Exclusives
-
Just to develop Yoss' assertion; new IP is less objectionable, established IP shouldn't be exclusive. What happens when new IP becomes established? Was this the issue with Tomb Raider, a game which helped define PlayStation, became cross-platform as it became established, now exclusive to Xbox? Didn't we see something similar before with a Japanese title, Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil or something?
-
Exclusivity sometimes allows for special games to be made. Eg Resident Evil Remake when the series jumped to GameCube."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett
-
The new IP distinction isn't important. The risk and investment of developing new IP is offset by spamming sequels. I'm not buying that the EA published Titanfall needed help to market.
For me it's just mildly disappointing that this is what companies do now rather than develop their own games or, from the devs point of view, try and get as many people as possible to play their game. It's indicative of a wider creative bankruptcy and hedging of risk.
I don't think this is a million miles away from buying a dev team and putting them in house, which has been happening since the dawn of consoles. I can understand how fans of a series might be pissed off that they've bought the wrong console. There's a reasonable expectation to expect multiplayer to stay that way. Suppose you just have to accept that that reasonable expectation has gone, and if you've ever bought timed exclusives, full exclusives, exclusive DLC or any of the rest of it, you've played you're part in bringing this about. -
Fwiw, I'd be very surprised if SF5 or Tomb Raider don't find their way onto the other machines at some point. If not SF5, then definitely SF5 Ultra Turbo Deluxe Amazing
-
Also - kind of who cares? Just put £50 in the bin, play SF IV and pretend you've bought V. Shouldn't be hard. -
It's not really new though. All that happened was that AAA games needed sales on everything possible last gen to make a profit. Every game that gets an exclusive deal now has a degree of doubt about sales potential, taking that exclusivity cash upfront is just a way of lowering the risk.
-
In the longer term, the Tittyfall deal will be viewed as a mistake imo. All it's done is allow other franchises to become established with their first iterations on the more popular machine.
-
Definitely. I don't think it was that obvious how far ahead the PS4 would be in sales at the time they did the deal though and it seems to have been the way that the top men at Respawn have kept ownership of the franchise. Hard to criticise them for that after the COD mess.
-
EA still keep their recent releases off Steam for some weird reason. -
monkey wrote:The risk and investment of developing new IP is offset by spamming sequels.
Only if the first game for a new IP is successful enough to warrant sequels, most aren't. -
I_R wrote:It's not really new though. All that happened was that AAA games needed sales on everything possible last gen to make a profit. Every game that gets an exclusive deal now has a degree of doubt about sales potential, taking that exclusivity cash upfront is just a way of lowering the risk.
I don't know how much doubt there can be about the success of SFV. -
Yossarian wrote:monkey wrote:The risk and investment of developing new IP is offset by spamming sequels.
Only if the first game for a new IP is successful enough to warrant sequels, most aren't.
Yeah well, that's the risk. The money Mirrors Edge lost was cancelled out by the money dead space earned and will continue to earn. -
Which other franchises?monkey wrote:In the longer term, the Tittyfall deal will be viewed as a mistake imo. All it's done is allow other franchises to become established with their first iterations on the more popular machine.Come with g if you want to live... -
That one with the thing... Hang on... Was there one about the whatsit? Nope, it's gone. -
Cod, Destiny, Killzone.
When Tittyballs came out, it could have been the only FPS aside from Killzone on a machine with something like 6 million users desperate for games to play.
It'll be launching the sequel on a platform where the yearly COD cycle has been successfully carried over, everyone owns Destiny and there'll be loads of AAA games out and no ones played your one. There's no user base there already. It'll be like a new IP. -
I don't think it matters hugely. If the sequel's good enough it can still become huge. There is brand recognition there, it's all about the quality of the games. CoD didn't start out as the biggest franchise of the last generation.
-
The franchise seems to do about 5 million, that should be great, but it depends on the costs. The last Tomb Raider was seen as a disappointment with those numbers bizarrely. It would be surprising if it managed that without last gen consoles though and everyone needing to buy new sticks is going to cause big problems for the genre.Yossarian wrote:
I don't know how much doubt there can be about the success of SFV.I_R wrote:It's not really new though. All that happened was that AAA games needed sales on everything possible last gen to make a profit. Every game that gets an exclusive deal now has a degree of doubt about sales potential, taking that exclusivity cash upfront is just a way of lowering the risk. -
Yossarian wrote:I don't think it matters hugely. If the sequel's good enough it can still become huge. There is brand recognition there, it's all about the quality of the games. CoD didn't start out as the biggest franchise of the last generation.
Yeah I'm just questioning whether, with hindsight, it was the most profitable route for the game or the franchise. Or whether their risk to profit calculation was a bit off. The side point here is that there were a lot of Xbones sold due to Tittyballs exclusivity. It's clearly the console EA reckon they can make the most money from and is friendliest to where they want to take their business. So, it might end having been the better move all along. -
I_R wrote:
The franchise seems to do about 5 million, that should be great, but it depends on the costs. The last Tomb Raider was seen as a disappointment with those numbers bizarrely. It would be surprising if it managed that without last gen consoles though and everyone needing to buy new sticks is going to cause big problems for the genre.Yossarian wrote:
I don't know how much doubt there can be about the success of SFV.I_R wrote:It's not really new though. All that happened was that AAA games needed sales on everything possible last gen to make a profit. Every game that gets an exclusive deal now has a degree of doubt about sales potential, taking that exclusivity cash upfront is just a way of lowering the risk.
5 mil plus a large amount of DLC. -
If you're going to criticise exclusive deals then you also need to be critical of the deals involving the following series:
WipEout (was also on Saturn, N64, PC)
Halo (was in development first for Apple Macintosh)
Anything developed by Naughty Dog
Monolith Soft
Ultimate Play The Game/Rare
You can either be critical of what exclusivity means, or instead, look at those examples above and see that exclusivity and indeed being bought out in some cases resulted in some phenomenal games."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
I'd love to know the sums paid. I guess timed exclusive doesn't leave the dev/producer out of pocket long term, it delays (and slightly dents??) the cash though. -
It's also like to know how much gets paid for these exclusives.
I wonder if it's higher or lower than developing your own game.Live= sgt pantyfire PSN= pantyfire -
of flesh
-
Coloured
-
Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen..."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett
-
Weren't people saying Ninty should buy capcom? Ship sailed? How short of cash are they?
-
I dont think that was anything but wishful thinking"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett
-
Holy frigg. Are Capcom in that much financial shit that they can't develop SF on their own?Live= sgt pantyfire PSN= pantyfire
-
It wouldn't really surprise me.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836