A Small Update

Coming back to Blogger every few years and running edits or attempting to modify the page templates makes it more and more evident that the service is in disrepair. Despite the service remaining relatively consistent on its face, the tools have become less functional and prone to glitches whilst older add-ons for for social media integration have become broken outright. Certain features for layouts are no longer accessible, requiring adjustment of the now-unsupported aspects of a page in HTML to avoid eliminating them outright. Everything to the right of this post suffers from that issue.

I'll likely be moving off of this platform in the future for posting content and projects. 

Until then, there are a handful of things that will likely still be hosted here when they're completed. These projects include a supplemental write-up for an iFixit troubleshooting guide on the Nintendo Switch Joy-con controllers, a post -or series of posts- on the fundamentals of puzzle design, and some outlined posts from the last year or two that haven't been finalized. The 'Art' section has gone relatively unused since it was added on despite my having a backlog of content that would fit there, but I think I'd be better off leaving that section and other secondary elements to whatever new service I shift to later.

The next update here will likely be after I've made the aforementioned iFixit guide comprehensive enough to push forward. The toolset there makes writing content with visual supplements less flexible than a conventional blogging site, so this place is the more appealing choice despite being off-site and having its own slew of issues. There's no particular timeline for this, as the guide itself is the primary focus and the supplemental piece is inessential to helping people fix their hardware.

On Becoming

This post details a personally held outlook that I believe is valuable to anyone that wants to maintain momentum and achieve success on the path toward 'becoming' something.

I think that the best way to become something isn't working towards it but instead making it the means to a functional end that you can clearly define, be driven by, and appreciate.

Becoming a doctor, artist, or engineer is a long upward climb. In order to manage something like that in the most effective manner, you'll want to go beyond the title and look for a practical goal to achieve ahead of it: If, for example, you aim to develop solutions to mechanical problems and learn the necessary knowledge to properly design and manufacture them, you'll become an engineer along the way. Doing things like this is smart for many reasons, one being that you won't see the lessons and effort required to attain your title to be as major of a hurdle as you might have otherwise. There's also the advantage of truly knowing what that title entails by acting upon its practicalities; this inherently ensures that you understand where you'll be when pursuing that role and aren't left lost on how to proceed when you achieve it.

That's a summary of the premise in basic terms, but what follows is a more detailed elaboration on the idea as well as a visual breakdown to help make the concept clearer.

To start, I deconstruct the path to becoming into these phases and parameters:

• Potential: This is you before you pursue becoming something. You are in a state of unconstrained potential that has yet to be directed and leveraged.

• Context: This is the qualifying factor: the details that define and construct the thing you want to be. In college, these are the things you learn to get your degree.

• Title: This is the role that encompasses a traditional goal in this context. It could be a Manager, Artist, Engineer, Surgeon, Writer, etc. 

• Practicality: This is the end or ends you would be fulfilling after achieving your title, whether through the choice of someone else when you're employed or by your own intentions.

• Means: This is whatever's necessary to achieve your goal. You can't achieve your goal or be competent without successfully attaining the means.

• Motivator: This is what helps keep you moving through the challenges presented by the means of achievement. Your goal is typically a motivator.

These terms and their definitions help structure how I see the path to becoming in its two most basic forms: the common and the ideal.

Common

This is how most people I know typically move forward with their lives. You sit at your potential state and either want to become something, or are told what to become. You move on to learn the required content -or context- to achieve your title. It's a pretty standard way about things and it can leave people dissatisfied with their choices or feeling overwhelmed by the effort required to succeed.

The problem with this standard method of progression is that it isn't a strong way of ensuring that you know what you're getting into or if you're suited to that path at all. Simply having a title in mind doesn't afford you an understanding of the responsibilities that it might entail or the specializations it encompasses, leaving you in potentially murky waters after a lot of financial and mental investment. This isn't great because your overall time and options will have become limited by the path you've taken. Being at this point of the journey without the will to move forward or a sense of satisfaction is very draining and isn't conducive to people doing good work, whether they want to or not.

Another issue that comes to mind is that even if you do end up succeeding, coasting on the motivation used to achieve your title isn't a dependable practice. There are no guarantees of when that stimulus will fade or how hard the realities of your field will hit you, likely making you less effective or putting you into a state of general dissatisfaction and waning productivity.

Engaging your title isn't everything, so you might find other motivators that keep you going while you're exacting it, but why use those to stave off frustration when they could be driving self-fulfillment and bolstering your quality of life instead?

Ideal

What I call the 'Ideal' variation of  this process includes one added consideration.

Practicality.

Practicality represents your actual use of the title you obtain. In making your goal -or motivator- a practical application of your title, you stand to be sure that the title represents functional value to you beyond just attaining it.

The added bonus of doing this is that your means can now encompass your title. This tends to help ease your perception of the difficulties that come with building context by allowing you to look at it in terms of the bigger picture and avoid missing the forest for the trees; overthinking things tends to open avenues for tripping over ourselves, so we're best off minimizing the opportunities for that to happen.

Even if you don't choose to make your goal a practical application of your title, consider the fact that at least knowing the practicalities is immensely valuable in ensuring that you better understand the connotations of your pursuit, the skills necessary to be successful, and whether or not it really is for you. There's no downside.

Closing

This perspective is built off of one core idea:

Be forward thinking.

Consider the big decisions outside of their obvious conclusions. Look at the side-effects and aftermath. This isn’t something you should endlessly agonize over, but it is important to be wary. You only have one life to live, so take the time to understand the path you might be taking. You'll be better off for it.

State of the Big Three: 2018

As we settle comfortably into 2019, I think it's becoming more and more apparent that we're close to what would be the end of a typical console generation. Because of the unusual nature of this particular cycle, the advancement of certain technologies, and the individual directions of each of the big three, this may very well be the last categorically conventional generation we'll experience. Still, the decisions made in the lead up and the current circumstances of the industry aren't made any less notable by that potential shift.

This write-up reflects where I see Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft standing, what I think of their current place in the market, and how well they've done throughout the last year. 

Microsoft

While Nintendo doesn't actively plan or design to compete against its fellows, it's Microsoft that seems like the Odd one out in terms of their strategies and goals.

Much like the preceding year, there's little to speak of in the way of software coming from Microsoft with only three titles published by Xbox Game Studios in Forza Horizon 4, Sea of Thieves, and State of Decay 2. Of those titles, only Forza was critically well received. This makes 2018 the most meager year for new releases from Microsoft, and, for the primary demographic looking at the Xbox brand and hardware, that's not an attractive sales pitch.

The delivery of software on both the PC and the Xbox also continues to dampen thing. Though there's broader market potential in providing software across more than one platform, Microsoft has moved farther and farther away from establishing a solid value proposition with regards to their dedicated consoles. It seems as though they want to act in service of the broader Microsoft eco-system, but I thoroughly believe that, even with all of the frills and value, spreading all their offerings across PC and Xbox is an unbalanced path. Without aggressively pushing their dedicated gaming consoles, Microsoft is simply moving to hold themselves up on both of their pillars without maintaining and reinforcing the one that made them a player in the space to begin with. I think that'll bite them more and more in the hardware market among enthusiasts as time goes on if things don't change.

Of course, these concerns don't come from a perspective of Microsoft not caring about their hardware at all. Certain decisions indicate that that is still a consideration. 

Attempting to undercut with the Xbox One S and entice the high-end enthusiast with the Xbox One X make for smart moves from Microsoft through the generation. Unconventional avenues with regard to purchase of their hardware through things like Xbox All-Access, which allows consumers to expense the hardware and service through a monthly installment plan, also sit well as a thoughtful decision. Even so, these things aren't enough to overcome the realities of their software deficit, and the fact that Xbox Live is no longer dominant means that even that can't be used to sway over potential buyers from pursuing competing hardware or sticking to PC where possible.

This is all to say that it's become clear that, over the last few years, Xbox as a service has taken enough of a priority to make Xbox consoles a supporting aspect of their efforts.

Things aren't all dour, however.

Backward compatibility efforts have been extensive and seen the addition of hundreds of supported titles for enhanced performance, preserving and improving first and third party experiences to allow those interested to enjoy going back and indulging in their library from generations past. Though only valuable to a niche, it is a definite positive. The Xbox Adaptive Controller also launched this year, which acts as a commendable means of providing accessibility to those with disabilities and inviting more folks into the gaming space that might otherwise have seen the endeavor as out of reach. Additionally, Microsoft purchased seven established studios to add to their first party roster, which represents an exceptional gesture for their forward looking commitment to developing compelling software, something that's necessary regardless of the direction they pursue with the Xbox brand.

With regards to services, Game Pass seems to represent fairly good value to those who enjoy playing games broadly and without heavy attachment to the idea of ownership. I do wonder how the service is sustainable, however.

Overall, it's been a very meager year with a number of positive steps for the future from Microsoft. They definitely win on the 'pro-consumer' front of things, but their lack of software makes them an unquestionably distant third in regards to performance and value when considering the year on its own. I feel that their decisions are symptomatic of a goal that encompasses promotion and growth of Xbox as a service platform, if not Microsoft as a provider in whole, but we'll see where that ends up taking them in the next few years.

Nintendo

Up and coming with the Switch, Nintendo's seen an explosive start with the hardware's first year on the market, and sales have shown few signs of slowing down since. After a weak generation with the Wii U, their current pace reflects a notable return to form.

Looking at this last year in particular, Nintendo have released a decent catalog of games, though a little less high-profile than Year 1 in regards to enthusiast market perception; while a number of new games have been brought to the table, a similar amount of enhanced ports from the Wii U also made up Nintendo’s published selection. 

That's where contention comes in.

The ports are valuable in filling the sparser periods of the year and keeping momentum going while new software is developed. Additionally, the lower install base of the Wii U means that these games are essentially new to a large portion of Switch owners. Still, It's worth recognizing that there are folks who aren't happy about these, primarily folks who've bought a Wii U and feel that the value of their investment in it is being diminished or invalidated. This is especially frustrating for some of that crowd who have also bought a Switch, as it doesn't necessarily add value to that hardware for them either. It's an unfortunate, but interesting thing to consider.

Overall, however, 2018's first party software line up is respectable and varied, bringing with it some immensely heavy hitters towards the end of the year. Those being the Pokemon Let's Go pair of games in November, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate in December.

For further context, the Pokemon Let's Go games managed to take the title of fastest selling Switch software since the hardware's launch, maintaining sales of 10 million units in just a month and a half on the market. Smash Ultimate quickly dethroned Pokemon, selling 12 million units in less than a month to claim that crown and also enjoy having the most successful exclusive software launch month in the history of gaming as a whole. Though the fiscal year isn't over, it's fair to say that the holiday season is where the Switch saw the majority of its sales thanks, in no small part, to the release of these particular games.

In addition to their more traditional offerings, Nintendo introduced their Labo series of software and projects, providing variety to their line-up that exemplifies the potential and novelty of the Switch while encouraging creativity. This opened up the hardware to a new part of the market while also providing a great deal of visibility in the educational space and toy market.

On the broader topic of the Nintendo Switch's ecosystem and support, I think that Nintendo's been setting things up very effectively and thoughtfully for third party developers. Even so, it seems probable that major releases won't generally be present on the hardware within its lifetime as it is. Though the hardware is the most conventional appealing since the Gamecube in spite of its novelties, its technical capability and architecture mean it isn't as convenient or scalable to developers putting together games for the PS4 and Xbox in most cases.

Still, support is very much broadly there from third parties big and small where reasonable, and the outlook is positive. Indies are especially notable, in many cases finding immense success that exceeds their launches on other hardware.

Outside of software on the Switch, Nintendo launched their online Service in September. It's a mixed bag to many, even at its low entry price. The long and the short of it is that the subscription doesn't improve online play as it was before becoming a paid service and the feature set provided is considered underwhelming by many.  The service was delayed for a long while, which I think ended up being to its detriment, oddly enough. Nintendo advertised the online functionality as a sort free trial until the service launched, but that story was lost to the question of why Nintendo NEEDED to delay the service if this was all there was to it. I think they missed an opportunity to make this a smooth transition in not reinforcing the nature of the situation, but we'll see how they bolster value moving forward. So far, aside from the library of NES games? There's not much of note.

Moving on, the 3DS received a few new releases, but support has generally slowed down. This is a space that I believe still represents value. The 'DS' novelty is still unique within this hardware line, and careful decision making can reasonably ensure that the dedicated handheld space still flourishes if Nintendo pursues it.

Dragalia Lost has been moderately successful, but I don't know that it represents a significant step in Nintendo's pursuit of mobile as a platform. That's all that seems to have been worth noting within that market. 

Overall, it’s been a clearly positive year for Nintendo. They've got a few things to iron out with their online offerings, and the future of the 3DS needs some clarification, but the Switch is on track to be a success that rivals the Wii. Hopefully, we'll see a solid stream of software to help maintain the pace of its sales through 2019.

Sony

I don't need to analyze or justify much to say that Sony's the current market leader. They've boasted exceptional momentum, value, and mindshare throughout the entirety of the current console generation with middling lows and exceptional highs. As a result of these things, the Playstation 4 has recently achieved over 90 million units sold-through, meaning that it already comfortably sits among the top selling consoles of all time with some life left in it yet.

Let's look past that milestone and get into the specifics of this particular year.

A healthy number of exclusive games were released over the course of 2018, but it seems to have been a less dense line up than usual for Playstation. This alongside about half of those titles being PSVR exclusives made for a bit of a sparse feeling year. Even so, there were critically regarded titles in Astrobot, Detroit, God of War, and Spiderman, with the latter two being massive hits that broke sales records and maintained heavy media coverage throughout their release period and in game of the year considerations.

The PSVR focus is appreciable in helping maintain support for the platform through clear first-party commitment. This has value in a few contexts. The consumers of the headset would, of course, want their purchase validated with software to go along side it. The investment in more titles also means that VR design and best-practices are pushed forward through those games, allowing a library of reference for developers in the long-term and incentive for consumers now. If Sony believes that VR has a place in the future of their ecosystem, this is the way to go about nurturing it. I still believe that VR hasn't proved its mainstream value yet and that it's, at best, a niche experience in the gaming space that can easily fade into fad territory if not handled well. 

Further on the topic of software, Sony seems to be slowing down a bit with their line-up, opting for 'deep-dives' into their already announced games at e3 2018, announcing that they wouldn't host the PS Experience in December, and that they'd skip e3 in 2019 altogether. Of course, this seems so noticeable because of the aggressive, game-packed conferences in the preceding years setting a seemingly unsustainable standard of quantity. It makes sense that they've finally been easing their pace in most contexts. 

Thankfully for them, their current foundation is strong and has been established through well-received exclusives, exceptional third party support, and aggressive marketing strategy, meaning that a slowdown isn't likely very damaging now that their ecosystem is in place and thriving. On top of this, multiple highly anticipated heavy-hitters are still on the horizon, meaning that they have a reasonable buffer for what comes next thanks to Dreams, TLOU 2, Ghosts of Tsushima, Death Stranding, and Days Gone.

This is a good place to be in for Sony, as it allows them to route their first-party development efforts toward the push for a successful next generation launch in a year or two without having a bumpy transition or underwhelming start to the PS5, assuming that there is one in the conventional sense.

Speaking of bumpy, the dialogue behind cross-play took an interesting turn as Sony fought against connecting to competitor hardware with their own concerns and excuses. The reality is that there's little value for Playstation to allow folks with other consoles to play with their consumers as opposed to leveraging the already established player base to bring their friends into the fold. After a some time and a head-line here and there, Sony relented to allowing cross-play, albeit at their own pace.

Lastly, the PS Classic launched for the holiday and is the one wholly negative part of Sony's year. Though the physical design was nice, it seems more like a cash-grab than anything else due to the shoddy software back-end, the lack of optimization, the use of an open-source emulator, the price to content ratio, and the titles on offer outright, among various other things. This has been very quickly becoming a bargain bin item and has clearly been a big flop. There's still potential in the idea, but this was definitely NOT one of the highlights of the year.

Looking back, I'd say that 2018 was a decently good year for the Playstation brand outside of a few minor missteps. Only a few big first party games if you don't have PSVR, but they're some of the most wildly successful, well-received  releases in Playstation history. It looks like slow going moving forward for a little while, though.

The Way I See It: The Case for a New F-Zero

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

(Apologies for any goofy formatting; It seems as though Blogger has broken a little more since I've last been around. This write-up is one I made back in either late 2017 or early 2018 for my.ign before it was shut down. Since that avenue has been closed off for posts and I have more free time on my hands now, I've decided to go back and try to preserve what I can until I put together new content. To those interested in this sort of thing, I hope you enjoy the following write-up in the mean time.)

Throughout their ventures in the world of Video Games, Nintendo's been known for their innovation, masterful game-design, lovable characters, and memorable franchises. Unfortunately, as time's gone on, some of these beloved series have seen fewer and fewer software releases for some reason or another. Whether because of the incompatibility of their principle concept with modern sensibilities, waning consumer interest, or something else altogether, fans can only look back at these games and wonder if they'll ever see another iteration again.

F-Zero is a notable example.

Today, I wanted to explore what I think is an interesting case for the release of another title in the F-Zero franchise sometime this console generation. Depending on how Nintendo would want to proceed with the game, there's a window of opportunity that would not only serve to satisfy the interests of a loyally waiting fanbase, but also answer an interesting question that's recently been raised by another franchise.

But before we go any further, let's start by looking back at why F-Zero's been left dormant for so long. 

A History of Decline

Many fans recognize F-Zero as a special part of their personal history as gamers, whether it be through a specific title they enjoy or the franchise overall. That's why there was an outpour of dismay when Miyamoto said: "since the first episode on SNES many games have been made but the series has evolved very little. I thought people had grown weary of it."

This quote comes from an interview with the French publication Game Kult back in 2012 and is part of his response to the question of why there hadn't been a new title released since 2004. Folks hung their heads low at Miyamoto's answer and insisted that his statement was unreasonable. What could lead him to think that people had grown weary of the franchise?

Well, the numbers don't lie. F-Zero's been in a steady sales decline since its inception.

If these numbers are even remotely accurate, it looks like F-Zero doesn't have much of a money maker to shake.

Though beloved by those who'd given it a chance, the F-Zero series has had a fairly meager player base throughout its life, and the release of each successive title has indicated an ever-waning interest in new releases by even those who'd picked up a predecessor.

Fortunately, Miyamoto isn't one to look at a game and dismiss it on basis of sales numbers alone. Instead, he sees the failure of the series to pick up interest as being the result of limited growth in the design across releases. Unfortunately, he's also indicated that he has yet to come across a solution to this pivotal issue.

In 2013, during an interview with IGN's own former editor, Richard George, Miyamoto said: "I think where I struggle is that I don’t really have a good idea for what’s new that we could bring to F-Zero that would really turn it into a great game again. Certainly I can see how people looking at Mario Kart 8 could see, through the anti-gravity, a connection to F-Zero. But I don’t know, at this point, what direction we could go in with a new F-Zero."

Overall, it seems fairly clear that Nintendo's been particularly careful about what they want to do moving forward on the matter. Although a vocal minority clamors for the return of the franchise, the low sales and limited evolution of the F-Zero experience seems to have brought us to where we are today: even less sure about the future of the series than ever before.

Anyway, now that some preface is on the table, let's get back to the topic at hand. 

An Interesting Opportunity

I believe that there's a pretty functional case for the release of a new title in the F-Zero series this console generation, and the most notable reason for this potential is actually quite indirect.

Unlike F-Zero, Mario Kart has proven itself as a widely beloved and ever growing franchise. A racing game in kind, the lighthearted, arcade experience has seen a home on every Nintendo console and handheld since the SNES and Gameboy Advance respectively. You know. Excluding the Virtual Boy. 

It's the recent launch of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on the Nintendo Switch in particular where our opportunity lies.

Years later, I wonder if the Switch could inspire a suitable solution?

Though it IS a re-release, it's worth noting that Nintendo typically only puts out a single game in the Mario Kart franchise per console. With the inception of good online play, this kind release schedule is more sensible than ever. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe also represents an unprecedented amount of content for a single title in its franchise, including all DLC from its Wii U iteration in the base package alongside further additions and improvements.

What would Nintendo do moving forward regarding this title?

Continued additions and support for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe would be great to maintain an ongoing online community throughout the Switch's lifespan, but the amount already available means that it's unlikely a standard sequel can compete with its predecessor in terms of value from the get go. Any  more content might further set an unreasonable standard of expectation for future titles in the franchise. Leaving MK8 Deluxe as is and releasing a sequel in a few years instead is also difficult for another reason: An additional Mario Kart on the same console would serve to segment the online community and diminish the longevity of both titles overall.

That's where F-Zero could come in.

Releasing a new title in the F-Zero franchise with robust local and online functionality and novelties that make it unique when set beside its peer would give the Switch its first truly exclusive First-party racer, bring back a franchise that's long been dormant, and subvert the potential problems that might come with introducing a second Mario Kart to the console.

This could be a reasonable space for F-Zero to fill, but what of Miyamoto's worries about moving the series forward? That surely would take precedent with him. Has a solution been reached regarding the stagnation of the principle experience?

Well, in a 2015 interview, Miyamoto said: "We see a lot of other designers who are kind of making more traditional racing-style games, so we try to focus on something that feels a little bit more gamey. So maybe if we create a new type of controller interface and we find that controller interface is particularly suited for F-Zero, then maybe we’ll do something again with it in the future."

Some have taken this as a statement that indicates a will for blind innovation. That Miyamoto's idea of a solution is to use the franchise to shoe-horn some future gimmick instead of building a more traditional experience.

I think that it's actually the other way around.

It seems to me as though Miyamoto isn't trying to make F-Zero to sell some hardware novelty, but waiting for the hardware to provide an input method that inspires the evolution he thinks the game needs. He wants to build a title that is exemplified by this hypothetical new setup and serves as a strong foundation for the future of the series. He wants to make another F-Zero when an idea presents itself, and he believes that that idea may potentially come about when a new control system is made in the future. 

Of course, we can't know for sure if this particular issue has been put to rest until a new game is announced, but it is worth noting that the Joy-con and hybrid nature of Nintendo's latest console provide for the most versatile methods of input they've designed yet. There's still the possibility that the novelties presented by these developments aren't different enough to lend themselves to a new idea that Miyamoto deems fitting, but I think that there's still room for evolution in other areas and that the space that'll be left open towards the latter half of the Switch's life-cycle stands as a reasonably strong opening for a return of the series in any capacity if Nintendo is willing to take advantage of it.

Time will tell.

Closing

There's no guarantee that a new F-Zero game will be coming out, and I don’t see any outward indication that one is in active development, but I believe the current circumstances afford Nintendo an interesting opportunity to fill in the racing game niche sometime in the future.

Of course, timing is important, so I don’t think we’re likely to see an F-Zero game very soon regardless. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has released fairly recently and needs some room to breathe, and there are a fair number of recent futuristic racers on the market with Fast RMX, Red Out, and Wipeout Omega Collection. It’d be great to see a Nintendo spin on those kinds of racers, and I hope that they find a way to make it happen in the next few years.

The Way I see It: The Value of Exclusive Games

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

Hello!

In the ever growing dialogue of the games industry today, it isn’t uncommon to see positions evolve or shift in unexpected ways as things trend away from what we’re familiar with. One of the stranger things I’ve been seeing more commonly written and said is that exclusive titles don’t matter and that they aren’t notable in the grand scheme of the gaming space; I disagree with this perspective in most regards.

Today, I'll be presenting my views on the matter.

An Elaboration

I believe that exclusive software has an inherently important role in upholding and establishing the value of a console, as there's nothing more important in incentivizing the purchase of dedicated gaming hardware than the games it allows users to play. I'll be detailing my reasoning by answering the most common statements made to undermine exclusives as I've seen them said.

Exclusives don't sell consoles.

It's true that console sales don't necessarily spike when an exclusive comes out, but the reality is that not even massively successful third party titles will typically do this. In other words, your console sales aren't booming directly because the big Call of Duty came out, but the big Call of Duty is released when it is because that's when console sales start to really pick up.

With holidays, tax breaks, and sales seasons, there are times of the year when consumer spending really explodes. This is why you see some games release within the same week as something like Call of Duty and get "sent out to their death" as might commonly be said. Not to be brave, subversive, or put up a front, but because it's the period wherein the highest potential lies for well marketed games to sell.

Leaving this digression aside, let’s look at how software does affect sales.

Some like to say that exclusives don’t sell consoles and that the system-seller as a concept is all but dead. It isn’t unreasonable to observe that these have become less common, but the fact of the matter is that the present isn’t the only period of interest when regarding how these titles affect the market: there are past and future sales to consider as well.

Outside of the ever rarer circumstances where a game comes out and has folks buying hardware in droves, most people make their purchase decisions in more dynamic terms. Many folks purchase a console immediately at release or when they're financially able on the promise of games that haven’t been released or even announced. These preemptive sales are an example of consumers that are attracted to the potential library when looking at the pedigree of first party releases on previous consoles. Many other folks stay in the market for years without picking up hardware, waiting to choose the system that represents the more attractive established library of software to suit their interests.

All this is to say that while, yes, there are other factors involved, successful exclusives do have their own role in incentivizing the purchase of a console, whether or not it’s linearly apparent.

The attach rate for exclusives isn't that high, so what's the point?

Some bring up the idea that individual exclusives don't typically maintain the highest attach rates as an argument for their lack of worth, but an immense attach rate isn't necessary for individual or collective success. In fact, there are actually a number of reasons that exclusives are valuable outside of a direct relationship to hardware sales.

The individual profits of these titles aren't negligible and bring with them further opportunities for the development of future software. Within a circle of first-party development studios, certain exclusives maintain success so great that they can cover the costs of lucrative endeavors, allowing first-parties to invest in creative and unusual projects that wouldn't otherwise be made in such a high-risk environment.

First party exclusives are also typically the software that best exemplify the capabilities of the hardware that they're on, serving as an example for the rest of the industry and a great backbone at the start of a console's life-cycle as third party developers familiarize themselves with the potential of the devices and their features.

Another important consideration is that the most powerful form of marketing next to a vocal consumer is the software itself. While the success of an individual game may at times seem meager, the collective library of unique content built overtime serves as an attractive incentivization for consumers late in a console's life cycle. It also bolsters general perception of the brand on multiple fronts and demographics through specific experiences that resonate with different groups, casting a wide net in the market.

Exclusives are bad for the industry.

This is a strange statement that has little basis in economic reality. It seems to define the industry as the consumer in specific, when it’s actually an ecosystem that includes the consumer and the competing corporations vying for their interests.

It isn't personally convenient to have to purchase a different console than the one they have in order to enjoy certain software, but it is specifically that longing that serves as the basis for an exclusive's value. Any given first-party wants to incentivize their own hardware in particular with exclusive games and services so that you choose their device over the alternatives in the market, furthering their success as a company.

The closes thing to a reasonable argument for this position that I’ve seen is the suggestion that exclusives would sell better if they were available on competitor consoles, yielding a greater deal of profit. This is a very simplified perception that doesn't recognize the complexities of the market.

Every game on a given platform provides a bit of profit to the console maker, who collects a licensing fee for each unit sold. The more successful a console, the more consumer software purchases exclusive or otherwise will be made for that particular hardware, exacting a healthy stream of revenue to that first-party. By throwing away software exclusivity, a valuable incentive in making consumers consider one console their primary gaming device is lost. This is aside from the fact that profits per-unit would be less lucrative anyway thanks to one first-party having to pay another first-party a portion of their earnings. This is also why third-party partnerships are also so notable in recent generations: exclusive content or early launches are meant to encourage the player base to choose one system over another, benefiting the developers through big marketing pushes and the console maker through our patronage.

This is a market of companies fighting for consumer interest using many parameters, of which exclusives are one. This competition breeds cheaper hardware costs, better services, the development of unique software, and more variety in the market. If anything, exclusives have a hand in making the industry better on most fronts.

Closing and Afterword

Exclusives are an important part of how the industry operates. Though this is true, I do recognize that they aren't the singular factor in what makes one console attractive over another. Pricing, marketing,  third party support, hardware functionality, dependability, and convenience all have their place, and as time has gone on, many new parameters like social services and online functionality are added to the table for customers consider.

These all feed into the one thing that truly does matter most: perceived value.

The Xbox One has a limited pool of exclusives but reasonable third-party support and sits at a distant second. The Wii U has a wealth of critically and commercially well received first-party exclusives, but almost no third-party support whatsoever. It's widely considered a failure. The PS4 represents a varied and ever expanding pool of first-party exclusives and big third party support with pivotal partnerships as well. It maintains more than double the sales of its closest competitor.

Though a fairly simplified example that doesn't lay out every factor, this generation stands as a strong allegory to a very important fact: Now more than ever, a good foundation and a strong balance of support are needed to stay relevant in the consumer mindshare and flourish in the market.

Exclusive games are a notable part of those needs.

My E3 Impressions

E3's over, and it's been an interesting ride. Overall, I think this was a weaker year than most, but there have definitely been some promising announcements and trailers to come out of it.

After having written up my thoughts and predictions during the lead up to the event, I thought it'd be fun to follow up with my impressions now that it's all said and done. I'll only be covering the big three here, but I think Ubisoft deserves a shout out for their stand-out showing, so congrats to them for a strong presentation.

Let's start with Microsoft.

Microsoft

Dense but disappointing

I've been very lenient in my perspective on Microsoft over the last few years with regards to their position and strategies in the gaming space, appreciating the potential and intentions they've put forward. Regardless, this conference has made it clear to me that the things keeping the Xbox hardware on the consumer's backburner will stay on the forefront.

Overall, I'll say that Microsoft's conference was well structured and rich in the one thing that I believe matters most:

Software.

Unfortunately, the selection represents very little in the way of surprises. No shockers. No jaw droppers. No new first-party announcements outside of Forza 7, and that franchise releases on a schedule. There were a few nice looking titles on the third-party front, however. 22 exclusives were touted, but at best, they all will also launch on PC, and at worst, are timed exclusives that will launch on competitor hardware in the future. Even the big showcase game that closed out the show, Anthem, is fully multi-platform. Good news for gamers who have competitor hardware or a reasonably built PC, but not a sure-fire way to sell folks on Microsoft's consoles particularly. This strategy hasn't proven to provide strong incentivization of the Xbox One in the past, and I'm doubtful of it being the case in the future.

The Scorpio was revealed as the Xbox One X and was the centerpiece of the conference. It will launch on November 7th at 499 USD. The price is very sensible and is in line with my expectations, but it isn't really much to work with. I initially thought that selling at a loss at 399 USD would be how they might try to get aggressive against Sony's offerings and really force them and Nintendo into a tough spot with regard to cost, especially with the standard Xbox One now retailing at 199 USD. Unfortunately, I don't think a solid enough case was made for the purchase of an Xbox One X to any but a very particular niche of enthusiast as it is. No service shifts or major software motivations mean that launching at 399 USD probably wouldn't have been a worthwhile risk to take, so I'm not docking points for them not going that far with it.

Looking at the state of the market, I also wonder how well the Xbox One X can really do, even under ideal circumstances. With the PS4 Pro representing only a modest amount of PS4 sales at 399 USD, it seems that the premium user base is limited to begin with, making the greater extreme of Microsoft's new hardware seem as though it has a little less potential for greater market penetration. As an entry-level console, though, the standard Xbox One's new price becomes attractive to those on a budget. At the least, I think we might see something notable come of that in the long run.

So what's the conclusion? Is this a better conference than years past? In many ways yes. It's a good format with little fluff and a big focus on software. Was it one that posed a reasonable deal of added value to the Xbox line of hardware? No, unfortunately, and this was definitely the time to have pushed for it. In my predictions piece, I said that this show would be one that would speak to the future of the brand. I think it's abundantly clear now that Microsoft is set on supporting their greater ecosystem as a whole beyond all else moving forward, and that's something that has and will come at the expense of the market's perception of the Xbox One's worth.

Sony

Functional but unexceptional

I was expecting a more restrained conference from Sony thanks to the slew of upcoming software that's already been announced, but I didn't quite expect it to be this reserved.

Ironically, I think my expectations were a bit higher than they would have been otherwise, not just because of Microsoft's new console reveal, but because of their own past showings as well: for two years and twice as many conferences, I'd expected a shrinking presence or a smaller number of titles on stage, but Sony defied those expectations time and time again.

This year, that definitely wasn't the case.

The conference was streamlined and shorter than any previous one may have ever been at under an hour long. There were about 17 titles shown off, of which 13 are exclusive and 9 new. PS VSVR definitely got a lot of love, with 6 of those new games being for the headset. This is an expected and necessary play, as PSVR has been relatively successful and needs nurturing to be sustained as a platform, giving folks who've already bought in more to enjoy and those on the fence more to consider. For the primary platform, however, there were 3 announcements, of which two were exclusives: an expansion to Horizon Zero Dawn and a remake of Shadow of the Colossus. Pretty meager selection on that front, unfortunately.

Exclusives like Gran Turismo Sport, Knack 2, Everybody's Golf, and the Crash Trilogy were on the show floor, but oddly enough, didn't get any love during the actual conference. Another oddity is the lack of fulfillment to Shawn Layden's promise of big announcements with regards to Japanese games. Outside of perhaps Monster Hunter and Shadow of the Colossus, these were mostly absent as well. I think that this may be a reactive result of Microsoft's showing.

Coming into the show, I took the bet that Sony would route some of their big announcements to E3 to combat the potential mindshare draw from Microsoft, but it seems that they didn't think it was necessary. TGS and the Playstation Experience are coming up, perhaps even Gamescom or Paris Games Week on top of those, and I'm very sure that there's key content being saved for those conferences, but the small selection presented during the conference makes me wonder if some of the content that was going to be highlighted today was held back after Sony saw Microsoft's showing, perhaps deciding it wouldn't be worth squeezing themselves dry. It sounds odd, but the primarily video-based format certainly makes that kind of reactive play a lot easier to pull off.

All told, I wouldn't say Sony's presentation was bad by any means. It's represented a focus on the value of the Playstation brand to the primary consumer through a selection of software from their first-party stable including two games from their biggest franchises, a crowd-pleasing demo of a promising new title based on a major property in the broader entertainment space, and a remake of a game recognized to have widely affected the modern game design landscape. It also presented notable third-party partnerships with Activision's Call of Duty WWII and Destiny 2 on stage, the reveal of Capcom's Monster Hunter: Worlds, and Bethesda's Skyrim VR. It's just that, outside of the VR front, this was a conference that didn't provide much to feed the overall fervor and hype that's already been established prior.

Fortunately for Sony, their market share means that they don't necessarily need to do much more than they have to keep themselves on top and maintain momentum, giving them a bit of room to breathe and space out their announcements for the next two conferences in the year. However, empathizing with how this might be the soundest strategy for them doesn't mean they get a free pass when it comes to judging their presentation on its own merits.

My verdict? Functional, but not very impressive to the core gamer that's in the know, especially when held up to their last few showings.

Nintendo

Short but substantial

Nintendo’s Showcase was a very brief affair. At less than 25 minutes in length, it’s notably shorter than even Sony's presser before it, making it seem less like a presentation and more like a headliner to the Treehouse Live streams succeeding it. Fortunately, the right content was chosen to fit in that time frame.

The conference consisted of the expected Switch content with Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Fire Emblem Warriors, Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild DLC, and Pokken being highlighted. Splatoon 2 and ARMS also got a bit of visibility, rounding out the full 2017 first-party release schedule. Beyond that, we also got to see new Kirby and Yoshi titles announced for 2018 releases, and two heavy hitting reveals were made with Metroid Prime 4 and a new core Pokemon title confirmed to be in development. There was some third-party love as well with games like Fifa 18, Skyrim, and the recently announced Mario+Rabbids Kingdom Battle getting some space and the announcement of Rocket League coming to the platform.

Nintendo isn't very conventional with how they promote their content. They typically announce games about 9 months to a year out from release at most and elaborate on or reveal them through small, focused digital presentations throughout the year. Though this is true, Nintendo did well even by more typical press-conference standards.

Their showing reiterated on the strength of their 2017 Switch line-up, which consists of at least one major exclusive release for every month until the end of the year. It also reinforced their commitment to third-party relationships with a smart selection of high-demand titles that exemplify the functionality of the hardware. Nintendo subverted expectations with fun and surprising announcements of new first-party titles coming beyond this year, and they weren't wasteful with their selection either: They provided confirmation of a new Pokemon game instead of a full reveal and stayed their hand on announcing Smash Brothers, which could have easily cannibalized the sales of the other fighters they have on the release schedule.

Overall, Nintendo had a good showing that bolstered the value of their brand and brought in some major crowd-pleasers. The only thing keeping the Showcase from having been excellent by conventional terms is that they didn't cover all their bases. Of course, with Treehouse Live streaming through the same channels as the Showcase and giving the 3DS a prominent spread of promotion, previews, and new game announcements, I doubt that's hurt them in the grand scheme of things.