Third Party Software Exclusivity Practices

[Shortbread]

With all the recent hubbub about Spider-Man being an exclusive character for PS4’s version of Square Enix’s Marvel's Avengers game…

How do you feel about the third party software exclusivity practices from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo?

Are some third party software exclusivity practices more acceptable than others?

Be it…
· Timed New IP: A new game IP launched on a single game platform, which isn’t available until months or years later for other gaming platforms (e.g., Cuphead, No Man's Sky, Nier: Automata, etc.).
· Timed Established IP: An established game IP launched on a single game platform, which isn’t available until months or years later for other gaming platforms (e.g., Rise Of The Tomb Raider).
· Timed DLC: Additional broader gaming download content (i.e., maps, stories, expanded missions, etc.) launched on a single game platform, which isn’t available until months or years later for other gaming platforms.
· Timed Character(s) and/or Gear: Additional character(s) and/or gear launched on a single game platform, which isn’t available until months or years later for other gaming platforms.
· Published Third Party Exclusive: A new IP that’s exclusive to one gaming platform based on contractual agreements ($$$) between the game platform holder and third-party developer establishing the game platform holder as the primary publisher and/or owner of such title.
· Established IP Exclusive: An established multiplatform game IP that’s no longer available for all gaming platforms, but only for a single game platform.
· Platform Specific DLC Exclusive: Additional broader gaming download content (i.e., maps, stories, expanded missions, etc.) that’s only available on one gaming platform.
· Platform Specific Character(s) and/or Gear Exclusive: Additional character(s) and/or gear that’s only available on one gaming platform (e.g., Spider-Man).

And for the sake of argument, I’m only talking about console gaming exclusivity practices within the console space. Let’s just pretend everything software wise just ends up on PC soon or later.

 

[iroboto]

Going to follow the Jim Sterling idea here:
I mean, the need for exclusivity is to gain a competitive advantage over your competition.
Traditional exclusivity like generating your own content is great.
Fake Exclusivity, in making your competition's product worse by artificially locking them out of content or playability is bad. This is like when oil and gas companies bought electric car companies out only to ensure they would never see the day of light. It's anti-competitive in many ways. I hope that the practice ends on the console space and people just stick with building their own content.

That being said, it's a bigger deal in the console space than it is in the TV space. We expect games to be available everywhere in the console space. Whereas people seem fine with having TV shows airing only on certain channels. I think it's terrible, but a lot of people seem okay with it.

Along the commentary, content that was made for the original game, that was cut out, and sold as day 1 DLC is pretty bad practice too. They should just leave it in, and have the guts to charge the price we should actually be paying for games instead of the artificially low one we have now.

 

[dobwal]

Ultimately developing a game isn't free. And even if you have the resources to develop a game, it doesn't mean it guaranteed to be profitable. Trying to produce a profitable title is an unenviable task for most developers. That exclusivity money helps to make that task more feasible. Providing funds for development and/or marketing can make or break a title regardless if the devs gives up potential sales on a competing platform. "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is why devs go this route.

We may not like it especially when it directly affects us (a favorite franchise limited to platform you don't own) but outside of crowdsourcing (which isn't guaranteed to provide enough funds) there is aren't many avenues for gamers to offer as an alternative. Regardless of our personal feelings, some games may have neve been possible without these avenues.

I rather see titles get made and offered exclusively on a competing platform I don't own than see those titles end up on the heap of unfinished code. You can always just buy another piece of hardware and play those titles if you truly value them. You can't play those titles regardless of how much you value them, if the devs can't afford to get them to market.

 

[BRiT]

I dont even worry about the following:

• Exclusive Cosmetics This was not on your list, but its items that do not impact gameplay in the slightest, such as in-game Playstation Themed Tshirts.

I don't mind but wish this wasn't a thing:

• Timed New IP
• Timed Established IP
• Published Third Party Exclusive
• Established IP Exclusive

I absolutely loathe the following because they want to sell me an inferior product:

• Timed DLC
• Timed Character(s) and/or Gear
• Platform Specific DLC Exclusive
• Platform Specific Character(s) and/or Gear Exclusive

 

[MrFox]

It's a pretty wide range.... It can be as small as giving the studio some publicity without even having a cash transaction (some small indies exclusives did that, but I think it was always timed), and it can be as big as giving them hundreds of millions to take over the entire studio and cancelling all development that was ongoing for other platform (I can't recall anything more aggressive than that).

Do these fit in Established IP Exclusive? Or should they be treated separately?

1. Buying the entire studio while a sequel was already planned or in development.
2. Buying the entire studio but no sequels were planned.
3. Buying or licensing the IP itself, with the game made by another studio.

 

[Shortbread]

Do these fit in Established IP Exclusive? Or should they be treated separately?

1. Buying the entire studio while a sequel was already planned or in development.
2. Buying the entire studio but no sequels were planned.
3. Buying or licensing the IP itself, with the game made by another studio.

The first two should just be considered [now] as first-party studios. The third one could be seen as outsourcing a first-party game, however, designed and developed by a third-party development house.

 

[iroboto]

I think dobwal probably has the truth of it.
The reality is, game development is a massive risk in terms of investment. investors want a guarantee. exclusivity makes that easier for them. the games won't be made if they keep flopping.
at least with the traditional model.

the subscription model: more content might be made because the requirement for having massive sales may not be as important. less stuffed though.

 

[Billy Idol]

All bullshit imo and I hate it. It is anti-consumer in any case and a bane!

Who started it?

I often read that MS started these things during the X360 era...but I don‘t remember.

Whoever it was...you are an ass. Booooo.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

We expect games to be available everywhere in the console space. Whereas people seem fine with having TV shows airing only on certain channels. I think it's terrible, but a lot of people seem okay with it.

Games only being released on one/certain platforms, or released on one/certain platform before other platforms has literally been a development and marketing practise since the dawn of videogames in the late 1970s. Atari's big schtick for the Atari 2600 console was that it got ports of all Atari arcade machine games. Even in the era of 8-bit computers, it was quite common for games to be released on platform before other because there was a lot of one/two-man development teams out there. One of the biggest, most prolific IPs that still exists to this day (Elite) was released on a hardware platform that about twenty people owned, before coming to more popular platforms like the Commodore 64. Not that I'm still bitter thirty years later! We've seen Atari, Nintendo, SEGA, Sony and Microsoft and pretty much every publisher engage in this.

Platform exclusivity continued to exist through 8-bit and 16-bit consoles and into the first 3D era in which Sony launched PlayStation. In the PS2 era Sony paid for launch exclusivity for GTA III. In the 360 era, Microsoft paid for launch exclusivities for GTA IV DLC. It's always been a thing, why are gamers too dumb to expect this forty years on? It's like gamer alzheimer's

To be clear, this is not about whether people like this practice or not, but about the expectation. I understand why people don't like it, because being unable to play something you want to because of a hardware choice sucks but for Microsoft and Sony, the money is in the ecosystem and console features and exclusive content is how you draw more users to your ecosystem - just like it has been for forty years. What riles me a little about this subject is that it often surfaces entitlement in some gamers, like people have have some fundamental right to consume a piece of entertainment. They don't. If you don't like the way a publisher/developer is (or rather isn't) supporting your platform, show conviction and vote with your wallet. QQ'ing on forums changes nothing.

With regards to the Avengers Spider-man thing, that does sound shitty but like every other instance of platform-exclusive content/DLC in Rockstar, Activision, EA and Ubisoft games, it likely isn't. If Spider-Man turns out to be a meaty piece of gameplay, it would suck that PS4 owners get it whilst Xbox/PC owners do not having paid the same price for the game. But I expect this to be some underwhelming, token DLC thing. For a start, Sony are not going to want a meaty Spider-Man experience outside of their own Spider-Man game. As a publisher and developer, Sony are competing with Marvel's Avengers for sales too.

I am literally smh that this subject has come up again along with the same obliviousness to the business reasons why exclusivity at any level as a concept has existed in video games for forty years - and for much long in other entertainment industries.

 

[London Geezer]

I'm still a bit bitter that I had to wait a whole year for the last TOMB BLOODY RAIDER game, which felt like a slap on the face to all PS players, but it is what it is.

Again, I feel that the fake outrage bubble is out of touch with the real world.

If it were for me, there would be no exclusives, apart I guess from first parties which is understandable. But really, it's simple business.

 

[AzBat]

Probably going to announce you can play as Spider-Man in the Avengers game exclusively on PS4. :/ Guess I'll never get to play as Spider-Man again.

Crystal Dynamics can go screw themselves. Not playing that game.

When asked how Xbox and PC gamers who want to play as Spider-Man should feel, Amos replied, “I would say that Marvel’s Avengers has a lot of heroes, and with the scope and the breadth of this game and this universe, players are going to have their hands full with a lot to play with. And as we have just announced with Hawkeye, there are more heroes to come. So this is an opportunity to celebrate (Spider-Man’s addition) uniquely for those players (on PlayStation) because of that relationship, but I think there’s so much of a world for people to explore, I wouldn’t look as that as a reason not to embrace it (the opportunity to add Spider-Man on PS4 and PS5). I would say, look at all this stuff you get to play with.”

“And for those players who absolutely want to play as Spider-Man, you have the option to do so on PlayStation.”

https://www.ign.com/articles/marvel...-man-became-a-playstation-exclusive-character

Tommy McClain

 

[Jay]

“And for those players who absolutely want to play as Spider-Man, you have the option to do so on PlayStation.”

This is why I think Phil should come out and say, "As I've said in the past I'm not a fan of these types of exclusives, but I feel like that if everyone isn't against it then it's the xbox gamers who feel like their missing out, and I can't be having that, hence we bought WB and future games will be either exclusives or have exclusive content"
And then also go back to the X360 days of buying exclusivity for couple things.

 

[iroboto]

This is why I think Phil should come out and say, "As I've said in the past I'm not a fan of these types of exclusives, but I feel like that if everyone isn't against it then it's the xbox gamers who feel like their missing out, and I can't be having that, hence we bought WB and future games will be either exclusives or have exclusive content"
And then also go back to the X360 days of buying exclusivity for couple things.

I would like to see Rocksteady do something else other than Batman titles. Just my personal opinion. Its clear they have the chops to do whatever they want, yes a superhero has a wider audience, but if they are owned by MS then gamepass should open the doors to all sorts of creative ideas that can flop. I like kickstarter type titles, they're fresh, they're pretty fun. Generally speaking, not so great graphically, but I enjoy the gameplay. We could use more of that. let the other big studios handle the super AAA titles.

 

[Jay]

Nof meaning to derail thread, it's just that this sort of thing can start an exclusive content arms race.
MS haven't been up for that, but you never know if it could change with these types of exclusivity deals that Sony keeps getting.

 

[Xbat]

And then also go back to the X360 days of buying exclusivity for couple things.

You honestly think they wouldn't be doing that now if the X One was as successful as the 360 ?

 

[iroboto]

Games only being released on one/certain platforms, or released on one/certain platform before other platforms has literally been a development and marketing practise since the dawn of videogames in the late 1970s. Atari's big schtick for the Atari 2600 console was that it got ports of all Atari arcade machine games. Even in the era of 8-bit computers, it was quite common for games to be released on platform before other because there was a lot of one/two-man development teams out there. One of the biggest, most prolific IPs that still exists to this day (Elite) was released on a hardware platform that about twenty people owned, before coming to more popular platforms like the Commodore 64. Not that I'm still bitter thirty years later! We've seen Atari, Nintendo, SEGA, Sony and Microsoft and pretty much every publisher engage in this.

Platform exclusivity continued to exist through 8-bit and 16-bit consoles and into the first 3D era in which Sony launched PlayStation. In the PS2 era Sony paid for launch exclusivity for GTA III. In the 360 era, Microsoft paid for launch exclusivities for GTA IV DLC. It's always been a thing, why are gamers too dumb to expect this forty years on? It's like gamer alzheimer's

Its a bit different back then, then it is today. There were limited programmers, a lot of platforms. The platforms all had their own audiences, the hardware was all different. It was a major undertaking to create a port back then. I have 2 of Jordan Mechner's books on Kareteka and Prince and Persia, and he goes to talk about development back in the day. And it really came across that people chose the platforms they thought they could complete the game on and the audience was there to make sales.

that's probably the case for indie game scene. But the tools allow for us to deploy anywhere now. The programming excuse is more or less done with now.

Platforms holders are purchasing exclusivity now for the sake of profits. Dobwal's take is the most realistic viewpoint here on the topic. It's costly, investors are risk adverse, investors like money. in the end people would rather take money and make games (with some people losing out), then to take a big risk, fail and shutdown.

call of duty would never fail in today market, at least there are no signs of that happening; but they gladly take Sony's or MS' money all the time.

 

[iroboto]

All bullshit imo and I hate it. It is anti-consumer in any case and a bane!

Who started it?

I often read that MS started these things during the X360 era...but I don‘t remember.

Whoever it was...you are an ass. Booooo.

It started long before Xbox was conceived as a console. It is an old practice bound by geography, you'll very likely find traces of exclusivity all the way back to brothel houses.

 

[Shortbread]

You honestly think they wouldn't be doing that now if the X One was as successful as the 360 ?

Of course they would. It's business for the most part. Businesses find ways of staying ahead of the curve in very competitive landscapes, which in turn, drives better future products and services from competing companies.

But for the the most part, I do agree with Dobwal and DSoup's takes on the matter.

 

[Shortbread]

It started long before Xbox was conceived as a console. It is an old practice bound by geography, you'll very likely find traces of exclusivity all the way back to brothel houses.

Exclusive Whores!!!

 

[AlNom]

It is an old practice bound by geography, you'll very likely find traces of exclusivity all the way back to brothel houses.

Tell me more.