Third Party Software Exclusivity Practices

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by Shortbread, Aug 5, 2020.

  1. Daozang

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    412
    Location:
    Athens
    Not really apples to apples though...
    Buying a startup, in order not to disrupt the market you are invested in because you can, is a lot different than paying someone to make your chairs with flashier cushions than the competition.

    I see this as a way to differentiate products.
    It is not good, it is not bad, it is what it is.
    And even if I were to perceive this as a somehow atrocious practice, the blame should be shared with all parties involved.
    So it would be equally atrocious for a developer to accept money from a publisher for such a practice, as it would be for said publisher to offer the money in the first place.
    But honestly, it makes no sense to debate this still.
    Every console manufacturer has done this in one form or the other for as long as they existed...

    My take, I don't mind.
    I think that having products built specifically for your platform (exclusives), is a good thing.
    Having a way to differentiate products that exist in other platforms as well, is not as important, but adds value to your offering.
    In the end, the consumers have to decide what is a better value to them.
     
    London Geezer, Shortbread and Xbat like this.
  2. disco_

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2020
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    212
    This was confirmed? Sony didn't hold an exclusive license, it just had A license.
     
  3. fehu

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    930
    Location:
    Somewhere over the ocean
    And the xbox version, for practicality, will be a port of the switch's one
     
    egoless likes this.
  4. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    My understanding is that the previous deal came to an end where Sony did have exclusivity. Then MLB decided to grant the license probably only if they make it multiplat.



    And sell less copies? Sony would want to maximize its investment, making a shitty ports means less players and less money.

    edit: Seeing the Playstation Studios logo on an Xbox is going to be one of the highlights of this gen that's for sure.
     
    #44 jayco, Aug 7, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    DSoup likes this.
  5. Barrabas

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    394
    Location:
    Norway
    Hmmm, what about the third boob girl from Total Recall?:rolleyes:
     
  6. egoless

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    40
    https://wccftech.com/sony-locked-timed-exclusivity-for-huge-multiplats/

    Hopefully those rumors are true. As a multi-platform owner with no dog in this... race, I hope it will drive the point home about long-term consequences instead of participation, intentional or not, in short-term dogpiling. It sucks for the majority single platform owner that invested in the wrong platform for sure. Gimped games (missing or delayed content even if you paid the same as other platforms, if it compiles then ship it mentality, not even releasing the game at all on the platform), lackluster support, enduring the "it doesn't affect you [but it does, can you see it now that it's too late] so why do you care" and "silly [not so silly now is it] console wars" comments.... To paraphrase someone's beyon3d signature from the very early PS3 days, Welcome to a distant 3rd place Microsoft.
     
    BRiT likes this.
  7. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    18,770
    Likes Received:
    21,056
    If true, I guess that's one avenue to try if the business feels they can't compete from other perspectives.
     
  8. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,879
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Location:
    London, UK
    Sony’s base has never been about specs. At best PS4 Pro was only ever one PlayStation 4 sold in four. This is the first generation that Sony had a clear performance lead over Xbox but the third where they have dominated the competition. The Xbox and 360 the PS3 era was a tie. I know people like to excuse the original Xbox for launching later than, and more expensive, than PS2 but this was the same situation Sony faced launched PS3 behind 360 and for more money with worse performance in third party titles.
     
  9. disco_

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2020
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    212
    That was my understanding as well when this deal was announced, but I can't find anything to back it up. Would like to so I can get my $10 back.
    The last exclusive deal the MLB had that I know of was with 2K and they told them no thanks in 2014. MLB themselves even make/publish games to this day but they never sold well. If you can pay the license fee, you can make an MLB game.

    I think @BRiT was just having a laugh.
     
    jayco likes this.
  10. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    12,990
    Likes Received:
    15,721
    Location:
    The North
    Not the same as to what is being discussed.
    A better cushion wasn't made. Money was paid to deny that cushion for their competitors to receive. They were supposed to receive it, but they cannot.


    Gated Exclusivity is basically a simple practice of if I receive X dollars, will it make up for the downfall of lost sales on the other platforms. If the answer is overwhelmingly in favour of taking the money, then the money will be taken.
    This has nothing to do with making the product better, that product that was built is being paid for to deny the rights of

    The reason why there is so much 'damage control' around the practice is because in this day of age, outrage tends go from 0-100 very quickly and people can mobilize quickly very rapidly throwing your original calculations of exclusivity money vs loss sales out the door. This is why everyone does damage control around it. This is why studios do damage control, because they can lose way more sales than they expected.

    If I'm being asked if I realize what is happening, the answer is of course yes. Exclusivity is a simple concept that has been employed everywhere. Gated Exclusivity, or denial of an equal product to your competitors, is pretty shitty practice that has also been employed.

    Could you imagine the outrage if MS could pay a studio to ensure to deny the PS4 Pro version be only 1080p instead of 4K because MS wants to pay for 4K exclusivity? It would spark an outrageous amount of backlash.

    It's stupid gating, and it shouldn't exist. But it's all too common in capitalism for this type of thing to happen. Competition is supposed to breed innovation, lower prices etc. This is neither. It's just paying to deny.

    I think sometimes this practice is more bearable than others because you haven't been hit with a product you care about. I don't care about spiderman, so this exclusivity never bothered me. But the Destiny exclusivity was bothersome. And I'm absolutely sure that the Call of Duty 360 timed exclusivity was equally very bothersome for PS3 owners. Because there was so little content in the game anyway as it is, having that one more strike, map, item etc, can amount to a significant amount of difference.

    No one cares about exclusivity over titles people had no interest in. They care about exclusivity in things that they actually care about.
     
    AzBat and BRiT like this.
  11. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,879
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Location:
    London, UK
    Are we talking about Spider-Man in Avengers? Because Sony didn't pay Marvel to keep Spider-Man off of PC and Xbox, Sony paid Marvel to get Spider-Man onto PS4. Sony's licensing deal is clearly broader than Insomniac's 2018 Spider-Man game, evidenced by Sony's PS5-exclusive Miles Morales game and Spider-Man appearing in The Avengers. Traveler's Tales clearly still have a multi-platform licence for Spider-Man because they continue to sell Lego superhero games with a whole variety of Spider-Man IP characters included.

    If I buy a sofa (we just have), I'm not paying to stop you buying a sofa, I'm paying to get a sofa myself. I could have paid more fora sofa for you but why would I do that? That's how paying for things works. We've seen no evidence Spider-Man is exclusive to PS4, as we know is Sony have a licence to use Spider-Man and seemingly Microsoft, nor anybody else, is willing to Marvel for Spider-Man to appear on Xbox or Windows. Again, this is the point of licensed IP.

    And yet it's always a storm in a teacup that's never seemingly hurt sales of any game with some form of exclusivity.

    This is comparing apples and traffic cones. 4K is not an inherent technology that requires licensing to use, it's entirely a technical/performance issue and has zero analogies to licensed IP.
     
    #51 DSoup, Aug 7, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    disco_ and jayco like this.
  12. jayco

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    I do not agree that exclusives do not benefit the users as a general rule. Sometimes games that aren't going to be made are just because a big publishers like Sony or Microsoft are ready to help with development. If I'm not mistaken Capcom was in a very bad situation financially and Sony offered some help, that's how Street Fighter V got made. It was exclusive (on consoles) because Sony wanted a return on their investment and I wonder if, in the case of the Avengers game, Sony got something back for the new deal reached with Disney, which changed how revenues of the Spiderman movies are split.

    Sometimes is not about screwing other players, but for some business decisions to make sense.
     
  13. Inuhanyou

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    394
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    I dislike exclusive content in multiplats and timed exclusives. If your gonna make something third party exclusive, you should make it an actual exclusive through funding development and helping with promotion and such like bloodborne, nioh ect.

    I get timed exclusivity and exclusive content are a reality of all parties in the industry and in some cases it works for the publisher. At the core though your segmenting content from people that would have come earlierl anyways. Or Segmenting content from people in the same game they are playing. That just seems silly.
     
  14. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    12,990
    Likes Received:
    15,721
    Location:
    The North
    No I’m talking about content gating in general. The thread was with respect to exclusivity, I was speaking specifically about content gating exclusivity as being bad.

    As it stands today and my understanding of things, Sony only has the license on SpiderMan movies; as long as they continue to release a Spider-Man movie after so many years they hold that license for movies in perpetuity. There was news of Marvel wanting to refresh the Spider-Man brand entirely dating back a long time ago (https://www.onmsft.com/news/spider-man-video-games-removed-from-xbox-one-and-other-consoles) which may be why we see only Playstation associated with the brand. Marvel may only be interested in dealing (trusting) with Sony on the matter of making a good Spider-Man game (the others are big time flops).

    But if we assume that Sony now owns the licensing to Spider-Man video games, and paid to build the content for Avengers. That's nothing that anyone can do. You can't even really ask for a cheaper price, since Sony ponied up to create content for their platform users. So it's a Sony freebie if you want to look at it that way.

    It's up to players to decide if they want to deal with content gating exclusivity; the simple method is to just not buy. Licensing exclusivity is another matter.
     
    function likes this.
  15. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,879
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Location:
    London, UK
    There are a lot of different reasons why something may, or may not, appear on a certain platform at any given time. It's the nature of the licensing IP and spans many industries: movies, TV, toys, food, video games, clothing. It's not gong away. You can get used to it and just stay angry about it but you may as well be eternally angry at gravity for not being able to jump higher.

    That's the first I've heard this. Every account I've read has Sony buying the movies rights for Spider-Man outright. What you're describing is the type of licensing deal Activision had with Marvel, where to retain it they had to released games every so often, even if they were not great games.
     
    disco_ likes this.
  16. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    12,990
    Likes Received:
    15,721
    Location:
    The North
    I believe it's as long as they release a movie from the license that they own every few years, they are good.

    Fox tried really hard with X-Men, and cycling with Fantastic four, they had success with Deadpool though, but they couldn't pull it off well and ultimately Disney bought the weaker Fox studios arm and brought all it's IP's back.
     
  17. Daozang

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    412
    Location:
    Athens
    I disagree. The product was chairs. The cushions were clearly negotiable. ;)
     
    iroboto and BRiT like this.
  18. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,879
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Location:
    London, UK
    Do you have a source? There is plenty of coverage on Sony buying the movie rights to Spider-Man and none mention the deal being predicated on Sony continually released movies.
     
  19. BRiT

    BRiT (>• •)>⌐■-■ (⌐■-■)
    Moderator Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    18,770
    Likes Received:
    21,056
    What else explains some of those horrible movies then?
     
    function and disco_ like this.
  20. iroboto

    iroboto Daft Funk
    Legend Regular Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    12,990
    Likes Received:
    15,721
    Location:
    The North
    Sony has owned the film rights to Spider-Man and 900 related Marvel Comics characters since 1998, and can keep them if it releases a new "Spider-Man" movie every five years and nine months.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/sonys-spider-man-deal-with-disney-and-marvel-studios-explained-2019-8#:~:text=Sony has owned the film,five years and nine months.

    unfortunately this is paywalled. let me find another.

    A leaked document
     
    jayco and BRiT like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...