Top
170°

Street Fighter V and how Third Party Exclusives are Hurting Gaming

Paul James writes "Paying to stop people from having fun is nothing short of cruelty and when the third party exclusive concept is dead and buried it will not be soon enough."

Read Full Story >>
amhnetwork.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Max-Zorin1020d ago

The sixth generation of gaming probably gave this journalist a mild heart attack. It was third party exclusive galore during that era.

showtimefolks1019d ago

Each generation we seem to loose a big size publisher, last gen it was THQ and I believe this generation capcom isnt looking good

Deep down funded by Sony
Dead rising 3 funded by ms
Now most likely SF being funded by Sony

Bottom line is 3rd party exclusive IMO move a bigger needle than first party, which had the bigger impact TR or SF5 announcement wise? I say TR because I remember every site had so many article about it

Now if Sony is to announce it at PS event Than believe SF5 will have the biggest impact. SF is a huge world known franchise, we all grew up playing SF games at arcades. Even most casual fans who hav no interest in gaming know street fighter one way or another

IMO 3rd party exclusives are awesome, ps2 was basically the best console ever and just look at its exclusives from 1st party studios

Also people need to stop crying:

MS basically started all this with exclusive DLC and timed exclusive games. Now they nor Xbox fans can call Sony anything. What goes around comes around. Also BTW Sony is a huge company with so much assists that they can loose billions for next decade yet remain in business. So let's end this mindset that Sony is some poor company who can't compare with Xbox/MS

Just look up songs assests and you will see just how much money they really have

moldybread1019d ago

"MS basically started all this with exclusive DLC and timed exclusive games"

please get your facts straight. gta was timed on the ps2 with a six month window from coming to the original xbox. also read this,

http://furiousfanboys.com/2...

breakpad1019d ago

are these journalists/authors completely idiots??...third party exclusives are the substance that make the difference in console preferance...what the F*ck are they talking about??? Deadrising was exclusive to MS , some of the best Playstation exclusives clearly have been stolen from Nintendo and Ms ..this is clear pure competition so shut your mouth people (to s*t wannabe bloggers journalists )...Sony should have done this from PS3 era ..is a japanese company and clearly has more influence to other japanese companies is acceptable and wanted if you ask us (its on of the reason that people buys PS consoles)..the same goes with the lame COD dlc and MS

Bathyj1019d ago (Edited 1019d ago )

Except I really don't think it was Sony paying for all these games to be exclusive. Ps2 was the console that gamers overwhelmingly choose to be the number one console and if a developer wanted to concentrate on one machine to maximise quality (not a bad concept in my book) then it was going to be the machine where all the gamers were.

If nothing else it calls into question question to often touted line competition is good and one console dominating is bad.

joab7771019d ago

They should both have to make the same exact consoles. Then, if one does something, the other must agree to it first.

All games must be released everywhere simultaneously...and all machines must be lime green.

3-4-51019d ago

3rd Party = The Wild Card.

You know what 1st party games your mainly or mostly going to get, it's the unknown that really gets people talking.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1019d ago
2pacalypsenow1019d ago

Yeah ps2 had all the 3rd party exclusives .

FlameHawk1019d ago

And look how amazing that era was. 3rd party exclusives have been around for a long time, I don't know why people are starting to complain now.

tucky1019d ago

It hurts when non-exclusive third parties are suddenly becoming exclusive

LegoIsAwesome1019d ago

Because they can't accept that the game will not be coming to their console/PC.

PoSTedUP1019d ago (Edited 1019d ago )

its the era of entitlement to complain and b**** about things you would never have complained and b****ed about untill someone felt like complaining and b****ing about something they never would have complained and b****ed about.

Mr Pumblechook1019d ago

At Gamescon one company, by announcing a third party exclusive, effectively declared they wanted to play dirty. What do you expect their competitor to do, roll over and die? Now their competitor is taking steps to remain competitive and this blog writes this me-is-cry article!

blockcoc1019d ago

This started back in 1997 with Sony paying to make Tomb Raider 2 exclusive.

Gaming247allday1019d ago

Man look at you trying to make excuses for this, the truth is, if you bashed Microsoft for the Tomb Raider deal but you support the exact same practice from Sony, then you are a hypocrite and that's it, not only that but we all know most of the people here are hypocrites and most of them would bash Microsoft anyways without them securing exclusives because at the end of the day they are just insecure fanboys, that's it really

P_Bomb1019d ago

@blockcoc
Naw, wayyy earlier than that. Konami had metal gear and castlevania games on the nes 10 years earlier that never appeared on Sega master system or genesis. Capcom's Mega man was exclusive on Nintendo for a while too. Tecmo's ninja gaiden stayed on nes, sunsoft's blaster master 2 was exclusive to sega's system I believe. The list goes on and on.

blockcoc1019d ago

@P_Bomb Were them exclusives previously on them other platforms though? The first Tomb Raider was on PS and Sega Saturn and then became exclusive with Tomb Raider 2.

UnwanteDreamz1019d ago (Edited 1019d ago )

@gaming247
Your example works both ways. If you didnt have a problem with the TR deal then dont cry about SF5. Fankids

SoapShoes1019d ago

@blockcoc, yeah TR was PS and Saturn but Sony didn't pay for TR2. If they did I want to see a link. It's more to do with the fact that by the time TR2 cane out the Saturn was already on the way side. TR3 was also only on PS1 until DC came and got ported.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1019d ago
telekineticmantis1019d ago

Truth. I was shocked to see so many people complain about TR. I thought after last gen, Microsoft became famous for things like that, and realistically, hate it or love it, they have every right to do that, but I didn't really play the last TR, so I was wondering if the outrage was because this TR was a direct sequel to the previous one storywise, I dont know, but that could definitely be grounds for rage.

Ps4andxb11019d ago

All it does is hurt the developer by less sales.

If i only owned an xb1, then sf5 just became irrelevant.

Thats bad for the dev, not the consumer.

Their loss.

1019d ago
ShaunCameron1018d ago

But it helps the developer by lower development costs since he's making the game for only 1 console.

Tedakin1019d ago (Edited 1019d ago )

I think people are jumping to conclusions way too fast with this whole SF5 thing. Yeah it says exclusive in the trailer, but we don't know the whole story. The trailer is Japanese, and a leak. We've had no comment from Capcom and Sony, or MS. The trailer has been ripped offline and Capcom has been going after anyone posting it, including Maximillian. People need to wait to hear the whole story before going nuts over this stuff.

And I agree third party exclusives are bad for gamers. If we find out Sony funded SF5 and it never would have existed without them, similar to Dead Rising 3 and Bayonetta 2, then okay that's different. If it was just straight up paid off not to be put on the other console like say Tomb Raider probably was, then that sucks. People buy a 400 dollar console and have companies keep things from them.

xX1NORM1Xx1019d ago

I agree but there have been rumours for a while now about SF5 and its SF after all I can't see capcom not making 5 until Sony offered to fund it but who knows I won't mind if Sony funded it then like you say it wouldn't have happened without them and I'd just play it on ps4 but I like to play SF with friends in not gonna say we'll just drop the £300/£350 and get it that's insane so we will just have wait and see

izumo_lee1019d ago

You have a point. With Deep Down that game is co developed with SCEJ which explains why it is a PS4 exclusive.

This could also be some kind of agreement with Sony losing the Monster Hunter series to Nintendo that Capcom is repaying them with this game at least in Japan. This could well be a Japanese exclusive.

littlezizu1019d ago

Where were these articles when Xbox one secured Titanfall, Dead rising 3 and Tomb raider.
Now Sony does for one title, all these sites go on rampage about its hurting the industry.
Now M$ knows karma is a B***h

PoSTedUP1019d ago

we all have seen this media bias whenever MS is in a tough spot, no matter how hypocritical it is. lets not forget MS track record. its not gonna stop sony and the freight train that they have pushed down the hill. this is only the beginning.

Tedakin1019d ago

Well for the millionth time Respawn offered Titanfall to Sony and Sony did not want it. Microsoft FUNDED Dead Rising 3 in the same way Nintendo funded Bayonetta. Dead Rising 3 never would have existed without MS paying for it and it's basically first party. Tomb Raider, who the hell knows.

thanhgee1019d ago

And Sony funded SF5... Capcom stated in their interviews they're not in a good financial position to develop SF5 due to rising cost of developing next gen games. So Sony funding Capcom deserves backlash from the media but not Dead rising 3?

EXVirtual1019d ago

If Sony did fund it and help with development as opposed to writing a big fat check just for the sake of it, it's not a bad thing at all.
3Rd party exclusives are good sometimes. It's the same thing with Nintendo and Bayonetta 2. If it wasn't for them, the game would not exist.

LeCreuset1019d ago

"Well for the millionth time Respawn offered Titanfall to Sony and Sony did not want it."

Exactly. Just like Phil Spencer said the TR deal was available to Sony. If Sony can't say no to a 3rd party without worrying that a multiplat will turn into an MS exclusive, what are they supposed to do?

"Microsoft FUNDED Dead Rising 3 in the same way Nintendo funded Bayonetta."

This may not be the case every time, but mark my words: "X game wouldn't have happened if Y hadn't funded it" will become the go-to CYA excuse for money-hatting. Does anyone really think a publisher like EA wouldn't have been able to fully fund a FPS made by the team that popularized COD? Come on. Time to calibrate the BS detectors.

remixx1161019d ago

Same for street fight 5 and Sony pretty much, capcom claimed they didn't have the funds for the game. Then about a month later the Sony hadoken cabs advert came out and now this. I'm guess Sony hit them with the mulla to put out this game.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1019d ago
LeCreuset1019d ago

It's not just "karma;" it's survival. Sony declined to do exclusive deals with a number of 3rd party games that became Xbox exclusives. MS essentially made the 3rd party landscape an "us or them" scenario. If Sony can't count on MS to join them in a unified "no" when 3rd parties start shopping titles to save their pubs money, is Sony supposed to sit back and keep losing titles? Are PS fans supposed to go beyond lamenting that things are this way to being as equally outraged as they were losing TR that they are not missing out on SF V, at the expense of those responsible for the current climate?

I'd love to see some of the people crying hypocrisy answer those questions.

remixx1161019d ago

I'll answer your question with a bubble, nicely put bro.

Gocatters17021019d ago

FYI, the same site did an article on the matter when the Tomb Raider thing happened. They looked at it from both sides of the fence

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1019d ago