Exclusives - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Vela wrote:

Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen...

Surely all exclusivity deals help fund the games?

adkm1979

Perhaps not directly. "Give us exclusivity and we'll market your game as the game to buy for our console this holiday season."

All manner of deals to be done that don't necessarily involve giving the other company money to pay their staff.

Also, what do Capcom do these days? Milk their established franchises dry, serving an audience that they are also milking dry with questionable DLC strategies. They can't keep on like this or they're doomed.

Bollockoff

Everything rests on ReREmake selling millions. Outselling GTAV in fact.

Bollockoff

Capcom has so much little used IP I'd be fine if they went tits and had to do a THQ style sell off.

Bollockoff

Who is actually half looking forward to Deep Down anyway.

acemuzzy

It's free tho = no profit for em

Bollockoff

I really can't be bothered to edit on phone.

Bollockoff

No doubt has some kind of freemium system.

acemuzzy

Horse armour × lots

mistercrayon

Vela wrote:

Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen...

Helped developed is one of those euphemisms though. Any sort of fee for exclusivity is going to offset some cost like marketing or dev

[Deleted User]

Exclusives used to be heavily determined by the hardware.
Then we had proper exclusives with cash thrown at them and time taken to get the most out of the hardware, stuff like God of War looked amazing because the devs only had to focus on that hardware and OS .

This timed rubbish only stands to hinder the consumer. Devs still have to ensure it can be released on different OS and hardware later down the line so we aren't going to get anything spectacular.
If anything the one that comes out a year later nornally has the bugs ironed out and some free dlc.

Tl:Dr timed is shit for consumer.

mistercrayon

How so?

I mean, surely everyone gets everything eventually and content creators have some pressure relieved and platform holders have something to sell without investing everything.

It's only bad because nerds want everything minute 1.

[Deleted User]

I don't really see any benefits to it.
You either have to wait or buy 2 consoles. Neither could be seen as a positive.

Neither of your points are direct benefits to the consumer.

mistercrayon

Fuck pandering to entitled acting "consumers". Games are not a human right and certainly not getting everything on minute 1. wah wah wah baby want tomb raider now.

[Deleted User]

Yeah, but that still doesn't make waiting a positive. It is either a negative or you are indifferent to it.

mistercrayon

What if assassin's creed unity had timed exclusivity for xbox or ps4? i.e. the launched game from a few weeks ago and then one to be released in a few months on the other console?

Vela

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen...

Surely all exclusivity deals help fund the games?

Not that. More like if it wasn't picked up by Sony it might not have happened at all, for a while at least.

Syph79

mistercrayon wrote:

What if assassin's creed unity had timed exclusivity for xbox or ps4? i.e. the launched game from a few weeks ago and then one to be released in a few months on the other console?

Someone might have ended up with a working, finished and polished game.

IanHamlett

I've wanted a single super-console for decades. It fucked me off that I had to buy all the consoles to get all the games. My lack of time these days and the lack of exclusives mean I can fuck consoles off.

acemuzzy

mistercrayon wrote:

What if assassin's creed unity had timed exclusivity for xbox or ps4? i.e. the launched game from a few weeks ago and then one to be released in a few months on the other console?

Is that a genuine defence of timed exclusives?? That you're not able to buy games on initial release, because they might have bugs in? Why, as s consumer, is that better than having the choice of doing so or not?

And to be clear, this has nothing to do with entitlement - I'm not saying you should always get that, just saying I'd prefer it.

For me, there are two justifications for exclusives - games that wouldn't otherwise be made at all (Bayo 2) and those that are materially better as a result (first party stuff etc). The ones getting hate of late match neither of those - just company gamesmanship instead.

mistercrayon

It is not a genuine defence. A thought experiment, creating a situation where delay on console 2 could give a better experience to a fan or two.

Presumably if you only have one console there is an inherent advantage of the one you got over the other. If that advantage is 6 months earlier tomb raider or SF then that's cool, if it's first party exclusives then that's cool too.

Every games machine has its advantages. And timing of exclusive games has to be less annoying than full exclusives?

Imagine those Saturn players who lost every tomb raider ever!

The 3do looks like it tried an open hardware approach but that bombed because it had no alternative function (like pc) and no subsidy (like consoles). The subsidy comes at a cost and if time delay is that cost then it's not that bad.

Bollockoff

Back in the day, exclusives were a fact of life weren't they? The small amount of them now just seems weird.

Yossarian

Vela wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen...

Surely all exclusivity deals help fund the games?

Not that. More like if it wasn't picked up by Sony it might not have happened at all, for a while at least.

I'd be stunned if they were genuinely unable to find a publisher that'd stump up the cash to fund a multi format release. This is as close to a sure bet as videogames get.

mistercrayon

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Apparently Sony helped fund SFV, hence exclusivity. Might be a Bayonetta 2 type deal where it wasn't going to happen...

Surely all exclusivity deals help fund the games?

Not that. More like if it wasn't picked up by Sony it might not have happened at all, for a while at least.

I'd be stunned if they were genuinely unable to find a publisher that'd stump up the cash to fund a multi format release. This is as close to a sure bet as videogames get.

Do you mean the capcom getting money to publish the game by someone else?

Vela

I mean that I heard a rumour that capcom weren't keen on funding sfv yet. Maybe Sony ponied up some cash to speed it along.

As I said though, rumours only. I might have misread something entirely.

Yossarian

mistercrayon wrote:

Do you mean the capcom getting money to publish the game by someone else?

I mean Sega (or whoever) handing over a sack of cash to get the game made and then publishing it on all formats. I'm sure that a deal could have been struck, possibly involving a percentage of merch or first refusal on future titles if it would end up costing more than the average publishing deal.

monkey

Handing over the publishing of one of their most valuable IPs to a competitor is probably not as good for them as just getting the money from Sony.

monkey

And I don't think SF is the golden goose you seem to think it is. Sony are paying for the bragging rights and prestige more than the game units shifted.

Yossarian

Dual publishers? Even just investment and profit sharing. As I say, I'm sure that a deal could have been struck.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

And I don't think SF is the golden goose you seem to think it is. Sony are paying for the bragging rights and prestige more than the game units shifted.

It doesn't need to be a golden goose, it needs to be profitable. I'm quite confident that it will be profitable.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories