Support NeoGAF

[JJD]

Work apparently wasn't progressing as they liked and the studio was bogged down by the lawsuit with Acti. Seems that was enough to force EA's hand and seek out funding from elsewhere so they weren't completely on the hook should anything happen.

Activision offered a deal worth tens of millions to both Zampella and West, they revised their stance and paid the bonuses to former Infinity Ward devs, they even settled with EA.

They would never do that if they had a strong case.

I fail to see how EA could be so concerned with the trial that they looked for MS for help considering how everything ended. EA offered to cover up the legal costs of the lawsuit from the start, you don't do that without a pretty good idea of what you're getting into. They knew their chances of victory and they didn't care about those costs, they just wanted another 1 billion franchise.

I also doubt MS would get into a fight between the 2 biggest publishers in the industry.

Both parties settled around may 2012, two years before the game launched. There is no way the exclusivity deal was made before that. I doubt there was much of a game by then.

All we have to back up this claim is a MS funded video, saying MS saved the game. That's just too convenient IMO and why I'm skeptic.

I still believe Titanfall didn't need the exclusivity deal, and I think it hurt the IP a bit in the end.

The only exclusivity deal done right in these past months is Sunset Overdrive IMO.

 

[hal9001]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

Also another exception would be games or franchises that may have had past historic links with a certain console (e.g MGS4 exclusive)

 

[jem0208]

Bayonetta : good
Titanfall : semi good
Tomb Raider : bad
No Man's Sky : bad


Basically first post nailed it.

 

[ClayKavalier]

The problem there is that there's no way to tell, the money could be used for any number of things.

Yeah, that was my point. We'll likely never know how the exclusivity deal impacted the game, so the best you can do is hope the devs you like are doing right by their game.

 

[tanod]

Good for publishers, yes.

Good for gamers, likely no.

I see Bayonetta 2 mentioned but Nintendo contracted with Platinum directly, no. They are a developer and own the IP.

 

[3DimensionalAperture]

The bigger issue here is the outright lie that they're selling to us that either Tomb Raider or Street Fighter V are exclusives.

As someone who thinks most of the exclusives on the Xbone look horrible, that the Xbone in general seems like a giant piece of garbage (and before I get called out for being a fanboy for one side - I still have my day one launch original Xbox from 2001 and I also had a 360 early on too. Of the 10 or so consoles I've owned throughout my life, I've never had consoles break on me EXCEPT for both of these Xboxes. Fuck Microsoft), and as someone who didn't care for Tomb Raider - It's infuriating even in spite of all of this that they would tell us next gen Tomb Raider would be multiplat - and THEN tell us it's Xbox exclusive - only to THEN tell us it's a timed exclusive. THAT is the principle problem with that particular situation as far as I am concerned. If Microsoft bought the exclusive rights to that game, that would be perfectly fine for me.

SFV isn't a much better situation either by the way. For one thing, it's NOT exclusive. It's also for the PC. For another, there hasn't been any official confirmation on whether or not SFV is a timed exclusive, whether the many yearly iterations of every fucking SF game over the years will be exclusive or multiplat.

I would like to see more ACTUAL exclusives from third parties. Timed exclusives aren't anything new, but console makers never outright lied to us about timed exclusives being "exclusives" or games with simultaneous PC releases being "exclusives" until now and I think that's fucking bullshit.

 

[Elandyll]

Overall bad to very bad.

Even the excuse of "But it wouldn't get made unless XX would have stepped in" doesn't really fly most of the time (I certainly don't believe it for TR, and I even find the claim more than dubious for TF. Even the "Final Hours" video could be taken as a "we're not the bad guys here people!" propaganda from a firm that has been repeatedly voted the worst -EA- by consumers).

I much prefer when money is invested in new IPs, Studios and creating new games, rather than taking things away from players.

Bayonetta : good
Titanfall : semi good
Tomb Raider : bad
No Man's Sky : bad


Basically first post nailed it.

As far as we know NMS, being an indie and developepd by a very small team, could be just a case of priorities (developping the PS4 version first (and PC), and then going to XB1. So does not really apply here Imo.

 

[Compbros]

Yeah, that was my point. We'll likely never know how the exclusivity deal impacted the game, so the best you can do is hope the devs you like are doing right by their game.

That's a mindset that works for some and not for others for various reasons, just saying "well hopefully they'll use that money to make the game better" isn't something I agree with. But that's just me.

 

[RedSwirl]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

First reply wins again.

To add, in the past a lot of third parties, especially Japanese, would make a game exclusive either because console hardware was so exotic and specialized that games could be tailored specifically for them, or because they simply preferred working with a certain company like Sony. Third party exclusives seem to be going away because 1) different pieces of hardware are becoming less specialized and more centered around popular architectures, and 2) economics are forcing developers to hit the audiences of as many platforms as they can.

 

[Metal Goat]

good when its on the console I like.

 

[Host Samurai]

Love it. Happened all the time from NES era to the PS2 era. Have no issue at all with 3rd party exclusives. I say bring it

 

[EatMyFace]

They are neither good nor bad.

Each situation is different so we can't just make a general decision about this.

Is the developer in financial trouble? Maybe going exclusive can help them out and lower their workload in exchanged for exclusivity.

Is he developer having creative troubles? Maybe bring in a co-developer in exchange for exclusivity...etc....etc.

 

[Raist]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

Your first example isn't exactly a third party exclusive anymore, is it?

 

[Tutomos]

Ultimately it's a business decision. The feelings has to be mutual from both sides of the party for a deal to be made. If both sides are benefited from the deal then it's a good deal.

 

[ClayKavalier]

That's a mindset that works for some and not for others for various reasons, just saying "well hopefully they'll use that money to make the game better" isn't something I agree with. But that's just me.

What's the alternative? Seems like recently these deals are just timed exclusives anyway, so it's not like you'll never get to play the game.

Unless there's some game that's the one and only you want to play for a long time becomes exclusive, I don't see the benefit of assuming the devs are just pocketing the money.

Ultimately it's a business decision. The feelings has to be mutual from both sides of the party for a deal to be made. If both sides are benefited from the deal then it's a good deal.

Exactly, if you trust the dev I think you have to assume the best.

If you don't trust the developer to use the money to better their game, it's hard to believe you care about the game anyway. For example, if the next Assassin's Creed turned out to be exclusive to one of the consoles I'd buy that they did it for purely financial reason, but since I wouldn't care about missing it wouldn't change my opinion of exclusive deals in general.

 

[Always-honest]

Good.
If it's a good game......

 

[LiquidSolid]

Your first example isn't exactly a third party exclusive anymore, is it?

Sega still own Bayonetta, so yes, it is.

Similarly, Microsoft funded and published Dead Rising 3, even though Capcom still owns the franchise and studio.

 

[PeskyToaster]

I didn't like the TR exclusivity because of the way MS seemed to obfuscate the exclusivity. It was a couple days were it flipped from full to timed and back. Cut that shit right out.

I don't know enough about the Street Fighter deal but the TF one really rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Eusis]

I didn't like the TR exclusivity because of the way MS seemed to obfuscate the exclusivity. It was a couple days were it flipped from full to timed and back. Cut that shit right out.

I don't know enough about the Street Fighter deal but the TF one really rubbed me the wrong way.

Yeah, the fact TR2 wasn't immediately advertised as an exclusive is a key reason what it sucked so much I think. SF was very upfront, though admittedly having a PS4 doesn't exactly leave me out in the dark so I'm not speaking from an unbiased stance. Although, it DOES help in general to be able to hit stronger hardware rather than being tied down to weaker, but being PC/PS4 helps there anyway as I'm sure a PC/XB1 would be way easier to swallow.

 

[Ronin]

So what does this make all of the exclusives that happened on PS2? Are they good or bad? I need help figuring this out!

Seriously, when did this become a thing? Unless all of you guys are new to console gaming, I'm just not sure why I should get worked up either way.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

First post gets it. Also, I would add, it's not a bad idea if you are making a game for a system that takes advantage of that system's unique features in such a way where you would have to compromise your vision to make it on other hardware as well.

 

[Snakeyes]

So what does this make all of the exclusives that happened on PS2? Are they good or bad? I need help figuring this out!

Seriously, when did this become a thing? Unless all of you guys are new to console gaming, I'm just not sure why I should get worked up either way.

PS2 exclusives made sense because all the other consoles were a non-factor.

 

[MrCookiepants]

So what does this make all of the exclusives that happened on PS2? Are they good or bad? I need help figuring this out!

Seriously, when did this become a thing? Unless all of you guys are new to console gaming, I'm just not sure why I should get worked up either way.

Nobody cared back then because PS2 was the only console that mattered.

But I don't think Xbone owners should be too upset over Street Fighter. The Super version will definitely be launching on all platforms day and date. You're just saving money on something that will be quickly obsolete.

 

[TheIdleMiner]

There was no issue with the oringal timed exclusiveness of it. The moneyhat came when they paid to keep it off PS permanently.

I don't think it was any timed exclusive. Sony outright turned them down.

 

[SonyToo!™]

Thinking back to all those niche MP games on the 360 I bought, there is also some merit to MP games especially those from Japan limiting themselves to just one platform or two just so it keeps server numbers healthy.

Other than that I generally like exclusives since it makes individual consoles interesting, however I don't like companies paying or forcing publishers to not release on competitors platforms.

Even worse is the nerfing of PC ports especially when it's 30 fps caps and lack of a FoV slider, companies like Ubisoft can eat a dick for doing that.

But I don't think Xbone owners should be too upset over Street Fighter. The Super version will definitely be launching on all platforms day and date. You're just saving money on something that will be quickly obsolete.

True Capcom will probably do a Resident Evil 3/Code Veronica and wriggle out of the deal at first chance they get

 

[sora87]

Dat first post.

 

[Hiko]

If said 3rd party game is:

Funded by console maker because it wouldn't have been made otherwise. Then it's good.

Moneyhatted by console maker to keep game that was in development for multiple consoles, off other systems. Bad, but arguably okay.

There is no "bad". This is all just business.

Who cares if, for instance, that Sony is funding Bloodborne? Would From Software just not have made any games after DS2 otherwise? Would no other publisher fund them? This is still effectively a console maker moneyhatting a game to keep it off competitor's hardware. Yet for some reason this kind of deal is seen as "good" for the industry while something like SFV moneyhat is seen as "bad" for the industry.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If I was stuck with limited choice in platforms, I can understand being annoyed or upset to a reasonable degree, but I don't see the big deal with them since they've been around since the beginning of console time. It's simply an eternal part of the business of selling a platform in the short and long term to lock up exclusives that have value.

 

[JordanN]

More exclusives please.

I'm tired of multiplats getting gimped/held back on the more powerful system. Giving developers the option to actually maximize all the power of one platform benefits me.

 

[Caayn]

Such bullshit. You just want it to be exclusive to your console of choice. If "running to perfection" were an issue you'd be looking at an Arcade or PC version. Just so funny how mad people were over the TR thing but this is ok. But i am not surprised in the least though.

I agree with this post.

I giggle everytime I see someone post "I want X to be exclusive to console Y so that it isn't limited by console Z". The gaps in that logic are bigger than those in swiss cheese.

More exclusives please.

I'm tired of multiplats getting gimped/held back on the more powerful system. Giving developers the option to actually maximize all the power of one platform benefits me.

So you're all for PC exclusives?

 

[xxracerxx]

Yes, so to sum up. MS bad, Sony good.

Oh come on.

 

[abadguy]

Good. Keeps things interesting and a reason for multiple consoles and stops the various corporations from getting complacent. If you want the game buy the console, if you don't then tough.

Not really. It's on PC.

Yes, so to sum up. MS bad, Sony good.

So it would seem. I guess third party exclusives aren't "bad for gamers" now.

 

[CmdBash]

It's okay unless its microsoft, then its bad, very very bad.

 

[xxracerxx]

It's okay unless its microsoft, then its bad, very very bad.

 

[Chris1]

I remember a thread on it here, can only find the UK sale source using google
Maybe im confused

Wow, I'm actually shocked lol

Even if it is only the UK, that's still very surprising. I never in a million years would have thought the 360 TF would outsell the xbone.. Holy shit.

 

[JordanN]

So you're all for PC exclusives?

Yeah.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Good every single time its good

 

[III-V]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

Yup, nice one.

 

[foltzie1]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

First post and six pages later.

I'll only add, that if a publisher accepts the $ that is up to them, but I would like to know if $s really work out, or if its just a choice that allows them to mitigate risk.

 

[stn]

Horrible. Should be limited to first-party games only. Then again, I think the gaming industry has adopted many horrible practices as it is (on-disc DLC, pre-order incentives, releasing unfinished games and patching them later, and now this).

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Wow, I'm actually shocked lol

Even if it is only the UK, that's still very surprising. I never in a million years would have thought the 360 TF would outsell the xbone.. Holy shit.

It didn't.

 

[Gambit 1138]

While I don't like the practice, I have to agree with the logic. I'm reminded of the games during the SNES/Genesis era, where they would have the same games in name (Aladdin, Sparkster, hell, even Contra and Castlevania) but they were programmed to take advantage of each system.

I'm totally for that, so you don't rob the fanbase. This whole "parity" and forcing one to fit all is a bit ridiculous.

Yea Aladdin and Contra/Hard Corps are perfect examples. Plus it created more variety in video gaming as a whole. Much better than the generic yearly COD and Assassins Creed that's the same game on every platform under the sun.

 

[sangreal]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

Bayonetta is not a 3rd party exclusive -- it is published by Nintendo -- and has nothing to do with this thread.

Every 3rd party exclusive in history is the latter, from Bioshock, GTA: San Andreas, to TR2 or SFV regardless of however much help the console maker provides developers (which is always the claim)

I don't see anything wrong with it. If anything, the outrage regarding TR is the outlier

 

[EatMyFace]

Co-developing is good.
Flat-out paying money to keep the game from coming to another platform is a dick move.

 

[The Llama]

I don't really care either way, to be honest. If a game becomes exclusive to a console I don't own, it's just $60 saved to spend on something else I probably wouldn't otherwise play.

 

[bobbytkc]

Generally good for a specific platform, but bad for the the community overall.

Unless it is like a bayonetta 2 situation.

 

[bobbytkc]

bought the exclusive rights to that game, that would be perfectly fine for me.

SFV isn't a much better situation either by the way. For one thing, it's NOT exclusive. It's also for the PC. For another, there hasn't been any official confirmation on whether or not SFV is a timed exclusive, whether the many yearly iterations of every fucking SF game over the years will be exclusive or multiplat.

The announcement clearly says it is exclusive on consoles. Your interpretation on the term this is not relevant tbh. We know what they meant.

 

[J-Man]

In my opinion:

Funding games that otherwise wouldn't be made (e.g. Bayonetta 2) = good

Paying publishers to not release their game on other consoles (e.g. TR 2) = bad

Pretty much how I feel, but I guess I'll throw in a third option: publishers choosing to put a game on one platform on their own accord is fine.

I doubt we'll see much of this as the two consoles are similarly designed and are both selling well enough to warrant ports, but during the PS2 days most of its consoles exclusives were due to publishers/developers choosing to design for the PS2 and then not feeling the need to put money into developing potentially difficult ports.

Platform holders paying for games not to be on the others guys box does nothing to add anything for video gaming. Take that money and invest in new games, and they you can point to both the multi-platform game AND the newly created exclusive as reasons to own the console, especially if the multi-platform game has a marketing agreement in place.

If a game is truly exclusive to one platform, then I just hope they design the game directly to the architecture of the system the game goes on. Multi-platform games have to develop to a baseline across both systems, where an exclusive title can take full advantage of one platform. Which is why timed exclusivity especially sucks, because then you can't even get the good part of a game being exclusive.

I do think the recent hate for third party exclusives is getting out of hand when 1st party funded/published 3rd party developed games are being targeted: Sunset Overdrive and Bloodborne would not exist without the backing of a publisher, and if the publisher is a hardware manufacturer, then those games are still considered 1st party titles.

 

[Portugeezer]

For successful franchises it's bad, I am not a fan of it. For struggling or niche franchises it is good, like Bayo 2.

 

[Idempotent Button]

I have absolutely no problem with first or third party exclusives, because they motivate people to buy the hardware. For example, I finally bought a PS4 today purely so I can pick up the exclusives.

What I do have a problem with is exclusive content for multi-platform titles. If I pay a certain amount of money for content on platform A, but on platform B that same content is more feature-rich for the same price, you're basically punishing the consumer for accidentally buying the wrong version.