Why does Sony let exclusives slip away?

Recommended Videos

OptimalPrime

New member
Feb 27, 2010
54
0
0
azncutthroat said:
Because exclusives arbitrarily hurt both the gamer and developer; the gamer loses by having to choose between platforms (and the rise of "fan-boyism"), and the developer loses by having potential gamers cut off from them.

The only winners are those greedy bastards running the game companies by making gamers pay to get the privilege of fucked up the ass for no good reason.
I agree it hurts gamers but idk about the devs. Rockstar got 50 million for making the episodes exclusive. Now they are coming out on the PS3, meaning they made a garunteed 50 mil, plus the revenue of $15 downlods on 360, now they make money on the PS3. Certainly not true for all cases of devs and exclusive games but seems devs get the carrot while gamers get the stick
 

soapyshooter

That Guy
Jan 19, 2010
1,571
0
0
I dont care. The only thing that pisses me off is MS throwing millions upon millions to keep games exclusives on the 360. I hate my 360, I want to play them on my PS3. It angers me that Sony just sits there and doesnt throw millions upon millions to fight back. LETS SEE SOME FUCKING COMPETITION!
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
OptimalPrime said:
GTA IV, Assassin's Creed, and LA Noire all had the chance to be PS3 exlcusives but Sony let those chances slip away. Its lucky to have so many inhouse developers or the PS3 truly would be a console with a few exclusives. If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

EDIT: By premium i mean paying a yearly subscription of say $40-70 to get earlier access to PSN content. Online play should still be free.
One quick question for you. Do you support exclusitivity? And if so, why? If not, also, why?

Personally, I think that exclusive titles are the worst thing to happen to gaming since the Unholy Trinity and Uwe Boll all came along. I just think that exclusive titles are pointless, especially when a developer makes games for one platform then screws over it's loyal fanbase by developing the next title exclusively for a different system. For an example, and one I feel strongly about, the handheld titles in the Kingdom Hearts series were made as exclusives, one for the DS and one for PSP. Many of us who have stuck with Kingdom Hearts from the start are now screwed if we don't have both consoles. I have a DS and now I'll have to either pirate Birth By Sleep, or more likely, buy a PSP for only one game.

The most common argument for exclusitivity is that it creates competition and forces developers to come up with better games to attract customers. I don't think that's true, though. There are plenty of different elements towards competition in gaming, for example, the sheer number of other developers and games (for example, how many FPSs are there, aside from the likes of Halo, Half-Life, CoD and B:BC? Plenty...). There are so many elements that exclusitivity for certain consoles does very little to affect competition in game development. As for competition with regards to consoles, there are other features that appeal, not just the games choice. I'll only buy a PS3 if I want Blu-Ray and better graphics, otherwise I'll stick with the Xbox 360. Regardless of how many games there are that I would otherwise play.

To sum up, my answer to the thread is basically, I'm glad Sony are letting exclusives slip away. I don't want to have to buy a PS3 just to play FF XIII, when I've been able to play all the others in the series on my PS2. Now if Nintendo and Microsoft can stop with exclusive titles too, then I'll be a very happy bunny indeed...
 

azncutthroat

New member
May 13, 2009
1,260
0
0
OptimalPrime said:
azncutthroat said:
Because exclusives arbitrarily hurt both the gamer and developer; the gamer loses by having to choose between platforms (and the rise of "fan-boyism"), and the developer loses by having potential gamers cut off from them.

The only winners are those greedy bastards running the game companies by making gamers pay to get the privilege of fucked up the ass for no good reason.
I agree it hurts gamers but idk about the devs. Rockstar got 50 million for making the episodes exclusive. Now they are coming out on the PS3, meaning they made a garunteed 50 mil, plus the revenue of $15 downlods on 360, now they make money on the PS3. Certainly not true for all cases of devs and exclusive games but seems devs get the carrot while gamers get the stick
True enough. They do, however, risk alienating and losing some of their base through exclusives. Although, tbh, I've never really heard of such a thing happening.

I guess it's a matter of short v. long-term gain.
 

OptimalPrime

New member
Feb 27, 2010
54
0
0
Trivun said:
One quick question for you. Do you support exclusitivity? And if so, why? If not, also, why?
I personally hate exclusives. Gamers pay alot for consoles and devs should have the common decency to release games on all platforms that can handle their game. And also exclusives do nothing but fuel fanboy wars. But the point of the thread was to see if PS3 gamers are unhappy with Sony and to see if they wanted to pay to get more.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Because...you make...less money that way. Exclusives are silly, ESPECIALLY on the PS3 (not because I hate it, but because it's still selling at a slight loss as far as I'm aware), so you let as many people buy it as possible, ergo more money. I'm against exclusives because I think games are there for everyone to play.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
OptimalPrime said:
GTA IV, Assassin's Creed, and LA Noire all had the chance to be PS3 exlcusives but Sony let those chances slip away. Its lucky to have so many inhouse developers or the PS3 truly would be a console with a few exclusives. If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

EDIT: By premium i mean paying a yearly subscription of say $40-70 to get earlier access to PSN content. Online play should still be free.
You have to look at the big picture here.

Sony is in an interesting position because they just fought a massive battle to win the HD format war, and make Blu-Ray the industry standard. This took a lot of time and money, and involved doing things like paying off Hollywood directors and such to give endorsements.

That expense, combined with manufacturing and releasing the players, has been one of the big problems with the PS-3, since the PS-3 has always been playing tug of war with the develeopment of Blu-Ray players due to shared components. Considering that a PS-3 costs less than some stand alone Blu-Ray machines they also feel they lose more money than they say by manufacturing the PS-3.

Simply put Sony decided it wanted to try and dominate the video technology front, rather than dominating the game front.

While Microsoft is branching into other things, consider that it doesn't have as many balls in the air as Sony does. Sony is pretty much THE evil 1980s Japanacorp, the one that inspired a lot of that Cyberpunk stuff. Despite public claims of their size, nobody knows all the pies Sony has it's fingers in except Sony, but even at a global level it can only operate on a world-wide scale in so many areas at once.

You also have to consider there is the whole East-West thing going on, and right now a lot of people are unhappy with an Eastern super-corp controlling the video/information storage format of the moment, and so we're seeing a much bigger push than usual to see the generation AFTER HD/Blu-Ray released in hopes of killing Sony's stranglehold before it becomes to entrenched.

Compared to that battle, the whole "exclusive titles" thing is absolutly petty despite a couple billion dollars being involved yearly. Sony could have stopped a 360 Final Fantasy XIII release if it wanted to (I believe they still hold substantial amounts of Square-Enix stock) but that isn't what they are focused on.

See, as gamers we tend to look at the console war as "the" war for Sony, but Sony isn't focused on game consoles specifically, they are an electronics company. I think the console war is a much "bigger" front for Microsoft or Nintendo as it makes up a higher proportion of their overall business than it is for Sony.

I suspect one way or another we will see another era of massive battles for "exclusive" titles, I just think other events have caused it to miss a generation. A decade or so down the road if we're all still on The Escapist we'll be listening to people who grew up with this generation of consoles screaming "Oh Noes, what is with all this exclusive games BS. Back when I used to play the overwhelming majority of games could be played on both systems".

-

While not a Sony fanboy (quite the opposite on a lot of levels), I will again say, I think Sony is one of the closet things to an actual "evil corperate empire" on Earth. Despite what their books might say publically I actually think Sony is more powerful than Microsoft (operating systems aside) by a couple of magnitudes. They have their fingers into just about everything, including their own movie and music studios. What's more if some hints are correct about what is going to happen to Microsoft due to legal wrangling and tech changes, this "era" might be their last hurrah as a major power, which is in part why I think they are trying to diversify so much and so focused (comparitively) on their console. I think the 360 means more to Microsoft right now than the PS-3 means to Sony. In the big picture Sony can afford to take a hit (more or less) on a console generation, especially if it means gaining more in the long run. If Sony manages to keep Blu Ray as the standard, and blocks it being replaced immediatly, consider all the ducks in a row that gives them... now just for consoles, but also for movies, electronic manufacturing, and music... all of which are businesses they are into. They will control both media production AND the format/hardware used for it.

Honestly, I'd really kind of like to see someone stop them. I am probably not articulating this as well as I could, but I rapidly see Sony getting into a position similar to (but differant) the one Ted Turner tried to create for himself before the goverment intervened. East Vs. West aside, I don't think anyone should be allowed to get that powerful. Arguably I think Sony is rapidly becoming worse than what Microsoft was before they got a legal/govermental sledgehammer taken to them. I think the global community as a whole should start looking at some of these corperations more closely, and Sony is one of the biggest ones to watch.

Agree or disagree, this is my opinion/observations.
 

Julianking93

New member
May 16, 2009
14,715
0
0
What are you talking about? Those games weren't exclusives to begin with (with the exception of LA Noir)

Besides, Microsoft is the one who lets their exclusives get away.

Everything that's available for 360 is either on PS3, PC or both and usually plays better on PC.
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
The Real Sandman said:
and nothing of value was lost.

Sony has enough first party developers for it to not be a huge deal, and even if it comes out on the 360, it's not like PS3 owners can't play it. It's just not that big of a deal to me.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
OptimalPrime said:
Why Does Sony Let Exclusives Slip Away
1. Why does it matter?

2. You know the most likely answer anyway: Money.

3. Even if that wasn't the answer, you think anyone on here will know the inner motivations of Sony Corp's business practices? Not likely.
 

VanityGirl

New member
Apr 29, 2009
3,472
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
OptimalPrime said:
Why Does Sony Let Exclusives Slip Away
1. Why does it matter?

2. You know the most likely answer anyway: Money.

3. Even if that wasn't the answer, you think anyone on here will know the inner motivations of Sony Corp's business practices? Not likely.
^This.

I wish I could honestly add more to what Danny said, but he pretty much hit it dead on.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
exclusives are important to game companies.. They suck for gamers maybe, but they're pivotal for the success of the industry. The rise of Multiplatform Games in the last 2 generations has been nice from a consumer standpoint, but without killer exclusives, consoles fail.

Luckily, all 3 of the consoles have their killer exclusives now, so they can just do a little maintenance. Without MGS4 and Uncharted 2.. I don't know if the PS3 would be doing too great right now.

Sony would be doing fine, but its games division would be floundering under the weight of the PS3.
 

DividedUnity

New member
Oct 19, 2009
1,849
0
0
Sony has enough exclusives. Its not like xbox has that many exclusives either considering almost every single game called xbox exclusives is available on PC. Im looking at you gears of war and you mass effect

I dont care if its exclusive or not to ps3 im gonna be buying it anyway. Unless its oblivion then im on PC