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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

numonex on 30 January 2010

It is a good finacial move by third party developers that they steered away from PS3 game exclusivity and brought games out on the 360. By making games available for two systems they make more profits and revenue. Development costs are recouped by porting games onto another console.

Third party exclusivity is becoming a rare thing these days. $$$ look good if they bring the game out on another platform at the same time or at an earlier or later date.



Around the Network
Masakari on 30 January 2010

Maybe it's because I have a top of the line PC, a PS3, and a 360, so I can run anything, but it always amuses me when I see posts about complains that MS bought X exclusive, and "MGS4 on 360 pleaseee", and stuff like that. There's a REASON there are exclusive games, if you only have one platform you know you're gonna miss out on some games, so why complain??



Slimebeast on 30 January 2010

Sony started it.



Xoj on 30 January 2010
Slimebeast said:
Sony started it.

nintendo kicked them out, they didn't had to pay :p.

 



NiKKoM on 30 January 2010
Kasz216 said:
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

I'd say more "Bested the Dreamcast."

The PS1 had CD media.... but the Dreamcast had DVD like media that was far superior.  Stuff like Final Fantasy jumped to PS1 when DC made more sense.

Established console maker vs New one.

Better system specs vs worse system specs.

Better Media vs worse media.


Why did the big franchises go all PS?

 

Though yeah, Sony does the same stuff... this was just Sony wanting to take a shot at MS.

Uhmmm... Kasz... FFVII... 1997.. SATURN... Dreamcast.. later like 1999...
But it doens't changed the fact that everyone expected FFVII on the Saturn cause Square President was a friend of Sega's president.. until Sony gave them gill..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
Xoj on 30 January 2010
NiKKoM said:
Kasz216 said:
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

I'd say more "Bested the Dreamcast."

The PS1 had CD media.... but the Dreamcast had DVD like media that was far superior.  Stuff like Final Fantasy jumped to PS1 when DC made more sense.

Established console maker vs New one.

Better system specs vs worse system specs.

Better Media vs worse media.


Why did the big franchises go all PS?

 

Though yeah, Sony does the same stuff... this was just Sony wanting to take a shot at MS.

Uhmmm... Kasz... FFVII... 1997.. SATURN... Dreamcast.. later like 1999...
But it doens't changed the fact that everyone expected FFVII on the Saturn cause Square President was a friend of Sega's president.. until Sony gave them gill..

saturn was a pain to develop for, a sinking ship, that died with the dreamcast.

sony gave them CDs, and easy development tools ;), and higher profits.

in turns sony got publisher rights



Seraphic_Sixaxis on 30 January 2010

Huh?

Don't know where this thread is going, but im going to make things simple and say...

I can now play games like Star Ocean: The Last Hope and Bioshock 1 and 2 on my PS3, that makes me a happy gamer. (Former payed for exclusives for whatever reason MS may have had.)

And if i so chose to, i could play Final Fantasy XIII on my 360 now, aswell games like DMC4, GTA and what not, all former PlayStation brand exclusives.

The only thing i see here is, per se, sony invests on 2nd party and 1st party exclusives and rarely if at all ever on 3rd part games, so in that sense i so no hypocrisy whats so ever, however MS has been known to pay for 3rd party exclusiveity in the past, be it for funding reasons or what have you.

basiclly speaking, MS has had a semi-bad habit this gen by having many timed exclusives left and right, im sure Sony has done this to aswell even though i personally dont know of any, but for the most part there goal has been working on 2nd and 1st party exclusives overall.

the only 3rd party game that i can think of that is a complete shot in the dark is Versus XIII, but even that is a big IF because we know nearly nothing about it.

In conclusion... in my honest opinion, as far as console exclusives go, i believe both MS and Sony from the get go should have 100% reinforced 2nd and 1st part support instead of securing 3rd party titles, that way everyone is happy as far as 3rd parties go.

However... again, just my opinion here... confirmed or not, MS has most likely handed large sums of money to guys like Square enix, Bioware, Valve and the like to some kind of extent.

They shouldn't have done that, because now most are available on PC and/or PS3, if MS would have made games like Lost Planet and Bioshock 2nd party exclusives secured like Sony did with Demons Souls and White Knight Chronicles it would be a whole differnt ball game.

The only 2nd part titles i can think of that MS fully funded, published and supported were LO from mistwalker and IU from Tri-ace/SE oh and maybe gears of war and awesome effect to but those also seem to be strong 2nd party MS only IP's however i dont know who publishs them so im not 100% sure on this...

Pfft... at anyrate, theres a fine line between 100% support of games over funding support of games, if the IP still belongs to the 3rd or 2nd party publishers there so called "exclusveity contract" is up in the air. it all comes down to greed in the end, though exclusives DO matter.

For example i bought my 360 mainly for Star Ocean: the last hope, but also Bioshock 1 and Lost Planet aswell as Awesome Effect and a few other Niche exclusives games like IU and Project Slypheed...

Present day nearly all of the above is now on PS3, the only ones that could be counted as semi-non official 2nd party and 3rd party IP's are IU, ME Franchise, Project Slypheed, DoA Extreme, N3 Franchise, Guilty Gear 2, Kingdom under fire, and quite afew more that i forget.

Long story short, hypocrisy or no, exclusives define any kind of platform, and i believe both MS and Sony has done a fine job at acquiring them, they've exchanged blow for blow this gen, MS got lots of original playstation only franchises such as Devil may cry, Grand theft auto, Final fantasy, Star ocean, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Guilty Gear while Sony took many of 360's NEW IP former titan "thought to be exclusive" games such as bioshock, lost planet, enchanted arms, eternal sonata, etc, etc... along with taking back former 360 exclusives such as star ocean and vesperia.

Damn that was alot of typing and im normally to lazy to do that, so i hope we can all agree that everyone gets a little hypocrital sometimes, well alot when it comes to making money so obviously they'll throw all kinds of words around.

When all is said and done, each consoles has its own wonderful list of exclusives while still having alot of 3rd party support on both considering the Wii is way ahead, in my opinion i find it a blessing they the dual HD's are still getting alot of major big franchise names rather then jthe dev's and companies flocking to highest selling console this gen.

Enjoy your great games gents, and dont ponder on what should be reinforcement towards owning one or both HD consoles.

thank you for your time gents.



Alic0004 on 30 January 2010
Masakari said:
makingmusic476 said:
Masakari said:
Actually, if anything it's Sony that detracts from the mix, because you absolutely need to buy a PS3 to play them, you have no other option.

With a lot of MS exclusives, you can either get a PC version, or wait, like, 1 year to get it on PS3. Gamers have other options other than 360.

I have both a 360 and PS3, so it really doesn't affect me, but saying Sony is adding and MS subtracting it is a load of bs. And I see the only platform you don't have listed below your avatar is a 360, so I guess I know where that comment came from.

Without Sony, some of these games wouldn't exist at all, or at least not in near the state they do currently. That's not detracting from anything. Yeah, you need a ps3 to play them, but it's better than nobody getting to play them. That's where my entire point comes from.

And I didn't say Sony only adds nor that Microsoft only subtracts from this equation. I only pointed out the difference between what Sony and MS does as highlighted in the OP and in Seece's first post. Both companies do their share of creating new content and inhibiting the availability of content. Sony screwed people over by making Ghostbuters timed exclusive in Europe, and Microsoft had a heavy hand in creating one of the best new IPs of this generation, Gears of War. Remove Sony from the equation and more people would've gotten to play Ghostbusters sooner, which is good. Remove MS from the equation and Gears of War would not have been the technical showcase for 360 it ended up being, which is bad.

Helping to create new content for gamers to play = awesome
Inhibiting the availability of content from gamers = sucks

Two completely different strategies, one that's great and what that isn't. Doesn't matter who does it, one sucks, and the only reason Sony doesn't do the latter as much as they used to is because they now have enough first party studios that they don't feel the need to. Last gen they were moneyhatting left and right.

Also, attacking the poster instead of attacking the argument shows a bit about you, too. ;)

It's still a load of bs and you know it. I had already said Sony risks more because they fund smaller, "out of the box" devs, like the Heavy Rain and LBP guys. However, they own the IP thus potentially reap bigger benefits in the long run, both aproaches are valid.

And MS benefits next to nothing for PC. They don't get royalties. Windows isn't marketed for games, Games for Windows has done nothing for sales, nor will it ever do in it's current state. Nobody is gonna say "ohh, i'm gonna buy Windows 7 because of X game", they will buy Windows because they will buy a PC, there's no competition. You can buy an Apple, but that's not a PC, and has pluses and minuses, and people who do aren't that big into "regular" gaming.

And actually, without MS we wouldn't have Gears, Mass Effect, the GTA4 DLC, and Fable, among others.

Like I said, I have a PS3 AND a 360, any exclusivity doesn't affect me, but this isn't a 360 defending post, your post is just like someone said before, sugarcoating and bs, and clearly meant to show Sony in a more positive color for no reason. They both do the same thing through different methods, and I don't consider any one method better, it's just business. Exclusives are exclusives, that's why we have different platforms. Without exclusives what would be the point? Saying Sony screwed anyone over because they paid to get Ghostbusters timed is ridiculous, that's just business, you wanted GB? Buy a PS3 or wait. Same thing with MS stuff.

Just market, just business, and saying otherwise is bs. Sony isn't doing anyone favors by "helping to create new content for gamers", they just want to make money and will do whatever it takes. Case in point: Ghostbusters.

 

I don't think MakingMusic said anything against first party efforts by either MS or Sony, such as Fable. Many of the games you listed are a good example of the "good kind" of investment MakingMusic was describing. On the other hand, the idea that Rockstar wouldn't have made DLC for GTA IV, one of the best selling games of all time, if Microsoft hadn't given them fifty million dollars, shows how naive and inconsistent the foundations of your argument are.

 

You guys are arguing all over the place, and I think it's mainly because this is an issue that is full of grey areas. Every contract is different, and every game has a slightly different development process. Plus, those of us on the sidelines have very little idea of what's in those contracts, so we can only talk about general trends. It does seem pretty clear that Sony's general strategy over the past few years has been to develop new IPs and take investment risks on companies that aren't sure bets on delivering the next big game, while Microsoft has played it more safe by spending big money on a few more obvious choices.

I'm not defending Sony here -- they've suceeded through the same strategies MS is favoring now, I'm sure. But there is a real difference between the types of investments the companies are choosing to make right now, and it is reflected in the types of games coming to each system. Sony is getting a few more unusual games which are hard to categorize, like Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls, and LittleBigPlanet, while Microsoft is getting more games that are designed to be the next big blockbuster, like Gears, Splinter Cell, Crackdown, and even Alan Wake, which looks like a really interesting spin on a tried and true formula (third person shooter/survival horror).

Saying there's no difference between giving money to a company with no funding and no reputation, and giving money to a public company with several games already in the pipeline and an established reputation for excellence, is basically saying that venture capital investing and all of modern capitalism doesn't make any sense. The funny thing is, if people weren't willing to take investment risks on small companies, Microsoft itself wouldn't exist (in addition to pretty much everything else in the tech sector) and no one would be having this argument. Weird.

 

 

 



 

kitler53 on 30 January 2010
sethnintendo said:
makingmusic476 said:
Legend11 said:
Maybe the Sony exec is right. Microsoft should buy studios like Sony does and ensure the games never go onto another console. With the billions that Microsoft is making in profit they could easily do just that and then we could listen to that exec praise them.

I would like it if they did this.  It only spurs competition, and considering first party titles are often loss leaders to a degree (ie, software designed to show off technology and sell systems moreso than just sell), we could see some amazing games coming form the Microsoft camp.  Just look at what Gears has become with Microsoft's involvement.

We likely wouldn't have Killzone if it weren't for Halo, much like we wouldn't have Forza if it weren't for Gran Turismo.  Competition between the big three leads to some of the best games each gen, from Super Mario, Super Smash Bros., and the Legend of Zelda to Halo, Fable, and Forza to Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, and God of War.

Maybe you should recheck Nintendo on this statement.   Nintendo doesn't make loss leaders they make sellers...

not really true.  oh sure, nintendo sells a ton of software with wii fit, wii sports, ect.  but they still make loss lead games.  i don't think nintendo has any expectation that sin&punishment 2 is going to sell 20M units but they still made it.  same with fire emblem.  ...and it's worth nintendo's time because even if they only break even on these games, it ensures a wide audience of gamers can enjoy their system.



txrattlesnake on 30 January 2010

It does make MS look kind of foolish when they announce exclusives and then a short while after the game releases it turns out to not be exclusive.