.
And it's a viable platform for third party publishers' wares, at least if we're talking about Western third parties and/or global properties. It's obviously non-viable in Japan.
What determines if a platform is viable for a third parties complementary goods? Whether or not sufficient business case can be made to produce those complementary goods for the platform.
If you're not talking about viability in terms of continued support, and instead are simply talking about the viability of the platform product in the global marketplace, the sheer size of the markets that it does perform well enough for continuation are sufficient to justify its continuation.
In either scenario it's a viable product and platform.
Is Xbox One profitable? Remains to be seen
Is Xbox One going to end 30+ Million (I'd say 45+ but being nice) under it's preddessecor? Most likely
Is Xbox One going to lose market share from it's preddessecor? Probably, even when counting the Wii
Did the Xbox one deal lasting damage to the Xbox brand? Remains to be seen, but very possible.
Just because it's not a Wii U level of catastrophe doesn't mean it isn't failing. Since the beginning of 2014 It's doing poorly even for a second place console. Do you have some other definition for success? It's possible it ends up profitable but that's an "if" and even if it does the loss in absolute units and market share is still a disaster.
Wrap
tags around selected text
Do we really know this? Will 35 million units (taking it as a minimum) sold be enough to justify the increasing R&D and game development costs?
Do we really know this? Will 35 million units (taking it as a minimum) sold be enough to justify the increasing R&D and game development costs?
shinra-bansho
Member
What does any of this have to do with whether it's a viable product and/or platform?
you stated "It's not an abject failure" and I chimed in saying, as of right now, it is. I've kind of stopped debating "viability" since at this point we're literally debating the definition of the word, and I'm fine in accepting your definition in this context. Is it, by your definition, viable for third parties? Yes, that doesn't mean much for it's success though.
lyrick
Member
Defend this
If you have some definition of success that doesn't include a gain in market share, absolute units or profitability, I'd be interested to hear it.
lyrick
Member
So a bunch of Maybe's or wait and see is your definition of an abject failure?
Did the console contribute to its industry?
Did millions of consumers from the industry purchase the product as well as Games for it?
shinra-bansho
Member
It's not an abject failure and it's certainly not a resounding success, i.e. it's not at either extreme. The term abject failure isn't typically used to describe the kind of middling product the Xbox One currently is, as far as I'm aware. It's typically reserved for things like the Vita.
I don't really know what other definition of viable you'd like to put forward btw in this context of discussion.
Reverse arguments are also a bunch of maybe's.
We know it isn't profitable, we know it is losing in every market (very badly in Europe) and we know the market as a whole has declined on top of that. Heck we're not even sure it has hit 5 million at this point.
What if it makes MS pull out of the console market.
Since this is a common misconception I'd like to address something here.
The point of making a console isn't to make money on first party games. If that was their goal, they're just become multiplatform publishers.
The appeal to making a console is making money on 1.) licensing fees (~$10-$12) for every disc printed for your console regardless of whether or not the games sells, 2.) digital service fees (XBLG, PS+), 3.) the digital content margin (movies, 30% on downloadable games, music, etc) and 4.) any hardware margins, which are more often notable in the latter half of the generation.
If it sells people on your product ecosystem that's a plus, but usually not a sufficient driver to just make a device in the first place.
Now, do first parties like to make money on games? Yes, but if that's all they were doing, they wouldn't be making a platform. They basically want at lest either a massive volume of users who create a large revenue stream or a notably smaller audience of very high ARPU users.
This has actually been one of Nintendo's major financial problems lately. The gigantic seas of shovelware the DS and Wii had were actually incredibly profitable for Nintendo even if they were bad. With those drying up, they don't have the giant licensing fee cushion anymore and they don't have a lot of digital content or subscription fee revenue either.
Similarly we've seen reduced title output on PS4 and XB1, but their digital revenue has been notable climbing over the years. Microsoft seemingly went too hard in chasing that and made some decisions that didn't make it as strong as a gaming platform in an attempt to appeal to more media users.
Next in line is the SNES with 49M since Mega Drive sold more or less like N64.
lyrick
Member
I would have gone with the Virtual Boy, as the Vita has had seen some levels of success in various regions. It's not Commanding market share anywhere, but compared to products in the mobile sector nothing is.
Thank you, but I do understand that. First party games are used to sell systems more than the actual games themselves, but that doesn't mean they don't factor into the cost of maintaining the Xbox. Essentially what I'm saying is "will the total revenue associated with the Xbox One be greater than the total costs?" While we don't know the answer to that, we can assume based on their behaviour that MS didn't expect the sales to be as low as they are. Maybe they had a huge profit margins before they made the kinectless SKU and bundled in many games, but if they didn't they're likely to be hurting now and the question of profitability is real.
You can apply the last two to the Wii U as well, does that mean it's successful? Fuck no, it's a horrendous failure and will be lucky to hit 15 million. The only "maybe" in my definition is profitability, which could turn around. The others are based on current sales data and trends. Could the Xbox One turn it around? Possibly, but I see it as highly unlikely, there won't be another Kinect.
IN regards to me definition of "viable" I stated the following earlier: "if it's viable in a region, it will be profitable over the lifetime sales in that region." So, for example, the Xbox one will almost certainly be unviable in Japan and Spain by my definition.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
So in other words the Xbox One is Microsoft's PS3
Are the Kingdom Hearts3 or FF15 releases due to XBones (or X360s) viability in Japan? I think you all are just misunderstanding each other, the question is if it´s on purpose or not. Seeing how the usual suspects posted that they want others to be mocked we already have an idea.
lyrick
Member
The Wii U isn't a failure unless you're a fanboy. There isn't a product on the market that hasn't proven itself (aside from the n3DS & PlayStationTV) due to just being released.
If you want to write off any of the Big three home platforms currently you may as write of Console gaming as a whole, as software sales are so embarrassingly low compared to previous gens that the market is showing a pretty strong contraction.
I like to think of it more as a Nintendo 64. The PS3 had a turn around due to strong first party titles, agressive price cuts/redesigns and games that eventually utilised the hardware showing it wasn't underpowered. MS' first party titles outside Halo aren't likely to make much of a dent and even Halo is very focused at English speaking markets. Aggressive price cuts (already somewhat shown through excessive bundling) will likely be too little too late without the strong first party line up and same brand recognition and the gap between the Xbox and PS4 in perceived power isn't going to get smaller.
Yeah at this point they're pretty obviously making moves that are not financially favorable in an effort to get an installed base going so that when they stop doing subsidies and costs lower, they can start generating a notable profit.
Will the total cost in be less than the total profit out? It's hard to say at this point. However, I do feel that for a company the size of Microsoft, they're often looking less at individual device ROI and more at "Are we maintaining any relevance?" Like Bing and Windows Phone are not successful products, but Microsoft heavily maintains investment in them because they feel the need to try and be relevant on the web and in mobile devices. Similarly, Xbox is their portal to relevance in the living room.
I think from their perspective, if they end this generation with "People still respect us as a video game brand and there's potential for us to do better the next time around," that would actually be seen as successful internally.
If they were a company that only did video games, or a company that relied on video games to make their profit due to not having other successful divisions, the immediate cost/benefit starts to become vastly more important, but as it stands they're the vendor I most see as a long term vision/consumer reach oriented company versus a profit/loss/ROI oriented player.
Edit:
Well, that's not true. Amazon is clearly also that way, but I mean from the traditional vendors.
shinra-bansho
Member
I've been talking about viability and success/failure in terms of current market performance.
If you want to talk about success in terms of discounted cash flows/NPV/EVA etc. we don't have sufficient information to determine the answer, nor know the other opportunities to weigh this project against. Are you discounting future cashflows? If so at what rate? Etc. You can't really just add up quarterly profits and subtract some initial development cost. (Real Kev, and others in finance, can probably elaborate more and better).
I would guess the answer is no, but Microsoft have money to burn. And there are other measures of "success" they presumably take into account such as the strategic importance of a certain project.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Nintendo 64 didn't have third parties for YEARS though. And still didn't have many major publishers on board until late in its life. I think it was floating at about 250 games released for it, ever. You really think the Xbox One is in a comparable position?
And RE: franchises, the PS3 really hit it home with its strong first/second party and ORIGINAL franchises. Why would you then focus on long-standing franchises in regards to Xbox One?
I don't think the XOne will ever surpass PS4 but your definitions of failure are kind of crazy.
My definitions of "not profitable, loss of market share and decrease in generation on generation sales" is crazy? Please offer some alternative.
Also I basically said Nintendo 64 not because of their similarities in 3rd party support, but in terms of sales by region...though the Xbox One will do much better in the UK and much worse in Japan. And that's fair enough with regards to original IPs, but I haven't really seen many original IPs from MS that will help them out. Sunset Overdrive is a start but on it's own? Inconsequential.
I understand that, and I'm sorry for confusing the conversation. We we simply talking about two different aspects of the business.
This is an interesting way of looking at it that I can accept. On that metric I can see them being "successful," but at the same time I don't think Xbox is quite as important to MS as Bing and Windows Phone in that I feel if it continues to do poorly something will be done about it.
They've lost the ground the gained with the 360 which they spent more than a generation burning money to get to. Ballmer era MS was heavily criticised for trying to do everything and Nadella is now trying to get them back to the core products they are good at. Wasting several more billions on Xbox with no goal in mind is not what they are good at.
I don't know what their goal is, but I'm certain it isn't another PS3 that barely limps along. I know some will defend the PS3 as somehow successful and yes it sold some units in the end, but not without costing Sony billions and putting devs who tried mastering the Cell out of business. The Vita too sells some units in PAL due to European market really loving the brand, but it's still a gigantic flop when I think of it as a miracle that the device is still supported with software updates and PS+ games.
Edit:
When you have to rationalize it like that it sounds even worse
Replace MS with Blackberry.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
I think the choice of words is what needs to be evaluated. Failure would be going from a 50% marketshare to ~10% marketshare (Wii U, Saturn, N64, Vita, arguably GC). Failure would be taking a successful product and then neutralizing its success, or never obtaining success with it at all. (Wii U, Saturn, N64, Vita, arguably GC) Disappointment would be going from a >30-40% marketshare machine to losing 20-30%(?) marketshare and going from a successful machine to a less successful yet still successful machine. (SNES, N64, PS3, arguably GC, and probably Xbox One)
Failure implies it's not worth continuing or developing a successor, as well. (Various older niche consoles like 3D0/Jaguar, Dreamcast)
Profitability is something to be seen after some years and will take some amazing clairvoyance to see since MS doesn't even give us the figures. Either way, eroding marketshare and declining generational sales can't be applied IMO, because noone is looking over at the phone market and calling the newer Android/iPhone flagship phones failures because they will probably never attain the highs of the iPhone 3GS/4S and Galaxy S3 (which still sell quite well). Yet the Blackberry which has gone from a position of admirability to being marginal, is a recognized failure.
Edit: Really I should've said the Nokias of 2006-2007. Nothing will ever touch those phones saleswise.
Square2015
Member
What happened? This was the Gran Turismo killer.
It's a western racing game.
It's lazy and disingenous because it artifically shuts down discourse by casting negative implications. If you're genuinely confused then ask for clairification in a less demeaning way. Language counts.
Xbox One is then also a viable platform for Japanese 3rd party titles as evidenced by the fact it's recieving them. However that doesn't indicate the platform itself is viable in Japan specifically. Same as Germany or France or wherever else.
I feel I've been pretty clear about all this but if you're still having trouble understanding I can keep trying?
Uhmmmm....was it?
test_account
XP-39C²
It will probably be close either if its over or under last year's number.
We need quotes on that statement
Personally, i havnt seen anyone say that Driveclub would outsell Gran Turismo, neither in Japan or worldwide.Why wouldn't they want to work with Nintendo? I think Capcom saw the popularity of the DS, how Nintendo handled Tri, the money they could save, along with some issues they had with Sony and decided to not work with them.
SwiftDeath
Member
I thought GT6 was the Gran Turismo killer
/s
It did a great job at that.
It did so well in fact that they refuse to update their software sales page: http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
theprodigy
Member
vicissitudes
Banned
Well Gran Turismo is dying in Japan.
Driveclub killed it back in 2013. Preemptive strike.