Moneyhats and thirdpartys

[EndR]

I was wondering, with the recent buyout of Lionhead and the press conf MS hade in Japan.
How easy is it to throw money at thirdpartys and secure game titles? Because every so often you can see in different threads that for example, MS/Sony "can give moneyhats and yadda yadda" but how easy is it for devs/publishers to say: "SAAANKOOOYOUUU" (a Jo Koy expression from his Jay Leno appearence: www.jokoy.com) and give that company an exclusive title?

With all the money MS has, why aren´t they trying to secure more content or are they doing that but thirdparty are resisting because they want to be on all plattforms?

(Or it could be Sony doing that, just took MS as example because they are the company with the moneyprinting machines )

 

[BlueTsunami]

I personally think that, yes, money DOES speak on certain levels. There is a point though where Dev houses want the freedom (on different levels) to do what they want. I would think companies like Capcom, Konami and Ubisoft fit this bill. Thats referring to turning a dev house into a first party dev house.

As far as exclusive games go. I think you'll be seeing new IPs getting exclusive console treatment (which involves money hats or just straight up console preference). Known IPs that have an established fanbase will end up spanning multiple consoles but in the case of (for example) the Final Fantasy series (the main series) Sony is probably throwing money at SquareEnix in some way shape or form.

Interesting thing is Microsoft got Tri-Ace to make an exclusive game for them (probably new IP). I think thats a big thing for the Xbox360 and adding to its arsenal in RPGs. Microsoft will be publishing this game (I believe)

 

[Bobbler]

One thing to clear up...

Microsoft's money != MGS/Xbox division's money.

Just because MS has a lot of money, doesn't mean that MGS and the entire Xbox division get free reign to spend it. It's very likely Sony's Playstation division and SCEWW has a budget that makes MGS/Xbox's look small.

On to the topic:

It isn't always about just throwing money at the developer/publisher. There are things to consider like what affect the release on that given console will have on the franchise (will the franchise flounder into obscurity or succeed because of user base size/market?), what kind of expected sales there are (paying for the development of a game is one thing, but there is also lost sales potential that come into play, and development time that could be spent better on more profitable projects, etc). It isn't just a matter of tossing money around, and it makes sense that a lot of companies probably are a bit wary when it comes to these things -- there are risks involved, even if development is completely paid for.

 

[EndR]

One thing to clear up...

Microsoft's money != MGS/Xbox division's money.

Just because MS has a lot of money, doesn't mean that MGS and the entire Xbox division get free reign to spend it. It's very likely Sony's Playstation division and SCEWW has a budget that makes MGS/Xbox's look small.

I don´t know about that. I mean, look at the Xbox and the 4 billion dollar loss it has incurred on Microsoft. That bill is a bill that Bill has to pay (or have already paid)..

But that is also an interesting question, what budget does MGS have?

It isn't always about just throwing money at the developer/publisher. There are things to consider like what affect the release on that given console will have on the franchise (will the franchise flounder into obscurity or succeed because of user base size/market?), what kind of expected sales there are (paying for the development of a game is one thing, but there is also lost sales potential that come into play, and development time that could be spent better on more profitable projects, etc). It isn't just a matter of tossing money around, and it makes sense that a lot of companies probably are a bit wary when it comes to these things -- there are risks involved, even if development is completely paid for.

Yeah, I was under the impression that it could be like that...

 

[Bobbler]

I don´t know about that. I mean, look at the Xbox and the 4 billion dollar loss it has incurred on Microsoft. That bill is a bill that Bill has to pay (or have already paid)..

But that is also an interesting question, what budget does MGS have?

When you have one company who has countless internal studios and development houses, and produces 5x as many consoles (and a handheld part too) vs one that has very few internal studios/houses and a smaller install base, it isn't hard to guess who has the bigger budget. You can't really have a business thats probably 5x bigger than a competitor and feasibly spend less =p Additionally, I think Playstation is a lot more important to Sony than Xbox is to MS (Sony is more or less in a world of hurt without Playstation, MS is probably better off without Xbox -- at this point at least), so I think they would be a bit more open to spending more on it, since its a good investment for Sony.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Xbox/MGS budget is in any way small, but just because MS owns them doesn't mean they get to spend all of MS's money. They likely have a rather modest budget (certainly compared to the more important divisions of MS) and this generation I think they are rather concerned with profiting from their 4+ year venture. If MS dumped their full force into Xbox they could easily have a monopoly and buy out most of the game industry, but I don't think the stock holders would be too happy about that kind of spending (and that's ignoring the effect on the game industry and the probable mess it'd cause =p).

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don´t know about that. I mean, look at the Xbox and the 4 billion dollar loss it has incurred on Microsoft. That bill is a bill that Bill has to pay (or have already paid)..

Ya but look how cheap they're being now. I agree with Bobbler, MS's purse strings are very tight right now, overpriced peripherals, wired controllers & no HD cables on the core, virtually non-existent advertising campaign, they are nickel and diming big-time.

That doesn't necessarily mean they are doing the same with developers though, Rare & Lionhead purchases are big bucks, 50mil to Mistwalker, 10mil for GOW, Too Human seems to be very high budget, Crackdown and APB both funded by MS i think, Bioshock too. Then there's Forza, Halo and whatever they're giving to these japanese dev's, and other unannounced games/relationships. I guess they're tossing some decent money around...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...Lionhead purchases are big bucks

Perhaps, but we don't have a figure on it. A GI.Biz article (newsletter, not yet up on the website) was talking about the difficult financial position Lionhead has been in and that they were looking for a buyer. Could be, given their support of MS platforms, MS picked them up for a snip, giving the studio security while cheaply securing their diverse gaming talent for MS platforms.

Not that I'm arguing anything about MS's spending habits, only that we don't know whether Lionhead studios was a big purchase or a bargain deal.

 

[ERP]

No one actually wants to develop cross platform, it's a pain in the ass.
But the fiscal reality is that it's pretty much a necessity in todays market.

The short version is everyone has a price, what that is varies a lot, it has to minimally offset the profit from any other sku that might be produced, and in some cases more than that, since you may not reach certain sales milestones on a single platform, and it may make it harder for you to deal with the competitior.

But manufacturers can offer things beyond money, co-marketing campaigns, other fringe benefits from the relationship.

The cheapest way to do it is just to publish the game. Outside that it's just about the deal, and whether it makes fiscal sense to both parties.

Despite the discussion here sometimes, one francise does not make a platform, and everyone has budgets even MS.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Could be, given their support of MS platforms, MS picked them up for a snip, giving the studio security while cheaply securing their diverse gaming talent for MS platformsl.

Could be...except that the rumours of a bidding war between ubisoft and ms make it seem unlikely. Call it a safe assumption

 

[EndR]

No one actually wants to develop cross platform, it's a pain in the ass.
But the fiscal reality is that it's pretty much a necessity in todays market.

The short version is everyone has a price, what that is varies a lot, it has to minimally offset the profit from any other sku that might be produced, and in some cases more than that, since you may not reach certain sales milestones on a single platform, and it may make it harder for you to deal with the competitior.

But manufacturers can offer things beyond money, co-marketing campaigns, other fringe benefits from the relationship.

The cheapest way to do it is just to publish the game. Outside that it's just about the deal, and whether it makes fiscal sense to both parties.

Despite the discussion here sometimes, one francise does not make a platform, and everyone has budgets even MS.

Thanks!
I was hoping for someone working directly in the biz commenting on how "it works"..

 

[mesyn191]

No one actually wants to develop cross platform, it's a pain in the ass.
But the fiscal reality is that it's pretty much a necessity in todays market.

The short version is everyone has a price, what that is varies a lot, it has to minimally offset the profit from any other sku that might be produced, and in some cases more than that, since you may not reach certain sales milestones on a single platform, and it may make it harder for you to deal with the competitior.

But manufacturers can offer things beyond money, co-marketing campaigns, other fringe benefits from the relationship.

The cheapest way to do it is just to publish the game. Outside that it's just about the deal, and whether it makes fiscal sense to both parties.

Despite the discussion here sometimes, one francise does not make a platform, and everyone has budgets even MS.

Love this guys' posts, all content no BS.