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

Forums - Gaming - What do you think is better/safer: Buying exclusives or studios?

thekitchensink on 09 July 2008
axumblade said:
thekitchensink said:
Nintendo hasn't bought any exclusives so far, with the exception of publishing Fatal Frame 4. Last time I checked, they were doing ok.

I think it's definitely better to buy a studio than one game--hell, you can get some for less than Microsoft paid for Grand Theft Auto 4 DLC.

Nintendo doesn't really need to buy any exclusives. Although they do have an exclusive with Megaman 9 for now at least. Resident Evil 4 was a timed exclusive for the Gamecube.

 

They didn't pay for RE4 timed-exclusivity, though.  They paid for a 5-year contract with Capcom, during which time any games they develop would be exclusive to GameCube.  Once that time ran out (and while Shinji Mikami was on vacation) they tossed up a PS2 port, when there shouldn't have been one.

 

And I never said they don't get exclusive games (obviously).  They're probably making MM9 for WiiWare because they're doing Bionic Commando Rearmed for XBLA/PSN.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
Around the Network
Hawk on 09 July 2008
axumblade said:
thekitchensink said:
Nintendo hasn't bought any exclusives so far, with the exception of publishing Fatal Frame 4. Last time I checked, they were doing ok.

I think it's definitely better to buy a studio than one game--hell, you can get some for less than Microsoft paid for Grand Theft Auto 4 DLC.

Nintendo doesn't really need to buy any exclusives. Although they do have an exclusive with Megaman 9 for now at least. Resident Evil 4 was a timed exclusive for the Gamecube.

You are right. Nintendo doesn't need to buy exclusives, thats really his point. So the OP's last paragraph doesn't ring true.

"So now this gaming world will forever be about who has the money to buy off exclusives or studios and it already started since the last generation. Now third parties have to deal with hard decisons whether to be bought off and risk losing an audience."

If Nintendo doesn't have to, then I'm not sure why it's what the gaming world will forever be about.

 



Tag: Hawk - Reluctant Dark Messiah (provided by fkusumot)

HappySqurriel on 09 July 2008

My personal opinion is that for companies like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony it makes far more sense to look for small developers who show promise and to work closely with them ... If they are able to produce a quality game, and the companies culture is a good match, then you buy the developer before the game is released.

Established developers will be expensive and a lot of their staff will be far more resistant to change ...
Paying for exclusive games is also not a good idea because you gain no (long term/multi-generation) value from the deal



jonager on 09 July 2008

i think if its a small studio its better buying it, but if its a big one like square esclusive its better, btw i think if wkc turns out to be a good game sony should buy Level-5.