-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
PS5 Timed Exclusive range from a few months to a couple of years
- Thread starter Loudninja
- Start date
Big companies make games that need big money.
Making games is not safer for big companies by any means.
Gaming is a huge part of their revenue. They will do what ever it takes to maintain market share. I'm not shocked ever by any of this ever.
As I said, look at Steam on PC. They do not need to do this because they simply put out a product that speaks for itself and allow the consumer to dictate what is best for them. What is the harm is allowing choice for the consumer? is Sony that worried that gamers will flock somewhere else unless they make deals to corral them to their product? We seen the effort they put into explaining why crossplay wasn't good for their business strategy (at the time) so I guess they figure this is what works.
Of course they would 😄, square wouldn't stop making games if money hats stopped and we went back to marketing deals.
Square is risk adverse, they will gladly take a deal offered like tomb raider or final fantasy 7. Those games were coming out regardless of whatever hat was thrown their way. I agree AAA development has risen so they will gladly accept these trash deals because like I stated they're risk adverse
It's funny in a way because most PC gamers are completely fine waiting for a game to come out on PC whereas with console gamers any hint of timed exclusivity and they throw a fit.
Things you dont like to accept, become Conspiracy theories. So Sony paid the guy:) its the easy way.
Please. They do not need help to get a game off of the ground. This is absurd.
Where are you getting this? Do you have ANY links to these claims?
Yeah, I'm on about EGS exclusives not whatever weird console warrior bullshit you're peddling.
Another pleb for the ignore list.
Vocal Steam users didn't. Seemingly a lot of PC gamers just installed the Epic store and called it a day.
Scummy? I dunno man I used to think this way but now I'm thinking it's just business as usual. Companies do this all the time . Is it scummy that I can only watch friends on HBO max? Not really.
It's a bummer that I won't be playing these games sooner as an Xbox guy but I dunno slummy seems like a strong word
Me neither. I have no issues with timed exclusive deals in general, tbh. There are some cases when it sucks like Street Fighter this gen, and to some extent Tomb Raider, both of which I wasn't planning to play and didn't, but it is what it is.
Well, if the developers profit off of this than I don't have a problem with these deals. You should be happy they're financially secure and can continue to make more games.
When it comes to Arkane and Tango though, I don't think they're really profiting. Their games aren't the system sellers these deals make them out to be and are designed for a niche audience so I think limiting that audience even further could be detrimental.
People seem to have this idea that companies should/would only make financially beneficial partnerships or deals when they are on the verge of bankruptcy apparently.
All I'll say is the idea that bigger developers / publishers still shouldn't jump at deals that give them guaranteed money up front to help cover costs and ensure they stay afloat and staffed is kind of dumb.
Warner Bros. Is literally looking to sell their entire gaming division right now.
It's not uncommon for known developers to go through layoffs (not just down sizing after a large project) or get shuttered completely after failed projects. The whole industry is risk averse, especially with new unproven properties.
Warner Bros. Is literally looking to sell their entire gaming division right now.
It's not uncommon for known developers to go through layoffs (not just down sizing after a large project) or get shuttered completely after failed projects. The whole industry is risk averse, especially with new unproven properties.
Last edited:
I'm not going to hate on them for this, nor do I think it's scummy.
They are a business and their job is to get consumers to want to buy their console over Microsoft's console. If there is a game you really want to play and it's only on PS5, get a PS5.
Just like if you want to play Halo Infinite, you'll need an Xbox or a gaming PC.
They are a business and their job is to get consumers to want to buy their console over Microsoft's console. If there is a game you really want to play and it's only on PS5, get a PS5.
Just like if you want to play Halo Infinite, you'll need an Xbox or a gaming PC.
What choice does the consumer need in this scenario? They want games played on their system first. This is like crying about Sony never releasing their games on PC. This argument is so weak to me. They want as many good games on their system and also more than anything taking on some of the risk that these companies take on games to make them more successful. These deals are a win win for Sony and the developers and allows for more creativity and risks taken on certain games than just having companies just releasing sure hits like Hollywood. I see no bad reason for Sony or MS to prop up certain 3rd party games on their respective systems first or other incentives a majority of people only go for one or maybe two consoles ever. So incentives to buy one over the other is a natural process.
Eh ... the pushback from the PC community against the EGS exclusive tactic is a real thing.
We've developed thick skin over the years. :) Besides, PC gaming has really only exploded in the last 2-3 years with ports that most of us never thought we'd see. You have one group that's used to waiting (sometimes in vain) vs one that's not.
Oh. It's definitely a great business decision for Sony. I'm only talking about it from a consumer standpoint. Consumers don't benefit at all from a company artificially blocking their access to something that would otherwise be available.
Last edited:
Nah, it's not even about needing the money to port a game, it's simply about having that financial safety net to ensure some level of success even if your game sells poorly or fails, not to mention immediate cashflow to re-invest in the studio and in more projects.
On your point about install bases, again, no, because the compensation for timed exclusivity likely exceeds whatever number they were were projecting or targeting realistically reaching, in terms of multiplatform sales volume.
My guess is in all these situations the compensation for timed or permanent exclusivity exceeds whatever the studio in question feels they'll lose in lost sales, whether temporary or permanent, hence they take the deals.
Nah, there was way bigger fuss made about Epic Store exclusivity then this.
People don't seem to realize that a big publisher like THQ went bankrupt, AT&T is trying to sell off their gaming division, and most of the time big publishers don't put out new IP because they don't want to take the risk.
But if I don't have the designated platform, I'll never get to play their games? What sort of logic is this?
They're timed exclusive. Not full exclusive. That's the logic.
I mean, it's very obvious what your initial post was implying. It's a callback to the bs conspiracy about Sony/Epic and UE5.
Me either, he'll there were some cool games that Xbox had like cuphead and Eventually came to other mediums, timed exclusives are a way better proposition and allows for the console makers to share some risk with devs, but allow some autonomy it's like the console makers being venture capitalists and investing in games they want on their platform but then allow them to go make more money after a certain time.
Tomb Raider needs to sell 5 million to break even
Analysts say those big, blockbuster AAA titles you love need to sell 5-10 million units to make any money.
www.criticalhit.net
"The AAA market is extremely competitive. Most of Square Enix's franchises are single player games, which are less popular than multiplayer. Square Enix has been a leader in that sector, but now faces stronger competition from multiple publishers, both large and small, including Bethesda, Capcom, Xseed, Atlus and Level 5.
Square Enix's franchises are well established and require ever-higher production budgets to match and surpass past performance. The latest Hitman and Tomb Raider sold in the three million unit range and got Metacritic ratings above 8.
Those numbers would rate as successful for JRPGs that earn more from vendors as exclusives and have manageable budgets. But for games with development budgets approaching $100 million to be truly profitable, ratings have to be above 8.5 and sales need to be in the five to ten million unit range."
So you either stop making those types of ever more expensive games, make them and take the risk they'll pay off and be successful despite needing far greater sales to break even, or take money hat deals that greatly reduce your financial risk and lend to more financial reward, thus a greater likelihood of being able to continue to develop these types of projects without fear of diminishing returns.
These kinds of considerations don't just apply to indie devs, but AAA devs too. Especially given the numbers and risk in a cost sense, is much greater.
Of course, they want content to sell a product and what quicker way then to also make deals with third party?
It helps to create analogies that are relevant. I don't need to buy a new TV to access HBO.
Those studios then need to be acquired. Arkane does not need Sony to save them. Of course they are compensated, any business looks at what's best for them. All this does is showcase how none of this is really designed for the consumer but they act like it is.
I expected to happen, it happens every generation. What I would like to see, which will never fully happen, is transparency. Tell us upfront how long, how much was paid. This industry is so shady that's the problem.
Considering the big hitters of the timed exclusivity announcements are both new Bethesda IPs, I wonder if Sony is going to get real crazy with their cash and try to get Starfield. It's BGS's first new IP in a long, long time and it certainly seems like a much more severe stab at MS's longtime association with the company that goes all the way back to Morrowind if it can be pulled off.
We'll see MS do the same thing, and Nintendo will continue to do their strategic partnerships that keeps certain third party games off of other consoles as well. Shitty as the practice is in terms of inclusiveness, it worked in the past, it works now and it will always be a good weapon for the console holders to wield.
We'll see MS do the same thing, and Nintendo will continue to do their strategic partnerships that keeps certain third party games off of other consoles as well. Shitty as the practice is in terms of inclusiveness, it worked in the past, it works now and it will always be a good weapon for the console holders to wield.
Nope, it was about Sweeney and Sony loving moneyhats
Pretty fucking obvious too in a thread about paid exclusives
Yeah, not sure why people are surprised. Money hats are super important to these companies at the start of a new generation. Nothing wrong with them, it's just business.
Go play the massive backlogs of games that seemingly everybody has. I just do not understand the complaints with this when the industry has SO many games to play due in part beacause these companies have a Financial hand in helping devs be successful.