Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

There is no exclusivity deal.
They simply dont have the resources to do multiple ports.
Sony helps so they automatically included in the first platform to get the game.
If MS willing to pay, they will get it too. But they dont.

The FAQ is there in the kickstarter. Clearly stated no plan for other platforms but no mention with exclusivity.
Sony is clear too with their saying "coming to playstation first"
Both are easy to undertand that the game can be released on other consoles provided they have the resources.
(Unlike RoTR exclusive | Winter 2015)

A deal to "release on PlayStation first on consoles" is an exclusivity deal, regardless of what the window may be. It doesn't rule out games being ported to other platforms at some point, but I highly doubt MS can right now go to Suzuki and say "let's do it for X1 day one as well, we'll help". The only real difference with something like Tomb Raider is the lack of clarity (even though we know what the deal is there, regardless of them being reluctant to state it). Shenmue III is in a space similar to something like No Man's Sky. Sure the devs can think about other potential platforms, but there's probably not any chance of them releasing to those platofrms day 1 regardless of what other resources they may find. This is standard practice, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't any examples of this not holding true for a deal such as this.

 

[linkent]

I said you are assuming they can't get the funding when nobody has explicitly stated that.

I never assumed, I know it wouldnt get too much funding.
This game will only get the support from their own fans.
New players wont be interested in this unless there are Shenmue1+2 HD.
Thats why Sony E3 stage give the best coverage for this game.

And thats why you should read more instead of assuming everything and spread misconception.

For eg, look at the reply of this thread when someone suggest a Shenmue3 KS
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=991784

snip

snip

It is only exclusive/timed exclusive if the game is going to be ported to everything no matter what are the circumstances.
But it isnt the case here. No other platform want to spend on this game to be on their platform. Sony fund Sony get.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Wouldn't it make more sense that they have an exclusivity deal in place because there are no plans to make the game for other consoles? I mean that's generally what stretch goals are there for, to help get funding for things like that for when they cannot afford to port a game to different consoles. I mean I (and many others) are assuming that there's a console exclusivity deal in place, but you're assuming that they simply can't afford to port to other consoles. We can't be sure on what the situation really is until someone actually states it.



Like I said you are assuming they can't get the funding when nobody has explicitly stated that.

Why would there be an exclusivity deal when they don't have plans to port to other consoles yet? PSN acts a neutral ground for indie developers to place their games their irrespective of any "deals".

Since they're saying "coming to playstation first" it means they have a deal. Probably not permanent exclusivity, but that the playstation is the first console it comes for seems to be agreed on, no matter how much MS pays nows.

When Sony promoted them on their stage it is safe to say the "extra" funding Sony is giving would be the amount being ported to Playstation and the marketing towards it, not the other way around. It is clearly stated on the KS page that the entire KS money (sans the KS fees/services) would be dedicated for the game, which by default would be on the PC.

A deal to "release on PlayStation first on consoles" is an exclusivity deal, regardless of what the window may be. It doesn't rule out games being ported to other platforms at some point, but I highly doubt MS can right now go to Suzuki and say "let's do it for X1 day one as well, we'll help". The only real difference with something like Tomb Raider is the lack of clarity (even though we know what the deal is there, regardless of them being reluctant to state it). Shenmue III is in a space similar to something like No Man's Sky. Sure the devs can think about other potential platforms, but there's probably not any chance of them releasing to those platofrms day 1 regardless of what other resources they may find. This is standard practice, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't any examples of this not holding true for a deal such as this.

Did you miss the hundreds of indie titles that are on PSN as opposed to XBL? Did they have exclusivity deals in place? That's a lot of funding Sony has.... not payed for. AT ALL. Aside from a few exceptions like No Man's Sky or Guacamelee.

 

[Synth]

It is only exclusive/timed exclusive if the game is going to be ported to everything no matter what are the circumstances.
But it isnt the case here. No other platform want to spend on this game to be on their platform. Sony fund Sony get.

No, it's timed exclusive if there's a window of time where the game cannot be ported to another console. It may never actually be ported after that period, but that's irrelevant. If "timed exclusivity" had an entry in the dictionary "a deal to ensure that a game hit platform X before any other" would likely be the description for it. Do you honestly think MS can jump into this and have YS.net pull a Project Cars and change the platform it arrives on first (even by one day)? Because I certainly don't think they can.

If RoTR never comes to PS4 for whatever reason, it won't mean there was suddenly no timed exclusivity deal in place.

Did you miss the hundreds of indie titles that are on PSN as opposed to XBL? Did they have exclusivity deals in place? That's a lot of funding Sony has.... not payed for. AT ALL. Aside from a few exceptions like No Man's Sky or Guacamelee.

Some have deals, some don't. This is a case where a game does (as stated by Sony), so I'm not sure what your point here is. MS probably didn't strike a deal to only release Virtual On Force for Xbox 360, that doesn't mean they didn't strike a deal for Tales of Vesperia. The existence of one doesn't negate the other at all.

 

[otakukidd]

Why would there be an exclusivity deal when they don't have plans to port to other consoles yet? PSN acts a neutral ground for indie developers to place their games their irrespective of any "deals".





When Sony promoted them on their stage it is safe to say the "extra" funding Sony is giving would be the amount being ported to Playstation and the marketing towards it, not the other way around. It is clearly stated on the KS page that the entire KS money (sans the KS fees/services) would be dedicated for the game, which by default would be on the PC.





Did you miss the hundreds of indie titles that are on PSN as opposed to XBL? Did they have exclusivity deals in place? That's a lot of funding Sony has.... not payed for. AT ALL. Aside from a few exceptions like No Man's Sky or Guacamelee.

Also it's a very niche Japanese game. Those don't sell well at all on xbox. It could just be a business decision. Sony doenst need a exclusivity deal with the yakuza series. They get it cause it doesn't sell on xbox. Actually it doesn't sell on PlayStation either.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

For years nobody did anything, now the game is being made, everybody involved who is helping to make this happen should be commended as there are opportunity costs involved with funding and the stage time, Sony could have invested in other games and could have been promoting other games on stage, everybody who stood on the sidelines (publishers, platform holders) complaining about the current deal had their chance to make the game happen but decided to pass up on the opportunity should at least be happy that the game is finally being made.

 

[Red Blaster]

A multibillion dollar company coming on stage and telling us we can revive a beloved franchise if we the consumer kick in enough cash before anything has even been produced leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Jim nailed it there, as far as I'm concerned, and you're nuts if you don't think EA and Ubisoft and all the rest aren't planning out Kickstarter revivals of nostalgia properties right now that "we can make happen!!". In fact, the Beyond Good and Evil 2 example is a perfect choice. I would not be surprised to see that happen in the next year and a half.

so why is this a less preferable alternative to beyond good and evil 2 never fucking happening

 

[otakukidd]

I've also heard people scared of big companies doing backer exclusive dlc like preorder dlc. Don't pretty much every kickstarter game have backer exclusive content. Hell in bloodstained can't you fight iga if you backed it?

 

[Cave Johnson]

Some have deals, some don't. This is a case where a game does (as stated by Sony), so I'm not sure what your point here is. MS probably didn't strike a deal to only release Virtual On Force for Xbox 360, that doesn't mean they didn't strike a deal for Tales of Vesperia. The existence of one doesn't negate the other at all.

The only deal they have in place is to finance the PS4 version and marketing. Here's an excerpt:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141291-Sony-Will-be-Involved-in-Marketing-and-Production-for-Shenmue-3
Shibuya Productions President & CEO Cedric Biscay, Co-Producer for Shenmue 3, addressed Sony's involvement briefly in several tweets, including one that stated "Sony is providing various supports, including marketing and investment, to YSNet. However, SONY is just one of many backers of #Shenmue3." Further clarifying, Biscay wrote "SONY will not get any money from the KS, they will help to finance the PS4 version and will also help for advertisement."

That is it, that is their role. This explains why there is a PS4 in the kickstarter tier as opposed to PC only. Nothing around it stems an "exclusivity" deal or window as you claim. This is them getting a port and advertising it, just like Battlefront and just like COD BOPSIII. Once again, not a pubfund, they have other backers as the producer said.

 

[Synth]

The only deal they have in place is to finance the PS4 version and marketing. Here's an excerpt:

That is it, that is their role. This explains why there is a PS4 in the kickstarter tier as opposed to PC only. Nothing around it stems an "exclusivity" deal or window as you claim. This is them getting a port and advertising it, just like Battlefront and just like COD BOPSIII. Once again, not a pubfund, they have other backers as the producer said.

Could you have possibly picked worse examples? Both of those have timed exclusive content for PS4. It's part of the deal. you give us this, we'll give you that.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Could you have possibly picked worse examples? Both of those have timed exclusive content for PS4. It's part of the deal. you give us this, we'll give you that.

What? I don't get it.

 

[Synth]

What? I don't get it.

I've noticed.

Don't worry about it. At this point I don't think the conversation is worth having.

 

[sechsterangriff]

I've noticed.

Don't worry about it. At this point I don't think the conversation is worth having.

It is a deal indeed. Sony isn't a charity afterall. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much since this seems to be like any other deal they usually do with indies in exchange for support. Launch first on PS4 and PC, release on other platforms down the line.

Between having these deals in place and not having this help launching on PS4, it's a completely legitimate decision for developers.

 

[Synth]

It is a deal indeed. Sony isn't a charity afterall. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much since this seems to be like any other deal they usually do with indies in exchange for support. Launch first on PS4 and PC, release on other platforms down the line.

Between having these deals in place and not having this help launching on PS4, it's a completely legitimate decision for developers.

It doesn't bother me. I'm happy the kickstarter exists, own a PS4 and am a $250 tier backer. Me arguing a point on a forum doesn't mean that it bothers me or even that I think it's something negative. That's just the assumption everyone always jumps to.

 

[The Spoony Hou]

I apologize that I can't reply to everybody, but thanks to all your replies.

Ultimately, if the only way dead franchise is going to be revived with KS, then so be it.
Let the fans happy.

I'm fine with fans being happy. I just think that, if Sony is not funding the project, they are riding the hype to seem like they actually did something. Which they did in a way, and I guess Suzuki did too, so it's probably fine.

It's bizarre how Sony providing support to a project too has turned into something negative.

Because big companies show support by giving money. When Microsoft announced the Kinect, Nintendo wished them luck. Does that mean Nintendo supports the Kinect? I don't think anyone took it that far. If Sony is supporting the project it's more than "oh, we like Shenmue and wish it luck", and that's why people think it's fishy.

It makes no sense for major publisher to use Kickstarter from a financial point of view, I think. I'd have to run the numbers, but considering that you have you give up a significant portion of your take to Kickstarter (could be comparable to an interest payment) and it counts as income (so it is taxed, I believe) and there are no tax-deductible interest payments (for US publishers), you're looking at an all-in cost that is higher than just using debt financing or paying for projects with regular cash flow.

Again, this is just off the top of my head. Obviously you're not creating "debt," but these companies just refinance debt endlessly anyway so it's not like they pay it back. The quantum of capital raised will require them to continue to use regular financing sources anyway (you can't finance AssCrud with kickstarter under any circumstance, sorry).

I was thinking about this last night. Has anyone talking about the slippery slope looked into the fact that the slope is incredibly expensive? Everyone talks about how it is limited but not why publishers don't already use it (traditional financing sources are cheaper).

Now, this is interesting. Even if we don't know all the details, it might be true that KS is not a viable investment for big companies.