There's one overlooked reason for why they may make sense (beyond just pushing the stronger system to its limits), and that's the difference in platform holder policies. It may not make sense to not get them running on both if it's JUST a matter of slightly less power, but if Microsoft wants to charge for your patches and makes you go through a long wait? When it's a game that's supposed to be constantly updated with new content? And Microsoft simply WILL NOT let you give that content for free? Suddenly, yeah, it's makes a whole lot of fucking sense to go PS4 IF Sony gives you those freedoms you want, and if they don't then PC is still a great option.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is exclusivity really a good idea next gen?
- Thread starter Jea Song
- Start date
This is true.
For example, Microsofts unwillingness to allow self publishing, or their reluctance to let games bypass the XBL servers. This isn't as big a factor as the varying architecture of the various platforms were in the past, but it IS a factor, and it does sometimes influence publishing and game development.
I always thought that one day only first party games will be exclusive and it is soon the time when a game costs billions you need to rake in the money
natkingcoleslaw
Neo Member
If game development costs for AAA shoots up next gen, like it did transitioning to this gen, then yes I would bet we would be seeing a lot more exclusives this gen and publishers at this point are just betting to see who would win the console wars. This logic, to me, seems more correct this gen than in the last because game industry is in a financial crisis and most if not all publishers would want to reduce costs. Now, big publishers like EA and Activision are likely to go multiplatform, but it's the smaller ones who seem likely to go exclusive.
Totally disagree, because it is where big budget game production is most competitive. I would say its arguable that many of the best games are exclusive, because the producers are staking both their sales and console with their creation.
Alot of Microsoft published games eventually go multiplatform.. well at least for PC
Templar_Dante
Banned
If you read the tweet from Katsuhiro Harada where said "Ask MS yourself". He said THEY where the reasons Tekken Revolution isnt on 360. That he had spoken to them last year about it. I think we're going to see more of this next gen.
MS would focus only on what enthralls their target demographics rather than experiment with new ideas.
Truth is, if Sony regains the market share they held in the PS2 days (very unlikely it would be such a landslide victory for them), you can expect console exclusives again. Way I see it,
Multiplat.
If they weighed in selling
500 000 units on Xbone (of a genre like beat em up) that isnt as popular as FPS.
and 1.5Million units on PS4.
If a dev went exclusive and kept whoring out the notions its exclusive to a specific platform, maybe it would sell more.
Total assumption on my part.
MS would focus only on what enthralls their target demographics rather than experiment with new ideas.
Truth is, if Sony regains the market share they held in the PS2 days (very unlikely it would be such a landslide victory for them), you can expect console exclusives again. Way I see it,
Multiplat.
If they weighed in selling
500 000 units on Xbone (of a genre like beat em up) that isnt as popular as FPS.
and 1.5Million units on PS4.
If a dev went exclusive and kept whoring out the notions its exclusive to a specific platform, maybe it would sell more.
Total assumption on my part.
Mikey Jr.
Member
The thing is that its 360 exclusive as well, so no PS3.
Thats a LOT of lost sales. MS must have paid out the ass for it for no PS3. No PS4 I understand. But no PS3?
Yeah, and it's also a reason why I suspect Elder Scrolls Online going full multiplatform may be a bad idea. If Microsoft lets their players play with PS4/PC people then great, but if not then you have a portion walled off from the rest, and if they demand it be the same on PS4 or they can't release on X1 then it's actively a terrible idea to release on X1 at all. Given that similar happens all the time with DLC it really may be a good idea to go PS4/PC if the userbase gets lopsided and Microsoft doesn't budge.
In addition it really may not be practical for some developers, the 360 is irrelevant in Japan for example so for any game that's banking mainly on Japanese sales with western ones as extra (Ni no Kuni, Tales games) it's arguably a waste of effort anyway, especially when you factor in the different sizes of optical media, Ni no Kuni would've been a pain to get on 360 as a result I'm sure.
Nevermind if one or the other outright rejects your game, though I would say that's absolutely anti-consumer on the platform holder's part. And I suppose in any case the "but what about PC?" argument will hold.
No, third party exclusives make alot of sense both for developers and gamers.
Platform holders are more willing to take risks to create unique experiences exclusive to their box, especially if you are a proven development team. As seen last generation publishers like EA and Activision are less and less willing to try new things, while Microsoft in particular seems to be willing to try new things and not make a grab for IP rights.
We take them for granted now but would Mass Effect (a big budget scifi WRPG) or Gears of War (an untested gameplay style) have found publishers for their games that wouldnt have meddled in their designs?
Just look at how Mass Effect 2 and 3 changed when EA took over.
I cannot comment on Mass Effect, I didn't play it, on account of the fact that I've been boycotting EA since the early 00's. I did not realize the first game was published by EA though, so I might check it out.
Anyhow, I agree that it makes sense for platform holders, ie, first or second parties, to make system exclusives. I'm referring to third parties in this case, for them it simply doesn't make sense.
Incidentally, just to make certain we've got our definitions right.
- First party = Platform holder, or platform holder owned studio.
- Second party = Independent development studio, but published by a platform holder.
- Third party = both developer and publisher are independent of the platform holder.
This is correct, right?
Oh I guess I misinterpreted the topic if that is what definition we're using-- i dont think second party is actually a term used in the industry.
I dont see too many actual third party publisher exclusives these days and when I do I usually assume theyre just timed (aka moneyhat)
Just a reminder of the games that Ps4 & Xbox 1 will have.
Third party games shared by both are at the bottom and exclusives are on the top.
Source : http://www.gamekult.com/actu/e3-2013-ps4-vs-xbox-one-le-recap-des-jeux-A109890.html
Third party games shared by both are at the bottom and exclusives are on the top.
Source : http://www.gamekult.com/actu/e3-2013-ps4-vs-xbox-one-le-recap-des-jeux-A109890.html
I used to see the term second party used in the industry, but not much, and that was ages ago. I think those are mostly lumped in with 1st party, for some reason.
I have no idea why there were still so many exclusives in the PS2/Xbox/GCN era. Developing for only PS2 made sense moneywise, and Xbox powerwise I guess, but GC was a bit weird. And I say that as someone that loves my fucking GameCube.
Probably why half the GC exclusives from third parties were eventually on PS2.
Probably why half the GC exclusives from third parties were eventually on PS2.
Arc Christelle
Member
EXCLUSITIVITY IS A GOOD IDEA EVERY GEN. IT'S ONE OF THE MAIN MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS FOR JUSTIFYING YOUR PURCHASE IN A SEA OF OPTIONS.
Really, who questions this?
Really, who questions this?
Only Microsoft pay for third party exclusives nowadays... timed-exclusives. They just keep buying time... lol. Unfortunately, most of their exclusives are not even made in-house, except for Forza, Halo and Fable.
As for SCE, they just buy studios (12~13 now I think) worth the money (i.e Media Molecule, Guerilla Games and Sucker Punch Productions) and pay for Quantic Dream's projects ever since Heavy Rain's critical praise and financial success. Hopefully, things will get better for them after Beyond: Two Souls, may become a first party studio, same applies for Ready At Dawn.
As for Nintendo, they were born this way. lol
Exclusives are also the main appeal regarding consoles, beside the easy to get-and-use aspect and the affordable price. That's what mass market wants, which is the opposite when it comes to most Hardcore PC gamers, who want to play exclusive games on their boosted gaming PC because they hate console... lol.
And btw, exclusives are as profitable , if not more, as multiplatform games when compare their ratio of budget/returns. Beside the Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto series, most multiplatform games tend to be lackluster compared to the sales expectations.
Most, if not all the GC exclusives were from Japanese developers. Perhaps in that case it was chasing power, but on a system the Japanese actually had.
... Most of those ended up either ported to PS2 or had a PS2 version made for release.
It comes a lot closer to it when we talk about DLC. Getting a permanent exclusive for a game likely means it takes full advantage of that platform, whether it's pushing the PS4's specs to their limit or taking advantage of Microsoft's cloud features fully. In contrast DLC... it was almost certainly going to run as well as the rest of the game did on the other platform anyway, so securing that as an exclusive gets dumb and annoying in either direction, although given how much more often that was stated at the Sony press conference I do wonder how that ultimately pans out. It does seem possible that whatever Destiny/Mad Max are getting is the kind of DLC that runs afoul of Microsoft's policies, like being free DLC gradually given during a game's lifespan. If that's the case I don't mind, it's more about the platform holder's policies being more agreeable and not wasting effort contorting to the other one's policies.
Monty Mole
Member
Exlcusives also bring momentum to a platform, especially in its early years. It's one big reason why 360 was so successful, even if the exclusives dried up later on.
Also, it's not the number of exclusives, but what they are and how relevant they are to current tastes. Take Minecraft on 360 for example, that was the cleverest pick-up we've seen and the numbers have proven this. You can make as many Pixeljunk games as you like, but it won't have the same impact as a game like that.
All that aside, we would see more third party exclusives again if we got to a point where the console wars were as lop-sided as they were in the PS2 era. The amount of games that went to PS2 and not to Xbox/GCN was nothing short of incredible when looking back.
Also, it's not the number of exclusives, but what they are and how relevant they are to current tastes. Take Minecraft on 360 for example, that was the cleverest pick-up we've seen and the numbers have proven this. You can make as many Pixeljunk games as you like, but it won't have the same impact as a game like that.
All that aside, we would see more third party exclusives again if we got to a point where the console wars were as lop-sided as they were in the PS2 era. The amount of games that went to PS2 and not to Xbox/GCN was nothing short of incredible when looking back.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
timed exclusives are probably worthwhile, since they get moneybags from the platform holders and then people buy them on the 2nd platform later down the road so you're making more money in the end.
Was exclusivities a good idea the last gen already anyway?
From a business standpoint, given high costs of HD development, you can't release your game on only one system unless a constructor give enought money - and this is more costly to them too, and more risky.
I still believe, however, consumers prefers exclusives games, particularly on Nintendo platforms.
From a business standpoint, given high costs of HD development, you can't release your game on only one system unless a constructor give enought money - and this is more costly to them too, and more risky.
I still believe, however, consumers prefers exclusives games, particularly on Nintendo platforms.
Dag, Sony really needs to work on procuring some exclusives. Only like 5 on the PS4 list are truly exclusive, and one is a tech demo.
to what can be seen, they all do, depending on types of exclusivity.
As of recent years:
MS exclusives: 1st party, pays for timed exclusive DLCs, pays for timed exclusive window, strategic partnership (console bundles)
Sony exclusives: 1st party, funds for 2nd parties, pays for extra content, strategic partnership (console bundles)
Nintendo exclusives: 1st party, funds for 3rd parties, strategic partnership (console bundles)
IHaveCandy
Banned
Titanfall isn't going to remain an Xbox exclusive. It's an EA game. Their DRM pouting isn't going to make them miss out on such a large audience on PS3 or PS4.
Considering how much games are going to cost to make on next generation consoles and in light of the sheer amount of developers who went bust in the generation, it really makes sense to put your efforts into making the best game they possibly can and ensuring it releases on both/all available platforms that they consider it would sell. Apart from first party software, third party games shouldn't be limited to one console if it is at all possible for it be able to run on another machine.
Rice-Eater
Member
I think they'll be fine. The game should be a big hit on Xbone even if the console itself doesn't sell that well. It will probably be the game that every Xbone owner flocks to next Spring. Plus MS must have paid quite a bit to have the game all to themselves. I hope it comes out for PS4 eventually as that's the only next gen console I plan on getting.
The problem with MS way of securing exclusives as others have pointed out is that eventually they'll find there way to other platforms. Where as Sony keeps buying studios who can only make games for them and only them.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
exclusivity usually means kickbacks on the royalty fee for the exclusivity period, rather than straight money being paid. its a win on both sides in that case.
Monty Mole
Member
To be fair, DRM nonsense aside, as an online-focused game it makes perfect sense that they'd have chosen to go with Xbox One as history shows that Microsoft is stronger in this area. Also, money speaks volumes.
Sony have 30 in development. Furthermore it seems like Microsoft has blown their load while Sony usually announces a lit of stuff at Gamescom as well. A few console-exclusive PS4 indie titles are missing as well.
doublenagger
Banned
obviously if you make a console and help fund a game this game should be only on your console
Almost never obviously at least from a financial perspective.
Timed I dislike but can get - for example no doubt MS had to pay a pretty penny for Titanfall timed (I'm really doubtful it's anything other than timed) which was no doubt very nice for Respawn from a funding perspective during development.
In general, if a game is popular you're always leaving money on the table unless for some genre/demographic reason you believe you wouldn't sell well on a particular platform.
I look at Gears, and although MS clearly put a lot into the marketing that helped it be a huge hit, I can't help thinking that Epic ultimately left millions and millions of additional sales on the table by being exclusive.
A title like Alan Wake I'd argue almost got killed by being exclusive.
Nope - third parties really need to be multi-platform in my view if the install base is big enough of each respective platform.
Timed I dislike but can get - for example no doubt MS had to pay a pretty penny for Titanfall timed (I'm really doubtful it's anything other than timed) which was no doubt very nice for Respawn from a funding perspective during development.
In general, if a game is popular you're always leaving money on the table unless for some genre/demographic reason you believe you wouldn't sell well on a particular platform.
I look at Gears, and although MS clearly put a lot into the marketing that helped it be a huge hit, I can't help thinking that Epic ultimately left millions and millions of additional sales on the table by being exclusive.
A title like Alan Wake I'd argue almost got killed by being exclusive.
Nope - third parties really need to be multi-platform in my view if the install base is big enough of each respective platform.
Monty Mole
Member
Microsoft has said they will have more game announcements at Gamescom. And they're at TGS so that'll be a given too.
I don't think Microsoft has blown their load, but it's clear that Sony is keeping a lot still under wraps too.
AdventureRacing
Member
Absolutely, not for all games but sometimes it can work.
This.
I still think there will be a lot of Japanese exclusives like Ni No Kuni and Tales for the PS4 though.