Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
PM a mod to add your own
Video games
Generic
Help and suggestions
By platform
By type
By games
Language specific
Imagine saying that one of (if not the most, we'll see how it goes) successful consoles of all time should follow Microsoft's example when it comes to administering their consoles and exclusives.
Like, wow. I despise Nintendo and everything they stand for, but this is just delusional on so many levels.
I don't have to imagine it; he's backing up his points with data.
The strategy worked for Xbox because the alternative was to curl up and die. There's no reason for Nintendo to give up their 30% sales cut to reach audiences in their system of choice.
Nintendo also has a lot more visibility and brand recognition (and generally speaking, more prestige and goodwill) compared to whatever Microsoft is attempting to sell at the moment, which again, means there's little reason to reach people who bought into other systems. People already know Pokémon and Mario, and know those are good games. If they wanted to play them, they would've bought a Nintendo console.
Porting Mario and Pokémon to PS and Steam would certainly bring in more sales, but it would also devalue a console whose entire shtick is that it lets you play games you can't play anywhere else.
The only concession Nintendo has done so far is to bring some spin-off titles to mobile, possibly in an attempt to corner the younger market that seems to be less interested in traditional consoles, and hook them with their games in the hope of them buying a Switch and doing their purchases on the Nintendo store.
Whoever says that Nintendo should follow in the steps of one of the biggest failures of today's console market, instead of doing what they've done so far with resounding success, is nuts, especially since the "data" MS has released so far about their consoles and the revenue is muddy at best - they say, for example, that GamePass is profitable, but we don't know how much profitable it is, nor how much does it cost for them to bring into the service all those games, nor the opportunity cost of releasing those games on the service instead of selling them, nor... Anything at all, really. Like, how many players are on GP that play regularly? How much money did those players spend on the store before subscribing to GP? How much do they spend now? How many of those players are subscribed for Gold and Call of Duty, and how many are interested in other titles? What's the difference in sales between GP and selling the same game on a successful platform, ie Steam/PS? Is GP the fault of other titles selling poorly on the console, and if so, doesn't that threaten the stability of the console, when the developers refuse to optimize or straight up release their game on the platform because it's a waste of time and money to do so?
Microsoft knows that data and refuses to tell us, so we're left wondering what "profitable" means. What we know for sure is that Xbox is dead, and Nintendo isn't.
Did you read the article? Because the thesis is that even if this is working, they could stand to make more money by not doing it. Piscatella's thesis would disagree with this statement of yours, for instance:
People already know Pokémon and Mario, and know those are good games. If they wanted to play them, they would’ve bought a Nintendo console.
And instead he'd say that people are happy where they are and would buy the game if it came to them, as evidenced by how high something like Stellar Blade or Forza Horizon 5 shoot up the charts when they get a port; FH5 already became one of the best-selling PS5 games for the year almost immediately, even though PS5 owners could have bought an Xbox to play it at any point. Or, not mentioned in the article, there's the night and day financial difference that a PC port makes for the likes of a mainstay franchise like Final Fantasy. It's not just an Xbox thing that he's speaking to. Speaking for myself, I'd have bought Tears of the Kingdom if it came to PC, and instead I was happy to just not play it at all.
There’s no reason for Nintendo to give up their 30% sales cut to reach audiences in their system of choice.
There is if the volume of what they're taking 30% of doesn't make up for the money they would have made by making Mario Kart, Zelda, and Smash Bros. multiplatform releases. There are no guarantees that Switch 2 reaches the install base of Switch 1, especially with headwinds from the general state of the economy, and that can change the math on that equation very quickly.
The only concession Nintendo has done so far is to bring some spin-off titles to mobile, possibly in an attempt to corner the younger market that seems to be less interested in traditional consoles, and hook them with their games in the hope of them buying a Switch and doing their purchases on the Nintendo store.
They can hope that, but as Piscatella sees in the data, getting people to move largely isn't happening.
And instead he'd say that people are happy where they are and would buy the game if it came to them, as evidenced by how high something like Stellar Blade or Forza Horizon 5 shoot up the charts when they get a port
Comparing Forza Horizon and Stellar Blade to the likes of Pokémon, Mario and Zelda is, frankly speaking, an exercise in futility. You can't extrapolate useful data by comparing completely different products, catering to completely different audiences.
FH5 already became one of the best-selling PS5 games for the year almost immediately, even though PS5 owners could have bought an Xbox to play it at any point.
Why would a PlayStation user buy an Xbox, like, ever? It's the same platform, doing the same thing, but worse. Heck, even Xbox users aren't buying Xbox at this point. PS users waited for FH5 to come to them, because nobody in their right mind would buy a $500 console for FH5 alone, and there's little from what the Xbox offers that entices them to buy their console.
Nintendo, meanwhile, offers them a different experience (handheld console) playing completely different games (a lot of award winning Nintendo exclusives).
not mentioned in the article, there's the night and day financial difference that a PC port makes for the likes of a mainstay franchise like Final Fantasy.
Third parties have nothing to gain from exclusivity deals but the initial paycheck, while console manufacturers keep cashing in from people who bought into their ecosystem and are now locked into paying them a 30% cut for all their purchases. Final Fantasy went multiplatform because the exclusivity cash from Sony was not enough to offset the missed sales from other platforms. There's also something to say about a shrinking playerbase which makes the franchise less prestigious in the long run (as less players grow up playing FF titles, they won't develop interest in/nostalgia for the franchise and won't buy future entries).
That has nothing to do with the argument at hand, though. It's a completely different situation for two very different players in the market that have nothing to do with one another.
Speaking for myself, I'd have bought Tears of the Kingdom if it came to PC, and instead I was happy to just not play it at all.
A lot of people would be content playing Zelda on their PC, that's the entire point. A Nintendo console has as much value as the exclusive games you can play on it. Port them over, and a lot of people would just... Not buying the console at all.
There is if the volume of what they're taking 30% of doesn't make up for the money they would have made by making Mario Kart, Zelda, and Smash Bros. multiplatform releases.
There is no chance in hell that 30% from all purchases from a healthy fanbase on all games, DLCs and subscriptions (and that's not factoring in hardware sales, like consoles, Amiibos and other overpriced plastic thingamajig Nintendo fans spend their money on) is even remotely comparable to a 70% cut on some titles, especially if taking that 70% cut risks lowering the interest and engagement on their main platform. Basically, MS had nothing to lose, their 30% cut was shit anyway, but Nintendo's cut is far more valuable and, at least so far, more enticing than the other option.
And again, that's also comparing different products. Mario Kart, Zelda and Smash are not even remotely comparable to Forza Horizon. Most players either don't know that FH exists, or know it but aren't interested enough to buy a console just for that game. I know plenty who regularly buy Nintendo consoles because of their games.
They can hope that, but as Piscatella sees in the data, getting people to move largely isn't happening.
Except that it is. Of the 70-80M XboxOne users who bought that console, only half that much have decided to stick with Microsoft through the next gen. Those people didn't disappear, they moved onto other (more enticing) consoles. WiiU was a dumpster fire and Switch went on becoming one of the most successful consoles ever: where did all those people come from? Did they stop gaming altogether while waiting for Nintendo to put their shit together? No, they bought a different console, and came back for the Switch because what they saw interested them.
There is certainly a lot going on in the younger market and the generational shift will be something to analyze in the years to come, but Nintendo's strategy is not without reason.
because nobody in their right mind would buy a $500 console for FH5 alone
But that's exactly the same reason I stopped buying any console. I was more than happy to let the handful of Sony exclusives pass me by, and then they started coming to PC. Now I'm more than happy to let a handful of Nintendo exclusives pass me by.
Third parties have nothing to gain from exclusivity deals but the initial paycheck, while console manufacturers keep cashing in from people who bought into their ecosystem and are now locked into paying them a 30% from all their purchases.
But that's not driving console sales like they used to. The last few Final Fantasy games seemed to do quite well on PC, indicating that people did not buy a PS5 to play them, and PS5 is having difficulty matching PS4 units sold even with the utter decimation of their closest competitor. That's another point you made later in your post; wherever Xbox players went, it wasn't to PlayStation. Data would seem to indicate that not even all of the PlayStation players stuck with PlayStation.
Port [Nintendo games] over [to PC], and a lot of people would just… Not buying the console at all.
Exactly, but potentially, they would stand to make way more money by selling more copies of those games than by selling more Switch 2s and getting those customers locked in.
There is no chance in hell that 30% from all purchases from a healthy fanbase on all games, DLCs and subscriptions (and that’s not factoring in hardware sales, like consoles, Amiibos and other overpriced plastic thingamajig Nintendo fans spend their money on) is even remotely comparable to a 70% cut on some titles, especially if taking that 70% cut risks lowering the interest and engagement on their main platform.
Yes, there is. If you got 30% of all sales from games on an install base the size of the Wii U, it's not going to make up for a game like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros. selling 100M additional copies on extra platforms. We don't know yet how well Switch 2 will do (probably better than Wii U and not as well as the Switch 1), but at certain thresholds, that 30% leaves them worse off than that other 70 that reduces the value of their platform.
But that's exactly the same reason I stopped buying any console. I was more than happy to let the handful of Sony exclusives pass me by, and then they started coming to PC. Now I'm more than happy to let a handful of Nintendo exclusives pass me by.
I agree with you here and I wish more people did it as well, but it's not how it works. Millions of people buy a Nintendo console for their exclusive title of choice, be it Pokémon or Mario or whatever. That's how it's been for the past decades, and judging from the ~~20M~~ 3.5M consoles sold in a few days, that's how it's going for the Switch 2 as well.
Those people had plenty of alternatives, be it a traditional console (PS/Xbox), a PC, or a handheld (Steam Deck). They went and bought a Nintendo on day one, despite the alternatives offering equal or better performance, similar form factor and in the same price range.
But that's not driving console sales like they used to. The last few Final Fantasy games seemed to do quite well on PC, indicating that people did not buy a PS5 to play them, and PS5 is having difficulty matching PS4 units sold even with the utter decimation of their closest competitor.
Yes, but again, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Third parties don't have a horse in the race, they are content selling as many copies as they can because that's their only revenue stream. It's a completely different situation for console manufacturers, to the point that they are not even remotely comparable.
That's another point you made later in your post; wherever Xbox players went, it wasn't to PlayStation. Data would seem to indicate that not even all of the PlayStation players stuck with PlayStation.
Exactly, which shows that players do move to whatever platform is more enticing to them. There is certainly a "core" fanbase that sticks to their console - either because they have invested in a digital library, or want to stick go their profile and the achievements/trophies built over the years, or simply because of blind brand loyalty - but there are also lots of people who jump ship and take their money elsewhere. And judging from the numbers, it's not a small amount.
Exactly, but potentially, they would stand to make way more money by selling more copies of those games than by selling more Switch 2s and getting those customers locked in.
That was never the question. Of course they would sell more copies of those games by porting them elsewhere. The question is, does that risk them losing more money in the long run, as players buy their games elsewhere?
A Nintendo player gives nintendo 100% of the cut in any Zelda sale (and other first party titles), and a 30% cut on any other third party game bought on their platform. Conversely, a PlayStation player will give Microsoft 70% of the revenue for one single sale (Forza Horizon 5) and 0% on anything else.
If your user base is small (the Xbox user base certainly is) and not accustomed to buying games (which many devs have lamented over the years - I remember this article from 2022, for example), then it's a no brainer: port your game to the rival console and enjoy that 70% cut. It's not as cut-and-dry for Nintendo.
Yes, there is. If you got 30% of all sales from games on an install base the size of the Wii U, it's not going to make up for a game like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros. selling 100M additional copies on extra platforms. We don't know yet how well Switch 2 will do (probably better than Wii U and not as well as the Switch 1), but at certain thresholds, that 30% leaves them worse off than that other 70 that reduces the value of their platform.
If your/Piscatella's argument is that they should give up a 30% cut on all sales because of the possibility (insofar, with no backing) of their console selling less units than the predecessor, then it's a bad argument.
Even if they somehow lost 10/20% of their previous user base, that's still gigantic enough to make their 30% cut (and all adjacent revenue streams, like online subscriptions, hardware sales, etc) enticing, especially if those people are accustomed to buying games at full/near full price. Suggesting that the alternative - taking a 70% cut on a few select titles - would be better for them sounds, frankly speaking, ridiculous to me. I would be willing to hear that argument a few years down the line, after seeing how Switch 2 is really doing, but for now, there is simply no reason at all to even entertain such an absurd notion.
The Switch 2 has not sold 20M units yet. They just hit 5M, and they're projecting they'll sell 15M by the end of the fiscal year, which is by March.
Exactly, which shows that players do move to whatever platform is more enticing to them.
But not for exclusives, not like they used to, which is the author's point.
The question is, does that risk them losing more money in the long run, as players buy their games elsewhere?
And Piscatella's position is "maybe, but maybe not". The Switch 2's success in reaching those numbers is not a sure thing, and Nintendo's games have enough appeal that they could be potentially reaching enough additional players that their method may not be the right call anymore. The point is a bit moot, because he also acknowledges that Nintendo is unlikely to change their ways anytime soon, but the possibility is there that they could make more money by going multiplatform. For Sony and Microsoft, that time has already come.
The Switch 2 has not sold 20M units yet. They just hit 5M, and they're projecting they'll sell 15M by the end of the fiscal year, which is by March.
Whops, sorry about that. Didn't mean to inflate it voluntarily. I remembered 3M from the first few days, then checked update sources, got numbers mixed up in my head and somehow came up with 20M. That's surely a wild number lol
Thanks for catching that, would hate to spread disinfo like that.
No worries. The Wii U sold 12M units in its lifetime, which is surely the floor for how many the Switch 2 can possibly sell, and it will almost certainly beat that, but at $500 with looming tariffs, not to mention how the market has changed in the past 8 years, I'd be shocked if it approached an install base as large as the Switch 1.
He's backing it up by misusing data. He's lumping games together and assuming that they all would hypothetically have the same market characteristics, then extrapolating that to other games.
As an example he brings up how the Pokemon Company has released basically the same software on both Switch and mobile platforms. Which is true, but that does not mean it makes sense for Nintendo to release Tears of the Kingdom on mobile. We can already see that Nintendo knows this because they maintain Mario Kart Tour separately from the console versions. They're entirely different business models, control schemes, and experiences.
I would argue that a more complicated analysis is required than just saying "multiplatforms are better than exclusives".
He also just briefly glosses over what is the main BENEFIT to manufacturers: the profits made on hardware sales. There is not a lot of publicly available information, but we do know what each company tends to do. Nintendo prices their hardware above cost, so for them the additional hardware sales could offset the reduced software sales. Xbox prices their hardware at a loss, which explains why they valued exclusivity the least and have finished last in hardware units sold every generation since the original Xbox. Sony usually sells PlayStations at a loss to start the generation, but through hardware revisions and scaling ends up turning them profitable after a few years- a more balanced approach. And we see this reflected in their approaches to exclusivity: Nintendo is super-exclusive, Xbox is loose, and Sony is somewhere in the middle.
You also need to factor in how exclusives impact the ecosystem. The marketing budget for Mario Kart World Tour is not merely helping them to sell the game, but also to sell consoles. And not just consoles, but controllers and cases and branded SD cards and the USB camera and extra docks. It also encourages more software sales: the same person buying Mario Kart World and a Switch 2 might also buy other Switch 2 (or Switch 1) games. Even if they buy 3rd party games, Nintendo is still getting licensing fees. So if they release these big games on other platforms they might gain some revenue, but they lose out on a lot, plus they have to pay licensing fees to Sony/Xbox/Google/Apple/Valve to sell on those platforms.
If we were just discussing software sales in a vaccun then this would be accurate. Any 3rd party publisher has a much easier equation to determine which platforms to release on. Will the additional costs (development of a port plus the fees and asded marketing) be less than the revenue from additional units? It's a bit complicated because some consumers have multiple platforms and will choose just one to buy the game on. This also helps explain why Sony delays the PC releases: they want to sell as many units overall as possible, but they also want anyone choosing between PS5 or Steam to be pushed to PS5 where their margins are higher.
The author doesn't have anywhere near the data required to do any of this analysis, so he's reaching a fundamentally flawed conclusion.
The author doesn’t have anywhere near the data required to do any of this analysis
He works at Circana. He's working with way, way more data than he's allowed to publicly disclose, since part of Circana's business is selling the in-depth stuff to partners, as well as analyzing it to show trends to their partners who want to know what is and is not working across the industry at the moment.
Does he have access to the proprietary sales data of Nintendo, Xbox, Sony, Valve, and Google?
I'd be shocked if he did, because those companies are all big enough to have their own in-house departments for that. He's trying to sell consulting services to smaller publishers. Consults don't get paid for saying "well I don't really have enough information to say that for sure*, they get paid for making executives feel smart.
He posts an image like this one along with each monthly report, but that's also the sort of thing you should probably know before you claim that the author doesn't have the data he needs. The data they don't have, they disclose that it's an estimate. Nintendo doesn't like to share, but the retail partners that sell their consoles do.
That still doesn't include most of the data necessary to reach this conclusion, and furthermore the bigger issue is that THE ARTICLE ITSELF DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY. It is an unbacked claim that we cannot verify. If he can't share the data because ris propriety, he shouldn't be making the claim publicly.
He's looking at software sales in a vacuum, and he is probably correct that any singular piece of software would sell more units if it were released on more platforms. That's not new or interesting: that's obvious.
What he's missing, even in the screenshot of claimed data he has, is everything else.
Consultants like this are not trustworthy sources. They're trying to sell their own product.
The article is a summary of an interview. If he was lying about any of this, competing firms or their business partners would call him out. I know how the world looks from our perspectives and how the console markets have always worked, but that's why there are companies out there collecting data, and that's why their perspectives can be worth listening to. No one can predict the future, but he's sharing his insights into where the wind is blowing, and yes, it's so that his company can sell a premium product to companies doing market research. The console business model has changed quite dramatically very recently and is looking like it will continue to change. He's not the only one claiming that the console wars are over.
If he was lying about any of this, competing firms or their business partners would call him out.
Well first of all, this interview was published today so the only people who have had a chance to really respond to this are the general public on the internet. Beyond that, it is not safe to assume that any of their competitors would have any reason to respond to this publicly at all. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, and maybe that decision has more to do with wanting to either keep up with Circana or differentiate from Circana than anything related to the truth. That's kind of the problem with dealing with bias in sampling like this.
People have been saying this exact same thing for decades and it hasn't happened yet.
And I'm all in favor of the end of exclusivity. Exclusivity is harmful to consumers, and to society as a whole from the perspective of preserving culture and history. But just because I want something to be true doesn't mean I'm going to believe some consultant casually speculating while promoting his company.
If he provided data and outlined the methodology of projection they used them we could at least have an interesting conversation about this. But right now he's just about as credible as the 3rd grader at recess whose uncle works for Nintendo and says the next Halo is coming to Switch.
This isn't the first time he's spoken. He's done this job for a long time, and people trust and respect his work. It would be a hell of a thing if he picked this time to start making things up. The trend he points out is something he acknowledges as a recent trend, in the last year or so, but he's working with data that's consistent with my own anecdotes, like how publisher after publisher have found that they're making more money on PC than on consoles; that games that used to never come out on PC now dwarf the console versions in sales; that my friends mostly stopped playing on consoles last gen, and that I don't see a need for new ones; that when I see kids playing games out and about, they're on mobile far more often than they're on Switch; and on and on.
I've been polite this whole time, but you decided this man didn't know what he was talking about, backpedaled very hard when you found out what his actual credentials were, and then decided he was untrustworthy instead. He's not the one with the credibility of a 3rd grader.
I didn't backpedal on anything at all so I'm not sure why you think that. My initial statement was that he did not provide enough data to reach his conclusion and seems to be drastically oversimplifying the problem to reach his conclusion, by focusing on the unit sales of singular pieces of software in a vacuum and assuming that games are fungible. I pointed out how different videogame companies operate with different business models that are more or less condusive to exclusive 1st party titles. None of that has changed, and the only thing you've said to try to dispute any of it is "this consultant said in an interview that he thinks exclusives are bad". No attempt at discerning causation or explaining it, no attempt at even refuting the arguments I present, just "you should trust this guy, who also happens to be selling a product". If I wasn't bored killing time at work I wouldn't even bother responding because this isn't really a conversation, you just keep going "nu uh".
Not just me: You've spent this whole thread arguing with myself and everyone else who are pointing out the obvious and glaring holes in what he's saying.
One of my favorites is this one. Xbox has failed to make a profit throughout the entire history of the company. They've spent the last few years shutting down studios and laying people off, which has led to a lot of industry speculation. Insiders have reported rumors that Spencer might get pushed to resign or even fired. There's been speculation that Xbox might be considering exiting the hardware side of things entirely, in part because of their own marketing campaigns. I am not saying I believe that, but these are strong signs that Xbox is doing badly.
Nintendo, by contrast, just had the single best launch week 1 in the history of videogame consoles. Pretty much every way you look at the Switch 2 sales numbers they are breaking records. And this guy saying that Nintendo should copy what Xbox is doing. That is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence for me to take seriously.
And while anecdotes are pretty useless, I agree with you that many publishers have trended towards multiplatform releases and I said that earlier. I'm not disputing that: I'm disputing his comments about 1st party publishers.
If you didn't backpedal on the data that you thought this man didn't have access to, or for not understanding how platforms taking a cut of sales works, then I'm sorry for thinking you could admit when you were wrong.
Those aren't glaring holes in his argument; those are people rebutting the summary I put in the blurb that Lemmy lets me add without reading the article.
Xbox is doing badly, at least by the old console model, which is why they aren't doing it anymore. Sony has reduced how much they're sticking to the old model as well, by putting Helldivers on Xbox and most of their games on PC; does that not indicate the same thing to you?
Nintendo had the best launch in the history of game consoles because they had the most supply available in the history of game console launches, which is why Piscatella is noncommittal on how well the console is doing. Consoles basically always sell out, so it only shows that the people buying them are the people who would have bought it regardless, until we see how it does around the holiday.
He is not saying that Nintendo should copy what Xbox is doing. He is saying Nintendo might see a similar boon if they do what both Xbox and PlayStation are doing, because we are not seeing evidence that people are moving to a platform for exclusives, and we are seeing evidence that people are more than happy to wait on the platforms they're on for the games to come to them. He also says Nintendo is unlikely to do it regardless, at least right now.
Okay your first two paragraphs are just ad hominen attacks at this point. You aren't refuting anything by just claiming I'm backpedalling on... Something? And just assuming the other people didn't read the article when in fact it seems they did and are also making great points that you're also just refusing to talk about. Like... Why did you even post this if you didn't want to actually talk about points, methodology, potential explanations, etc?
Xbox is just plain doing badly. They've tried a lot of different approaches to change that over the years: leaning hard into alternative control schemes with Kinect, trying to push Xbox as a general multimedia machine rather than just a videogame console, pushing hard to develop small indie studios, then pushing for mega-acquisitions of publishers and developers. I'm not even sure which "old model" you're talking about because they are constantly, desperately pivoting to something else. They seem to be terrible at predictjng what consumers want or how markets will react to their decisions. So I'm still waiting for you to explain why copying them is a good idea. As I said earlier: they have always had less focus on exclusivity because their hardware sells at a loss, and they haven't changed that.
Nintendo is coming off the 3rd best-selling console of all time, the best-selling console in 2 decades. The Switch 2 not only had the best 1st week on history, but the best 1st month too. I suppose it is still early and totally fair if you want to wait for the first full year to make a judgement, but it seems to me like Nintendo produce a unique and innovative product that people want back in 2017 and are continuing that success now. That product is in a very different market than the Xbox, and uses a very different business model where the hardware itself is profitable. They're the only one of the 3 that hasn't shut down studios or laid off employees lately. So, once again, the idea that thinks he knows better than them seems pretty far-fetched right now.
There's something else that's been bothering me...
He's done this job for a long time, and people trust and respect his work
I've been following the videogame industry for decades and I've never heard of this guy. Which is not all that outlandish on its own. But I also have never heard of The Game Business- it seems like a new website just created this year. And you seem to be incredibly defensive of this guy- completely ignoring any discussion of the industry and binging your entire argument here on his credibility. Are you Mat Piscatella himself on a burner account?
You can click on my profile and see how long I've been on Lemmy, and the fact my name is definitely derived from "Andrew" but his is "Mat" would be odd. There are lots of ways to follow the game industry, and I suppose many of them do not involve coming across his name, but many of them very much do. His work is US-focused, so maybe if you're not from the US, it's less likely. That is all stuff you could have researched before you asserted that he did not have access to enough data to come to his conclusions or that he doesn't understand the economics of how game consoles make money. I promise you he does, to both.
The old model I was referring to was making a console, making exclusives to drive people to that console, and then making money on each game sold for that console, whether the console maker developed it or not. Sony would not have put any games on PC at all if that model had no holes in it. It isn't copying Xbox to put your first party games on other platforms; it's acknowledging the way the market has changed. Peak spending on console hardware was all the way back in 2009. This year might exceed that due to the supply of the Switch 2, or at the very least, this June was the most successful June since 09, but that's a downward trend line. When most games must and easily can release on all platforms, your reason to get a machine for a handful of exclusives drops precipitously, especially since Piscatella argues that most of those customers are spending their time on a handful of multiplatform games anyway.
What I thought the discussions would revolve around was how wild it is that an Xbox game could release on PlayStation and immediately become one of its best sellers for the year, because those PlayStation players clearly wanted that game but would not buy an Xbox for it. What it turned into was people saying that of course Nintendo would never do this for reasons that Piscatella very much understands why they haven't done it to date; what's interesting about this interview is what has changed in the market that would make it potentially worth it for Nintendo to port their exclusives.
Citing a racing game as being evidence that console exclusives aren't moving consoles seems a bit of a stretch. Is the genre that popular that a racing game alone would push hardware sales?
looks at Mario Kart on Switch 2
OK maybe it is.
Back in the day, Gran Turismo took forever to come out with, I believe, 3 or 4. I wanted a new racing game, and was in the market for a new console. Forza had just come out. Xbox has been my main console since.
However, if it had been multiplatform, I would have stayed PS.
As a PC player I wholeheartedly welcome the demise of exclusives, but are the strategies toward them really changing? Near as I can tell it's only microsoft that's pivoting, and that's probably because they have to. Sony is sticking to their strategy of the past few years of delayed PC releases, and nintendo does what nintendo does - keeps everything in-house and sues everyone.
This may just be me, but I see delayed exclusives as basically being equivalent to multiplatform releases. Especially for single-player games.
Sony just released Helldivers 2 on Xbox, and their delayed PC releases are because of exactly the phenomenon that Piscatella concludes here: people are perfectly content to wait for these games to come to the platform of their preference rather than get invested in another one.