By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation on 15 March 2024
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:

I deleted everything that was irrelevant to the actual point.

On what's left, obviously developers disagree with you, or they would not be making these deals. They may not always be right, but I'm definitely going to take their word over yours on what is profitable.

That being said, it would be trivially easy to ensure that the deal works out for the third party developer. You can make the amount paid for exclusivity dependent on the amount sold on the platform it does release on. Take FFXVI for instance. Square has released other FF games and similar games on both Sony and Microsoft consoles and can reasonably estimate the sales breakdown between the two sales. For instance they can estimate that sales on XBox for FFXVI would be about 30% on XBox than they would be on PS5. So, you arrange that the fee for exclusivity would be somewhere around 30% of the profits generated by FFXVI on the PS5 (adjusting for things like lowered development costs for developing on one platform) and voila. Square is basically guaranteed not lose money.

Alternatively, you can make the exclusivity conditional. The game will be exclusive assuming it sells at least X million copies by 20XX. And if not, they are free to release it on another platform. This again allows the dev to essentially guarantee the deal works out for them. Again, you would have to account for things such as the decreased sales that will come from launching the game later, and so on.

And of course, profitability is not the end all be all. Companies often are willing to sacrifice potential profits for the sake of mitigating risks. That's basically the whole point of investing. 

There are tons of ways you can potentially arrange things, and it would be silly to analyze each of these hypothetical arrangements. The obvious conclusion though is this. If exclusivity agreements were not beneficial for third party developers they wouldn't exist. 

This thread is just an example of backwards reasoning (or just making intentionally bad arguments for engagement). You don't like third party exclusives, and you're entitled to that opinion, and are trying to come up with reasons it is bad after the fact.

My thread is about a hyperethical. A "what if" we had rules in place to stop companies from moneyhatting and bribing developers to compete for a sale. My views on this isn't about the business themselves but more about us as customers and the gains in return if these console makers couldn't money hat their way to your wallet. 

For example: If Sony and Microsoft can only compete for your wallet, its to create even more and better 1st party games and to focus on making even better hardware. Today, we get mid gen upgrades, instead of making the OG console that much better to begin with. Look at AMD vs Nvidia, they solely focus on competing by building the best value products. 

Buying exclusivity rights to games is basically bribing and a short cut to these brands to stay ahead. Why do they need to make better hardware? Why do they need to make more 1st party games? They don't, because both PS and Xbox customer base is heavily reliant on 3rd party games. Unlike Nintendo which is the complete opposite. This is why PS and Xbox hardware are basically identical, they play it safe because as long as they have deals in place with 3rd party devs, they know you will buy their product. 

In my personal opinion, the best competition was when it was Nintendo vs Sega. Both companies fighting for your wallet by constantly innovating the industry as well as building a plethora of IPs to win a sale. These days, its all about who controls the 3rd party market, by simply paying for it. Removing the pressure of actually building to innovate and offering the best value. 

There are exceptions to this rule obviously, like 2nd party games and actual funding of a game before its already in development to help get it made. 

In response to the bold. I am referring to money hatting games that have already the budget and are in development without the need of a deal. Plenty of companies release games without exclusivity deals, you have jumped on a massive assumption that they all wouldn't exist without these deals in place. Which console is GTA6 exclusive to? Companies have their own investors and budgets'. I as a customer would prefer to see a 30% increase in sales on another platforms than a 30% money deal to keep a game off a platform. The more people know about an IP and play an IP, is better for the IP and its sequel. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 15 March 2024