This topic is so stupid when you consider there's nothing stopping first party studios from making their games on all platforms too.
Yes there is: funding.
This topic is so stupid when you consider there's nothing stopping first party studios from making their games on all platforms too.
It depends.
A small dev choosing to focus on one platform or even a larger one who simply can't get a game working on something like a mobile device or the Switch is one thing. That's a developer/ publisher choice and it should be respected.
Sony and Microsoft dick waving trying to keep games that were going to be made anyway off of each other's platforms for purely arbitrary reasons is another thing entirely and shouldn't be a thing. There's no reason why Xbox and PC players shouldn't be able to play FF VII Remake, for example.
If the console can run the game it should be on the console period.
It's been done.This topic is so stupid when you consider there's nothing stopping first party studios from making their games on all platforms too.
As far as Yakuza goes they are not on Switch probably because of Nintendo's strict guidelines regarding depictions of real life criminal organizations. I think we even had a thread on that.That doesn't explain why something like yakuza is not available on switch
The whole acquisition is definitely against the interest of consumers but now I can't expect Bethesda games to come to other platforms, it will be like expecting retro studios games come to non Nintendo platforms. The scope of the games must have increased as Bethesda can use Microsoft's money which wouldn't have been possible by staying independent. I am even okay with titles like bayonetta 2 where the development is funded by Nintendo.As far as Yakuza goes they are not on Switch probably because of Nintendo's strict guidelines regarding depictions of real life criminal organizations. I think we even had a thread on that.
Curious to know your opinion on the whole Bethesda/Zenimax situation op, considering you seen to draw the line at first party games and they were until now a multi platform developer.
Personally I don't mind timed or full exclusives. I understand why it bothers people, and that it's a reasonable complaint but business is like that. Being fair is really not part of the game unfortunately.
The whole acquisition is definitely against the interest of consumers but now I can't expect Bethesda games to come to other platforms, it will be like expecting retro studios games come to non Nintendo platforms. The scope of the games must have increased as Bethesda can use Microsoft's money which wouldn't have been possible by staying independent. I am even okay with titles like bayonetta 2 where the development is funded by Nintendo.
sometimes I wonder if people here are living in the real world like I do.
It's simple: there are finite resources to dedicate to developing games, and if you can get guaranteed money upfront it's a lot easier to justify allocating those resources.That doesn't explain why something like yakuza is not available on switch
I guess I'll just never agree with Era on this.
"Moneyhat harder, big corporation! Make sure I'm not able to play that game, because what matters in the end is that you make more money. Games are a luxury anyway!" is just not how I see things. Especially when we have the right to complain about minor inconveniences like having more than one launcher on PC.
I believe most moneyhatted exclusives are not from developers in danger of going under. We know for example SFV would have happened regardless (according to Capcom), and I really struggle to believe Doom Eternal was going to be the last Doom game.
People can cry "anti consumer" all they want as they don't play games made by companies that no longer exist.
While getting exclusive deals isn't the complete answer, it is still a better answer than going out of business, filling your game with microtransaction crap or making ubisoft games.
Shits hard.
Agreed.In the scale of "so-called anti-consumerism" - the fact that you don't own the game, but more so a license to play/share the game is multiple times more "anti-consumer" than 3rd-party exclusives.
Wait, are you seriously trying to suggest the reason first party exclusives don't release on competitor platforms is because the platform holders can't afford the development cost associated with porting, and not because they choose not to in order that their own platform may be incentivised over their competitors?
You realise Microsoft just spend $7.5 BILLION on Bethesda right? Lol.
Nintendo has no guidelines on that, people misinterpreted that they have guidelines on barring work with companies that have REAL WORLD links to criminal organizations. Which basically every Japanese company also has in their boilerplate contracts, Namco actually spearheaded this in the early 1980s with arcades circa Pac-Man after organized crime flooded the market with Taito's Space Invaders counterfeits a couple years prior.As far as Yakuza goes they are not on Switch probably because of Nintendo's strict guidelines regarding depictions of real life criminal organizations. I think we even had a thread on that.
Point of clarification; what do you define as "can run a game"? In the way that an Xbox could hypothetically run Elite from 1984, in the way that an Xbox could hypothetically run Strife (presently only on the Nintendo Switch and PC), or thirdly in the way that UE4 games can be easily compiled onto an Xbox? Because the three statements hold incredibly different implications.If the console can run the game it should be on the console period.
It's really not that simple. Supposedly globally PS4 made up over 90% of Final Fantasy XV's total sales split, at least pre-PC release (which came two years later). Hell, it was roughly an 80/20 split in favour of the PS4 in the UK, one of Xbox's strongest markets.
The game sold 8.9 million copies as of 2019, and among that will be PC sales, as well as discounted console sales.
Given Xbox's split is reported to be less than 10% of that 8.9 total, we can assume 800,000 or fewer sales were on the Xbox One, and if we average the publisher take to $30 per copy from those sales (in reality it could be less), that's $24m in revenue for just the Xbox version of the game.
$24m really isn't much, and for all we know the cost of porting it to Xbox could have been much higher than that.
Now apply these same metrics to Final Fantasy VII Remake. If Sony went to Square Enix and offered $50m for a years exclusivity, and/or offered to pay for marketing on top (which is probably a similar cost), then it simply makes all the sense for Square Enix to go with Sony's exclusity deal, and not just financial sense, but logistical and development sense too.
The benefits being:
1.) They get more money towards paying for development, potentially far more money than they'd even make from the Xbox version sales.
2.) They mitigate financial risk associated with development and also give themselves access to an immediate fund to use for development, instead of having to use internal funds that could instead be used elsewhere on other projects or as needed.
3.) They get a whole extra year of development time to put more of their team towards content creation, optimisation and polish instead of porting, thus give themselves the potential for a better end product.
4.) They get the benefit of being part of Sony's premiere tentpole marketing push and exclusive association, which historically has had strong results.
5.) They still get to release an Xbox version at a later date, thus make some additional revenue nonetheless.
The point being, it would sort of be silly for Square Enix not to accept this sort of Sony moneyhat. The Xbox market for these types of games is simply much smaller than Playstation's, and the incentives for exclusity are simply potentially too great, off-setting all potential lost sales and then some.
And ultimately the proof is in the pudding. A Remake is tracking as selling roughly in-line with a full mainline sequel, despite recieving far fewer discounts in the same time period and being exclusive to only one platform. For all intents and purposes, FFVIIR has been a massive success for Square Enix.
This kind of seems to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The publisher puts little effort into expanding its audience on other platforms so the game doesn't sell that great, which leads to the publisher putting even less effort, which results in the game not selling that great.
Square Enix has put a ton of effort into expanding the FF audience on Xbox One. The XIII trilogy and XV all went to Xbox on day one, and that represents 6 years of FFs lifespan. In addition they release 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2 and 12 on to the Xbox one since. How many FF games does SE need to put on the console to build an audience? Because for the PS4 all they needed was Type 0 HD and FFXV.This kind of seems to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The publisher puts little effort into expanding its audience on other platforms so the game doesn't sell that great, which leads to the publisher putting even less effort, which results in the game not selling that great.
This.It not anti consumer. You aren't restricted from purchasing the platform the game you want is exclusive to. You may not WANT to buy another platform just to play a game you want, but it's not anti consumer.
Firstly, it's not necessarily the publishers job to do that, rather the platform holders. It's ultimately primarily in the platform holders interest to try to expand the markets they're lacking in with further investments, exclusives, marketing and so on.
If they're willing to pay publishers for that opportunity (eg with marketing deals, exclusivity etc), the publishers would be more likely to take the financial risks to make that happen, else they're not really as likely to risk heavy investment to compensate for a platform holders weaknesses, especially when there's other platforms they already do significantly better on.
The reality is, certain types of genres are more popular with certain platforms, eg shooters and multiplayer games with Xbox, perhaps WRPG's too, especially in the 360 days, and that's not by chance. That's the audience Xbox themselves have curated with the games they've heavily invested in, the marketing and messaging they've prioritised etc.
Unless they heavily invest elsewhere, that's simply not likely to change. Sony sort of knew that out the gate, which is presumably why they looked to get exclusivity of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid in the early days, not to mention a whole host of other JRPG's. That sort of cemented their position in the Japanese market despite Nintendo essentially ruling the roost back then.
That said, Sony's sort of having a similar issue themselves these days in Japan, where the Switch's portability and library is making it the defacto system in Japanese markets, and it seems that like Microsoft, there's only so much Sony is willing to invest to counter that.
Square Enix has put a ton of effort into expanding the FF audience on Xbox One. The XIII trilogy and XV all went to Xbox on day one, and that represents 6 years of FFs lifespan. In addition they release 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2 and 12 on to the Xbox one since. How many FF games does SE need to put on the console to build an audience? Because for the PS4 all they needed was Type 0 HD and FFXV.
How would you justify for instance Epic signing an exclusivity deal with some game (for Epic Games Store exclusivity), why wouldn't that be "anti-consumer".It's crazy how in 2021 some people think that releasing a game in one platform or not is only a checkbox when compiling the project haha.
And of course don't forget the tech limitations when porting a game.
Also is not anti consumer, it's focused to a consumer segment after doing some business inteligence. Again , some people thinking that 1 bored person decides the platform target when there are a lot of analytics under this decision
But the OP will think that an Iphone is anti consumer cause it cost $1000 and a lot of people cant paid that XD
Let's not get stuck on semantics, shall we?
Words mean things.
Damn we failed already.
You don't think 6 years, an entire generation is enough to build an audience for a franchise?That's six years out of how many in total for the Final Fantasy franchise? I don't think it's a big enough sample to definitively say that Xbox users are not interested in Final Fantasy. Furthermore, moneyhatted exclusivity also affects the PC platform which does have a proven audience.
That I didn't know. Ironic ahah!Anti-consumerism is not the same as anti-consumer. They are very different things.
Here's the thing though: people aren't agreeing that anti-consumer means what the op thinks it does. I can't just come in here, call a horse a zebra and say words mean what I want.Damn we failed already.
Anti-consumerism can mean whatever it wants to mean as long people generally agree on it's meaning and can have discourse around it.
Are we doing prescriptivism/descriptivism debates now?