By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Titanfall's exclusivity based on EA's Xbox and PlayStation sales forecast, not Xbox One's cloud

There's no doubt that Titanfallwill be a major success when it ships in just a few months; but, you also can't deny that publisher Electronic Arts is missing out on a huge market of PlayStation gamers by keeping it exclusive to PC and Xbox platforms. With over 80 million PS3s and 4 million PS4s sold (granted, there is some overlapping), that's a lot of money for EA to be turning away from. So what made them decide to go Xbox exclusive?

If you ask Respawn or Microsoft, they'll say it's because of the Xbox One's cloud servers. You may even remember, back in August, designer Fairfax ‘Mackey’ McCandlish calling Microsoft the "Apple of videogames" when it comes to multiplayer and communal gaming -- something Titanfall emphasizes (there's no singleplayer campaign). McCandlish at the time explained the exclusivity was based on Respawn being a small team and having to pick a single platform. "Xbox made the most sense," he said.

Microsoft and Xbox may have made the most sense, but it doesn't look like it was a decision based on console power, community, or cloud servers. 

"I think you should assume that we made that decision when it was back a few years ago when we decided to go exclusive," explained EA's Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen when asked if the deal with Microsoft for Titanfall's exclusivity would offset potential sales the game could have had if released on PlayStation.

"We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that's what we based our decision on. I think we're still feeling very comfortable with that," he said. 

EA may be comfortable with their decision, but there is no denying that their original forecast may have been misguided. Since their release, the PS4 has sold 4.2 million consoles worldwide while the Xbox One sold 3.9 million. It's not a major difference, but I'd like to know what EA's forecast originally estimated. In all likelihood, Microsoft probably paid EA quite handsomely for exclusivity, but is what Microsoft paid enough to make up for the revenue the game could've earned on PS3 and PS4?

Jorgensen continued: "I think -- think about the deal as economically as we made. We told people last quarter that it's a trade-off between The Sims 4, which is the product we moved out when we moved Titanfall in. And the reason that's economically neutral on that deal in this year is that most of the expenses for the development of Respawn's products were expensed along the way, as we do with all of our R&D.

"And thus, when we ship that product, it's fairly high margin for us until we start to share royalties with them. You should assume in FY '15, we'll start to share royalties as the revenue builds, and that will start to reduce the profitability of the product over time. But the initial ship-in at the volumes that we're anticipating and built into our guidance are fairly profitable, and we determine it was a exact trade-off with The Sims profitability if that would've also been in the quarter."

In October, Respawn Entertainment co-founder Vince Zampella confirmed that Titanfall would be an Xbox and PC exclusive for its lifetime, but left open the possibility that future installments could land on PlayStation platforms. If you look at the tweet closely, you'll even notice that he said EA made the decision for exclusivity for the studio, meaning it was never about development or system specs.

http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/01/29/titanfall-s-exclusivity-based-on-ea-s-xbox-and-playstation-sales-forecast-not-xbox-one-s-cloud



Around the Network

It was based on $omething but it wasn't a sales forecast.



badgenome said:
It was based on $omething but it wasn't a sales forecast.


lol.

It all comes down to EA not expecting the PS4 to sell as well as it has.



" If you look at the tweet closely, you'll even notice that he said EA made the decision for exclusivity for the studio, meaning it was never about development or system specs.

Worst part about the tweet is that the lead dev learned about EA's deal at the same time everyone else did. The quote says it all. They were trying to get extra buzz about their game by making it exclusive to one platform and at the time the next gen Xbox made sense. The excuse they used about being "a small studio" was a complete lie because EA could've easily outsourced the game to another developer like they're doing with the 360 or like Ubisoft and Square are doing with some of their games.

And then the excuse about the clouds - even though the game was also on 360 and PC. Why didn't they just come out with full transparency in the first place. People wouldn't ave criticized them as much.



"Since their release, the PS4 has sold 4.2 million consoles worldwide while the Xbox One sold 3.9 million."

No, the PlayStation sold more than 4.2 million before December 28th, the Xbox sold 3.1 million in the same time period. This is what annoys me about Microsoft and "sneaky" press-releases in general. I imagine they deliberately released their shipped numbers so that news outlets would mistake them for the sold-through numbers. The same goes for Sony when they were bundling their sales figures. We all know the Vita is struggling, it is daft to hide that!

 

Also, back on point, didn't somebody from Respawn confirm it was only a timed-exclusive deal until Microsoft bought "lifetime exclusivity"?



Around the Network
Figgycal said:
" If you look at the tweet closely, you'll even notice that he said EA made the decision for exclusivity for the studio, meaning it was never about development or system specs.

I think this says it all. They were trying to get extra buzz about their game by making it exclusive to one platform and at the time the next gen Xbox made sense. The excuse they used about being "a small studio" was a complete lie because EA could've easily outsourced the game to another developer like they're doing with the 360 or like Ubisoft and Square are doing with some of their games.

And then the excuse about the clouds - even though the game was also on 360 and PC. Why didn't they just come out with full transparency in the first place. People wouldn't ave criticized them as much.


Why does it have to be a lie from Respawn.  They told you about their conditions not about how EA could oursource this or that.  Also people forget that this is a EA partner contract and not an EA game.  The structure of those agreements are totaly different than if this game was an EA property and who knows if EA was willing to take on more risk.

As to the cloud, Respawn stated that MS will be allowing the PC and X1 version use of the cloud.  The 360 version will not be using the cloud probably because its not made by Respawn.



lol shipment vs sales again.

BTW it was not sales forecast that defined the exclusivity.

And of course... EA is now feeling bad because every game from them is selling better on PS4.



Makes sense, EA is always wrong when it comes to predictions.
I don't understand how a company can be so consistently wrong time after time.
Their last several games have been disasters.



Let's cut the bs.....MS paid for it. Simple.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

badgenome said:
It was based on $omething but it wasn't a sales forecast.

  Very true.

I also like how the article is reporting Xbox One's shipped and the PS4's sold through, and acting as if they are the same thing.