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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer: Sony buying third party games, all to do with money, not market share

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has said that market share has nothing to do with the third-party exclusive we are seeing on PS4, it's all about the money.

Speaking to GameSpot about third-party exclusives on PS4, Spencer said: "So, they don't "gobble" the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share."

He added: "When you go in to do a deal, with a third party, that third party has its own view of the global market and the value of it. And they should, they should think about their assets and how valuable they are, just like anyone would when they are selling their goods."

http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/halo_5/news/sony_is_buying_third-party_exclusives_for_ps4_says_xbox_boss.html



Around the Network

Meanwhile, in a italy site... :P
http://multiplayer.it/notizie/154357-phil-spencer-sony-ha-pagato-gli-accordi-con-le-terze-parti.html#comments_container



Yes it certainly cost the same ti buy exclusivisity on 10M and 160M userbase.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Ka-pi96 said:
Not true, at least for Japan anyways. Sony get plenty of 3rd party exclusives from Japan based on their market share alone. Microsoft are non-existent there so why would they bother making games for them?


MIcrosoft : "Japan ? Is that one of these Pokemon I keep hearing about ?"

He might think that because they had to buy Blue Dragon and Idolm@ster and are still salty it didn't work.



Sounds like BS, it's common sense that market share has an effect on 3rd party deals.
Is he really suggesting that a 3rd party publisher will make an exclusivity deal like say Tomb Raider for the same amount of money with MS as they would with Sony?lol



Around the Network

I'm EA and I want to release game X on systems 1 and systems 2. Hmm System 1 want's it to be exclusive to that system and they have 25 million users.. hmm well that'll cost them a pretty penny.

System 2 also wants it to be exclusive and they ave 13 million users, that'll cost them exactly the same as system 1...


Does that make sense to anybody? Of course Sony are paying for it but it wouldn't cost them as much as it costs Microsoft. It's Business 101. Unless anyone really believes they'd be charged the same for exclusivity?



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

You guys relax. He's just trying to see how stupid everyone is.



RenCutypoison said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Not true, at least for Japan anyways. Sony get plenty of 3rd party exclusives from Japan based on their market share alone. Microsoft are non-existent there so why would they bother making games for them?


MIcrosoft : "Japan ? Is that one of these Pokemon I keep hearing about ?"

He might think that because they had to buy Blue Dragon and Idolm@ster and are still salty it didn't work.


Yea, they might as well just share Lost Odyssey too.



Intrinsic said:
You guys relax. He's just trying to see how stupid everyone is.


lol, This kind of BS is really gonna take a toll on his "straight talker" reputation though.



You had to go and ruin your streak Phil