Console Exclusives: Are you for or against them & why?

[djskribbles]

I still don't get it. Do you think it's worth for a platform holder to approach a publisher about exclusivity than the other way around?

How do you not see the difference? If a publisher approaches MS/Sony, they must have good reason. Either the one console has limitations for their vision, or one console is dominating the market and they want/need some financial help, or their games traditionally sold better on their platform. Although it's still not right, I have far less issue with that. Titanfall... sure I was a bit upset that it wasn't coming to PS, but I honestly didn't care that much. Tomb Raider on the other hand, that made absolutely no sense to me.

If Sony or MS go to publishers and try to make deals to ensure that games that were intended to be MP, remain exclusive on their platform, then I have far more issue with that. Especially if the game traditionally sold better on the OTHER platform, and the other platform helped launch the franchise (ie Tomb Raider).

 

[function]

How about you point to some facts that show that Sony paid for the exclusivity of SFV?

Srsly?

Ono said himself at PSX that they approached Sony. Other than that, we have no details of the deal.

So what, it doesn't matter. One assume that there was mutual consent to a deal that would permanently lock a large part of the fan base out from this game.

Or is there some kind of bizarre bro code in play that you know about and I don't?

And why are you comparing Tomb Raider to SFV when it's not the same at all? Name one time Sony did something similar to MS in regards to the Tomb Raider situation.

Ermmm .... how about the time that Sony did a much larger version of the MS Tomb Raider deal, over, yunno, Tomb Raider.

So much tasty ironing...

 

[Scott_Arm]

How do you not see the difference? If a publisher approaches MS/Sony, they must have good reason. Either the one console has limitations for their vision, or one console is dominating the market and they want/need some financial help. Although it's still not right, I have far less issue with that. Titanfall... sure I was a bit upset that it wasn't coming to PS, but I honestly didn't care that much. Tomb Raider on the other hand, that made absolutely no sense to me.

If Sony or MS go to publishers and try to make deals to ensure that games that were intended to be MP, remain exclusive on their platform, then I have far more issue with that. Especially if the game traditionally sold better on the OTHER platform, and the other platform helped launch the franchise (ie Tomb Raider).

You haven't explained a difference. You've left it up to me, but I can't see it. So far as I can tell, the only difference is how you feel about it. Either way, you're talking about a business arrangement with the same benefits in either situation. The only difference is the party that initiates the conversation.

 

[djskribbles]

You haven't explained a difference. You've left it up to me, but I can't see it. So far as I can tell, the only difference is how you feel about it. Either way, you're talking about a business arrangement with the same benefits in either situation. The only difference is the party that initiates the conversation.

I have, you just don't see it or feel the same way. And that's fine, but that's your opinion.

Srsly?

Umm, yes?

So what, it doesn't matter. One assume that there was mutual consent to a deal that would permanently lock a large part of the fan base out from this game.

Or is there some kind of bizarre bro code in play that you know about and I don't?

It does matter if developers/publishers approach console makers, vs console makers approaching third-parties. If it doesn't to you, then that's your opinion.

Ermmm .... how about the time that Sony did a much larger version of the MS Tomb Raider deal, over, yunno, Tomb Raider.

So much tasty ironing...

Why are you bringing up things that happened 2 decades ago? Probably because you can't think of anything that happened recently.

 

[function]

The important title here is SF5. Capcom said they went fishing for exclusivity, and I give Sony the same benefit of the doubt as Heavy Rain, Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive. More importantly, Capcom said clearly that they are co-producing the title with Sony, so I don't see how this can be considered money-hatting.

It's entirely irrelevant who initiated the relationship, what matters is that they both agree to the terms.

And I don't think either Sony or Capcom are "to blame" or "evil". It's business.

The comparison with TR is wrong. It has merit in the sense that it's a known franchise where the exclusivity is profitable to grab some existing fanbase, but TR was new reboot that created an on-going storyline, while SF have been almost exactly the same for the last 20 years (it's like the 12 different editions of Start Wars). TR is NOT co-produced by MS, they have nothing to do with the title and it's a timed-exclusivity anyway, so once again the double standard claim rely on a false equivalence.

Street Fighter has an "ongoing storyline". It's weak as crap but it's arbitrary to make some kind of distinction to say that it matters in one game and not in the other. People who might want to play the game can't, and the entire point of exclusivity.

As for "co-produced", until we know what the division of labour is we don't if it's money or "money + development work". But even if it does include development work, unless Sony are taking some control of the game design then anything they offer is essentially in lieu of money. Input that reduces Capcom's expenditure, that impacts on the bottom line.

But what exactly can Capcom "need" help from Sony with that they couldn't do on their own with money from another source? Not art or game design. Not pushing large scale scrowd AI onto the GPU. Not with a handling a handful of hitboxes. Making a PS4 port? Online infrastructure?

Any for all we know, MS are having input on TR. I'd be surprised if their technical teams aren't working on making the Xbox One version as good as it can be, and I bet they'll be involved on quality and testing, too.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Ermmm .... how about the time that Sony did a much larger version of the MS Tomb Raider deal, over, yunno, Tomb Raider.

Wasn't Tomb Raider available for the SEGA Saturn? I thought it was and was generally considered superior graphically, like having nice underwater effects.

 

[function]

It does matter if developers/publishers approach console makers, vs console makers approaching third-parties. If it doesn't to you, then that's your opinion.

No.

It's what matters, it's the contract. Who first tried to hold hands is irrelevant as it's the contract that they both choose to sign that matters.

You are not offering any kind of explanation, and simply stating that "it matters" and then refusing to say why.

I think what matters is the agreement, because that is what will ultimately impact on everyone (publisher, platform holder, developer, customers).

You think who contacted who first matters, and is part of determining ... something. Why, and what do you think it says?

Why are you bringing up things that happened 2 decades ago? Probably because you can't think of anything that happened recently.

I'm brining it up you just asked me.

"Name one time Sony did something similar to MS in regards to the Tomb Raider situation".

And I did. And it's the best example there is because it involves a far more extreme version of what MS did with Tomb Raider, and was also with Tomb Raider (hence it's pertinence) except it lasted from 1997 to 2000 and what a complete lock out.

 

[MrFox]

Ermmm .... how about the time that Sony did a much larger version of the MS Tomb Raider deal, over, yunno, Tomb Raider

So much tasty ironing...

The irony is that we're going back in circles on a discussion that already happen. I can hate the PS2 era while praising the PS4 era. Completely different people are in charge, I wish everyone would stop talking about a brand as if it was a person.

 

[function]

Wasn't Tomb Raider available for the SEGA Saturn? I thought it was and was generally considered superior graphically, like having nice underwater effects.

Tomb Raider 1 came out on the Saturn slightly before it did on the PSX, both in 1996. It was a big hit. The PS1 probably had a slightly better version (one extra move for Lara, transparencies for water iirc) but I did prefer the Saturn version underwater ...

Tomb Raider 2 was progressing well for both platforms, but in 1997 and a few months before release Sony paid Eidos a lot of money to scrap the Saturn version and not release any other TR game on Saturn (or N64).

In effect, they paid a lot of money to make sure that the PS was the only console that could have Tomb Raider games between 1997 and 2000 (when the contract expired). As with the likes of Titanfall and Sony's upcoming Street Fighter 5, PC was exempt from the exclusivity deal.

 

[djskribbles]

No.

It's what matters, it's the contract. Who first tried to hold hands is irrelevant as it's the contract that they both choose to sign that matters.

You are not offering any kind of explanation, and simply stating that "it matters" and then refusing to say why.

I think what matters is the agreement, because that is what will ultimately impact on everyone (publisher, platform holder, developer, customers).

You think who contacted who first matters, and is part of determining ... something. Why, and what do you think it says?

I have offered explanations and there is a difference. You're either just missing it or you don't feel the same way.

To me, it's far worse when a console maker approaches third-parties vs third-parties approaching console makers. When console makers approach third-parties, I feel that they're steeling games from gamers on the other console. And it doesn't matter if Sony or MS do it... it's wrong and much worse than if third-parties approach console makers.

The most recent TR game is one of the worst because the game was scheduled to be a MP game, until MS swooped it up at E3. Give me one reason why that makes any sense. A game that is more successful on PS, and a franchise that the PC/PS basically launched. Hmm, maybe that's why the Tomb Raider situation caused the most noise.

I'm brining it up you just asked me.

"Name one time Sony did something similar to MS in regards to the Tomb Raider situation".

And I did. And it's the best example there is because it involves a far more extreme version of what MS did with Tomb Raider, and was also with Tomb Raider (hence it's pertinence) except it lasted from 1997 to 2000 and what a complete lock out.

Yes I asked you to provide examples because you're going on about how both companies are the same and that it's just business. And I'm saying that Sony does this far less often. And the example you give to me is something that happened, what, 18 years ago? And it's not worse than the most recent TR situation IMO.

 

[function]

The irony is that we're going back in circles on a discussion that already happen. I can hate the PS2 era while praising the PS4 era.

My entire point is that nothing changes. That's not irony. It's the same old tactics, and the same old arguments. He's evil, no she's evil, no my favourite companies' shit doesn't stink etc etc...

It's all stinks but it's business and taking dumps on other people's customers (or potential customers) is a messy part of it.

Tomb Raider is a fantastic example as it first, answered the question (meeting all terms of the question - hooray for me, I win) and also because there isn't a better example of how this keeps happening than Tomb Raider.

Every time someone claims that one of the big three is doing something new and bad by paying for exclusivity, the words "Tomb Radier" should be Falcon Punched through the screen at them.

 

[function]

To me, it's far worse when a console maker approaches third-parties vs third-parties approaching console makers. When console makers approach third-parties, I feel that they're steeling games from gamers on the other console. And it doesn't matter of Sony or MS do it... it's wrong and worse IMO. Exclusives should come from first-party studios, and third-parties should make MP games.

Games need to get made, and that means they need money. Money is part of the grubby business of making games.

Spending money just to crap on the other guys customers isn't nice, but if the publisher will do it then I can't judge them any differently than the platform vendor

The most recent TR game is one of the worst because the game was scheduled to be a MP game, until MS swooped it up at E3. Give me one reason why that makes any sense. A game that is more successful on PS, and a franchise that the PC/PS basically launched.

Well it makes sense because MS want the Tomb Raider wallet vote. Much as Sony want the SF4 wallet vote (and publicity, or course).

Games have no allegiance to platform vendors. Nintendo first brought SF2 to the home to great acclaim and now they don't even get a look it. Sega lost Fifa back as the Dreamcast was coming out.

P.S. Saturn actually launched Tomb Raider, and the franchise may have been stronger if it had appeared on more platforms (including N64 of course). But obviously, it was more than worth whatever it cost Sony.

Yes I asked you to provide examples because you're going on about how both companies are the same and that it's just business. And I'm saying that Sony does this far less often. And the example you give to me is something that happened, what, 18 years ago?

There are different degrees of the same tactic. Paid exclusivity for franchises, time limited exclusivity for a game, time limited exclusive DLC, exclusive content as part of a co-marketing deal, etc

MS paying for TR did catch me by surprise. Sony paying for SF5 would have caught me by surprise too, if I hadn't seen TR earlier this year. Now anything could happen.

EDIT: Oh yeah, MS paying for exclusivity on Shenmue 2 for the US Xbox just weeks before the US version was due to launch on DC! Much smaller scale than TR/SF but for those involved a far nastier kick in the balls. That's as much down to Sega as MS though.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I have offered explanations and there is a difference. You're either just missing it or you don't feel the same way.

To me, it's far worse when a console maker approaches third-parties vs third-parties approaching console makers. When console makers approach third-parties, I feel that they're steeling games from gamers on the other console. And it doesn't matter if Sony or MS do it... it's wrong and much worse than if third-parties approach console makers.
...

I don't know how it can be "stealing" when the companies agree to the terms of the deal. You make it sound as if the publishers are being forced to take the money. As for gamers, it pretty much makes zero difference. The end result is you have a business negotiation that both parties agree to, and gamers on one platform are left out. I don't see what difference it makes who initiates it, because the publishers and the platform both agree to it. It's equal parties making a business relationship. If you're upset about TR, you should be upset about SF5. If you're not upset about TR, you shouldn't be upset about SF5.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not a big fan of this language: "Greedy console companies money-hatting exclusives"

I was using it as the gamers' vernacular and didn't mean it literally myself. I should have used quotes. My bad.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's entirely irrelevant who initiated the relationship, what matters is that they both agree to the terms.

I don't agree with djskribbles' position, but I do see a distinction between who instigates the partnership. If you ask a girl out, she might say, "yes," but without a great deal of interest in you. If she asks you, she clearly wants to go out with you. If a man is invited to commit a robbery, and talked into it by a pro, he might go along with it, but his role in the crime is as a 'duped lacky'. Whereas if a man chooses to commit the crime without needing to be talked into it, it's clearly of his own intentions. There's a difference in this example between being rather stupid and seriously criminally intentioned. And a football player happy at one team may go play for another team for a load of cash, but his heart might not be in it. Whereas if he approaches the other team saying it was always his dream to play for them, his intentions are clearly different and driven by a belief in the partnership.

A developer might not have a need or interest in going exclusive until someone waves a lot of money under their nose. That's a different motive for going exclusive than wanting a partnership oneself and seeking it from a console company to support your vision of the product.

There are different motives in play. Personally I think it's just business, as you do too. But I do also see the distinction in the quality of the relationship.

 

[MrFox]

I was going to give the example of a nuclear war between two countries... but I guess asking a girl out is a much better example.

 

[Nesh]

It sure sucks for a large fanbase to not be able to play the game. For those people it is understandable that it would be as unfair as the Tomb Raider situation. But if its Sony to blame? That we dont know.
If it was a conscious decision by Capcom for their own reasons then in terms of unfair competition, Sony isnt to blame.
Back in the 16bit and 32bit era and a bit in the 128 bit era, good fighting games were system sellers. Especially during the 32bit era when half of the best fighting games were exclusive to one console and the rest were exclusive on the other. During the PS1/Saturn days they were the equivalent of a mascot game. I am not sure if the fighting genre is as strong this gen.
But I am sure for a specific group of people it will define their purchase decision. The Street Fighter series has a cult of old timers and top tier players who will want this game for sure. Especially for practice for the tournaments.

 

[MrFox]

It's certainly just business from their perspective, and business calls for the most profitable choice as long as it's legal, otherwise the CEO would be fired. Imagine if the PR was blatantly lying, it would be illegal. But misdirection or obfuscation is totally legal despite being accepted by the public as unethical. That's the only place where the public can fight back and it's a finicky grey area. I would argue that sometimes the most profitable short term decision has an impact on the company's reputation, which will end up costing more in the long run. Talking about the business reality is avoiding the question in the title anyway. What's in it for the consumer here?

Nothing.

I always laugh my ass off whenever the crowd cheers an announcement of third part exclusivity (the cheering happens with either platform, hey, for once I'm impartial), what the heck are they happy about? They didn't gain anything, they already knew the game was coming! Maybe it's just the feeling that their platform will be stronger, but in practice, it will make them lose another game because the competition will have to compensate the balance. It sucks. For everybody.

The sequence of events from launch is making it clear that the new playstation management team have decided it's more profitable to protect their reputation, and be blatantly honest in their PR, and avoid the danger of short term gains. That's still a business decision based on maximizing profit, the difference is that it's one that makes more sense for their consumers.

 

[Nesh]

There is something that isnt related to the quality of the game. It doesnt exist but it is felt. It may sound fanboyish but owning the console with the most exclusives (that in normal circumstances shouldn't have been) increases a faux perception of increased value and strengthens the brand awareness.
This perceived satisfaction of ownership of the console with the best exclusives in this manner, is artificial. But it works.
It is one of the reasons why the original Playstation was perceived as the number one console to play games on. the majority of gamers owned the console that provided a unique and common experience that was shared by many. These memories are embed to the consumer's mind and have an effect on future expectations for the next console. For the present it is the shared experience and the perceived increased value for the owners of the console. In the future it will be past memories of experience and quality wanting to be relieved.
It leaves a bitter taste on the rest of console owners though. The Saturn owners back in the day saw too much of that bitterness and it wasnt pleasant unfortunately
This is why Sony's Playstation reels and ads feature often the evolutionary progress of the Playstation experience.
The PS4 is very similar to the PS1 so they are doing it even more now

 

[Scott_Arm]

...

A developer might not have a need or interest in going exclusive until someone waves a lot of money under their nose. That's a different motive for going exclusive than wanting a partnership oneself and seeking it from a console company to support your vision of the product.
...

The way you've written this basically reeks of some kind of bias against successful companies accepting financial support in business. Suppose Capcom was financially stable, and profitable, but they still went out to look for a business partner to develop Street Fighter 5 because they wanted to share the financial risk of developing and releasing the game. Would that somehow be unethical, or unfair to consumers?

When you write something like, "until someone waves a lot of money under their nose," you're basically implying that something untoward is happening, when in the situation you've described that could or could not be true. Say you're developing game X, and have no plans to make the game exclusive. But then platform holder Y comes along and says, "We love your game. We'd like it to be exclusive to our platform. We'll split some of the cost of development, lend you these resources for the development of the game, and we'll give you a ton of free advertising. The relationship will be mutually beneficial." Is that a horrible unethical sullied relationship? It isn't.

In the case of either of these two games being discussed, we have no idea what the discussions were, or how "evil" the intent of any party. The deals happened. There's nothing wrong with it. Gamers need to get over themselves.