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

Pretty sure that's exactly what Sony did, and it sucks just as much. It just makes no goddamned sense to withhold hugely expensive games from a select few systems when they used to be successful across a multitude of platforms in the past. That is of course unless a certain party would provide hefty financial incentives.
 
Sigfried1977 said:
It just makes no goddamned sense to withhold hugely expensive games from a select few systems when they used to be successful across a multitude of platforms in the past.
Click to expand...
There's been plenty of discussion how it does make sense. Financial incentives can also be requested. eg. What if Capcom went to the console companies looking for someone to help fund the game, because their finances suck? In 2013, things were looking pretty ropey. So seeking someone else to shoulder the cost and reduce risk makes sense, while offering a notable franchise as an exclusive in return. Hence this could be Capcom's choice that Sony agreed to, and not Sony buying the title from under MS's noses. This possibility exists for any franchise/exclusive, hence why assumptions are misplaced, although in some cases, especially from the outside, it's harder to see the less obvious reasons than money-hatting. Like if FIFA.COD went platform exclusive... :eek:

As ever, it's okay to be annoyed/angry that a game isn't coming to one's platform of choice when one expected it to, but it's not okay to be angry at the console company and/or developer save maybe some very fringe cases with obvious evidence in support (such as public announcement of a console company buying a dev to secure exclusivity of previous multiplat).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the thing. If this wasn't just money-hatting, the companies in question would have been very eager to let everyone know about just that. Just like in Bayonetta 2's case, where both Nintendo and Platinum immediately reached out to the fans and told them the game wouldn't have happened at all if it wasn't for Nintendo's role as a co-producer since the other parties weren't even interested in the first place.

I'm also pretty sure MS's pr statements would be a lot less vague if TR was actually a locked-down, permanent exclusive at this point. "We are publishing it. Not saying anything more. Make of it what you will."
 
That's an assumption. Different companies have different PR policies. Would Capcom really want to go public saying, "we're facing bankruptcy so had to plead with a console company to bail us out and hope that SFV will help turn our fortunes around a bit"? They've said as much as they need to - it was a partnership from early on.
 
Who says anything about bankruptcy. They simply could have said that the fighting game boom has died down considerably (probably due to oversaturating the market with their very own annual SFIV updates), that a new, full-blown SFV with shiny new tech was too much of a risk, and that they sought the help of outside parties to lessen the financial blow. Basically just what Platinum and Nintendo did.

And yes, different companies have different PR policies. Most companies would probably do very well to rethink them too. (hey, Ubisoft!)
 
Sigfried1977 said:
Who says anything about bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
They really lacked money. A PR statement based on struggles is bad business. Or at least, considered bad business. You don't want to scare investors away.

Basically just what Platinum and Nintendo did.
Click to expand...
Platinum's a studio in need of a publisher. Capcom is a publisher. A studio can be saved by a publisher without losing face (they tend to require a publisher) whereas a publisher needing a console company to rescue them is a more awkward message.

And yes, different companies have different PR policies. Most companies would probably do very well to rethink them too. (hey, Ubisoft!)
Click to expand...
Right. So you can't take Capcom/Sony's message as indicative of anything just because it's different to Platinum's message. Just because Capcom didn't say, "Sony rescued this game," doesn't mean Sony didn't. There's not enough information, and enough information about Capcom's financial position to know that they may very well have gone looking for a business partner.
 
Cjail said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
I thought you were looking at their current/latest financial reports. Their 2014 performance won't impact their negotiations held in 2013, so it's the older financial records that can shed light on Capcom's position when it came to looking at ways to fund SFV. I see that the link is actually for their full history, so you possibly were just sharing the records rather than the 2014 ones.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
I thought you were looking at their current/latest financial reports. Their 2014 performance won't impact their negotiations held in 2013, so it's the older financial records that can shed light on Capcom's position when it came to looking at ways to fund SFV. I see that the link is actually for their full history, so you possibly were just sharing the records rather than the 2014 ones.
Click to expand...

Yeah I posted the link to all the results; I don't know when the negotiations with Sony started so frankly I don't know where to look precisely but from a quick glance Capcon financial problems are not recent.

Out of curiosity how much did SFIV sell on 360? More or less than PS3?
 
Last edited:
I've only seen this on VideoGamer.com but Phil Spencer did an interview with them about buying third party exclusivity where he notes Sony is dong this but Microsoft is preferring to invest in first party games.

I don't quite follow his logic about marketshare not affecting the cost of securing a third party exclusive. If you're compensating the publisher for sales they won't get on the other platform, a larger market is going to cost more than smaller market but perhaps he's suggesting that the demographics for some games are not proportionately like for like across the two platforms.
 
MS can offer Xbon + PC (potientially a liiiiitle later like with Tomb Raider) and so I guess, for them, exclusivity might not be hugely affected by their disappointing Xbox One sales. Maybe he's thinking along those lines?

Otherwise .... yeah, it's hard to see how being the minority console provider won't factor into exclusivity costs....
 
I think he means that it's expensive, no matter what. It's not cheap to do if you have the market lead. It's always expensive to buy them.

Btw, here's the real interview. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-interview-phil-spencer-on-microsofts-firs/1100-6429471/

Put it this way, whatever Microsoft paid to get Tomb Raider as an exclusive for about one year, Sony wouldn't pay half as much to get the same deal because they have twice as many consoles. They'd still be paying a large price. I believe that's what he meant.
 
Last edited:
Uhm no, we're not getting into a list war here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Gaming and gaming hardware trends
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
eastmen
E
Q
Prioritizing game exclusivity on console - as a hypothetical Xbox strategy
12 13 14
Replies
273
Views
24K
ZebMacahan
Z
J
The Life Cycle of a Gamer - is gaming changing forever, or eternal?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Tkumpathenurple
T
Cyan
What are the games that blew your mind when you saw them *spawn
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Davros
D
B
How do "lead platforms" work?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top