Support NeoGAF

[mancan92]

Why are you guys confused that sony sold more multiplatforms and hardware? the PS4 was out longer anyway.

 

[Boombloxer]

It won't matter at that point. If Titanfall is a huge success on Xbox, the sequels will be bigger on Xbox. Like Mass Effect, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Bioshock, Elder's Scrolls, etc.

The install base had quite a bit to do with that, though. If Titanfall is a bigger hit, but PS4 has more units, the base will shift. All of the games you mentioned also ran better on the 360, not the case this time around.

Look at PS2 GTA sales vs Xbox, then look at this generation. Base shifted.

Edit: Beatd hard by Bruce

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

A huge reason for the games had larger success on 360 was due to install base and the 360's early lead. That doesn't matter anymore

The trend for certain games was cemented even in cases where the userbases were not in one company's favor, like Metal Gear Rising on PS3 in America, PES on PS3 in UK, or Splinter Cell on 360 in a number of European countries. It isn't just that one side gets accustomed to that brand, the other side may pick up other games in the meantime and grow attached to them, making that brand not mean as much to them. For example, Destiny might become much bigger on PS4 thanks to the TItanFall/Halo vacuum.

Edit 2: I fully expect Metal Gear Solid 5 to sell better on PS3 than on 360 or Xbox One in the US.

Of course the game will sell more total if the PS4 is in the mix, but getting the first edition (even if it was just a timed exclusive, which TF doesn't appear to be) has traditionally been a strong indicator of future franchise success on that platform.

Edit: GTA is cross-generation, and a bit of a poor example. The previous GTA games all appeared (and sold well) on the Xbox, albeit they were all timed exclusive on PS2. There was no reason for GTA owners to upgrade specifically to PS360 until after the game was out. The Xbox One will have at least one year as the only next gen platform to play TF, so it will have existing XOne owners as well as most upgrading 360 TF owners in that time (most people won't be aware that a PS4 version is in the pipeline).

 

[Loudninja]

Why are you guys confused that sony sold more multiplatforms and hardware? the PS4 was out longer anyway.

They sold pretty all their stock on day one.

 

[UNCMark]

Why are you guys confused that sony sold more multiplatforms and hardware? the PS4 was out longer anyway.

Several reasons played into it - out longer, buy 2 get 1 free sales, and fewer exclusives. I think PS4 will hold an advantage in the future with multi-plats, but it won't resemble these numbers. I guess Tomb Raider will be the first game to release across both platforms at the same exact time since November. It should be a pretty good indicator.

 

[Hindle]

A huge reason for the games had larger success on 360 was due to install base and the 360's early lead. That doesn't matter anymore

If Titanfall does revelent business for the Xbox platform, then I expect MS to at least secure the sequel as X1 exclusive. Read interviews with any MS exec and they say the franchise is a big part of thier plans and how they have a great relationship with Respawn.

Titanfall 3 is when the series goes multi IMO.

 

[QaaQer]

Unless a price drop is in the cards, I tend to agree. 2013 was a big year for first-party software-- which is the driving force for the 2/3DS family-- and I'm not sure what Nintendo can realistically do for an encore... though if Smash Bros. arrives as expected, it can only help.

That said, a price cut sometime in the next fiscal year isn't an impossibility. $100 for 2DS could be a great number so long as Nintendo isn't losing a ton on the hardware. Sweet spot for 3DS pricing is a bit tougher to call; it needs to be a relative premium but not so expensive that it dissuades future purchases.

Game prices are what turns parents off. $99-$149 is already prime price point for hardware. I don't know what Nintendo can do about game prices while still remaining viable.

 

[UNCMark]

They sold pretty all their stock on day one.

What does that matter? It's still a week longer for PS4 owners to buy more games.

 

[HigherLevel]

This is a late reply but its not possible for MS to pay EA enough money at that point to keep it on one platform. Thats incredibly unrealistic.

I've seen this kind of post multiple times, but MS doesn't have to pay EA anything after Titanfall 1, because Respawn has said their deal with EA only covers one game and MS could come in with a publishing deal for Respawn better than what EA could offer.

 

[Radec]

What does that matter? It's still a week longer for PS4 owners to buy more games.

It does when you count the days when there are no stocks for the PS4 version.

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm reading through all November 2007 NPD thread, and still I can't find how much Mario Party DS sold in its first month. Anyone here who knows the truth? XD

EDIT: Found something - How much it sold in December

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9366608&postcount=355

Mario Party DS (DS) - 385,700

Mmmh...yeeeah, not gonna happen with Mario Party: Island Tour.

In terms of total revenue, Mario Party DS was the #1 grossing DS game in November 2007, beating out The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass that released a month earlier. To be honest, I don't think Mario Party: Island Tour will achieve anywhere close to the same kind of initial success.

 

[UNCMark]

It does when you count the days when there are no stocks for the PS4 version.

The games were never hard to find if you wanted one. Except for the fighting game, and a day or two for NFS.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I've seen this kind of post multiple times, but MS doesn't have to pay EA anything after Titanfall 1, because Respawn has said their deal with EA only covers one game and MS could come in with a publishing deal for Respawn better than what EA could offer.

Do you know how much MS would have to pay to keep it exclusive to the platform? To cover the theoretical capital the game could make on another system especially a system that could still be leading in sales.

There is a reason Bioshock, ME and others were only 1 game deals. You don't think MS wanted to lock those franchises down or didn't try?

You need to use a bit of common sense with something like this. There is no precedent for what your describing. Its just wishful thinking.

The trend for certain games was cemented even in cases where the userbases were not in one company's favor, like Metal Gear Rising on PS3 in America, PES on PS3 in UK, or Splinter Cell on 360 in a number of European countries. It isn't just that one side gets accustomed to that brand, the other side may pick up other games in the meantime and grow attached to them, making that brand not mean as much to them. For example, Destiny might become much bigger on PS4 thanks to the TItanFall/Halo vacuum.

Edit 2: I fully expect Metal Gear Solid 5 to sell better on PS3 than on 360 or Xbox One in the US.

Of course the game will sell more total if the PS4 is in the mix, but getting the first edition (even if it was just a timed exclusive, which TF doesn't appear to be) has traditionally been a strong indicator of future franchise success on that platform.

Edit: GTA is cross-generation, and a bit of a poor example. The previous GTA games all appeared (and sold well) on the Xbox, albeit they were all timed exclusive on PS2. There was no reason for GTA owners to upgrade specifically to PS360 until after the game was out. The Xbox One will have at least one year as the only next gen platform to play TF, so it will have existing XOne owners as well as most upgrading 360 TF owners in that time (most people won't be aware that a PS4 version is in the pipeline).

Ah yeah I see what you mean. I completely agree with that notion that for the most part whatever system is branded with the IP is typically the one with the higher sales I am just talking about how unlikely any further exclusivity of the game is on one platform.

 

[harSon]

A huge reason for the games had larger success on 360 was due to install base and the 360's early lead. That doesn't matter anymore

That's not quite correct. Perception created by timed exclusivity, advertisement exclusivity and the underlying gaming tastes of the install base at large had a lot more to do with their success on the 360 in comparison with their direct rival

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Do you know how much MS would have to pay to keep it exclusive to the platform? To cover the theoretical capital the game could make on another system especially a system that could still be leading in sales.

There is a reason Bioshock, ME and others were only 1 game deals. You don't think MS wanted to lock those franchises down or didn't try?

You need to use a bit of common sense with something like this. There is no precedent for what your describing. Its just wishful thinking.

This is quite true. If the game sells 3-5 million copies there's no moneyhat big enough to keep it exclusive, especially since the 360 will be quite dead by the time the sequel releases. Gears isn't a good comparison, as MS was the publisher in that case. MS would be better served spending their money propping up the next big thing and/or getting some exclusive DLC.

 

[Zinthar]

The trend for certain games was cemented even in cases where the userbases were not in one company's favor, like Metal Gear Rising on PS3 in America, PES on PS3 in UK, or Splinter Cell on 360 in a number of European countries. It isn't just that one side gets accustomed to that brand, the other side may pick up other games in the meantime and grow attached to them, making that brand not mean as much to them. For example, Destiny might become much bigger on PS4 thanks to the TItanFall/Halo vacuum.

Edit 2: I fully expect Metal Gear Solid 5 to sell better on PS3 than on 360 or Xbox One.

Of course the game will sell more total if the PS4 is in the mix, but getting the first edition (even if it was just a timed exclusive, which TF doesn't appear to be) has traditionally been a strong indicator of future franchise success on that platform.

Edit: GTA is cross-generation, and a bit of a poor example. The previous GTA games all appeared (and sold well) on the Xbox, albeit they were all timed exclusive on PS2. There was no reason for GTA owners to upgrade specifically to PS360 until after the game was out. The Xbox One will have at least one year as the only next gen platform to play TF, so it will have existing XOne owners as well as most upgrading 360 TF owners in that time (most people won't be aware that a PS4 version is in the pipeline).

In the case of Rising, the Metal Gear Solid fanbase already owned PS3's for MGS4, so it's natural that it would sell much better on that platform.

The Titanfall case is a lot harder to predict because it's hitting really early in the generation, and is also coming out on PC & 360 simultaneously. Between that and Halo 5, it will probably push major fans of the shooter genre to go with Xbox, but they were probably leaning that way regardless. On the other hand, PS4 is likely to amass a decent install base lead in 2014-15 and will probably get the better version of Titanfall 2.

If Titanfall ends up becoming a huge franchise with broad appeal, like GTA or Call of Duty, the install base will likely end up becoming the overriding factor in how well it sells on each platform. If it were more niche, like Rising, then a large preference for the original exclusive platform would be expected. My bet is that Titanfall ends up being a case of the former.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think the 360 being out early did a few things, but its ease of development and Microsoft's legwork with the developer and enthusiast press communities were important too.

360 being out early meant that hardcore gamers went there en masse to get a taste of next gen. If you wanted next gen, you had no other option. So you had a very hardcore base of gamers that buy lots of games playing the role of evangelizer and tastemaker. I think that is genuinely important.

Then 360 just was a far better place for western developers, who were going to rule the gen, to develop. So it became lead platform and stayed lead platform for either the entire gen or most of the gen for most studios.

The lead was hugely important and not just because of how the machine sold before PS3 game out...which wasn't spectacular, but was good enough.

 

[harSon]

Microsoft doesn't care about exclusivity with the Titanfall franchise. They just want it to be a Call of Duty-esque situation, ie. despite being on every platform in existence, its brand is basically synonymous with the Xbox brand from a consumer perception standpoint with a sales breakdown to back that up. Timed exclusivity will do that for you, as seen by countless games last generation.

If Titanfall 2 is multiplatform, its brand will be associated with Xbox, a perception that will be reinforced at press conferences where Microsoft gives them the floor for 10 minutes, advertisement exclusives that will basically push the game as an 'Xbox game,' exclusive DLC/Map packs, etc. It's pretty much a given.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Microsoft doesn't care about exclusivity with the Titanfall franchise. They just want it to be a Call of Duty-esque situation, ie. despite being on every platform in existence, its brand is basically synonymous with the Xbox brand from a consumer perception standpoint with a sales breakdown to back that up. Timed exclusivity will do that for you, as seen by countless games last generation.

If Titanfall 2 is multiplatform, its brand will be associated with Xbox, a perception that will be reinforced at press conferences where Microsoft gives them the floor for 10 minutes, advertisement exclusives that will basically push the game as an 'Xbox game,' exclusive DLC/Map packs, etc. It's pretty much a given.

Yeah this is very true and likely what they are aiming for.

 

[jryi]

Respawn has said their deal with EA only covers one game and MS could come in with a publishing deal for Respawn better than what EA could offer.

Does EA really not have the right of first refusal? They are going to spend a lot of money on marketing a completely new IP, surely they are not just going to let it go free after that.

 

[Zinthar]

Does EA really not have the right of first refusal? They are going to spend a lot of money on marketing a completely new IP, surely they are not just going to let it go free after that.

It all depends on the particulars of their contract with Respawn. The part of the agreement that was leaked a few years ago didn't specify that aspect of it, IIRC.

 

[Boombloxer]

The trend for certain games was cemented even in cases where the userbases were not in one company's favor, like Metal Gear Rising on PS3 in America, PES on PS3 in UK, or Splinter Cell on 360 in a number of European countries. It isn't just that one side gets accustomed to that brand, the other side may pick up other games in the meantime and grow attached to them, making that brand not mean as much to them. For example, Destiny might become much bigger on PS4 thanks to the TItanFall/Halo vacuum.

Edit 2: I fully expect Metal Gear Solid 5 to sell better on PS3 than on 360 or Xbox One in the US.

Of course the game will sell more total if the PS4 is in the mix, but getting the first edition (even if it was just a timed exclusive, which TF doesn't appear to be) has traditionally been a strong indicator of future franchise success on that platform.

Edit: GTA is cross-generation, and a bit of a poor example. The previous GTA games all appeared (and sold well) on the Xbox, albeit they were all timed exclusive on PS2. There was no reason for GTA owners to upgrade specifically to PS360 until after the game was out. The Xbox One will have at least one year as the only next gen platform to play TF, so it will have existing XOne owners as well as most upgrading 360 TF owners in that time (most people won't be aware that a PS4 version is in the pipeline).

You're still missing the overall point--if the PS4 moves more units, then that's that.

Funny enough, your example also works for Titanfall--it is also cross-generation, but there's no guarantee that the platform itself will retain that audience--if anything, the opposite is happening.

It hasn't really been a strong indicator of anything by itself--there were more factors around it which had more of an impact.

Microsoft doesn't care about exclusivity with the Titanfall franchise. They just want it to be a Call of Duty-esque situation, ie. despite being on every platform in existence, its brand is basically synonymous with the Xbox brand from a consumer perception standpoint with a sales breakdown to back that up. Timed exclusivity will do that for you, as seen by countless games last generation.

If Titanfall 2 is multiplatform, its brand will be associated with Xbox, a perception that will be reinforced at press conferences where Microsoft gives them the floor for 10 minutes, advertisement exclusives that will basically push the game as an 'Xbox game,' exclusive DLC/Map packs, etc. It's pretty much a given.

And there's not an indication that this is going to actually matter yet--if you have all of the above, but are dealing with a 60-35-5 market split, all the PR in the world won't matter because it'll still sell better on the market leading platform.

 

[mattiewheels]

I'm late, is there a solid number for PS4 yet?

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm late, is there a solid number for PS4 yet?

1137.5K < PS4 < 1138K.

 

[Hindle]

Does EA really not have the right of first refusal? They are going to spend a lot of money on marketing a completely new IP, surely they are not just going to let it go free after that.

It's up to Respawn when it comes to who they partner with, and given how EA accepted a boat load of cash behind thier backs, I can't see them being best pleased with EA.

 

[Nirolak]

It's up to Respawn when it comes to who they partner with, and given how EA accepted a boat load of cash behind thier backs, I can't see them being best pleased with EA.

EA always gets right of first refusal for EA Partners games. Always.

 

[Pain]

It's up to Respawn when it comes to who they partner with, and given how EA accepted a boat load of cash behind thier backs, I can't see them being best pleased with EA.

Why the hell did they think partnering up with the worst company in America would be a good idea?

 

[Mario007]

Why the hell did they think partnering up with the worst company in America would be a good idea?

Activision screwed them over and they didn't want to make Assassin's Creed: Titanfall.

 

[Zinthar]

It's up to Respawn when it comes to who they partner with, and given how EA accepted a boat load of cash behind thier backs, I can't see them being best pleased with EA.

We don't know exactly what their contract with EA includes. It's entirely possible that EA has an option to publish future games in the franchise, even if they have no rights to the IP.

Regardless, where else would they go to find a giant publisher? Activision burned their bridges with Respawn, so that leaves Take Two and their 2K games label as the most likely alternative.

 

[mattiewheels]

1137.5K < PS4 < 1138K.

So that means they had no supply in the US after the first few days, right?

 

[Hindle]

We don't know exactly what their contract with EA includes. It's entirely possible that EA has an option to publish future games in the franchise, even if they have no rights to the IP.

Regardless, where else would they go to find a giant publisher? Activision burned their bridges with Respawn, so that leaves Take Two and their 2K games label as the most likely alternative.

Aye, it's pointless to speculate on this, it's clear there are many variables at stake.

 

[QaaQer]

EA always gets right of first refusal for EA Partners games. Always.

Nobody here has seen that particular contract, so I wouldn't be so definitive.

 

[pharmboy044]

So that means they had no supply in the US after the first few days, right?

Pretty much. It looks like most of their stock went to EU for their launch.

 

[QaaQer]

We don't know exactly what their contract with EA includes. It's entirely possible that EA has an option to publish future games in the franchise, even if they have no rights to the IP.

Regardless, where else would they go to find a giant publisher? Activision burned their bridges with Respawn, so that leaves Take Two and their 2K games label as the most likely alternative.

Sony? lol.

 

[Nirolak]

Nobody here has seen that particular contract, so I wouldn't be so definitive.

I'm willing to go in for $100 that EA publishes the sequel.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Any numbers for PS camera?

 

[Nirolak]

Respawn is pleased to also announce that it has awarded Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:ERTS), through the distinguished EA Partners program, exclusive worldwide publishing and distribution rights to future games. Terms were not disclosed. West and Zampella are represented by Creative Artists Agency (CAA).

Source: http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=458085

This is decidedly plural.

 

[ultratruman]

Any numbers for PS camera?

I'd like to know this too. That thing seems to be selling really well here in the UK, stores are having trouble keeping them in stock.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Source: http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=458085

This is decidedly plural.

West and Zampella must have re-written the contract due to Titanfall fiasko from EA´s side. They went behind the back of West and Zampella and made TF exclusive to MS forever instead of a year exclusive.

 

[Nirolak]

West and Zampella must have re-written the contract due to Titanfall fiasko from EA´s side. They went behind the back of West and Zampella and made TF exclusive to MS forever instead of a year exclusive.

This is not how contract law works.

You don't get a new one unless your contract is actually voided which we would see a public court battle over.

If youre worried about more exclusives though their CFO basically said the next ones would be multiplat already.

 

[anexanhume]

So that means they had no supply in the US after the first few days, right?

They sold 1 million in NA on day 1. I'm sure Canada managed at least 100K. That means at least 200k more PS4s filtered out.

 

[HigherLevel]

Does EA really not have the right of first refusal? They are going to spend a lot of money on marketing a completely new IP, surely they are not just going to let it go free after that.

I don't know the specifics of the deal, but I do remember reading an interview with a Respawn employee saying they could find a new publisher after the release of Titanfall 1 if they wanted to.

 

[QaaQer]

I'm willing to go in for $100 that EA publishes the sequel.

me too.

just sayin its not guaranteed.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Any numbers for PS camera?

I'd like to know this too. That thing seems to be selling really well here in the UK, stores are having trouble keeping them in stock.

Hmm not the best attach rate

You guys forget about 2ch again, didn't you?

PS4 camera < 130K

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I don't know the specifics of the deal, but I do remember reading an interview with a Respawn employee saying they could find a new publisher after the release of Titanfall 1 if they wanted to.

Where is that? I am looking through a bunch of interview stuff right now and I haven't found any quote like that.

Respawn also said that EA, through its EA Partners division, holds exclusive worldwide publishing and distribution rights for future titles coming out of the new studio. "This is like the time the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees," EA Games head Frank Gibeau told us.

"Respawn Entertainment marks a fresh start for Jason and me," said Zampella, who will act as the new studio's general manager, in a statement. "For the past decade we led a great development team and poured our hearts into creating an epic game franchise. We're very proud of what we built -- and proud that so many millions of fans enjoyed those games. Today we hope to do it all over again -- open a new studio, hire a great team, and create brand new games with a new partner, EA."

This is a old quote but I am not finding anything contradictory in any new interviews.

 

[John Harker]

Are you guys familiar with the term "first right of refusal?" That is likely the case here, as is how a lot of these (and most deals) are done.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This is not how contract law works.

You don't get a new one unless your contract is actually voided which we would see a public court battle over.

If youre worried about more exclusives though their CFO basically said the next ones would be multiplat already.

Yep, I imagine what took place with the EA and MS deal is something that doesn't somehow violate EA's initial contract with Respawn, as I can't imagine EA doing that knowingly.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

This is not how contract law works.

You don't get a new one unless your contract is actually voided which we would see a public court battle over.

If youre worried about more exclusives though their CFO basically said the next ones would be multiplat already.

I am not worried about more exclusives, they can do what they want. But new deal require new contract or at least rework the old contract, so i was just guessing that they have reworked new terms for giving EA more exclusive distribution over their future games.

 

[Pain]

The real question is why didn't Respawn include a multiplatform clause or whatever on their contract with EA? Did they just assume EA wouldn't sell their game to Microsoft?

 

[Chobel]

Source: http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail...leaseID=458085

This is decidedly plural.

Are you guys familiar with the term "first right of refusal?" That is likely the case here, as is how a lot of these (and most deals) are done.

Why did Respawn do this to themselves? After what happened with Activision, you would think they won't do those kind contracts, locking themselves to only one publisher.