• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dep9000

Banned
Mar 31, 2020
5,401
Yup

Also it's an agreement between two parties.

If people shit on the giver then should also shit on the reciever
I was shitting on Sony up until a couple of weeks ago and then after Microsoft's game showcase I said fuck it. They're all doing it. I need to accept it as a part of this business. I know Phil Spencer said he didn't like it, yet Microsoft continues to do it so nothing will change. I still dislike it but whatever
 

rochellepaws

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,451
Ireland
It's weird how so many here would direct blame at Sony in this hypothetical scenario, are Sony supposed to not propose advantageous deals because it upsets the customers of a competitor?

The ire (from those affected) should be directed at Square Enix for completely disregarding a portion of their audience. Perhaps also at Microsoft for not being willing to invest in Japanese developers in the same way Sony are.
 
Last edited:

scabobbs

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,103
It's weird how so many here would direct blame at Sony in this hypothetical scenario, are Sony supposed to not propose advantageous deals because it upsets the customers of a competitor?

The ire (from those affected) should be directed at Square Enix for completely disregarding a portion of their audience.
It's not just Sony, everyone does it and it's annoying & anti-consumer regardless of who it is

the people coming at Sony are probably just mad because they had no plans on buying a ps5, which i sympathize with
 

Sanka

Banned
Feb 17, 2019
5,778
So unnecessary. Not a fan of this. But it makes sense early on were both platforms are somewhat weak on the software front.

Basically suffocating xbox by denying them games knowing that xbox's own first party games are still years off. Smart move from a business perspective. Shitty for consumers compared to true exclusives.
 

Kaloskatoa

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
352
It's not just Sony, everyone does it and it's annoying & anti-consumer regardless of who it is

the people coming at Sony are probably just mad because they had no plans on buying a ps5, which i sympathize with

I'm gonna buy a ps5 and I still feel its bullshit. When we are talking about games that wouldn't happen without sony's help like SF5, sure, there are merits in a deal like that. But a game like FF7R, that is guaranteed to sell a shitload? Its bullshit.
 

Winnie

Member
Mar 12, 2020
2,621
Imagine outrage if Elden Ring is a Xbox timed exclusive for a year. Shitty practises that doesn't bring anything for us, more than headache.
 

Minthara

Freelance Market Director
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
7,888
Montreal
I'm just not getting it. People are so keen to delineate between games like Rise of the Tomb Raider, which was going to be multiplatform and then was moneyhatted, and Street Fighter V, which got to come out sooner because of Sony's moneyhat, but then we hear that moneyhatting temporary exclusivity from multiplatform games produced by a company that makes hundreds of millions in revenue yearly is the same as moneyhatting temporary exclusivity from a dev whose first notable games a decade ago looked like this:

1gTb8Bz.jpg


WaJMNyU.png


These two things are not the same and It's deeply disingenuous to try to say it is. Cut it out, ERA.

Games (especially the marketing of games) are a massive financial risk. Any developer or publisher that's offered a bag of cash for full exclusivity, timed exclusivity, exclusive content or even just primary marketing positioning would be financially irresponsible if they did not heavily consider it.

And as big as someone like Zenimax's cash coffers are, games like Ghostwire and Deathloop (New IP) are still a massive financial risk and if a platform holder (like Sony) is willing to eat a significant chunk of that cost for 1 year exclusivity windows, it changes the profitability calculation for the entire project, which means that it's easier for a game to be profitable, since you are using someone else's money for say, marketing, instead of your own.

Game developers are a business and when projects can cost $150+ million dollars prior to marketing (which can often be another $50-$250 million depending on the project) what company honestly wouldn't want to lower their internal costs in such heavy investments? And that's leaving out other perks, like focusing on one platform, access to internal support teams that may not be there as strictly third party, etc.

All of these exclusivity deals aren't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, as game development costs increase (they increase every new gen) and game prices remain static, I'd expect to see more of these deals, not less.

Yes, it may anger some consumers, but that's a pitiful drop in the bucket considering all the "good" it does for your platform and brand.

I get it, it sucks almost every time it happens if you don't own the console, but it's still inevitable, sadly.
 
Last edited:

Iwao

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,776
Yeah but FF7R didn't. I'm talking day one PC obviously.
Sure, but that's just Square Enix development for you. They didn't port FFXV to PC for 1.5 years, and Kingdom Hearts III is still only available to current-gen consoles. I don't think Sony has a problem with a day one PC releases as far as their current PS5 deals are concerned, and I think any future deals will have the same terms.
 

rochellepaws

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,451
Ireland
It's not just Sony, everyone does it and it's annoying & anti-consumer regardless of who it is

the people coming at Sony are probably just mad because they had no plans on buying a ps5, which i sympathize with
Why is it anti-consumer? Sony's consumer is someone who bought a PS5 and they're not losing anything.

It's an anti-competitive practice.
 

PsyDec

Member
Jun 3, 2019
1,486
Sony need to fuck off with this, as if Deathloop wasn't enough. Why are they hellbent on regressing the industry?

I hope they get appropriate flak for pulling this shit.
 

RoKKeR

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,374
Sigh. I know they're both doing it but it seems especially ramped up on Sony's part right now, maybe because of the Bethesda games - that's just not something I saw coming.
 

Beef Supreme

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,073
This is bullshit. I will own both systems, but I should not be pushed into a corner to buy a game for a certain system. I usually buy the superior version.
 

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,498
Games (especially the marketing of games) are a massive financial risk. Any developer or publisher that's offered a bag of cash for full exclusivity, timed exclusivity, exclusive content or even just primary marketing positioning would be financially irresponsible if they did not heavily consider it.

And as big as someone like Zenimax's cash coffers are, games like Ghostwire and Deathloop (New IP) are still a massive financial risk and if a platform holder (like Sony) is willing to eat a significant chunk of that cost for 1 year exclusivity windows, it changes the profitably calculation for the entire project, which means that it's easier for a game to be profitable, since you are using someone else's money for say, marketing, instead of your own.

Game developers are a business and when projects can cost $150+ million dollars prior to marketing (which can often be another $50-$250 million depending on the project) what company honestly wouldn't want to lower their internal costs in such heavy investments? And that's leaving out other perks, like focusing on one platform, access to internal support teams that may not be there as strictly third party, etc.

All of these exclusivity deals aren't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, as game development costs increase (they increase every new gen) and game prices remain static, I'd expect to see more of these deals, not less.

Yes, it may anger some consumers, but that's a pitiful drop in the bucket considering all the "good" it does for your platform and brand.

I get it, it sucks almost every time it happens if you don't own the console, but it's still inevitable, sadly.

Someone gets it. I like you. Not that Final Fantasy is a financial risk for Square Enix as it's their bread and butter, but what you're saying is true. It's no coincidence that a lot of the games this is happening with so far are new IP.
 

Minthara

Freelance Market Director
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
7,888
Montreal
because their first party isn't ready. They did this at the beginning of the PS4 generation too (mostly with big name Indies).

From what I know, this has nothing to do with their first party, because they are more than ready on that front.

It's about securing the numbers they need in order to sell another 100 million consoles.
 

Stoopkid

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,366
For whatever reason, many people here and back when Sony had their first conference got really angry with Sony for their timed exclusive. They were completely silent when MS had a conference full of timed exclusives tho. It's like timed exclusive are only bad when a certain company do it.
.
 

Elfgore

Member
Mar 2, 2020
4,560
With regards to the whole timed exclusive situation, I stopped caring about that long ago. Every company does it and from a business perspective why wouldn't they. The whole point of having your own platform is to convince people that their platform is worth investing in. The fact Sony seem to get so much shit for it while other companies get less attention is always suspect, especially since they also spend so much making their own games to compliment any 3rd party deals they have in place.

There are timed and full exclusive games I saw at the Microsoft event that I would be interested in but the devs decided to make a deal and that's up to them. Too many good games to get hung up on the odd one that I might have to wait for or go without.
Eyup. I did the whole get angry and aggravated thing over this stuff, kinda became an annoying person. Better for myself to just say "fuck it" and buy what I want to play.
 

Firima

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,469
Games (especially the marketing of games) are a massive financial risk. Any developer or publisher that's offered a bag of cash for full exclusivity, timed exclusivity, exclusive content or even just primary marketing positioning would be financially irresponsible if they did not heavily consider it.

And as big as someone like Zenimax's cash coffers are, games like Ghostwire and Deathloop (New IP) are still a massive financial risk and if a platform holder (like Sony) is willing to eat a significant chunk of that cost for 1 year exclusivity windows, it changes the profitably calculation for the entire project, which means that it's easier for a game to be profitable, since you are using someone else's money for say, marketing, instead of your own.

Game developers are a business and when projects can cost $150+ million dollars prior to marketing (which can often be another $50-$250 million depending on the project) what company honestly wouldn't want to lower their internal costs in such heavy investments? And that's leaving out other perks, like focusing on one platform, access to internal support teams that may not be there as strictly third party, etc.

All of these exclusivity deals aren't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, as game development costs increase (they increase every new gen) and game prices remain static, I'd expect to see more of these deals, not less.

Yes, it may anger some consumers, but that's a pitiful drop in the bucket considering all the "good" it does for your platform and brand.

I get it, it sucks almost every time it happens if you don't own the console, but it's still inevitable, sadly.

I mean, I don't disagree with any of what you said; The frequency of these kinds of transactions increasing is inevitable, especially in this business climate. I'm just calling out people who are clearly bullshitting with the "these two things are exactly the same" kind of nonsense that has reared its head in the past month or so when it started to look like Sony was going to do 2015 Microsoft things.
 

Megabreath

Member
Oct 25, 2018
2,662
Seems like a waste of money, anyone interested in Sqaure games will be getting a PS5 anyway. If this is what they spend the PS+ money on then just drop it.
 

PsyDec

Member
Jun 3, 2019
1,486
Legality? What's illegal about timed exclusive deals? Microsoft just premiered several of them last week.
He's poking fun at the recent thread asking if Xbox's success with games pass is legal.

On another note though, supporting smaller devs and funding them for games is hugely different than doing timed exclusivity for AAA franchises, or massive companies that are completely independent. IE all the money went towards stopping it going to other platforms and not towards development.
 

panda-zebra

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,735
Sigh. I know they're both doing it but it seems especially ramped up on Sony's part right now, maybe because of the Bethesda games - that's just not something I saw coming.
It's not them "both" doing it, Stadia has been actively seeking out as much of this stuff as it can muster. If anyone kicked it all back into gear, it was Google within the last 6 months.
 

Mediking

Final Fantasy Best Boy (Grip)
Member
Imagine that one of the most important games they ever made had a 1 year exclusivity deal

FM8wfT8.gif
Straight from the director of the game's mouth - can we add it to the OP or get a threadmark on this?
Haha just because I say FF16 isn't timed exclusive... that doesn't mean something else isn't and things can change lol

And thanks for recognizing me as the director. I love y'all
 

Iwao

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,776
And as big as someone like Zenimax's cash coffers are, games like Ghostwire and Deathloop (New IP) are still a massive financial risk and if a platform holder (like Sony) is willing to eat a significant chunk of that cost for 1 year exclusivity windows, it changes the profitability calculation for the entire project, which means that it's easier for a game to be profitable, since you are using someone else's money for say, marketing, instead of your own.
Precisely. Not every Bethesda game is the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout. We have no idea what budget is assigned to GhostWire or Deathloop compared to their big hitters, particularly in the marketing department. We don't know how Bethesda viewed the success of games like The Evil Within 2 or the last couple of Dishonored games.
 

Minthara

Freelance Market Director
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
7,888
Montreal
I mean, I don't disagree with any of what you said; The frequency of these kinds of transactions increasing is inevitable, especially in this business climate. I'm just calling out people who are clearly bullshitting with the "these two things are exactly the same" kind of nonsense that has reared its head in the past month or so when it started to look like Sony was going to do 2015 Microsoft things.

I mean, what's really changed over the years is the number of platforms competing for third party content. It's not just Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft anymore - it's now the three console makers and VR headset makers and multiple PC storefronts and now adding in things like Stadia.

It's a battle for content and it's just getting starting. It's only going to get "worse" from this point forward, as services like PS Now, Stadia and Game Pass continue to grow, the need to fill those platforms with content to drive subscribers grows as well.
 

MaverickHunterAsh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
1,390
Los Angeles, CA.
This is shitty, but reaffirms that Xbox will never be an option for me anyway, so I guess their investment has the intended effect.

Basically this. I'm not a fan of timed exclusivity, but Sony has always had the exclusivity rights for the vast majority of third-party IPs I care about on lock, so as crappy as it is from a consumer standpoint, it's unfortunately a valid strategy. This just affirms what I already knew about there being no reason for me to get an Xbox Series X in terms of where the exclusivity for the games I care about will be, and that's PS5 (and Switch).
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2019
331
What about the legality of this situation?

I think its slightly anticompetitive because Sony can make these deals easily being the market leader. Microsoft would have to pay a lot more to get these deals because no developer wants to give up the large Playstation userbase, especially a game like Final fantasy where japan doesnt have many xboxes.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,034
Sony showed thirteen timed exclusives at their event. I think MS had 5 or 6 at their July event. I don't think MS even showed 20 games. I have no doubt MS will follow Sony though and go for some money hats to counter.

Matt Booty literally stood there and stated they'd just shown 22 console launch exclusives
 

Minthara

Freelance Market Director
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
7,888
Montreal
Sony should be using that money to build and expand 1st party studios.

Different levels of financials involved in those and often different internal teams handling those kinds of things. Two pronged attacks (build your first party stable AND secure third party exclusive content) is the way more sensible thing to do.

Use Netflix, the king of content, as an example - they have lots of Netflix developed shows and movies (first party content) but they still spend countless dollars on content they don't own because the totality of both is what gives them market dominance.
 

davygee

Member
Jun 13, 2020
86
So unnecessary. Not a fan of this. But it makes sense early on were both platforms are somewhat weak on the software front.

Basically suffocating xbox by denying them games knowing that xbox's own first party games are still years off. Smart move from a business perspective. Shitty for consumers compared to true exclusives.

Totally agree.

The gloves are off and anything is on the table. This generation launch has been totally different due to C19 and not being able to announce properly.

It's evident that MS doesn't have much to announce first party wise and if Sony can, as you say suffocate the competition by removing potential 3rd party multi platform releases then its a smart move.

Timed exclusives aren't great but they serve a purpose.
 

Conor

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
450
Microsoft is doing it also still even after what they said so this wont ever end.
Isn't giving independent developers and independently published games money and contributing towards development costs in exchange for launch exclusivity slightly different to giving AAA multi billion dollar publishers like Bethesda and Square Enix money to keep games off other platforms?
 

PsyDec

Member
Jun 3, 2019
1,486
Both Sony and Microsoft do it.

Yes and I don't like it either way.

but there is a colossal difference between funding smaller studios VS locking away sequels of AAA franchises or games from massive independent Dev likes Bethesda.

I don't like timed exclusives full stop, but what Sony's doing Is and has been doing for years, is orders of magnitude worse than anyone else in the industry.
 

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,937
It's cornball stuff every time this happens, regardless of who does it. And we should call it out every single time.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,100
Yes and I don't like it either way.

but there is a colossal difference between funding smaller studios VS locking away sequels of AAA franchises or games from massive independent Dev likes Bethesda.

I don't like timed exclusives full stop, but what Sony's doing Is and has been doing for years, is orders of magnitude worse than anyone else in the industry.

The "magnitude" is dependent entirely on a person's desire for a specific piece of content. Thats the only thing that makes the practice better or worse. If you really have a problem with it on principle, it shouldn't matter whether the game is AAA or a sequel or whatever else people tend to use to move goalposts in these discussions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.