• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Let's talk about the industry and these exclusivity deals.

BruiserBear

Banned
Oct 19, 2010
15,960
0
0
We see these threads on a regular basis about a studio closure. Almost universally the responses in such threads go something like this.

"Damn, those guys made some great games. Hope they all find new jobs".

"Feel bad for all who lost their job".

"Another one bites the dust. This industry can't sustain AAA studios anymore".



Yet the moment we hear of a deal like yesterday's Tomb Raider announcement, where a publisher/developer is taking a chunk of money for some sort of exclusivity, the responses go something like this.

"What a bunch of asshole scumbags".

"I hope their studio goes down in flames for this, to teach them a lesson".

"What a horrible idea. Those traitors!"


I just think this is a moment where some people would benefit from stepping back and looking at these situations from the perspective of a studio head, or a publisher who owns the studio. This is a hard business to succeed in. There are far more failures than successes. If someone is offering you financial security, just to make your game exclusive to their platform for 6 months, are you really going to say "Nah, that would be wrong"? No, you're gonna take that check.

Likewise, looking at Microsoft. If you're truly a fan of this industry, I'd ask you to consider this. Anyone investing in the videogame industry is helping to perpetuate the hobby you love. They're pumping money into projects that you might one day enjoy immensely. Sure, you may not have the platform a certain game is on right now, but maybe one day you will own it, and you might love that game. And ultimately that money from Microsoft helped make that project happen. Not only that, but just the money in general coming into the industry might help fund another project from that studio down the line.

My point is it's not as simple as it might seem when you hear a game is now exclusive to one platform, because of a check. There is far more to the bigger story, and you may even end up benefitting down the line from something like this, even though that doesn't seem obvious right now. Money keeps this industry afloat, and personally I welcome anyone investing their money to help make great games, on whatever platform they initially appear.
 

culafia

Member
Aug 18, 2013
561
0
0
I like exclusivity deals because it feeds the fire of competition and gives a console more personality and individuality.

Let's talk about "Let's talk about" threads. It's an annoying, pointless way to start a thread that always comes across as pseudo-intellectual.
 

Mononoke

Banned
Dec 26, 2012
20,934
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
I have no issue with exclusivity deals, as long as it's a new IP or it's a situation where the game has no money to be made, and one of the big 3 steps in to foot the bill. I have an issue with it when the game is an established series and played by many gamers across platforms, and the sequel is sniped, thus cutting off large amounts of the fan base. I think that is a scummy practice both from the Big 3, and the dev that made the decision (that they thought it was best for the series, and its fan base).

That we find this kind of thing acceptable in the gaming industry, is kind of ridiculous. Another way to put my stance on this is this:

Let's say Bioshock came out on all platforms. It's this huge success. Everyone is waiting for the sequel. If Sony turned around and made the sequel exclusive to them (thus cutting off all the gamers that played it on a different platform), I think that would be scummy. If MS had made Bioschock an exclusive new IP right out of the gate (so the first game ONLY ever came out on 360), I wouldn't be as miffed, because only 360 owners would have ever played this new IP. It's not cutting out a bunch of people that are already invested in the series. I feel exclusive sequel sniping pretty much hurts gamers overall, and that's not good for this industry.

I also feel it's pretty lazy from the big 3, to compete on this level vs. investing in new IP, or investing in their own games or improving their hardware + software. Also, in these kind of deals no one on that platform gains anything. Someone that owns an X1 was always going to get Tomb Raider. They don't gain anything by this deal. It's all for the sake of moving console units (at the expense of gamers overall, and the series overall fan base). That is why it's a shitty move.
 
Feb 17, 2012
7,912
0
680
In people's minds, it seems this money is going right into the Studio's new cars for the sole purpose of keeping a game away from PLATFORM.

I think it is best to view it as a combination of the OP, putting money into the game industry, as well as a company investing money to improve the experience and value to their customers. It's an accurate and positive way to look at things.

If Square Enix wants some help making Tomb Raider, Microsoft's investment serves the dual purpose of allowing Square Enix to invest more of their own money into not releasing TWEWY2 or FFXV, while meanwhile improving the value of the Xbox One to those who have invested in it.
 
Mar 3, 2011
39,534
18
900
Money keeps this industry afloat, and personally I welcome anyone investing their money to help make great games, on whatever platform they initially appear.

Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.
 

Nightengale

Member
Jun 12, 2013
21,443
0
500
We're on the internet, sometimes we type out with emotions or say things harsher than implied.

Especially when it's stuff like "I hope they die blahblahblah", I don't think to take such statements seriously other than a temporary fit of anger.
 
Oct 24, 2013
1,627
0
0
Is Square Enix not big enough of a company to sustain the Tomb Raider IP without Microsoft's help?

That requires us assuming they started developing the sequel without a budget to make it themselves. I dont want to think that. They took the guaranteed cash, it was a smart business move that pissed off most of their original games fans.
 
Nov 20, 2008
8,022
0
0
Houston, TX
www.twitch.tv
Do you think they're not already spending money on the inevitable PS4 release? Do you think they've been paid enough money to not only cover the lost sales but to also exceed what they would have gained in profit from just announcing it for both consoles as normal?

I think there's a lot of misguided assumptions in this OP. I don't see and clear way that the devs or publisher is winning out in this deal. They're simply being highly inconvenienced and being paid for their troubles.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Apr 25, 2009
17,350
1
0
Likewise, looking at Microsoft. If you're truly a fan of this industry, I'd ask you to consider this. Anyone investing in the videogame industry is helping to perpetuate the hobby you love. They're pumping money into projects that you might one day enjoy immensely. Sure, you may not have the platform a certain game is on right now, but maybe one day you will own it, and you might love that game. And ultimately that money from Microsoft helped make that project happen. Not only that, but just the money in general coming into the industry might help fund another project from that studio down the line..
If Microsoft loved this industry so much, why didn't they keep all these studios from collapsing or bought them when the publishers abandoned them instead of paying a multiplatform publisher like EA and SquareEnix to make their games exclusive or timed exclusives?
 
Jun 8, 2013
11,650
0
0
NYC
www.twitter.com
Is Square Enix not big enough of a company to sustain the Tomb Raider IP without Microsoft's help?

This.

This whole outrage wasn't really about Microsoft. This is a huge multi-billion dollar company acting like they need funding for a franchise that they actually have the money to fund. Are we going to start treating Square like some small indie studio now.

I know Square is in the red here and there but look at what they choose to fund side if franchises that actually make them money. FF 13 X2 and Lightning Returns did not need to exist. But yet, they needed funding from Microsoft to make TR which probably racks in more than those two combined? Seriously?

Did square at E3.. I think 2012.. Tell us that they discovered Direct X and it helps with development cost or something like that?
 

Calcium

Banned
May 15, 2013
3,416
2,169
765
I have no issue with exclusivity deals, as long as it's a new IP or it's a situation where the game has no money to be made, and one of the big 3 steps in to foot the bill. I have an issue with it when the game is an established series and played by many gamers across platformers, and the sequel is sniped, thus cutting off large amounts of the fan base. I think that is a scummy practice both from the Big 3, and the dev that made the decision (that they thought it was best for the series, and it's fan base).

If this was any other industry, people would be disgusted by this practice. I used this analogy in another thread...but imagine if people were 5 seasons deep into their favorite TV show. Then another company (that also shows their subscribers the same show), makes a deal so only their platform can show it. Suddenly the entire audience is fucked, and told to pay $400 if they want to finish the last half of this TV series they've invested in. Now they have to pay money just complete something they started.

That we find this kind of thing acceptable in the gaming industry, is kind of ridiculous.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.
 

Razlo

Member
Jun 25, 2011
1,508
2
0
NH
It was worth being annoyed when a game that was going to hit multiple systems looked like it was being blocked release on all but 1. THAT is shitty.

Now that it's revealed as just a timed exclusive, that's tolerable.
 

BruiserBear

Banned
Oct 19, 2010
15,960
0
0
Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

I think this is one of the things people assume. We do not know the financial state of Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. What we do know is that they expressed trouble that the game wasn't profitable initially, even after having sold several million copies. That just gives you an idea of how hard it is to keep these bigger projects going. All the more reason I wasn't shocked to hear they took some extra money from Microsoft.

Like I said, we don't know, but what if this Tomb Raider sequel didn't sell enough to keep things going, and Crystal Dynamics went under? It's not inconceivable at all. This money for exclusivity may have been the thing that assures they're gonna make another game. That's my point. There could be a lot more to these stories we don't understand, and ultimately more money being pumped into these studios is surely a good thing, rather than a bad thing, right?
 

Sir TapTap

Member
Jun 17, 2014
19,093
0
425
USA
sirtaptap.com
Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

Yuuuuuup. Bayonetta 2, Bloodborne and Sunset Overdrive are not nearly the same as MS paying of Squeenix, who can and does fund their own projects. Also we recently heard Tomb Raider reboot was considered successful (eventually). It's not an IP they'd abandon otherwise (if it were, what's up with Temple of Osiris?)

A more complicated situation is Titanfall, where they got a publisher that then went and got an exclusivity deal, but I still think Respawn did no wrong there, EA, maybe. Squeenix, yeah, this is dumb
 

pixlexic

Banned
Nov 10, 2012
7,468
1
0
Being a multiconsole owner I love it. Give me a reason to play all my platforms.

The thing is that weird to me is I buy all consoles just for this. I don't pick a side then complain.
 

Mistouze

user-friendly man-cashews
Nov 22, 2006
9,484
0
1,020
When those deals gets us new games and ips, great.

When those deals just ensure the competition doesn't get the sequel to a game that sold 6.5 million copies for 6 month, meh.

Scalebound, Bloodborne : fuck yes.

TR2, Ass Cred DLC : fuck meh.

I don't think it's hard to understand.
 

DoktorEvil

Banned
Dec 8, 2013
25,856
0
0
NYC, USA
Had another poster point it out to me that console exclusives have been a thing since the Atari days.

Getting upset a dev is choosing one console over another isn't fair to them. If that was the case, people would've been rioting and boycott FF7 when Squaresoft went from Nintendo to Sony.
 
Jun 8, 2013
11,650
0
0
NYC
www.twitter.com
Being a multiconsole owner I love it. Give me a reason to play all my platforms.

The thing is that weird to me is I buy all consoles just for this. I don't pick a side then complain.

I don't get this. I own all consoles but don't like this practice. If Comcast said screw everyone, we are going to pay HBO Showtime etc to only be on Comcast and Direct TV users who have paid for years are denied access to those games, because you have Comcast, that's fair?

That's ok basically?
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Apr 25, 2009
17,350
1
0
Like I said, we don't know, but what if this Tomb Raider sequel didn't sell enough to keep things going, and Crystal Dynamics went under?
Then Microsoft could scoop up a cheap good developer to increase their first party studio portfolio to take risky projects as a platform holder.

Man that sure would be fucking awesome. Alas the current scenario they have invested in content denial. Less fucking awesome.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
I think this is one of the things people assume. We do not know the financial state of Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics. What we do know is that they expressed trouble that the game wasn't profitable initially, even after having sold several million copies. That just gives you an idea of how hard it is to keep these bigger projects going. All the more reason I wasn't shocked to hear they took some extra money from Microsoft.

Like I said, we don't know, but what if this Tomb Raider sequel didn't sell enough to keep things going, and Crystal Dynamics went under? It's not inconceivable at all. This money for exclusivity may have been the thing that assures they're gonna make another game. That's my point. There could be a lot more to these stories we don't understand, and ultimately more money being pumped into these studios is surely a good thing, rather than a bad thing, right?

This is what I take out of to and am not upset over a small exclusive window to keep the series going. The game was going to be over shadowed by uncharted 4 and could easily kept it from selling well enough for a 3rd game.
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
May 14, 2013
4,965
2
635
Scotland
I imagine a lot of people coming up with scenarios where an exclusivity deal is OK. You either agree with them or you don't.

I have no issue with them, I do have a problem with things like the Sony Destiny deal and MS Fifa deal.
 

Dante Morgan

Banned
Sep 24, 2013
198
0
0
I don't see an issue with exclusivity deals when it's a completely new IP that's exclusive, or when the studio announces straight away that a game they're developing is going to be exclusive.

In Tomb Raider's case though, the first game was multiplatform, and got the majority of its sales from PS3. Logically, fans were expecting the next game to be multiplat too, but then out of the blue, SE and MS suddenly announce it's going to be on Xbox only. It's only natural fans got upset over that.

At least we now know it's a timed exclusive, so that takes the sting away a little. Even so, it's still a slap in the face for the game's fanbase.
 

Winterblink

Member
Apr 10, 2007
3,726
0
0
Canada
winterblink.com
Then Microsoft could scoop up a cheap good developer to increase their first party studio portfolio to take risky projects as a platform holder.

Man that sure would be fucking awesome. Alas the current scenario they have invested in content denial. Less fucking awesome.
It probably looks better to shareholders to invest in a platform exclusive, rather than absorb a whole organization along with whatever financial issues it might be having.
 

Mononoke

Banned
Dec 26, 2012
20,934
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Being a multiconsole owner I love it. Give me a reason to play all my platforms.

The thing is that weird to me is I buy all consoles just for this. I don't pick a side then complain.

I own all three consoles this gen, and I don't see why I should "love" an established series being made exclusive to one console. If anything, it limits my choice (the performance of the game) - all while fucking over a bunch of other people. Me and you own an X1, we were always going to have the choice to get TR on this console. How does this benefit us one bit?

I just don't understand your logic. Why would you buy consoles just for this sort of thing?

Nintendo spends money to fund Bayonetta 2 so it exists: Investing.

Microsoft spends money to cockblock other platforms: Not investing.

Pretty much sums it up. lol
 
Jun 8, 2013
11,650
0
0
NYC
www.twitter.com
I imagine a lot of people coming up with scenarios where an exclusivity deal is OK. You either agree with them or you don't.

I have no issue with them, I do have a problem with things like the Sony Destiny deal and MS Fifa deal.

How? This is an odd perspective. A Expansion pack deal doesn't affect the base game you get at the same time as everyone else. And those do not alter the game you have in front of you.

Completely holding back the base game, that you want to buy but can't play due to exclusive rights is not right, especially when the franchise is going from being available to all for years to available to one. I mean, that's basically saying you are kind of ok if Destiny was a timed exclusive to Sony for a year.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
I own all three consoles this gen, and I don't see why I should "love" an established series being made exclusive to one console. If anything, it limits my choice (the performance of the game) - all while fucking over a bunch of other people. Me and you own an X1, we were always going to have the choice to get TR on this console. How does this benefit us one bit?

I just don't understand your logic.

You mean like the PS2 era where there was 100's of exclusives that could of ran much better on the Xbox? At least this time around it is timed and probably only 6 months.
 

cwmartin

Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,191
1
0
I have no issue with exclusivity deals, as long as it's a new IP or it's a situation where the game has no money to be made, and one of the big 3 steps in to foot the bill. I have an issue with it when the game is an established series and played by many gamers across platforms, and the sequel is sniped, thus cutting off large amounts of the fan base. I think that is a scummy practice both from the Big 3, and the dev that made the decision (that they thought it was best for the series, and its fan base).

If this was any other industry, people would be disgusted by this practice. I used this analogy in another thread...but imagine if people were 5 seasons deep into their favorite TV show. Then another company (that also shows their subscribers the same show), makes a deal so only their platform can show it. Suddenly the entire audience that is 5 seasons deep into this show is fucked, and told to pay $400 if they want to finish the last half of this TV series they've invested in. Now they have to pay money just complete something they started.

That we find this kind of thing acceptable in the gaming industry, is kind of ridiculous. Another way to put my stance on this is this:

Let's say Bioshock came out on all platforms. It's this huge success. Everyone is waiting for the sequel. If Sony turned around and made the sequel exclusive to them (thus cutting off all the gamers that played it on a different platform), I think that would be scummy. If MS had made Bioschock an exclusive new IP right out of the gate (so the first game ONLY ever came out on 360), I wouldn't be as miffed, because only 360 owners would have ever played this new IP. It's not cutting out a bunch of people that are already invested in the series. I feel exclusive sequel sniping pretty much hurts gamers overall, and that's not good for this industry.

I also feel it's pretty lazy from the big 3, to compete on this level vs. investing in new IP, or investing in their own games or improving their hardware + software. Also, in these kind of deals no one on that platform gains anything. Someone that owns an X1 was always going to get Tomb Raider. They don't gain anything by this deal. It's all for the sake of moving console units (at the expense of gamers overall, and the series overall fan base). That is why it's a shitty move.


A similar practice does happen in television. Netflix has bought the rights to multiple shows that were previously on other networks, whether they were cancelled or w/e, and then showed these new episodes exclusively to their subscribers. I fail to see how that's any different, and nobody is disgusted.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
Apr 25, 2009
17,350
1
0
A similar practice does happen in television. Netflix has bought the rights to multiple shows that were previously on other networks, whether they were cancelled or w/e, and then showed these new episodes exclusively to their subscribers. I fail to see how that's any different, and nobody is disgusted.
You don't see how reviving canceled series that were not being renewed on their original network is the same as changing the platforms and/or time of release of platforms after the equivalent of a new season being announced?
 

Mononoke

Banned
Dec 26, 2012
20,934
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
A similar practice does happen in television. Netflix has bought the rights to multiple shows that were previously on other networks, whether they were cancelled or w/e, and then showed these new episodes exclusively to their subscribers. I fail to see how that's any different, and nobody is disgusted.

Yeah, but that fits my criteria of the show no longer having funding (thus it wasn't going to be made anymore). ie. see Bayonetta 2. You completely ignored the first part of my post.

To be fair though, my analogy is broken from the start. In that, networks fund the cost for TV shows, and so they are generally exclusive to that network (so in TV, it's basically equivalent to every show being a new exclusive IP invested by a network). The isn't really much of a comparison to third party multiplats with TV series (at least, not on going series). I should have just left out the analogy, in fact I'll just edit it out now.

So I appreciate you replying, because it made me realize how that analogy was borked. I still stand by the rest of what I posted though. Sequel sniping is a shit practice that hurts more people then anything else.
 

DoktorEvil

Banned
Dec 8, 2013
25,856
0
0
NYC, USA
Being a multiconsole owner I love it. Give me a reason to play all my platforms.

The thing is that weird to me is I buy all consoles just for this. I don't pick a side then complain.

Yeah... not everyone is willing to spend the money of 3 consoles to play their favorite franchises.

Good on you to brag about owning all 3 consoles though.
 
Mar 3, 2011
39,534
18
900
A similar practice does happen in television. Netflix has bought the rights to multiple shows that were previously on other networks, whether they were cancelled or w/e, and then showed these new episodes exclusively to their subscribers. I fail to see how that's any different, and nobody is disgusted.

Can you cite an example of a show that wasn't cancelled or dead? I genuinely didn't know this if true.
 

Vlade

Member
Sep 7, 2013
2,370
0
0
USA
I tend to believe it's even more complicated than that. Business is business, and we as consumers are free to judge people by their business. We should also discuss why we do or don't like things. We don't need proof either to not buy things or talk about it, but we should be realistic.

Money spent to prevent games from being made is not good, even under the assumption that it would improve the health of a certain platform and a certain publisher.

The expectation that a third party game, by it's nature, should release on all platforms is also not good. It's fanboy fuel where the assumption that a platform has value that takes priority over even the games. It's also a shame that we expect third party games shouls all be limited to only the capabilities common to all platforms.

I personally don't get the slightest bit offended that a game is exclusive, but it would piss me off if I learned that a company was employing a tactic of changing the course of projects to starve others business while helping it's own. Sure it might just be business, but I care where my games come from.
 

vcc

Member
Jun 4, 2013
1,969
1
0
Canada
There is nothing wrong with exclusives. It's just business. Lying to people about how exclusive something is, is more of an issue.
 

cwmartin

Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,191
1
0
You don't see how reviving canceled series that were not being renewed on their original network is the same as changing the platforms and/or time of release of platforms after the equivalent of a new season being announced?


Was Rise announced before exclusivity was announced? I'll admit I don't know this nuance of the situation.
 
They took a loss on TR last gen despite fantastic sales... sooooo

Nope. Not based in their production values and lower then forecasted sales for their IP's.

That is factually inaccurate.

Having achieved profitability back in 2013, Tomb Raider has exceeded profit expectations and continues to make significant contributions to our overall financial performance.

The publisher confirmed the game is on pace to sell 6 million units and will make more profit than it originally anticipated.

It was profitable before the definitive editions were even released.