Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*

[chris1515]

They can be, but too many sees a studio closed. You have to weigh up long-term benefits from the diversity a poorly selling title brings versus the cost of operating it.
You do know how Uncharted came into being, right? Chasing a trend. Here's some Uncharted Lootboxes for yer too

Nintendo laying on the Loot Boxes too.

I'm pretty sure if Sony had a choice between HZD or Fortnite, they'd have picked Fortnite. As a games publisher looking to make money from games, they'll face the same choices as any other. They just have a little extra value that can be factored into a game in terms of platform diversity that improves platform sales, which other pubs don't have, but they can't sink countless dollars into exclusives either without measurable returns and it being a wise investment.

If the studio don't sell enough game and hardware, they will close. Don't sell games making people buying hardware is not the solution too. It is one of the reason Microsoft sold between 30 and 35 millions consoles when Sony was at 73,4 millions consoles sold through consumer.

And if you think Microsoft is happy of the situation they will not announce to open studios for new Ip AAA games like a new single player Fable and say they prepare next gen where they want to be the leader and beat Sony...

 

[London Geezer]

I'm pretty sure if Sony had a choice between HZD or Fortnite, they'd have picked Fortnite. As a games publisher looking to make money from games, they'll face the same choices as any other. They just have a little extra value that can be factored into a game in terms of platform diversity that improves platform sales, which other pubs don't have, but they can't sink countless dollars into exclusives either without measurable returns and it being a wise investment.

Don’t forget that each developer/publisher plays to its own strength.

Sony quite clearly cannot make a game like Fortnite, whether they want to or not. Not everyone can.

Just like not everyone can make humongous successes like, I don’t know, Pokemon Go, Candy Crush or bloody GTAV, and other games that have become success stories. Those kinds of success are very, very rare. Just as rare as the AAA games Sony is putting out, if not more rare.

So Sony’s decision is to do what they have gotten very good at, which at the same time happens to be what critics really like, especially in a particular age such as the one we live in today, when publishers like EA want to convince us that single player story-driven games are dead, which is clearly not the case.

MS still doesn’t have a clear idea of where exactly they want to come in, and also they just aren’t producing enough material to even try - from what I can see.

Love it or hate it, Sony’s first/second party strategy works for them, and it works for a lot of gamers. The figures prove this.

If Sony tried to make a game like Fortnite, they would probably end up throwing money at a problem they just can’t get their heads around, which of course defeats the whole purpose. And they still wouldn’t get it right. Probably.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thats why I said "they don't have to", Not that they wont.

The implication is the platform holders are above such things. I think the exclusives situation needs a little balance, where some are throwing around a few hit metascores and hardware sales as if exclusives can do no wrong.

And for those who haven't been following the discussion, I'm an advocate of platform exclusives and argue that they make a big difference in appeal. But some of the discussion points on this side of the argument don't hold IMO and gloss over the compromises that may have to be made, or suggest first parties can operate in a sort of nebulous safety zone without economic considerations.

So Sony’s decision is to do what they have gotten very good at...

Firstly, Sony' isn't just about AAA story based single player games. . Secondly, I don't know how Sony facilitates this beyond each individual developers operations. Has Sony actually guided Guerilla to make HZD to the 'Sony Formula', or did Guerilla just do it on their own?

I'm not comfortable with this idea that Sony is good and focussed on single player story games. There have been a few big successes the past couple of years, but is that really their DNA and philosophy now? These games started development years ago, before any story-driven trend existed, so how could Sony be playing to their strengths when they decided on these games? And did they, or did they just let their studios create what they wanted to create?

 

[chris1515]

The implication is the platform holders are above such things. I think the exclusives situation needs a little balance, where some are throwing around a few hit metascores and hardware sales as if exclusives can do no wrong.

And for those who haven't been following the discussion, I'm an advocate of platform exclusives and argue that they make a big difference in appeal. But some of the discussion points on this side of the argument don't hold IMO and gloss over the compromises that may have to be made, or suggest first parties can operate in a sort of nebulous safety zone without economic considerations.

Firstly, Sony' isn't just about AAA story based single player games. . Secondly, I don't know how Sony facilitates this beyond each individual developers operations. Has Sony actually guided Guerilla to make HZD to the 'Sony Formula', or did Guerilla just do it on their own?

I'm not comfortable with this idea that Sony is good and focussed on single player story games. There have been a few big successes the past couple of years, but is that really their DNA and philosophy now? These games started development years ago, before any story-driven trend existed, so how could Sony be playing to their strengths when they decided on these games? And did they, or did they just let their studios create what they wanted to create?

Studio have some liberty but Sony needs to give approval for example for HZD they did a study to know if playing a girl can affect sales. The only team without producer is Naughty Dog and they are Sony Darling after Uncharted and Last of Us success.

God War, Horizon Zero Dawn are all post Uncharted games...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

God War, Horizon Zero Dawn are all post Uncharted games...

And they are only two games. That doesn't really define Sony's strategy, does it? Plus Uncharted had an online component, including MTs, so these two games aren't even keeping with the Uncharted design specifically.

There may be a little added focus towards these single player games if Sony can aim for 10 million sales from them, but I don't see the correlation behind these successes and considering single-player games Sony's strengths or future direction. And it'd be wrong to as well, as diversity is the most important element of the exclusives library IMO.

 

[London Geezer]

The implication is the platform holders are above such things. I think the exclusives situation needs a little balance, where some are throwing around a few hit metascores and hardware sales as if exclusives can do no wrong.

And for those who haven't been following the discussion, I'm an advocate of platform exclusives and argue that they make a big difference in appeal. But some of the discussion points on this side of the argument don't hold IMO and gloss over the compromises that may have to be made, or suggest first parties can operate in a sort of nebulous safety zone without economic considerations.

Firstly, Sony' isn't just about AAA story based single player games. . Secondly, I don't know how Sony facilitates this beyond each individual developers operations. Has Sony actually guided Guerilla to make HZD to the 'Sony Formula', or did Guerilla just do it on their own?

I'm not comfortable with this idea that Sony is good and focussed on single player story games. There have been a few big successes the past couple of years, but is that really their DNA and philosophy now? These games started development years ago, before any story-driven trend existed, so how could Sony be playing to their strengths when they decided on these games? And did they, or did they just let their studios create what they wanted to create?

I’m saying that yes, a supposed “Sony Formula” does exist by now. I never said they only do that, but it’s undeniable that, whatever you want to call it, Sony has focused a lot of time and money in releasing one “blockbuster” story driven game every year. More or less.

That’s their “thing” right now. And yes, of course we’re talking about Sony themselves being more prone to invest more on studios that have a certain vision. If you listen to interviews with the director of GOW, it’s pretty evident that he had a certain vision, and that he kept having to go to Sony to convince them to put it a little bit more in order for him to achieve a certain thing in the game - he gave a specific example which now I can’t remember.

 

[London Geezer]

And they are only two games. That doesn't really define Sony's strategy, does it? Plus Uncharted had an online component, including MTs, so these two games aren't even keeping with the Uncharted design specifically.

There may be a little added focus towards these single player games if Sony can aim for 10 million sales from them, but I don't see the correlation behind these successes and considering single-player games Sony's strengths or future direction. And it'd be wrong to as well, as diversity is the most important element of the exclusives library IMO.

It’s not just two games. It’s all the Naughty Dog games, HZD, GOW, and all the games that are slated for release (Spider-Man, TLOU2, Death Stranding etc).

Of course there is a vision and some kind of strategic planning there, that is definitely different from other platform holders.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Firstly, Sony' isn't just about AAA story based single player games. . Secondly, I don't know how Sony facilitates this beyond each individual developers operations. Has Sony actually guided Guerilla to make HZD to the 'Sony Formula', or did Guerilla just do it on their own?

I get the impression that Sony's studios are set up to effectively share knowledge and maybe even personnel, so we're bound to have some similarities in mechanics, narrative, and graphics.

I'm not comfortable with this idea that Sony is good and focussed on single player story games. There have been a few big successes the past couple of years, but is that really their DNA and philosophy now? These games started development years ago, before any story-driven trend existed, so how could Sony be playing to their strengths when they decided on these games? And did they, or did they just let their studios create what they wanted to create?

I don't think Sony are necessarily prone to creating exclusively single player games, but I do think they are a little bit more free from the need to include multiplayer, given that they already get a cut of all FIFA, GTAV, and Fortnite revenue. So in that sense, they are playing to their strengths by letting their studios breathe a bit.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see multiplayer in sequels to Horizon and God of War. It's often a fun feature, and I suspect it to be easier to implement in a sequel once you have a solid single player blueprint.

 

[iroboto]

A lot of good discussion in here last couple of posts. A lot of fanning out of different areas to discuss.

The idea of a formula that people know what to expect is probably true to an extent. But in regards to what I think Shifty is thinking, he’s probably looking at Nintendo as being a real formula.

for MS and Sony, it’s not as defined, but there are some expectations or general guidelines they follow. And i would agree with the idea that MS is currently searching for “that new” formula as well.

On the idea of Sony letting their library breathe and leaving certain games to 3rd party, an interesting concept.

I’d believe it. I thinking MS has largely been chasing or wanting to own a world impacting game, but that seems to go directly against the idea of an exclusive. Can’t be world impacting and exclusive. How successful would Minecraft, Counterstrike, DOTA would be if they were locked to a console platform for instance. It does lend to explain why MS wants to move their games also to PC. You need PC.

That being said, you could say the opposite for Nintendo games, which are all locked but everyone knows Mario.

 

[chris1515]

And they are only two games. That doesn't really define Sony's strategy, does it? Plus Uncharted had an online component, including MTs, so these two games aren't even keeping with the Uncharted design specifically.

There may be a little added focus towards these single player games if Sony can aim for 10 million sales from them, but I don't see the correlation behind these successes and considering single-player games Sony's strengths or future direction. And it'd be wrong to as well, as diversity is the most important element of the exclusives library IMO.

Ghost of Tsushima, Days Gone, Spiderman, Death Stranding, The Last of Us 2, Detroit Become Human, I don't know if it is a trend but they all are story single player games and it is not because Uncharted and TLOU have multiplayer component that the biggest part of the game is not the single player mode. TLOU was not a darling of the critics because of the multiplayer mode. And the AAA most expensive game to produce are currently all single player driven game in Sony out of Gran Turismo and Drive Club from defunct Evolution studios. Dreams is more a AA game in cost side. We can add Killzone Shadow Fall, Bloodborne, The Last Guardian, Shadow of the Colossus Remake, Gravity Rush and Infamous Second Son to the trend.

Jim Ryan head of Sony marketing before Head of Sony Europe and Shawn Layden

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/playstation-is-winning-but-what-next-w485683

proof point for Sony that gamers still want large-scale, epic narrative games. With so many studios talking about "games as a service" and large online experiences that rely on player interaction rather than scripted narrative, it's refreshing to see that Sony still firmly believes in games like Uncharted, Horizon and upcoming titles like God of War. "That's what we do well," Layden says. "We'd hate to force a mechanic on something. Can you have online arena tournament play? Well...only if it needs it."

Diversity with title like Singstar or VR games or Dreams is as important than God of War for Sony and like Xbat told Sony doesn't have the studio to create Fortnite or Overwatch or successful mp or online coop based mp game because they don't want to compete with third party, it is part of the strategy and clever too.

I try not to be too prescriptive when it comes to what the studios are doing," Layden says. "We always try and keep it very simple when thinking about the games we should move towards, and we've condensed it down to a formula that's basically 'first, best or must.' Is it the first of its kind in a new genre? Is it the best of its kind in an established genre? Or is it a must do? Like we must support the launch of VR. By and large, all of our titles fall under one or two of those caps. Right now, part of our 'must' category is to create – for lack of a better term – we call it audience broadening. As Jim likes to say, the first 50 million is easy. But the second is where it really gets tough, so our 'must' category is about growing the pie. We don't want to steal players from EA or Take Two, we have to grow the whole thing so we'll be doing a lot more in that category this year and next."

Talking about story games Jim Ryan told about God of War. He talk about diversity of game about Singstar.

Hack and slash games tend to not do so well in Europe, so the narrative this time around will make a big difference. European gamers love narrative games. And Singstar.

 

[Xbat]

Sony is doing what every first party should, releasing games that the third party aren't really covering.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The best counter to my arguments I think is this list of upcoming games - https://blog.eu.playstation.com/201...xclusive-games-worth-clearing-your-diary-for/ - by and large, single player.
However, chris1515's link actually spells out there's no formula for big single-player games AFAICS, quoting differently:

"I try not to be too prescriptive when it comes to what the studios are doing," Layden says. "We always try and keep it very simple when thinking about the games we should move towards, and we've condensed it down to a formula that's basically 'first, best or must...We don't want to steal players from EA or Take Two, we have to grow the whole thing so we'll be doing a lot more in that category this year and next."'

"A big part of what we need to do is convince people that have been getting their gaming fix on their phone to buy a PS4. They want something more accessible, something that's a less intensive time commitment. If we can do what we did on PS2 and access that more social kind of experience – we had games like Singstar and Buzz that did phenomenally well, especially in Europe – that'll really help us broaden."

We may well see two years of big single-player games, followed by a couple of years of more platform-broadening titles. Obviously in terms of dollar spend the epic titles receive the most, because they have to, but what Layden is saying here is that Sony are always looking for room for titles, and they don't prescribe what their studios should be doing, which suggests the studios take a pitch to Sony to greenlight rather than get ordered what to make.

 

[London Geezer]

The best counter to my arguments I think is this list of upcoming games - https://blog.eu.playstation.com/201...xclusive-games-worth-clearing-your-diary-for/ - by and large, single player.
However, chris1515's link actually spells out there's no formula for big single-player games AFAICS, quoting differently:

We may well see two years of big single-player games, followed by a couple of years of more platform-broadening titles. Obviously in terms of dollar spend the epic titles receive the most, because they have to, but what Layden is saying here is that Sony are always looking for room for titles, and they don't prescribe what their studios should be doing, which suggests the studios take a pitch to Sony to greenlight rather than get ordered what to make.

Absolutely. However I don’t subscribe (yet) to the opinion that Sony is chasing trends that go outside their modus operandi. If they did, they would certainly have invested a whole lot more in massive multiplayer ‘service’ games. They have not. They’re happy to leave that to third parties, and focus their own dollars into, basically, anything but that. Heck they’ve even spent more on old-school party games where players can sit around on the sofa and play all together.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'm pretty sure if Sony had a choice between HZD or Fortnite, they'd have picked Fortnite. As a games publisher looking to make money from games, they'll face the same choices as any other.

Fortnite achieved Fortnite-(Battle-Royale)-levels of success because it's a game that released for PS4 + XBone + Windows + MacOS + iOS + Android.
Had it been a PS4-only game, it wouldn't have gained as much traction.
A PS4-only Fortnite could (probably would?) fail to meet the revenue numbers of Horizon Zero Dawn.

Which is yet another reason why 3rd parties should be the ones making games that depend heavily on a large total addressable market.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yakuza 3, 4, and 5 remasters announced for PS4!

Looks like I'm getting a PS4 at some point now. Just need to fit it into my budget now.

For people that doubted how much I liked Yakuza despite not playing it? Suck it!

The only thing that would side track it at this point is if the series gets announced for PC before I buy a PS4.

Regards,
SB

 

[dobwal]

Ultimately every Sony dev works on projects that are approved and funded by SIE.

It hard not to influence games development when you are in charge of green lighting projects whose hopes are to be critically acclaimed and handsomely profitable.

When Sony is totally aware of the last gen success of Uncharted and TLOU, it would be only natural that Sony would be more receptive to projects of similar ilk. I highly doubt Sony would have been receptive to if by happenstance everybody wanted to do either a RTS or side scrolling beat’em up.

 

[DrJay24]

he only thing exclusives do is limit another player base from playing.

Which is the point. Sony, MS and Nintendo all do this to draw gamers into their ecosystems.

 

[Xbat]

Which is the point. Sony, MS and Nintendo all do this to draw gamers into their ecosystems.

Exactly, I don't understand how people don't seem comprehend that they are companies.

 

[tuna]

For people that doubted how much I liked Yakuza despite not playing it? Suck it!

How can you like something that you have not tried?

Also, is it OK if I suck an ice pop?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How can you like something that you have not tried?

Also, is it OK if I suck an ice pop?

Mmmmm, Ice Pop, definitely OK and approved!

Regards,
SB