Predictions for E3 2014

[Deleted member 86764]

Yes. It seems you were implying that paying to secure a game as an exclusive (in your example COD) would be unfair practice.

Look I'd rather not get into an argument over semantics. A discussion over whether it'd be a positive or a negative for Microsoft to buy a major multi-platform franchise would be better. Only I've yet to read anything to the contrary to convince me otherwise.

And to be fair on Microsoft, they haven't done it! We're only in hypothetical territory here.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Yeah, but that includes multiplats as well. I remember the only way to get EA games (Madden, NBA Live, etc) were to go PS because they weren't supporting SEGA.

I remember being gutted with that too, but then the Dreamcast was a lost cause (much to my contempt - I loved mine). It wasn't because Sony paid for it, more that Sega were having their death throes with hardware. Saturn failed and EA probably lost money developing for it.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Companies buy and sell products. There's nothing unfair about it. If Microsoft can put together money to buy a franchise that was previously exclusive (and popular) then it'll be a good thing for them. Some people will get mad, because they won't want an Xbox because of brand loyalty, or just wanting different exclusives that are only on Playstation. If it earns them more customers, it's a win, and there's nothing unfair about it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Look I'd rather not get into an argument over semantics. A discussion over whether it'd be a positive or a negative for Microsoft to buy a major multi-platform franchise would be better. Only I've yet to read anything to the contrary to convince me otherwise.

If MS secure FIFA/Madden and COD as platform exlcusives, they will likely secure some 30+ million owners who (a large portion at least) otherwise would play the same games on other platforms. Of course, the cost to MS is probably way more than such a move is worth.

 

[BadTB25]

I remember being gutted with that too, but then the Dreamcast was a lost cause (much to my contempt - I loved mine). It wasn't because Sony paid for it, more that Sega were having their death throes with hardware. Saturn failed and EA probably lost money developing for it.

Doesn't matter, I remember distinctly that the impression was that EA was money hatted by Sony. I still ended up getting a PS2.

Also, for some reason I'm thinking this was Saturn and PS1 not Dreamcast.
Dreamcast, although a great system already had the taint of Saturn and 32X on it. (Loved me some Saturn games, especially the 2D ones)

Oddly enough, I wasn't big on the 1st party PS games for PS1 and PS2. The games that got me going for the PS systems were mostly 3rd party (right now the only 1st party PS games that I really remembered fondly is God of War)

 

[Deleted member 86764]

If MS secure FIFA/Madden and COD as platform exlcusives, they will likely secure some 30+ million owners who (a large portion at least) otherwise would play the same games on other platforms. Of course, the cost to MS is probably way more than such a move is worth.

I'd think there'd be ripples of negativity for Microsoft if they did this. You're right in that it'd make Playstation struggle.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd think there'd be ripples of negativity for Microsoft if they did this.

Of course there would, but it's not like the mainstream who don't follow the gaming scene are going to boycott XB1 as a result. They'd annoy existing PS4 owners who want those franchises, and future PS4 owners who want those franchises and a PS4 (who may change their mind about their platform of choice). They'd also massively increase their competitive advantage among mainstream adopters, but at a price that make it ridiculous.

Returning to E3 predictions, I think a COD or FIFA style exclusive is nigh impossible, which means we're guessing as to what, if any, 3rd party game has been secured. It has to be a game without a publisher or they'd be violating contract, so what games are available? Elite? MS exclusive on PC and XB1? Edit: Actually did that get Kickstarted for a PS4 version? If so, it couldn't be Elite. It couldn't be any game with either an existing publisher (unless I guess MS bought the rights) or Kickstarter obligations to other platforms.

 

[Scott_Arm]

My guess, is it's probably another new IP developed by a reasonably popular developer that has previously been multiplatform. No one is going to take a successful multiplatform franchise and move it into exclusive territory and drastically reduce their sales. For it to be a "bombshell" it couldn't be some niche franchise. Exclusivity for 3rd parties only makes sense if they're launching something new and they're trying to mitigate risk. For example, it could be something like having Bioware/EA (just randomly picking a dev studio) do a new IP, where it'll be timed exclusivity or the sequel is free to show up on PS4.

 

[liolio]

Wow that talk about third party exclusive is a bit too crazy for me...
My guess for E3 this year? Business as usual, as far as the web is concerned I think that people are to argue a lot

Not that I dislike it.

 

[AlNom]

My guess, is it's probably another new IP developed by a reasonably popular developer that has previously been multiplatform. No one is going to take a successful multiplatform franchise and move it into exclusive territory and drastically reduce their sales.

I was just thinking of Crytek... XD (Timesplitters)

---

I'm still wondering how MS hasn't gotten Piranha Games to bring Mechwarrior Online over (minus the $500 gold skins >_>)

 

[XpiderMX]

I was just thinking of Crytek... XD (Timesplitters)

Or Epic...

 

[Scott_Arm]

I was just thinking of Crytek... XD (Timesplitters)

---

I'm still wondering how MS hasn't gotten Piranha Games to bring Mechwarrior Online over (minus the $500 gold skins >_>)

Ryse HD - true 1080p and 5 minutes of extra gameplay for $60

Something for Crytek might make sense, since that relationship is already going.

 

[3dilettante]

I may have a high threshold for "bombshell".

Knack 2: The Revenge of Cerny, only on Xbox One.

 

[MrFox]

I may have a high threshold for "bombshell".

Knack 2: The Revenge of Cerny, only on Xbox One.

I'll have to buy an XB1 then.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

it could be something like having Bioware/EA (just randomly picking a dev studio) do a new IP, where it'll be timed exclusivity or the sequel is free to show up on PS4.

If that's the case, then I'd be happy. If the game was especially good, I'd even be tempted to buy an Xbox One for it.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Oh, I'd love a new Timesplitters.

 

[Rangers]

If MS secure FIFA/Madden and COD as platform exlcusives, they will likely secure some 30+ million owners who (a large portion at least) otherwise would play the same games on other platforms. Of course, the cost to MS is probably way more than such a move is worth.

No way you'd see one of the really big franchises like the ones you name do that. No way at all. They'd be killing themselves.

Or Epic...

This is my guess. It's probably, if anything, I could see something along the lines of Samaritan. Which was already fake-rumored. Or the Timesplitters thing. But yeah, this is the type of thing I think you'd be looking at, if it happens.

I'd be super super excited about Samaritan. I really want it. I dont even care about the exclusive thing I mean, just the game concept has a ton of appeal to me.

Again, it's weird to me how MS seems willing to spend the big $ on software if these thuway rumors are true, but skimped on the hardware, and plays historically cautious on hardware price (they never undercut PS3 as much as they could have imo, especially given they were racking in tons of Gold fees but never used it to subsidize the hardware even 50 bucks). Not sure they're getting best value for $ there, but that's another discussion.

 

[temesgen]

why would a publisher agree to make a core franchise exclusive to a single platform? In doing so they'd risk the following:

1) alienating a fan base and the blow-back from consumers

2) if such tactics were successful we'd essentially be conceding to a single platform era which would not be in their best interest. The platform holders are already difficult to work with at times if one had a significantly larger market share the terms associated with producing content on their platform would become more draconian.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Business is a funny thing and there is another axiom in business that states "money now is [usually] better than money later". A 'good' financial input upfront is often seen as preferable to potential money over time, even if it is viewed that the long term potential could reap more.

 

[AzBat]

I hear all this stuff that securing a franchise exclusive will be bad for publishers & it will upset fanboys, etc, but I've yet to hear what other alternative Microsoft has. It needs titles that the other platforms don't have. And since they supposedly don't have the depth of first party studios that the other platform has, their only alternative is to pay for 3rd party exclusives. Time is critical & paying for exclusives let them get around that in the short term. Long term they are better off doing it themselves. No doubt about that.

Tommy McClain