Terrell
Member
In light of the recent events involving Rayman Legends, combined with a nagging thought I've had, I present this to you.
3rd party publishers are getting away with murder. On-disc DLC, enforcing an anti-used game agenda and, most recently of course, canceling exclusivity and delaying a finished product despite people who may have bought a console for that "exclusive" title.
The problem is that, by punishing publishers via refusal to purchase content, you punish people who rely on this industry for their livelihood. But by buying the game, you endorse that the behavior can continue since the consumer flinched first. From a consumer's standpoint, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.
But console makers still hold all the power in this relationship, now moreso than ever. With publishers outright admitting that multiplatform releases are mandatory to their business model, they are at risk of jeopardizing 1/4 of their revenue stream if a platform holder shows them the door. In the past, 3rd parties saw themselves as "king makers" and didn't worry about spurning one console maker when there were others they could drive their consumers to. But now, in the face of the change in the market, that can be a dangerous opinion to hold.
Console makers, on the other hand, have one concern above all others: keeping their customers happy to maintain marketshare. Why should they not be allowed to defend their business against the practices of their licensees when they only work to hurt the industry as a whole? Gamers are already bitter and twisted against the industry at large, and that industry includes the console makers. The only choices console makers should be taken to task for is their own, not someone else's.
So let's use Rayman Legends as an example. Ubisoft obviously has seen Nintendo as a way to grow their revenue stream with casual titles on Wii and the original content and ports it brought to WiiU. Customers who really like Rayman and bought a WiiU because it was advertised as an exclusivehave been cheated twice, once for the lost exclusive and again for the massive delay. Why shouldn't Nintendo be able to step in and defend its consumers in this regard by issuing sanctions against Ubisoft content in the future or, as a major extreme, revoking their license agreements?
This is not without precedent. Albeit for different reasons, Nintendo and Sega both have used their licensing power to work in the interest of consumers. In that particular case, it was to prevent a market crash like in 1983, which also happened due to piss-poor 3rd party business practices (that time, it was over-saturation of poor-quality content).
Granted, by the time the 16-bit generation came about, Yamauchi was enough of a stubborn bastard to start using that power far too heavy-handedly, but that's not a reason to deny the ability to stand up for their consumers in an industry that offers the consumer options to defend against this stuff that all come with extreme consequences to themselves or others.
Platform makers are no saints, but they aren't the devil incarnate, either. No, 3rd-party publishers are too busy fighting over who gets to wear that mantle and console makers are trying not to get caught in the crossfire of backlash.
So what do you guys think about this? Would you consent to giving platform holders a little more authority over their licensee's business practices if they are harmful to their consumers and/or the industry at large? Have 3rd-parties forced our hand to relent to this situation being made a reality again?
3rd party publishers are getting away with murder. On-disc DLC, enforcing an anti-used game agenda and, most recently of course, canceling exclusivity and delaying a finished product despite people who may have bought a console for that "exclusive" title.
The problem is that, by punishing publishers via refusal to purchase content, you punish people who rely on this industry for their livelihood. But by buying the game, you endorse that the behavior can continue since the consumer flinched first. From a consumer's standpoint, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't.
But console makers still hold all the power in this relationship, now moreso than ever. With publishers outright admitting that multiplatform releases are mandatory to their business model, they are at risk of jeopardizing 1/4 of their revenue stream if a platform holder shows them the door. In the past, 3rd parties saw themselves as "king makers" and didn't worry about spurning one console maker when there were others they could drive their consumers to. But now, in the face of the change in the market, that can be a dangerous opinion to hold.
Console makers, on the other hand, have one concern above all others: keeping their customers happy to maintain marketshare. Why should they not be allowed to defend their business against the practices of their licensees when they only work to hurt the industry as a whole? Gamers are already bitter and twisted against the industry at large, and that industry includes the console makers. The only choices console makers should be taken to task for is their own, not someone else's.
So let's use Rayman Legends as an example. Ubisoft obviously has seen Nintendo as a way to grow their revenue stream with casual titles on Wii and the original content and ports it brought to WiiU. Customers who really like Rayman and bought a WiiU because it was advertised as an exclusivehave been cheated twice, once for the lost exclusive and again for the massive delay. Why shouldn't Nintendo be able to step in and defend its consumers in this regard by issuing sanctions against Ubisoft content in the future or, as a major extreme, revoking their license agreements?
This is not without precedent. Albeit for different reasons, Nintendo and Sega both have used their licensing power to work in the interest of consumers. In that particular case, it was to prevent a market crash like in 1983, which also happened due to piss-poor 3rd party business practices (that time, it was over-saturation of poor-quality content).
Granted, by the time the 16-bit generation came about, Yamauchi was enough of a stubborn bastard to start using that power far too heavy-handedly, but that's not a reason to deny the ability to stand up for their consumers in an industry that offers the consumer options to defend against this stuff that all come with extreme consequences to themselves or others.
Platform makers are no saints, but they aren't the devil incarnate, either. No, 3rd-party publishers are too busy fighting over who gets to wear that mantle and console makers are trying not to get caught in the crossfire of backlash.
So what do you guys think about this? Would you consent to giving platform holders a little more authority over their licensee's business practices if they are harmful to their consumers and/or the industry at large? Have 3rd-parties forced our hand to relent to this situation being made a reality again?
