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)

BMaker11 on 11 February 2010
Darth Tigris said:
Dunno if this has already been stated, but in response to those saying that MS should just spend the money on new 1st party IP's, there is something that you're missing:

IT'S FAR MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO PAY FOR TIMED EXCLUSIVES THAN DEVELOP NEW 1ST PARTY IP'S!

Developing a high quality 1st party game would likely cost $30-50 million. Since this staff is also employed by MGS, they would have to pay for their salaries even between games. The price that is likely paid (we don't know for sure because it is highly unlikely it would ever be made public) for a timed exclusive cannot be anywhere near those same numbers. Especially beneficial is if the game/dev turns out a lame product (Haze anyone?), you're not committed to that dev's employees in the future.

It's simply more cost effective. And it has also proven to work for the 360 but not for the PS3 and that is why you don't see Sony doing it as much anymore.

Uncharted 2 cost like $20M I believe. Gears 1 cost $10M (and you can quote me on that one)

Microsoft paid $50M for Episodes of Liberty City, and that's going to be on the PS3 soon.

Cost effective to not make 1st party IPs instead?



Around the Network
Squilliam on 11 February 2010
Reasonable said:

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.

1. Buying developers is a permament denial of service tactic to try and force people towards X console, usually PSx in this case as Sony has used that tactic the most. I haven't seen you condone or attack that practice, where do you stand? In my mind purchasing a developer permamently is far worse than renting a developer for a couple of years.

2. Often the game doesn't get a wise release after timed exclusivity and is in short supply when it finally releases. It may even be withdrawn from print before the Xbox 360 version for example or the Xbox 360 version could be cheaper which still gives the advantage.

3. Mistwalker -> Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are a studio which wouldn't have existed otherwise. We get Last Story for the Wii out of that positive arrangement. Tales of Vesperia used the money to essentially make a better Tales for PS3 and Star Ocean was apparantly due to the fact they couldn't get dev kits on time and so on.

Btw which practice do you prefer: Bioshock -> Microsoft helps development but Take 2 keeps I.P. and releases on the PS3 later or Demons Souls -> Sony helps development but they lock up the I.P. in their vault forever?

If you're going to progress onto talking about regulation, then have you considered the anti-trust implications of deliberately dumping consoles onto the market at a huge loss to win market share? In the business world that a great moral travesty than making a business arangement with content providers. In this discussion its the proverbial fly vs camel swallowing of biblical proportions. They both do it, and Nintendo would probably have a decent case against them both.

Most games devalue over time anyway. Most people want to play the game day and date with their friends, hence seeing how games are very front loaded. Most people don't care what happens to a game they own a year down the track. In addition to this, im not sure they're so keen on getting people who own PS3s to buy Xbox 360s as much as getting people who don't own the console to buy one. People simply don't pay that much attention to the industry to note or care whether something is coming 6 or 12 months down the track for another console.



Tease.

Fumanchu on 11 February 2010

I haven't heard any complaints about the developers themselves yet or the fact that Sony made it easy for MS to secure these deals with their difficult to program platform. It's not always MS is paying to delay games on other platforms, when the developers either lacked the funds, resources or support to have a multiplatform development pipeline.



r505Matt on 11 February 2010
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:

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.

1. Buying developers is a permament denial of service tactic to try and force people towards X console, usually PSx in this case as Sony has used that tactic the most. I haven't seen you condone or attack that practice, where do you stand? In my mind purchasing a developer permamently is far worse than renting a developer for a couple of years.

2. Often the game doesn't get a wise release after timed exclusivity and is in short supply when it finally releases. It may even be withdrawn from print before the Xbox 360 version for example or the Xbox 360 version could be cheaper which still gives the advantage.

3. Mistwalker -> Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are a studio which wouldn't have existed otherwise. We get Last Story for the Wii out of that positive arrangement. Tales of Vesperia used the money to essentially make a better Tales for PS3 and Star Ocean was apparantly due to the fact they couldn't get dev kits on time and so on.

Btw which practice do you prefer: Bioshock -> Microsoft helps development but Take 2 keeps I.P. and releases on the PS3 later or Demons Souls -> Sony helps development but they lock up the I.P. in their vault forever?

If you're going to progress onto talking about regulation, then have you considered the anti-trust implications of deliberately dumping consoles onto the market at a huge loss to win market share? In the business world that a great moral travesty than making a business arangement with content providers. In this discussion its the proverbial fly vs camel swallowing of biblical proportions. They both do it, and Nintendo would probably have a decent case against them both.

Most games devalue over time anyway. Most people want to play the game day and date with their friends, hence seeing how games are very front loaded. Most people don't care what happens to a game they own a year down the track. In addition to this, im not sure they're so keen on getting people who own PS3s to buy Xbox 360s as much as getting people who don't own the console to buy one. People simply don't pay that much attention to the industry to note or care whether something is coming 6 or 12 months down the track for another console.

There are a lot of good points here, especially the first and the last. I'm curious now as to what IPs exactly Sony has control over. Anyone know?



De85 on 11 February 2010
BMaker11 said:
De85 said:
BMaker11 said:
Garnett said:
BMaker11 said:
My thoughts: Microsoft has to settle for timed exclusivity because 3rd parties want to put their games on the Sony platform, but Microsoft has no real 1st party to really support them otherwise. So they have to give out the $$$ to make it seem like the 360 is that much better than the PS3. It's a rouse, I tell ya

Yeah! Just like LA Nore!

 

oh wait....

LA Noire is releasing day and date.....it may have been PS3 exclusive at first, at least thought to be....but at the same time, when we had those thoughts, the game was as good as vaporware. It'd be different if it were PS3 timed exclusive...which the PS3 has just about none of.

LA Noire is no different than Assassin's Creed, Devil May Cry 4, Tekken 6, FFXIII, and GTAIV. Developed supposedly for PS3 exclusively...yet end up on the 360 day and date. Again, Microsoft shelling out money to get a game that's going to be on the PS3 anyway. What're you getting at?

Considering what the install bases were when these games were announced/released I doubt MS had to shell out much money, if any at all for most of them.  Developers saw that costs of porting were low and potential gains were high.  In the case of Assassin's Creed and GTA they scored huge, which could have considered other devs to consider 306 multi as an option.

@topic:  I am in the camp that would rather see MS build a stronger first party because the whole timed exclusive thing has been played out so many times that nobody believes a developer who says a game is xbox exclusive, and the benefit to the platform is zero.  I think the money would be much better spent elsewhere.

Assassin's Creed and GTA were multiplatted before the PS3 even released. DMC was multiplatted 2 months after the PS3 came out. And Tekken 6 and FFXIII were multiplatted when the PS3 had a very respectable userbase, and looking at the sales of a game like MGS4....warranted exclusivity (in case you were worried about "blind loyalty")

We know they do this behind the curtains. Don't act like they don't. Why else would developers say for years on end "PS3 exclusive", then mystically develop the game for the 360?

I've never said they don't ever do this, but for a game as huge as GTA 4 I really doubt it was necessary.  Considering the financial mess that Take 2 is they were more likely eager to release multiplat and expand their userbase.  I'm not sure where you're going with the MGS4 argument, I never said that exclusives couldn't sell on the PS3.  My point was that after seeing the success that GTA4 and Assassin's Creed had in going multiplat the Tekken and FF devs wanted to jump on the multi bandwagon to earn more money.



Around the Network
iorijay on 11 February 2010

Sony spent the time and money to develop new game series instead of buy the time-exclusive game, such as Uncharted1&2. And this is much better than Microsoft in this market. 



ruff_romeo on 11 February 2010

I think the strategy MS went for was really necessary, they really needed to do something to compete with very well established gaming companies. I think they just did what they needed to do & I think they did a great job of it! Look at them now, they are almost 35million strong with the most recognised and well established online gaming platform, which they pretty much were the first to start and had the already established companies to follow (followed quit late I must say). However many exclusives they buy or time exclusives they get, they are only trying to grow stronger as a gaming platform. I mean it works...I hate to play a game thats been out for a while on another console first. Unreal Tournament for example, timed exclusive on the PS3, when it came out on the xbox 360 (even with some upgrades), I didn't bother playing it. Its just one of those things I guess.

The bottom line is, I think a strategy is a strategy, it doesn't hurt anybody in a major way. At the end of the day, its all about competition, and the more the better, as it always benefits us as consumers!



Catlana on 11 February 2010
BMaker11 said:
Darth Tigris said:
Dunno if this has already been stated, but in response to those saying that MS should just spend the money on new 1st party IP's, there is something that you're missing:

IT'S FAR MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO PAY FOR TIMED EXCLUSIVES THAN DEVELOP NEW 1ST PARTY IP'S!

Developing a high quality 1st party game would likely cost $30-50 million. Since this staff is also employed by MGS, they would have to pay for their salaries even between games. The price that is likely paid (we don't know for sure because it is highly unlikely it would ever be made public) for a timed exclusive cannot be anywhere near those same numbers. Especially beneficial is if the game/dev turns out a lame product (Haze anyone?), you're not committed to that dev's employees in the future.

It's simply more cost effective. And it has also proven to work for the 360 but not for the PS3 and that is why you don't see Sony doing it as much anymore.

Uncharted 2 cost like $20M I believe. Gears 1 cost $10M (and you can quote me on that one)

Microsoft paid $50M for Episodes of Liberty City, and that's going to be on the PS3 soon.

Cost effective to not make 1st party IPs instead?

I really would prefer that Microsoft developed its own IPs. Distinct IPs make a console more attractive in the long run.



Pristine20 on 11 February 2010

Pros

Many timed exclusives were seen as true exclusives earlier in the gen and really helped the 360 take off

Cons

I think their effect has mostly worn off and most people tend to expect the vast majority of 360's 3rd party exclusives to hit the ps3 anyway nowadays. For example, we get people posting signs o ME2 ps3 all the time despite aving no concrete evidence IMO yet.

Because of this, those who would have bought the 360 for a game like ME2 would hold off this time (assuming they already have ps3s of course). Even all those JP players who bought the 360 for its JRPG "exclusives" back then probably wont do the same again.

One could argue that its immoral because those JP players may not have bought the 360 if they knew some of those games were coming to ps3. On the other hand, business is hardly moral and the timed exclusives really did serve the purpose for which they were intended and have greatly boosted the 360's status in the industry.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

r505Matt on 11 February 2010
Pristine20 said:

Pros

Many timed exclusives were seen as true exclusives earlier in the gen and really helped the 360 take off

Cons

I think their effect has mostly worn off and most people tend to expect the vast majority of 360's 3rd party exclusives to hit the ps3 anyway nowadays. For example, we get people posting signs o ME2 ps3 all the time despite aving no concrete evidence IMO yet.

Because of this, those who would have bought the 360 for a game like ME2 would hold off this time (assuming they already have ps3s of course). Even all those JP players who bought the 360 for its JRPG "exclusives" back then probably wont do the same again.

One could argue that its immoral because those JP players may not have bought the 360 if they knew some of those games were coming to ps3. On the other hand, business is hardly moral and the timed exclusives really did serve the purpose for which they were intended and have greatly boosted the 360's status in the industry.

The Mass Effect 2 for PS3 thing had some 'evidence' but people were too quick to assume things from a small bit of information.

For the record, if someone is holding back on buying Mass Effect 2 because they want it on PS3, he/she is silly, stop waiting. Go get the game, it's an amazing game. Either get it on PC (if you have a good PC) or buy a 360. It's totally worth it. The only 'negative' is that I feel you should play the first game first or you can't fully appreciate it. Then again, if you think it's a bad thing to play a game with one of the best stores (yeah yeah, totally subjective) this gen, well, then I don't know.


Back on topic, saying timed exclusivity is 'immoral' is implying there is some sense of morality in business, which there is not.

Also, think of it this way. If a store says "I'm the only guy in town selling this product", and it's true when he says it, then later another store in town starts selling that product, that doesn't make his original statement false. It was true when he said it, and that's what's important.

It's totally a play on words, but that doesn't make it wrong. When they said Tales of Vesperia was "only on x-box", they were right. Nothing deceitful about it at all. Besides, what kind of company would say "only on xbox...for now, it'll be released for other platforms later". A company like that wouldn't last long. MS was in 3rd place, so they had to do anything and everything they could think of to get ahead.