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

Forums - Gaming - Think many here Underestimate the Impact of A Console Timed Exclusive (XBox1 Related)

sales2099 on 03 June 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sales2099 said:

But they got the game for a year. Thats kinda a big thing. Time is quite literally money in these cases.


It is, but Mass Effect continued to make money over time by branching out. Microsoft stood in the way of massive multiplat profits and building the title as a multiplat, but rather it was only purhased by people who knew about the franchise. It gives MS a momentary psychological edge but in the end what did MS have once it was all gone? Its glimmer diminishes once the exclusives are all gone. Third party lack of loyalty was something Sony anticipated which is why they stuck to titles MS would never be able to touch. This is why any company Sony touches MS is willing to turn over heaven and earth just to get. E3 2008...Square enix and Namco Bandai or recently with Metal Gear Revengeance. When insonmiac left Sonys wing MS scooped them up for their press conference screaming to the heavens saying "the company that made Sonys exclusives is making a game for us finally!". This continued with other companies.

Sony spoke to one former MS related company..Bungie. 

 A telling story....indeed.

Your right in that it only benefits the calandar year it releases in. The trick is finding the next big thing in the following year. MS didn't quite get that rythim down in the 360 gen.



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

 

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 June 2013
Barozi said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Barozi said:
KylieDog said:
On the flip side, the timed exclusives came with more content available for the late port releases.

Though at a price difference where buying the timed exclusive game + DLC is cheaper than buying the port.


Not necessarily. Mass Effect 2 came as the GOTY edition when it came to the PS3. Compare that to what the early adopter paid and the price is dropped by like thirty dollars. Avid ME players on the 360 paid about $90 over time. Remember used game sales arent counted.

Alan Wake franchise is $4 on steam.

That's not the point. It needs to have some advantage and I'm sure a fan of a certain game rather spends $100 for a game than waiting a year for a $60 package with all DLCs.


....Which is why I stated the avid fan. Can't be an avid fan without playing the first game at least can you? The PS3 was given a broken package and it wasnt until recently that they even got the first game which completed the package. Nintendo was just wayyyyyyy too late. Sony has a policy that all late ports must come complete with all DLC which is why Ninja Gaiden was superior on the PS3. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 June 2013
Carl2291 said:
sales2099 said:

Then thats where we seem to differ. Id say an extra 2.6 million more then justifies it. Many games would kill to sell 1 million lifetime so based on that....thats a lot of extra renenue for MS.


I guess it would depend on why the game was a timed exclusive.

Did Microsoft pay for it? Did the developer simply not want to develop for PS3, due to it being a difficult console to dev for at the time? Was it because of the PS3 userbase at the time not being large enough?


Earlier in the seventh gen MS played for a slew of third party timed exclusivity including Bioshock.



sales2099 on 03 June 2013
Carl2291 said:
sales2099 said:

Then thats where we seem to differ. Id say an extra 2.6 million more then justifies it. Many games would kill to sell 1 million lifetime so based on that....thats a lot of extra renenue for MS.


I guess it would depend on why the game was a timed exclusive.

Did Microsoft pay for it? Did the developer simply not want to develop for PS3, due to it being a difficult console to dev for at the time? Was it because of the PS3 userbase at the time not being large enough?

Let's not get into semantics. The end result is what it is. MS benefitted from Oblivion being on the Xbox brand first, and it translated into 360 favoured sales with Skyrim.

But I do agree that this approach in itself isn't viable long term. You need suitable 1st party offerings to complement deals like this. Something MS lacks now but hopefully remedies in the future.



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

 

mutantclown on 03 June 2013

It's not like these timed exclusives did that great anyway. The big difference in numbers is more due to the installed-base difference between PS3 and 360 in USA at the time more than anything else.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 June 2013
sales2099 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


It is, but Mass Effect continued to make money over time by branching out. Microsoft stood in the way of massive multiplat profits and building the title as a multiplat, but rather it was only purhased by people who knew about the franchise. It gives MS a momentary psychological edge but in the end what did MS have once it was all gone? Its glimmer diminishes once the exclusives are all gone. Third party lack of loyalty was something Sony anticipated which is why they stuck to titles MS would never be able to touch. This is why any company Sony touches MS is willing to turn over heaven and earth just to get. E3 2008...Square enix and Namco Bandai or recently with Metal Gear Revengeance. When insonmiac left Sonys wing MS scooped them up for their press conference screaming to the heavens saying "the company that made Sonys exclusives is making a game for us finally!". This continued with other companies.

Sony spoke to one former MS related company..Bungie. 

 A telling story....indeed.

Your right in that it only benefits the calandar year it releases in. The trick is finding the next big thing in the following year. MS didn't quite get that rythim down in the 360 gen.


MS has found plenty of third party games and some will definitely be apart of the 15 exclusives at E3 for sure. Geoff Keighley has said we are going to be blown away by MS and Sony offerings at E3. MS has never really gotten down the rhythm of long lasting game development and game options. In their first gen they shared exclusives with PC, it was terrible to argue for why someone should game on console full time when MS was doing that. 



Osc89 on 03 June 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sales2099 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


It is, but Mass Effect continued to make money over time by branching out. Microsoft stood in the way of massive multiplat profits and building the title as a multiplat, but rather it was only purhased by people who knew about the franchise. It gives MS a momentary psychological edge but in the end what did MS have once it was all gone? Its glimmer diminishes once the exclusives are all gone. Third party lack of loyalty was something Sony anticipated which is why they stuck to titles MS would never be able to touch. This is why any company Sony touches MS is willing to turn over heaven and earth just to get. E3 2008...Square enix and Namco Bandai or recently with Metal Gear Revengeance. When insonmiac left Sonys wing MS scooped them up for their press conference screaming to the heavens saying "the company that made Sonys exclusives is making a game for us finally!". This continued with other companies.

Sony spoke to one former MS related company..Bungie. 

 A telling story....indeed.

Your right in that it only benefits the calandar year it releases in. The trick is finding the next big thing in the following year. MS didn't quite get that rythim down in the 360 gen.


MS has found plenty of third party games and some will definitely be apart of the 15 exclusives at E3 for sure. Geoff Keighley has said we are going to be blown away by MS and Sony offerings at E3. MS has never really gotten down the rhythm of long lasting game development and game options. In their first gen they shared exclusives with PC, it was terrible to argue for why someone should game on console full time when MS was doing that. 


I'm hoping that it isn't the case, but it probably is. Timed exclusives aren't good for gamers.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

sales2099 on 03 June 2013
Osc89 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


MS has found plenty of third party games and some will definitely be apart of the 15 exclusives at E3 for sure. Geoff Keighley has said we are going to be blown away by MS and Sony offerings at E3. MS has never really gotten down the rhythm of long lasting game development and game options. In their first gen they shared exclusives with PC, it was terrible to argue for why someone should game on console full time when MS was doing that. 


I'm hoping that it isn't the case, but it probably is. Timed exclusives aren't good for gamers.

? They are certainly good for the gamers that own the 1st console that gets it.



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

 

Osc89 on 03 June 2013
sales2099 said:
Osc89 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 


MS has found plenty of third party games and some will definitely be apart of the 15 exclusives at E3 for sure. Geoff Keighley has said we are going to be blown away by MS and Sony offerings at E3. MS has never really gotten down the rhythm of long lasting game development and game options. In their first gen they shared exclusives with PC, it was terrible to argue for why someone should game on console full time when MS was doing that. 


I'm hoping that it isn't the case, but it probably is. Timed exclusives aren't good for gamers.

? They are certainly good for the gamers that own the 1st console that gets it.


When someone buys a timed exclusive they are paying for something that is a negative for the owners of the other console, rather than a positive for their own. It doesn't affect the owners of the 1st console as they would get it anyway.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

Barozi on 03 June 2013
KylieDog said:
Barozi said:

That's not the point. It needs to have some advantage and I'm sure a fan of a certain game rather spends $100 for a game than waiting a year for a $60 package with all DLCs.

You forget the people who prefer physical, or just budget minded.

Personally, I'd wait.  I owned Mass Effect 1 on 360, I never bought ME2 and I'd never have bought the Mass Effect 2 DLCs, but on PS3 I did because all bundled (and since was a late port it had lower sales and price tanked fast).  I've not bought any DLC for ME3 either.  Bioware DLCs are very overpriced so GOTY type editions are steals.  I waited for the Dragon Age Ultimate Edition too, saved ridiculous amounts of money on that.  Look at how many people say they will wait for complete editions of Capcom games.  Even fanatics have a budget.

Anyone even slightly clued up should know it is a safe bet than any exclusive third party stuff announced for either Sony or MS at E3 is likely timed, even if not announced to be timed (defeats the point to announce it).  May not all will be timed, but it is easily worth the wait, time for new consoles to drop in price a bit too.

What is the latest rumour, Dead Rising 3 exclusive to MS?  DR2 sold the same on both 360/PS3 despite the PS3 getting robbed of the intro and follow up.  Why would that go exclusive?  Especially being Capcom.  Watch that release on PS4 a year later, and if Sony keep their PS3 late port rules then with more content.

Sure but then you're not a fan of the series and pretty much irrelevant to Capcom.
If you can wait one year to get a PS4 version, you can surely wait a few months more to get it for $20 or less.
If you were a fan you'd get both versions (in case there would be exclusive content), could pay the normal price for the first version and wait for the port to reach an acceptable price point (even if that would be $10).

I bought lots of games I loved on 360 and PC.
Bought Fallout 3 on 360, got the GOTY edition on PC
same with Mass Effect, Bad Company (on PS3), Bad Company 2, Borderlands, GRID etc.