Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Most studios struggle with financing. And with ballooning costs, the risks have also become higher. That leads studios to explore two possible options:

1. Full- or timed-exclusivity deals (so another publisher/platform holder bears most of the expenses and risks)
2. Selling the studio to a larger company or platform holder

Tango Gameworks is an interesting case as it explored both options in recent times. They first made timed exclusivity deals with PlayStation (Ghostwire Tokyo) and then got acquired by Xbox.

While timed-exclusivity may appear anti-consumer and bad, they do provide the financial cushion some studios need at the time. Tango may have been struggling, but PlayStation's deal enabled them to survive and work on multiple games simultaneously (Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush). And both PS and Xbox players eventually got access to Ghostwire Tokyo. Ironically, it was the acquisition that killed them -- which was supposed to bring them financial stability and security.

Looking back at this whole timeline, has your stance softened regarding exclusivity deals? Do you think more studios should first explore timed-exclusivity deals, instead of being acquired?

Or do you prefer studios being sold over timed-exclusivity deals?

 

[LakeOf9]

I always hated both but thought acquisitions were significantly worse, particularly when entire publishers are involved.

That stance has not been changed, and continues to solidify. Which isn’t to say timed exclusives don’t suck too. But acquisitions are way worse.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Nope. People losing jobs and studios closing have always been part of the industry buyouts or no buyouts I just think so much of this goes back to the COVID dividend. So many betting on people working and spending all their time and money inthe home and thinking that a lockdown lifestyle would be the new norm in terms of spending on entertainment.

I also don't get why you single out Tango either, but then maybe I do....

 

[MasterCornholio]

Well Sony didn't shut down Tango so there's that. I guess I would prefer Tango to still be open than closed so if an exclusivity deal is necessary for their survival then I'm fine with it.

What's true about Microsoft is that they have a ton of money. Don't think it would have been an issue for them to keep Tango afloat.

 

[marquimvfs]

The problem here is Microsoft. No more, no less. They're like EA regarding acquisitions.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Tango wasn't acquired individually. They came along for the ride with Bethesda. Also, timed exclusivity is pretty much killing Square Enix, IMO. Final Fantasy is weaker than ever. A timed exclusivity deal is always the better first option, that said.

 

[LakeOf9]

The problem here is Microsoft. No more, no less. They're like EA regarding acquisitions.

My question is, how many successful acquisitions can you actually name? Especially at this scale of entire publishers?

 

[LakeOf9]

Tango wasn't acquired individually. They came along for the ride with Bethesda. Also, timed exclusivity is pretty much killing Square Enix, IMO. Final Fantasy is weaker than ever. A timed exclusivity deal is always the better first option, that said.

Yeah but at least it’s a slow enough death where Square has the opportunity to read the trends and respond to them in time to be able to save themselves. And if they still die at least it’ll be out of a discernible cause.

Tango’s death is baffling and nonsensical to the point of being completely arbitrary. Even if both scenarios lead to the death of the developer, I know which one I’d prefer

 

[Danjin44]

At this point I dont want any of my favourite devs be owned by Sony or Microsoft, because mostly likely they are going get killed off even their games do sell decently well.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Exclusivity is not needed.

You have players invested in your system. They tend to stick around.

Buying a studio is different ballgame, cause they are your full time employees.

Not really comparable. Not to mention you can buy studio then make the game multiplatform.

So yeah, timed exclusivity is outdated. Buying studios… it depends.

 

[bender]

Ghostwire probably wasn't Tango's idea as Sony also got timed exclusivity on Deathloop and were snooping around Starfield, which if the rumors are true, is a big reason why Microsoft decided to purchase ZeniMax outright.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Nope. People losing jobs and studios closing have always been part of the industry buyouts or no buyouts I just think so much of this goes back to the COVID dividend. So many betting on people working and spending all their time and money inthe home and thinking that a lockdown lifestyle would be the new norm in terms of spending on entertainment.

But what if the additional money that comes with timed-exclusivity deals helps protect those jobs in a studio while remaining independent?

I also don't get why you single out Tango either, but then maybe I do....

Because Tango is the perfect example here. They were involved in both (timed-exclusivity deals and acquisitions).

 

[Heisenberg007]

Exclusivity is not needed.

You have players invested in your system. They tend to stick around.

Buying a studio is different ballgame, cause they are your full time employees.

Not really comparable. Not to mention you can buy studio then make the game multiplatform.

So yeah, timed exclusivity is outdated. Buying studios… it depends.

You're looking from the consumers' POV. I'm talking about from the studio POV.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

You could also say time exclusivity can kill studios too, so I'm not sure one is better than the other actually. Look at Forspoken as an example. Luminous is no more.

 

[adamsapple]

Tango was not an independent entity, their fate was never in their own hands. Bethesda consolidated and they chose to retain studios which were already developing projects and axed the ones that were about to enter the ptiching / recruitment phase. I think this kind of closure was inevitable at one time or another.

 

[bitbydeath]

Sony has plenty of studios, if anyone should acquire next it should be Nintendo.

Saying that, I don’t mind Sony’s approach of acquiring studios they already have a relationship with. Bungie shouldn’t have been purchased, that was a bad move.

Edit: I won’t bother commenting on MS, fish in a barrel that one…

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The Ghostwire deal was Bethesda, not Tango. And nope, hasn’t changed my mind on moneyhat deals at all.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

Nothing has changed for me. Timed or full exclusives are okay in my book as long as both parties agree with it and the contract is beneficial to both. Exclusives aren't bad, they've been around since the beginning of gaming and don't harm the industry.

Mass acquisition of studios or entire buyout of publishers is dumb as hell and only started with MS when they started buying out the entire industry. It's a uniquely Microsoft created problem and I'm glad people are finally seeing what I've been saying for years. MS are a cancer to gaming and bought all these studios to gobble them and starve their competition of games. I'm glad it backfired on them when they eventually gobbled up way too much than they could handle.

 

[nial]

You could also say time exclusivity can kill studios too, so I'm not sure one is better than the other actually. Look at Forspoken as an example. Luminous is no more.

It was day 1 on PC.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

You could also say time exclusivity can kill studios too, so I'm not sure one is better than the other actually. Look at Forspoken as an example. Luminous is no more.

That studio disappearing had nothing to do with timed exclusivity. The game was dogshit and would have still flopped if it released on Xbox (it launched on PS5 and PC day one). It had no appeal whatsoever. In fact, I'd say exclusivity kinda helped it gain more exposure than it would have got otherwise thanks to Sony's marketing.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Sclaebound showed that there is problems with timed exclusivity too. Platinum Games got in trouble after the cancellation and could have gone under if they had not found success with Nier Automata. Insomniac Games had a deal with EA and they got shit advice from them if I remember right.
I prefer timed exclusivity because it seems to give the studio safety and help from a publisher that have experience. But it can also fail.

 

[marquimvfs]

My question is, how many successful acquisitions can you actually name? Especially at this scale of entire publishers?

You talking game only? Because I don't think there's nothing near this scale, but I think I got were you're coming from. On small scale there's Iguana (Retro) and Monolith, by Nintendo, Naughty Dog, Guerilla and Insomniac by Sony, DMA and BMG by Take Two, among many many others.

Outside games, there's plenty of examples of BIG companies that were bought and well absorbed by the new owners, like EMC, Compaq, Gillette and so on. Microsoft as a software company have successfully incorporated several softhouses over decades (see Office creators and so on), even if they fucked up on things like Nokia, but that's their fault for mismanaging of Windows Phone OS.

Talking strictly about gaming, I think that there's more case of success than failure outside the aforementioned companies (EA/MS).

My point is that Xbox acquisitions almost never turn into something good and I hope they stop buying everything it's in their eyesight, hoping to catch up the competition.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

You're looking from the consumers' POV. I'm talking about from the studio POV.

From studio POV, getting bought tends to be a necessity sometimes. I will give you two examples:

Mimimi games: amazing developer, about as good as Tango/Arkane. Released a fantastic game, shut down studio immediately. Their next game isn’t gonna sell as much as it will cost to make. Math just isn’t working.

Double Fine: again, amazing /beloved studio. Spent 5 yrs working on a game. It is not projected to make enough to pay for next, bigger game they are planning to make. Got lucky and sold the studio to make another game. No guarantee they will make 2 more games. But atleast 1 is a given.

This is situation of industry currently. MS is buying studios now cause they are for sale. Wasn’t available previously.

 

[ahtlas7]

I dislike timed exclusion for purpose of limiting access. I understand why console makers/warriors champion the practice but limiting access has too many negative consequences for the wider gaming community so I‘m opposed to gating.

 

[SHA]

Nah, I don't think it's different than Kojima’s case.

 

[Jigsaah]

I honestly hope all exclusives become available to all capable platforms at some point in the future. Timed exclusives are ok...6 months to a year I guess is fine. If it's gonna help studios fund their future products or goes some way to appease investors so studios are less likely to be closed, I'm all for it.

 

[squarealex]

 

[Team Andromeda]

But what if the additional money that comes with timed-exclusivity deals helps protect those jobs in a studio while remaining independent?

Because Tango is the perfect example here. They were involved in both (timed-exclusivity deals and acquisitions).

Timed exclusives just means less revenuen in a lot of cases, these days and I think people are using Tango to point score myself.

All that said , I wished the ABK deal never happened.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Idc, tbh.

Everything and everyone is replaceable, so personally I'm not really bothered by closures of studios.

Edit:

Not really an answer.

I think in general, timed-exclusivity is better for the industry as a whole. It will always leave the option open for releases on other platforms, so more people get to experience the games in question.

On the other hand, if acquisition might lead to better optimized games and support on the platform they're being released on.

It's all on a case-by-case basis though. But flatout buying entire publishers is harmfull for the industry.

 

[feynoob]

You got money, you do whatever you want to. That is the nature of business.

 

[Robb]

I’m definitely on whatever side keeps the developer 3rd party. Even though I don’t like the exclusivity deals thing.

 

[Gojiira]

Most studios struggle with financing. And with ballooning costs, the risks have also become higher. That leads studios to explore two possible options:

1. Full- or timed-exclusivity deals (so another publisher/platform holder bears most of the expenses and risks)
2. Selling the studio to a larger company or platform holder

Tango Gameworks is an interesting case as it explored both options in recent times. They first made timed exclusivity deals with PlayStation (Ghostwire Tokyo) and then got acquired by Xbox.

While timed-exclusivity may appear anti-consumer and bad, they do provide the financial cushion some studios need at the time. Tango may have been struggling, but PlayStation's deal enabled them to survive and work on multiple games simultaneously (Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush). And both PS and Xbox players eventually got access to Ghostwire Tokyo. Ironically, it was the acquisition that killed them -- which was supposed to bring them financial stability and security.

Looking back at this whole timeline, has your stance softened regarding exclusivity deals? Do you think more studios should first explore timed-exclusivity deals, instead of being acquired?

Or do you prefer studios being sold over timed-exclusivity deals?

No all this has proven is partnering with Playstation is better for your studio than having any kind of deal of Xbox. Better upfront deals,better support plus Playstation handle marketing,access to better tech and support from PS Studios.

People can whine about how timed or full exclusivity deals are scummy or whatever but a lot of the time the games that result from them simply would not have been made at all without them so whats better? A game thats exclusive for a year? Or no game at all?

 

[FunkMiller]

Exclusivity is good. It promotes competition in the marketplace, which is always of benefit to consumers. It drove the video games market in past generations, and everyone was better off for it.

Acquisitions have been proved to be universally bad. Impossible to think otherwise.

 

[HL3.exe]

I'm more pissed they closed the Dishonored/Prey studio tbh. Closures in general sucks of course.

No, my position hasn't changed. Exclusives are cringe, always have been and consolidation is rarely healthy, and this has been a nice case & point.

Spending 69 billion on CoD, Candy Crush, and Diablo/WoW/overwatch. But drowning the more modest AAA project (40 mil budget) because of it. Great work guys.

 

[Skifi28]

You know, one of the things I really love about mental stances is they're subjective, which means that each individual's mental situation is really unique. There is no one size fits all when it comes to it and so I like to look at each situation different as well as the whole variety of factors that affect it when I'm faced with making a decision like that and its tradeoffs. But it all comes back to my long term commitment, both to myself as well as the posters I interact with on GAF, the devices I use to post, my internet service provider and insuring that I'm setting myself up to have the best stance possible when it comes to acquisitions.

 

[digdug2]

Timed exclusives are the way to go. That way, the end release is platform agnostic and greedy corporations don't just acquire and then subsequently disband quality studios based on knee-jerk reactions.

Obviously, I am not thrilled with this bullshit direction Microsoft is headed. Like Atari before them, they are leading the charge to another market crash. The cliff's edge is in sight to anyone with any foresight at all, but they are actively barreling toward it blindly while at full speed.

While I fully understand YOY profits are not going to be sustainable until the end of time, knee-jerk reactions based on the outcome of recent past mistakes are not helping.

 

[Aion002]

Nope. I don't think that buying studios or paying for exclusives are bad, it's just things that always happened on the game industry.

Closing studios on the other hand, that always sucks and, in my opinion, most of times, is just plain incompetence, Tango's case is extremely bad, since they only made one game (a pretty good one) under MS.

MS could at least tried to sell Tango, just like Square-Enix sold Eidos or something...

 

[Wildebeest]

IMO devs have to be really mercenary about timed exclusives. They have to work out what sort of new following, promotion, tech or capability they are getting out of it. You can't just make some sort of pet project that would not be commercially viable but would be an "inspiration" about showing your peers a better fantasy version of the game industry. A cult classic that most critics don't get is much more impressive in terms of starting a ball rolling than a slam dunk artistic "award winner". If you are in the position of making "slam dunk" games they should be everywhere to make money, and if they are just critical slam dunks that are not commercially viable, perhaps because they are long wanted sequels or nostalgic, then don't bother.

 

[near]

Let’s get some facts straight, Tango Gameworks would not have lasted as long as it did without the help of its initial acquisition by ZeniMax. They ran into financial trouble, cancelled their first project and was acquired. This was how The Evil Within was born.

There are circumstances where acquisitions are important for a companies survival, the same arguments can be made for timed exclusivity deals that provide a safety net for devs with an injection of funds from the supporting platform.

The MS acquisitions have been bad for the industry so far, clearly. Also when large development houses, who are capable of self publishing like Square Enix sign timed exclusivity deals, it is equally bad for the consumer.

There are abuse cases for both practices, but both are capable of providing avenues to the eventual production of great games. Equal necessities I’m afraid to say.

 

[Clear]

Tango got shut down because MS never wanted or valued it as a business in its own right. It was just part of the package (Zenimax) that held the things they actually wanted, Bethesda most notably.
They didn't divest it because they wanted to retain the IP, and without that its market value is relatively low; or at least not consequential enough to justify (in their minds) the expense of keeping it running while a new buyer was found.

Basically they needed to improve the numbers on their balance sheet thanks to overall disappointment in the performance of their Zenimax portfolio, and the quick fix was to axe teams/studios that were significant operational expenses but in their view were unlikely to become major revenue contributors in the short/mid-term.

This logic is what drives these closures, and why they can talk about Hi-Fi Rush overperforming and still think killing the developer is the right move.

 

[poppabk]

Tango wouldn't have existed to be shut down if they hadn't been acquired, they would have just dissapeared and never released a single game.
So using them as an example of acquisitions being bad seems kinda dumb.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You're talking about financing, Tango's closure is related to (mis)management. What studios should be figuring out now is how to reduce development costs, not where they should get even more money from.

 

[BlackTron]

What's true about Microsoft is that they have a ton of money. Don't think it would have been an issue for them to keep Tango afloat.

That would require some sort of cohesive strategy for finding success that they use their money to support until it hits critical mass.

The strategy they had was throwing money around and Gamepass. That's it. They have no management of their assets, just random flailing. A recipe for disaster.

 

[Famipan]

Being independent and taking timed exclusivity is the best.

Imagine if FromSoft didn’t have to pay the cuts to Bandai Namco…

All games stuck in contract hell is also something strucking me. Where is Elite Beat Agents and Ouendan Remastered? Nintendo doesn’t care about their IP’s although the developer Inis/Leonia would benefit from it.

 

[RoboFu]

They would have probably closed sooner if not acquired. Its not always an either or case.

 

[Topher]

Timed exclusivity sucks
Consolidation is bad for gaming

Neither of those statements have changed for me. Timed exclusivity being temporary is obviously the lesser of two evils, imo.

 

[Lunarorbit]

Never had a huge problem with timed exclusives. Maybe the only time was waiting for me1 to be brought over to ps3 after playing me2.

Honestly though as annoying as it can be it has worked out well especially for ff games.

 

[Three]

Tango got shut down because MS never wanted or valued it as a business in its own right. It was just part of the package (Zenimax) that held the things they actually wanted, Bethesda most notably.
They didn't divest it because they wanted to retain the IP, and without that its market value is relatively low; or at least not consequential enough to justify (in their minds) the expense of keeping it running while a new buyer was found.

Basically they needed to improve the numbers on their balance sheet thanks to overall disappointment in the performance of their Zenimax portfolio, and the quick fix was to axe teams/studios that were significant operational expenses but in their view were unlikely to become major revenue contributors in the short/mid-term.

This logic is what drives these closures, and why they can talk about Hi-Fi Rush overperforming and still think killing the developer is the right move.

I don't think Tango's IPs had much value. The only exception was probably Evil Within which had limited value. It wasn't divested because they wanted to promote the idea of owning a Japanese studio. That was what people were asking for at the time. Since Gamepass MS's most important metric seems to be hours played and Hifi rush probably didn't have a lot of that no matter how successful it was critically. It's sad but they value that far more than anything else.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Never thought timed exclusives were an issue. It what's helped make the 360 to be a good competitor at the start as well.

The kneejerk reaction over rise of the tomb raider was fucking stupid, btw.

 

[TGO]

Exclusivity actually helps studios and puts them in the limelight.
the only time it's a negative is if you're making the exclusive deal to the platform with the smallest userbase.
In which case that platform should pay a premium to acquire exclusivity as compensation.
The only people who don't see this are fanboys on the short end of the stick who ironically say they have all platforms
It's good for the developer & it's good for the platform.