Support NeoGAF

[vaibhavpisal]

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.

Any examples on this, like, a franchise grew simply cause it was exclusive and general public outside forum warriors played it cause of exclusivity??

I can give you some examples of the opposite: GTA, Monster Hunter, Persona, Yakuza all grew after they gave up on exclusivity. Plenty more.

Final Fantasy on the other hand ….

 

[Hudo]

Both usually suck.

 

[NEbeast]

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....

 

[TGO]

GTA, Monster Hunter, Persona, Yakuza all grew after they gave up on exclusivity. Plenty more.

None of those titles grew bigger then what they were before being multiplatform
And still sold more on the platform they were once exclusive to.
And the majority of the biggest IP's in the industry was once exclusive to a platform and found their fame there on that platform too.
And yes Final Fantasy benefited from being Exclusive.
It's a helping hand that a IP can benefit from.
I'm not against games going multiplatform but I don't mind a Platform holder helping out with launching a game

 

[jroc74]

Didn't change my stance. I was never in favor of acquisitions the way some were.

"MS did it because of the timed exclusives!!"

Yeah....well....be careful what your wish for...

It's becoming clear timed exclusives is the better alternative. Maybe Hi Fi Rush coulda been timed for MS or Sony, they keep getting funding that way and wouldn't be closed down.

 

[Perrott]

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.

Is it though? A big chunk of the development expenses on Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth and Forspoken were covered by the timed exclusivity money, and the marketing was also heavily subsidized by their deal with Sony. If anything, those games had it relatively easy - more than most AAAs out there - to turn a profit.

What was killing Square Enix was their portfolio of A and AA games, most of which either had a mediocre quality or worse, were absolute sales flops or, well, both. For each Octopath Traveller (million seller with great scores), there were several other underwhelming releases, in one way or another.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

None of those titles grew bigger then what they were before being multiplatform

This is very easily verifiable. I will choose Monster Hunter cause its sales data is easily available.

Its not just about a few million extra sales.(2-3 million).

Multiplatform success also means you understand different markets and can make games that have a much more universal appeal.

No developer worth its salt would want to limit itself to a single platform. They all know how to make good games and sell well regardless of platform, country etc.

 

[cireza]

Timed exclusivity sucks and is bad for the consumer. This was already demonstrated tons of times. Third parties should fight to gain market share against other third parties by releasing quality products, not by having said products paid upfront by console manufacturers or whatever gaming platforms.

Studios closing suck and this is unrelated to timed exclusives.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

At least for Sony, their recent timed exclusives are co-developed or co-financed. Stellar Blade was originally a smaller AA project before Sony partnered up and FF7 remakes are heavily financed by Sony. But yeah, it is quite apparent "timed exclusives" are not going to be a thing going forward given recent financials

 

[tmlDan]

No, this'll force studios to make better games, ultimately sales matter more than your fake circle jerk from inside your industry. Publishing funds from the likes from Sony have been largely positive, from making Stellar Blade bigger, to financing the India hero project, China hero project and now Africa, nobody else is investing like they do.

 

[TGO]

This is very easily verifiable. I will choose Monster Hunter cause its sales data is easily available.

Its not just about a few million extra sales.(2-3 million).

Multiplatform success also means you understand different markets and can make games that have a much more universal appeal.

No developer worth its salt would want to limit itself to a single platform. They all know how to make good games and sell well regardless of platform, country etc.

You talking about a IP that was on PS2 and went exclusive to a Nintendo for over a decade.
You're showing me sells of a IP returning to where it'll actually sells
This wasn't a surprise to no one.

 

[nemiroff]

Exclusivity and proprietary hardware are so fucking stupid, at least if you're on the consumer side of things. I can't wait for this shit to end, and luckily it seems like we're getting closer.

 

[Quixz]

Doesn't matter since COD is coming to GAMEPASS!

 

[SmokedMeat]

The only company you’re safe with is Nintendo - and they’re not buying.

So indie is the way to go. If you’re good, you’ll find a publisher.

 

[64bitmodels]

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.

That sounds like a catch 22
Small platform needs exclusives to grow bigger, but exclusives deals for the smallest platform is a negative...?

Either way, I've been against acquisitions since those leaks showed MS making attemps to acquire Nintendo and Valve as well as buy Sony out of the industry. Maybe other companies can get 1 studio, but Microsoft shouldn't have anything because Phil is a megalomaniac

 

[64bitmodels]

No, this'll force studios to make better games, ultimately sales matter more than your fake circle jerk from inside your industry. Publishing funds from the likes from Sony have been largely positive, from making Stellar Blade bigger, to financing the India hero project, China hero project and now Africa, nobody else is investing like they do.

Hi-Fi Rush is literally one of the best games a developer can make what else do you expect them to do????

 

[GeoramA]

The Game Pass strategy screwed up these acquisitions for Microsoft. When you condition your fanbase to not buy games anymore, it's probably not wise to go out and buy 2 publishers.

Acquisitions are fine when they're made responsibly by companies who have good long-term plans for them.

 

[TGO]

That sounds like a catch 22
Small platform needs exclusives to grow bigger, but exclusives deals for the smallest platform is a negative...?

Either way, I've been against acquisitions since those leaks showed MS making attemps to acquire Nintendo and Valve as well as buy Sony out of the industry. Maybe other companies can get 1 studio, but Microsoft shouldn't have anything because Phil is a megalomaniac

Exclusivity and buying out a whole publisher with multiple studios is another thing.
And like I said before, for the smallest platform to get exclusives they would have to pay a premium for compensation, which they do or don't...
And if you don't pay a premium...you get the PS3 era of games going multiplatform.

 

[tmlDan]

Hi-Fi Rush is literally one of the best games a developer can make what else do you expect them to do????

If you're owned by a big publisher, which zenimax also is, you should consider how many copies your game will sell as well as the "idea". Neil Druckmann said this as well, he said we have to consider making a product for a large number of people that appeals to the masses not just their ideas because SALES MATTER, not awards.

Creativity gets you to a point and you can make a good game but when you're making salaries as high as these people you have to deliver a good selling game, especially when your game is like $30 or w/e Hi-Fi sold for. It was a niche game no matter how you try to spin it, if they want to make a game like that try indie development with lower pay.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

You talking about a IP that was on PS2 and went exclusive to a Nintendo for over a decade.
You're showing me sells of a IP returning to where it'll actually sells
This wasn't a surprise to no one.

I am glad we could agree on this. Its selling much better after its going multiplatform.

 

[diffusionx]

If you're owned by a big publisher, which zenimax also is, you should consider how many copies your game will sell as well as the "idea". Neil Druckmann said this as well, he said we have to consider making a product for a large number of people that appeals to the masses not just their ideas because SALES MATTER, not awards.

Creativity gets you to a point and you can make a good game but when you're making salaries as high as these people you have to deliver a good selling game, especially when your game is like $30 or w/e Hi-Fi sold for. It was a niche game no matter how you try to spin it, if they want to make a game like that try indie development with lower pay.

It's absolutely true that sales matter, but two things. One is that MS has kneecapped the sales potential of their games deliberately. Two is that the existence of a publisher should allow for devs to get some slack when the circumstances merit. Like, ok, Redfall was a total disaster - but it was also a game that Arkane did not want to make and was not good at making. Hi-Fi Rush may not have been a massive hit but it was the sort of "prestige" game that MS has been very much lacking in, largely because of the failures of studios like 343 to deliver despite getting basically a blank check and unlimited resources. In both of these cases, you could look at it straight from an income statement perspective or say, hey, with Arkane there are mitigating factors here and with Tango they gave us something we needed badly.

It's obvious that MS felt that they just didn't deliver but couldn't deliver, but it's fair to ask if they are wrong, considering how they've been wrong on basically everything else.

 

[bender]

You talking about a IP that was on PS2 and went exclusive to a Nintendo for over a decade.
You're showing me sells of a IP returning to where it'll actually sells
This wasn't a surprise to no one.

Just an aside: Monster Hunter is a bit of a unique case to study given how important it being portable is to some regions and how long it took other regions to warm up to it.

 

[tmlDan]

It's absolutely true that sales matter, but two things. One is that MS has kneecapped the sales potential of their games deliberately. Two is that the existence of a publisher should allow for devs to get some slack when the circumstances merit. Like, ok, Redfall was a total disaster - but it was also a game that Arkane did not want to make and was not good at making. Hi-Fi Rush may not have been a massive hit but it was the sort of "prestige" game that MS has been very much lacking in, largely because of the failures of studios like 343 to deliver despite getting basically a blank check and unlimited resources. In both of these cases, you could look at it straight from an income statement perspective or say, hey, with Arkane there are mitigating factors here and with Tango they gave us something we needed badly.

It's obvious that MS felt that they just didn't deliver but couldn't deliver, but it's fair to ask if they are wrong, considering how they've been wrong on basically everything else.

I completely agree with you, I'm not saying otherwise. But i don't like this "They awards and got good reviews" sentiment that is out there. I completely agree that MS fumbled this and made it worse for them and should take on the majority of the blame not seeing the potential of the studio.

 

[TGO]

I am glad we could agree on this. Its selling much better after its going multiplatform.

For different reasons then you suggested sure.
You can have your win

 

[Shut0wen]

A majority of all gaming acquisitions are a stepping stone away from closures, look at EA for example, embrazer to theres been 100s, acquisitions are just made to attract investors and the minute that studio makes the wrong move its bye bye time, i wouldnt be surprised if ms plans to give its IPs to other game studios to make as its far cheaper and less money involved, especially when everything has to come to gamepass, Activision deal really fucked things up, especially for the amount of time it had taken, definitely think that caught ms off guard

 

[Crayon]

A studio can go under in either scenario. The track record of the buyer has more to do with it. They're all going to close studios. How much is too much and when and why is up for interpretation.

 

[LordCBH]

I don’t really give a rip about timed exclusives. But whole publishers getting bought up just fucking sucks.

 

[Warablo]

Never really had a problem with timed exclusivity until it started stretching more than year plus.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

They were fine til Booty touched them with his stink finger.

 

[Woopah]

There is good timed exclusivity and there are good acquisitions. All depends on the circumstances.

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.

That waa more down to the project not going well, rather than anything to do with timed exclusivity.

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.

I can see these being brought back one day. Another Code and Endless Ocean came back this year for example.

I guess that was a smart move given the results, but still, I think it's a pity since we've lost so much along the way. The Mario & Luigi's, the 2D Zeldas, the Etrian Odysseys, etc.

On the other hand I don't see Mario & Luigi coming back when Nintendo already has other Mario RPGs.

You talking about a IP that was on PS2 and went exclusive to a Nintendo for over a decade.
You're showing me sells of a IP returning to where it'll actually sells
This wasn't a surprise to no one.

And yet Rise on Switch and PC sold more than of any the PlayStation exclusive games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I don't think Tango's closure has to do with any of those topics

 

[TintoConCasera]

On the other hand I don't see Mario & Luigi coming back when Nintendo already has other Mario RPGs

Which ones? Paper Mario? Those are barely RPGs nowadays.

I'd rather get a new Mario & Luigi. Superstar and Bowser's were so good.

 

[Woopah]

Which ones? Paper Mario? Those are barely RPGs nowadays.

I'd rather get a new Mario & Luigi. Superstar and Bowser's were so good.

Well they had Super Mario RPG in November and Paper Mario TTYD is coming out this month. To me this indicates they want to do Mario RPGs again.

 

[TintoConCasera]

Well they had Super Mario RPG in November and Paper Mario TTYD is coming out this month. To me this indicates they want to do Mario RPGs again.

Well, to me all that says is that Nintendo is kinda lazy and resorting to remasters and remakes for some quick cash.

If anything I hope that a remaster of TTYD means a return to the RPG style for the series and the new titles are more like that one rather than the later ones.

 

[BadBurger]

I think Microsoft's problem was never timed console exclusivity. Post Xbox One I think they should have went full third party with their games, and Game Pass should have been modified at the launch of this generation into something that could have allowed them to move more individual unit sales while still making it more attractive than PS+.

MS's impossible pursuit of making something like Game Pass profitable (edit: in its current incarnation of including all their best product day one) while also still trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft in more traditional ways despite the very clear and obvious evidence that the market (largely) did not want what they were peddling was what doomed them.

 

[Woopah]

Well, to me all that says is that Nintendo is kinda lazy and resorting to remasters and remakes for some quick cash.

If anything I hope that a remaster of TTYD means a return to the RPG style for the series and the new titles are more like that one rather than the later ones.

Me too, I think is them testing the waters to see if their is still a demand for Mario RPGs, so crossing my fingers that TTYD does well and better than Origami King.

 

[Griffon]

Tango sold to Bethesda a long time ago because they didn't have enough cash to survive. And then Bethesda itself wasn't doing so good before selling out to MS. And then you have MS doing what MS does.

Basically Tango didn't have much of a chance to begin with. They had a good run, considering.

 

[TGO]

And yet Rise on Switch and PC sold more than of any the PlayStation exclusive games.

It's sold 14.2 Million and is available on all platforms so I don't know why you just mentioned Switch & PC
although it's only available Digitally on PS4 & Xbox One.
And It's made more then half of that before the PC release in 2022.
All you're pointing out is Monster Hunter sells on Playstation.

 

[Woopah]

It's sold 14.2 Million and is available on all platforms so I don't know why you just mentioned Switch & PC
although it's only available Digitally on PS4 & Xbox One.
And It's made more then half of that before the PC release in 2022.
All you're pointing out is Monster Hunter sells on Playstation.

Because Rise didn't come to PlayStation and Xbox until 2023. It launched as a Switch exclusive in 2021.

Rise on Switch alone had sold more than any Monster Hunter game on PS2 or PSP, before the PC version of Rise came out.

Therefore the recent success of Monster Hunter cannot just be attributed to "it came back to PlayStation". The franchise has found success by being multiplatform.

 

[TGO]

Because Rise didn't come to PlayStation and Xbox until 2023. It launched as a Switch exclusive in 2021.

Rise on Switch alone had sold more than any Monster Hunter game on PS2 or PSP, before the PC version of Rise came out.

Therefore the recent success of Monster Hunter cannot just be attributed to "it came back to PlayStation". The franchise has found success by being multiplatform.

I think it was more to do with the massive improvement to the game as it was being made with more powerful machines in mind.
Being released on PS4 is irrelevant.

 

[Woopah]

I think it was more to do with the massive improvement to the game as it was being made with more powerful machines in mind.
Being released on PS4 is irrelevant.

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[ozz ex machina]

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.

...so you like exclusives as long as it's on the platform you like?

 

[GigaBowser]

starfield did nort meet expectations

 

[TGO]

...so you like exclusives as long as it's on the platform you like?

No, it makes sense for a developer to make an exclusive deal with the market leader to promote and fund their game.
It's good for the developer and it's good for the platform and it can benefit new IP's
If the Platform holder isn't the market leader then considerable compensation is required.
That'll help the developers and the platform.
But maybe more damaging to the IP.
I understand the need for exclusives but only one comes with negativity.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Yes! it it's from company's that aren't able to manage everything.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Acquisitions of the kind Microsoft is making were ALWAYS ABSOLUTE SHIT and lead exactly to the place we find ourselves in today. Microsoft clearly don't care about making good games, or the art of having good, diverse games.

They bought Bethesda for Fallout/Elder-Scrolls/Doom. They bought Activision for CoD, Candy Crush, Wow, etc.

They do not give a flying fuck about the arthouse projects like Hi Fi Rush. So their plan all along was to do this destructive acquisition. It's very sad, because these teams likely would have never been shut down so quickly with such a short leash otherwise. Usually studios are given multiple attempts before being shutdown by their own independent publishers.

 

[ozz ex machina]

No, it makes sense for a developer to make an exclusive deal with the market leader to promote and fund their game.
It's good for the developer and it's good for the platform and it can benefit new IP's
If the Platform holder isn't the market leader then considerable compensation is required.
That'll help the developers and the platform.
But maybe more damaging to the IP.
I understand the need for exclusives but only one comes with negativity.

Apart from the consumers on the more niche platforms missing out?

 

[TGO]

Apart from the consumers on the more niche platforms missing out?

We're taking about the industry, developers and platforms, not consumers.
Releasing a game that sells 70% on one platform and 10% & 20% on the others Vs one platform that you sells the majority on plus big pay check and marketing is more preferable.
I understand people will be disappointed but the majority of people who are vocal say they own all consoles anyway.

 

[elmos-acc]

I've always thought that timed exclusives are pretty terrible from a business perspective, I think that big publishers should ideally have more faith that gamers on multiple platforms want to buy a copy, and for platform holders it might be a waste of money. When it comes to indie games, they are reasonable - I respect Microsoft and Sony for funding games like Cuphead and Stray.

For acquisitions, a single studio is going to need a publisher anyway for whatever project they are working on, so might as well be bought to become an in-house studio. Studios rarely own their IPs, they usually stay in the publishers hands. Remedy is free to work with MS, Epic, 505, or whoever wants to fund their next project.

Buying entire publishers is terrible for the industry. It removes competition and changes the industry dynamics for the worse without adding any value to gamers or the developers, just to shareholders.

 

[ozz ex machina]

We're taking about the industry, developers and platforms, not consumers.
Releasing a game that sells 70% on one platform and 10% & 20% on the others Vs one platform that you sells the majority on plus big pay check and marketing is more preferable.
I understand people will be disappointed but the majority of people who are vocal say they own all consoles anyway.

I do own all platforms but I remember when I was a kid and this was my passion and my parents could only budget for a single console. It was shit missing out on things. These days kids expect xplay, multiplatform options etc. Any kind of exclusivity is shit, anti-consumer and is not worth it beyond sony themselves benefitting. It doesn't help the industry at large at all.