Comments (13)
Valenka  +   1354d ago
Well written blog, full of interesting information.
Chaostar  +   1354d ago
I agree that timed exclusivity is not the evil practice some make it out to be but your assumption that every time a 3rd party game releases early (or exclusively) on one platform is the result of being 'bought' is just plain untrue.

Obviously it happens but when it does we are very rarely clued in on the details of these back room dealings, no developer wants to appear like they can be bought off like cheap whores. I'm finding it very hard to find any evidence that suggests most of the games you mentioned were the result of this corporate 'bribery'. Perhaps you'd like to update your blog with some links for our benefit?

I found one related set of quotes from SCEA boss, Jack Tretton...

"We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform."

"We earn it by saying, 'You can build a better game on our platform. If you focus your development on our platform, you will ultimately be more successful. We can try to partner up with you from a technology standpoint. We can try to partner up with you from a marketing standpoint. But just economically and technologically, this is the system that makes the most sense for you.'"

There's no arguing how effective timed exclusivity is at fooling the masses but maybe there's more to them than just simply being 'bought' by companies. Sometimes exclusivity comes just from a developer choosing that platform, either for technical reasons or business i.e. bigger install base on one system.
Ducky  +   1354d ago
1. Help development through monetary aid
2. Help development through technology resources
3. Help market the game (also requires monetary aid)

I don't see how only one of those can be labeled as a 'bribe' with the others just being business. They're buying exclusivity either ways you look at it, and all Tretton appears to be doing is trying to sugarcoat it.
#2.1 (Edited 1354d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Chaostar  +   1353d ago
The difference can be best compared to dating and hookers... bear with me here...

You could pay a hooker for sex just like a direct 'bribe' or you could attract a mate with your 'assets', whether that be money, looks, charm, whatever it's not important. For example if there was a girl (non hooker) out looking for a sexual partner (developer looking for a publisher) and it was between two guys she meets. Is it bribery if one guy tries to look more attractive than the other one?

Ok, crazy analogies aside, I wasn't trying to defend Sony or any corporation, I was simply trying to make the point that there's a respectable way to do things and although the dirty way is much easier and effective we should never forget the difference.

I guess there's no honor in business though.
#2.1.1 (Edited 1353d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Ducky  +   1353d ago
^ That analogy isn't actually that bad.

However, it does have one fault. It is assumed that the girl is looking for 'a' partner. Meaning she will exclusively pick one partner, whereas in gaming, a game would generally be released for multiple platforms.

Timed exclusivity is essentially trying to convince the girl that she's better off just with you rather than being with the both of you (and even that is for a limited time).
Assuming the other guy isn't a jerk, it would pretty much require 'bribery' to make her exclusively pick you.

At the end of the day, timed exclusivty is just business, and Tretton's words are just PR.
#2.1.2 (Edited 1353d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
Chaostar  +   1353d ago
Yeah there's a good few holes in that analogy lol. To be honest didn't think it through very long and now I can no longer remember if or why I cared to comment in the first place ¬_¬

You're definitely right about Tretton pouring the sugar on, he's a smooth one alright, must be why he's good at poker.

However, I refuse to walk away from this conversation with the thought that girls only sleep with me because I bribe them :P

DK286K   1353d ago | Spam
QuodEratDemonstrandm  +   1353d ago
"Timed exclusivity is not the evil practice some people make it out to be."

I agree, but it is kind of dumb. Why make Joe Fanboy wait for the new map pack just because he doesn't feel like springing for a 360?
It just seems kind of silly, if I had to choose between paying for a 360 or waiting a few weeks for the PS3 version, I'll just wait.

Edit (just because I'm out of bubbles): I like the Hawking reference in the title.
#2.3 (Edited 1353d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
PirateThom  +   1353d ago
I think this is the part that annoys me. If a game or DLC pack is definitely coming to another platform, why make other players wait? What do you gain from it apart from annoying fans on one side and, potentially, risking sales because they don't want to buy an old game?
QuodEratDemonstrandm  +   1354d ago
Your bit about SFII is just plain wrong. I know this, because I was there. I saw it happen.
The original SFII was a SNES exclusive. It was never released on Genesis.
After the arcade release of SFII: Champion Edition, a version for the Sega Genesis was announced, several months later SFII Turbo was released and a port was announced for the SNES. This made the genesis people very upset. So SFII Turbo rules were added to the Sega version, as well as ten different speed settings. Sega was also told that their version would release first.
The SNES version had four speed settings, and six more if you knew the cheat code. And much to Sega's dismay, it released first, by a period of roughly two months.

It's pretty wild that I actually remember that, isn't it?
DK286K   1353d ago | Spam

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login