Third Party Software Exclusivity Practices

This has nothing to do with funding

In case people haven’t noticed, Sony’s strategy since they can’t compete on hardware power or services (yes they will almost certainly sell more consoles by a wide margin) is simply playing keep away. They locked down FF7R for a year, it’s very likely the rumor they’ve locked down FF16 for the same is true. It’s alleged they’re trying to strike deals from exclusive cosmetics to exclusive games from major franchises with anyone who will take the cash

Sony’s strategy is always a brute force solution. Just remember this. The person who actually wins is the one that makes the most money after expenses (margin), and what Microsoft is doing is casting a wide net with a low price of admission. We’ll see which one people like more.

 

So it sounds like the better way to compete going by what your saying if they are going to sell more by a wide margin.

They had the stronger console for the first half of the generation and they was still cutting the deals so it wasn't due to not competing on power.
They also have psvr which is hardware.

They had psnow before xcloud, it also allows for downloading. You can talk about possibly the quality of the games in the service, but they could compete with gamepass if they chose, in fact if they put their 1P games in there I'm sure a lot of people would say it would be more than competitive.
So them choosing not to compete is different than not being able to.

I'm not saying these are things that they can turn around in a day, but it's not like they don't already have similar setvices.

So them cutting these deals aren't because that's the only thing they can do, it's because they see a tactical advantage to doing so.

 

Is it ? Look at the 360. Some of the biggest IP's generated for the platform were third party IPs. Mass effect was a big deal for them but the sequels were on playstation also. They had to buy Gears from epic to keep it exclusive.

Sony paying for content at the start of the generation could benefit them or back fire. What if a company pulls a Mass effect. Whats more what if a company makes a huge IP that was exclusive to playstation and then MS buys the company and the sequels are now Xbox/ PC exclusive ?

It could go either way. MS is investing in more studios which could benefit them more in the end

 

I always believe that purchasing timed exclusivity deals is way better than purchasing studios outright, that behaviour really is about forcing people to jump into an ecosystem they, sometimes, aren't comfortable with. At least the only anxiety that gets triggered with timed exclusives is the FOMO that is so pervasive in modern society. Of course there is a degree of faux outrage, and some mildly sociopathic behaviours get exhibited, by people when this happens but they just need to get over themselves.
If Sony or MS, or even Nintendo for that matter, saw a tactical advantage in making sure that invested users of their ecosystem get given a juicy prize by offering them exclusive access to a game or service for a limited time then of course they will take it. And at the beginning of a new generation with a whole slew of new expectations to manage it seems like the best time to do it. Sony have chosen one path to reward their current, and prospective customers, MS have chosen a different path. It's never about making life better for the gamer, its about controlling the market and making money from it. And both Sony and Microsoft seem to be ardent believers in the words of Machiavelli - the end always justifies the means (though in this instance we can replace morals with financials where needed )

 

That's not an apples to apples comparison. Sony ain't having third parties make big AAA games for them without owning the IP, they learnt that lesson with Crash Bandicoot.

Having dlc exclusive or timed is not comparable to the Mass Effect or Gears situation.

 

The most annoying thing is if a direct continuation of a game that is previously available on multiple platform is locked to a single platform (Bayonetta!!!! I understand why it ended up with Nintendo, but still... the pain).
2nd most annoying thing is if traditionally a franchise available for multiple platform is locked to a single platform. This is about a game, although each game is not necessarily a continuation to the previous game, is always available before on a certain console. For example if CoD franchise went exclusive to a single platform.
3rd most annoying thing is if an ip that is normally available on all platform is locked to a single platform. This is the Spiderman situation. Having said that, since it wasn't really appealing to me before when it was on multiple platform and only become big later while it is exclusive to Playstation, I don't really miss it since I don't have attachment to the previous games. I certainly want to play it, but I'm okay not playing it. I still have tons of games in my backlog and I don't have any attachment to the game. I do have attachment to the character since I like Marvel movies and I like Spiderman movies (even the bad one), but again, I don't think I've played any Spiderman game (maybe if there was one on NES or SuperNes I might have played it, but I forgot). Basically I feel not playing Spiderman is like not playing Uncharted series or Last of Us series. I really want to play those 2 series but I'm fine not playing it. Actually I want to play Uncharted series more than Spiderman because it is more of the type of game that I would've enjoyed (simple 3rd person action game with puzzle element).

For timed exclusive, that is absolutely non issue for me. If a multi platform game need timed exclusive either for the upfront payment (maximize profit) or simply to be able to make the game, I'm okay with that. Like when Rise of the Tomb Raider become Xbox timed exclusive, that was fine.

Content exclusive in a certain game is okay-ish for me, okay because I understand why (at least in case of character exclusive), but I don't like the idea that a same game can have different content, especially if the exclusive content is actually tied to the main story of the game.

 

I think it's nothing short of hilarious how we know absolutely nothing about how much "Playstation Exclusive Spider-man" will there be in Avengers (it could be in it only for a worthless 20min long side quest post endgame), but the pitchforks are already out for boycotting the game. Because somehow people are sure that without Spider-man the game is "incomplete".

People could always wait until the details are in, but I guess these are the same people who would boycott this game even if there was just one playstation-exclusive skin for iron man in there, as they hate Sony when they're breathing.

 

When have game publishers ever done the right thing to deserve the benefit of the doubt now?

 

Who cares for this game anyway, it's this kind of game you'd buy cheap, for the kids. GTA6 having exclusive content on one of the consoles would be having much more of an impact. On pc, things like that would be modded in conviniently.

 

Yes, we should assume that every tidbit of information that comes out of a press release from any publisher or dev must mean the worst possible outcome for the consumer.

Which is why e.g. Halo Infinite being delayed until sometime next year is a very clear sign that it's going to be a massive failure.
Microsoft must be lying to us all when they're saying they'll be using the time to polish the game. They're probably taking the extra time to implement pay2win microtransactions. I mean why else would they make Halo Infinite's multiplayer free-to-play?

/s

 

For some stupid reason they're chasing the eSports scene with their competitive multiplayer titles (Gears and Halo) and hoping microtransactions for cosmetics provides a steady revenue stream. This is continuing on from Gears 4 and 5 and Halo 5, where its not pay to win, but they have steady income streams from there. This time they're aiming for wider market to pick up those eHats income.

 

eSports and eSports tournaments if a game takes off could be a good pull for Microsoft. They've dabbled in their own content and although nothing really got off the ground, if Microsoft could cultivate eSports tournaments from their games along with decent winnings, it could pull in a lot of people. I'm not hugely into eSports but I did used to enjoy occasionally watching Starcraft II pro players, they were insanely good.

 

i wouldn't fret too much as the second Halo was delayed, the same people were suggesting MS go after 3rd party games to get launch exclusives.
I'm not sure why they're worried, all sony has for launch is a DLC for a ps4 game ported to ps5.

 

Spawned the Game Subscription discussion to a new non-business aspect focused thread https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...epass-psnow-ea-access-stadia-etc-spawn.61945/

 

Ah yes, what we've grown accustomed to for COD...

 

FF16 is probably exclusive to PS5 for one year like FF7 Remake episode 1 and Project Athia is probably the game exclusive two years to PS5.

https://twinfinite.net/2020/06/ps5-exclusive-games-worldwide-playstation-branding/

PS exclusivity are now between a few months and one to two years.

 

BuT bEtHeSda!!!!!

 

They're First Party, not Third Party.