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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Reasons for why Microsoft has timed exclusives (NO TROlLS OR HATERS HERE)

Squilliam on 11 February 2010
ameratsu said:

1) There is nothing wrong with building recognition and a userbase. Putting a "Only on Xbox" logo on the box of a game that is exclusive for a brief period of time is misleading and dishonest. Their aim in buying up exclusives for a certain period is a sort of temporary differentiation. Nintendo and Sony spend money funding their own IPs and first party studios to produce games that will never leave their platforms. Microsoft does this as well, but in buying temporary exclusivity their aim is not to create compelling exclusive content, but the illusion that they are the only place to play that content.

2) Saying it's "just business" is such a copout. Microsoft doesn't do this to benefit their existing customers, but rather to deprive others of it or create artificial differentiation between them and the competition. Someone who already owns an x360 gains no benefit from a game not appearing on ps3, pc or wii. Like I said above, instead of funding or otherwise ensuring games that will never leave the platform, they want those without a system to think timed exclusive games are actual exclusive games. Microsoft is deliberately decieving those looking to buy a console and who want to HONESTLY compare what is available / what will be available for the console. It's absolutely an anti-consumer tactic.

3) I won't argue that Microsoft has more significance in the industry than before, but how you tie this point to timed exclusives is haphazard at best. Please clarify.

4) Of course businesses are here to make money. While their motive is profit, I would say Sony is doing a better job of securing actual exclusive content and listening to their customers. Microsoft entered this generation a year early in an attempt to beat competitors to the punch, cutting corners in hardware design in the process. That was a "business" decision but it doesn't mean that those who experience RROD or who are wary of unreliable hardware have to put up with it because Microsoft is out to make money. Same goes for Sony cutting ps2 playback in the ps3.

5) When Sony (or whoever) buys a company, they are actually funding and taking a risk in creating new games and content. While Microsoft did (I think) fund the GTA DLC, the focus with buying companies or funding new games is to produce original content that differentiates one system from another. Microsoft tries to sidestep this with timed exclusives. Of course to the casual observer this sort of thing is fair game, and it works. Someone who wants to buy a system compares what is available for each system, and buys the console with the most features/games/whatever they're looking for. Since at any given time Microsoft has a number of games that appear to be exclusive, there is a benefit they get from it. Doesn't mean I have to like it or defend their actions.

edit: I think I fixed the formatting now.

1. Its not exactly false when the game is printed. In addition to this you can argue that because they let the developer keep the I.P it can flourish better in the future and transition to other platforms. People are better off with timed exclusives than had they bought full exclusivity to these I.P.

2. What about the games which were made better due to the funding/help? Bioshock and Gears of War come to mind. Also consider a studio like Mistwalker which exists now and a brilliant developer can actually make games now due to their funding. A lot of people have benefited from it and not just people with Xbox 360s.

3. The timed exclusives of Oblivion and Bioshock were significant at the time. You can see their impact on the sales per week graphs.

4. How have they been better at listening to their fanbase? Most of them abandoned Sony. Oh and all 60GB PS3s are also doomed to failure as well, its the nature of the early solder joints from both companies.

5. Its better for everyone to rent a developer than to buy one. If a company buys a developer all gamers without that console manufacturers system are deprived of their games. The only way a console manufacturer can aquire a developer without harm is to create their own studios. Sony caused a lot of harm by buying developers up last generation, you cannot deny this. More harm infact than Microsoft has done from the fact that the damage is permament.



Tease.

Around the Network
KeptoKnight on 11 February 2010

UUhhhhhh here we go sure the formula is here...

Money > Loyalty = Fewer risks

I look at 360 and ps3 like twins now.



gekkokamen on 11 February 2010

they should've invested their money building good/great FIRST-party studios. That's what really sets one console apart from the other. They have added NOTHING, no new franchise they can call their own this generation (and please don't say Gears, Left 4 Dead or Mass Effect 'cause that's theirs as much as any other third party ever was for Sony, and you can bet Epic will be fully multiplat -again- sooner than later, as well as Bioware and Valve will definitely be multi-console next-gen).

Halo, Forza, Fable: all old franchises from the original Xbox, and that's GREAT. They should've built on that system of great first-party studios. No third-party stays with you forever.



Mojo on 11 February 2010

Every time MS pays to get an exclusive game/DLC (timed or not) it is a business decision. It's not only an investment for now (ie. more people will buy this from us now ehn it first comes out), but it is also an investment for the future (ie. more people will buy our console in the future because they know we will invest more in games down the road...they get a reputation as the console with more exclusives).

MS didn't get where they are today by playing it softly. I just can't believe that Sony has appeared so passive in this regard.



 



Hisiru on 11 February 2010

ameratsu said:


1) There is nothing wrong with building recognition and a userbase. Putting a "Only on Xbox" logo on the box of a game that is exclusive for a brief period of time is misleading and dishonest. Their aim in buying up exclusives for a certain period is a sort of temporary differentiation. Nintendo and Sony spend money funding their own IPs and first party studios to produce games that will never leave their platforms. Microsoft does this as well, but in buying temporary exclusivity their aim is not to create compelling exclusive content, but the illusion that they are the only place to play that content.

2) Saying it's "just business" is such a copout. Microsoft doesn't do this to benefit their existing customers, but rather to deprive others of it or create artificial differentiation between them and the competition. Someone who already owns an x360 gains no benefit from a game not appearing on ps3, pc or wii. Like I said above, instead of funding or otherwise ensuring games that will never leave the platform, they want those without a system to think timed exclusive games are actual exclusive games. Microsoft is deliberately decieving those looking to buy a console and who want to HONESTLY compare what is available / what will be available for the console. It's absolutely an anti-consumer tactic.

3) I won't argue that Microsoft has more significance in the industry than before, but how you tie this point to timed exclusives is haphazard at best. Please clarify.

4) Of course businesses are here to make money. While their motive is profit, I would say Sony is doing a better job of securing actual exclusive content and listening to their customers. Microsoft entered this generation a year early in an attempt to beat competitors to the punch, cutting corners in hardware design in the process. That was a "business" decision but it doesn't mean that those who experience RROD or who are wary of unreliable hardware have to put up with it because Microsoft is out to make money. Same goes for Sony cutting ps2 playback in the ps3.

5) When Sony (or whoever) buys a company, they are actually funding and taking a risk in creating new games and content. While Microsoft did (I think) fund the GTA DLC, the focus with buying companies or funding new games is to produce original content that differentiates one system from another. Microsoft tries to sidestep this with timed exclusives. Of course to the casual observer this sort of thing is fair game, and it works. Someone who wants to buy a system compares what is available for each system, and buys the console with the most features/games/whatever they're looking for. Since at any given time Microsoft has a number of games that appear to be exclusive, there is a benefit they get from it. Doesn't mean I have to like it or defend their actions.

edit: I think I fixed the formatting now.

Well, I think that Squillian said everything that needs to be said, I will just complement his opinion about 3 and 4.

3) Microsoft had a bad third party support in the last generation. Microsoft is making some people pay more attention to their console now because they have some big third party titles 5~12 months before the competition, it's really a big step in my opinion. Of course, what Squillian said is important, those timed exclusives are indeed pushing hardware sales but I think that Microsoft is trying to make people realize that they can be as powerful as Sony now (or even more powerful, with some games coming first for the x360). Do you remember when they said at the E3 2009 "Metal Gear is another franchise to jump to our console" (or something like that) when Rising was announced?

4) Does it works? What Sony is doing is probably good for you. You have games like Uncharted, LBP, Killzone, God Of War, etc but does it works? It's more expensive than timed exclusives and the impact is almost the same. While Sony is securing some expensive exclusives, Microsoft is just using the cheaper and easier path. I asked "does it works?" because Sony is at the third place anyway. 



Around the Network
akuseru on 11 February 2010
GamerOhaLAA said:
I was talking to a buddy of mine about this issue earlier. I think that Microsoft should build first party developement to make REAL exclusive games than having timed exclusives. It is a good strategy to have timed exclusives, but it sucks when you hear that a game that was so called exclusive to your fave console goes to the rival one. I hate that about MS. They say Netflix, GTA Episodes, Bioshock, lost planet and so on are for Xbox ONLY and then a year later, they shrug their shoulders. They should just say its timed from the start.

This. I don't like it, because I feel MS are lying their way into getting some of their fanbase. They say ONLY on XBOX, and lots of people will buy into that statement (for instance the angry Tales fanboy from Japan who cut his 360 game in half ^^) and then some months later it appears everywhere else. I feel MS are tricking consumers into thinking their console got more than it really does, and more compared to their competitors. No matter if Sony and Nintendo buy developers to get franchises and exclusives, I like this better because it seems they are more involved and personal with their titles this way.



Reasonable on 11 February 2010

I think you have the main points but wrong order. MS knows it is coming from behind (if you'll pardon the phrase) both in terms of brand recognition and first party support. Therefore it's clearly:

1 - using timed exclusives as a denial of service tactic to try and force people towards the 360 as many gamers simply can't wait for big games. It's fair in business but not something I personally condone. Basically, it's like a sportsman holding the back of the shirt of an opponent to keep them close

2 - using timed exclusives to get more attention for 360 and have it seen as the console with more titles/content. They know than many gamers, particularly the teenage/young adult males will ignore the fact the title isn't really exclusive when it releases on PS3 in the end

3 - a variation of 1 but I think they also used this a lot to try and slow up the PS3 in Japan particularly to give them more room to grow in the region. Again, fair play in business, but I'd personally prevent this as a could as I don't agree with the practice.


As the core of this approach is acutally negative to the consumer, which is my main focus for business regulation, I don't like it. If MS want to be successful they shouldn't do it by focusing on tripping up the competition but being better themselves. Instead of 30 day DLC timed exclusives, 12 month exclusives, etc. I think all of that money should go to IP instead. They can commission true exclusives with third party developers, get more Mass Effects, Gears, etc. on the console instead.

Even for 360 owners I therefore don't see this as a good practice. Sure, the really nutjob fans will see it as great, but in the end you're not really getting anything truly exclusive just first play vs true exclusives like Alan Wake. I would hope most 360 owners would rather have 3 exclusive new IPs heading to the 360 rather than playing a multiplatform title first.

I'm not sure how much MS will focus on this now though, as once the game was up first time around, most people now assume it's just a timed exclusive now and assume the title or DLC will hit PS3 anyway, which seriously undermines the practice.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

welshbloke on 11 February 2010

I think "Timed" versus "Exclusive" is based on cost nothing more. It is surely cheaper to get a timed exclusive deal and steal some of the early thunder than it is to produce a first party exclusive title especially when you have to foot the bill of any overruns which in the world of HD gaming lets face it is not uncommon.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Deidara89 on 11 February 2010

Microsoft is killing videogames market with this stupid strategy of timed exclusives...

360 owners receive incomplete game (The last remnant, Tales of Vesperia) and PS3 owners have to deal with inconvenients (maybe Vesperia will not localised; Star ocean has no extra...)



aragod on 11 February 2010

The thing I hate about these timed exclusives is the fact, that you never know for sure said game is timed or not. If I were to buy Xbox for ME2 or Splinter Cell and than later it come on PS3, I'd be so pissed since those are the only interesting games on that console for me. If BioWare releases ME+ME2 on PS3, I'll ritually burn all of their games that I own (no I won't, I like them too much... but you get the point).

So the only thing that MS has achieved with their timed exclusives in my eyes = I hate Xbox more.



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising