Companies should focus on compelling first-party exclusives instead.
"Companies should focus on compelling first-party exclusives instead." Judging by Phil Spencer's recent comments, Xbox will be focusing a lot more of first party. However, the quote in this article saying that "A third-party developed game should never be exclusive to a console unless that company played an active role in either the publishing or development cycle of the game." is contradictory to the article using Rise of the Tomb Raider as its example. We know Microsoft is publishing the game and did help in development: http://www.gamespot.com/art...
O do kinda agree that 3rd part titles, unless published by MS or Sony shouldn't be exclusive. I'm fine with bonuses to sway ppl, but not simply paying money for early access. This is why. Because it's a terrible trend to set. I'm not saying it's happening now, but if Sony or MS get comfortable, it's probably cheaper and less risky to simply keep paying other companies. 1st party titles are risky and very expensive. Now, I do know that money talks and this is a business, and if this deal helps put MS back in the race, shareholders will be happy. It's a great thing for investors, terrible for gamers. Imagine if you are considering buying a system. Your favorite games are AC, CoD, and Halo. So, you buy an xbone, drop $500 of money you've been saving. Then, at E3 2016, Sony announces a time exclusive deal with Ubi and Activision. Both AC and CoD are only coming to PS4 in 2016. But you bought an Xbox for a known exclusive, Halo, and known multiplat form games. Now, too bad. You have to go buy a PS4 also. Great for unvestors, bad for gamers. And something.like this is now possible.
these companies are the real reason to blame for the division among gamers and that division is none greater than the xbox versus playstation camps. imagine if both microsoft and sony had presentations at places like e3 like nintendo who only focuses on true exclusive games. they really wouldn't have much to show.
On top of what you said, this article is also super biased in the sense that it complains about Tomb Raider, but says nothing about the SFV deal that has been shown multiple times as planned coming to Xbox One prior to Sony buying exclusivity. At least with Tomb Raider, MS and SE see fit to let gamers know when they can play TR on PS4 & PC i.e. MS/SE have been open and clear about the entire thing!
Maybe the author primarily plays Ps4, which is why they addressed the Tomb Raider Deal. And uh, no. Until recently, MS has been ANYTHING but open and clear about the whole thing. Which is why there were massive debates about whether it would come to Ps4 at all...
That is absolutely laughable....it took Square a full year to finally reveal the state of the exclusivity & Ms had absolutely no part in that. "Clear" is exactly what they haven't been about the whole scenario. Also, I never heard any kind of rumor that SFV was coming to all platforms prior to its reveal because i remember it being a surprise right up to the point that it was announced as an exclusive, meanwhile RotTR has always been a multiplat whose prior entry hit both consoles & whose first marketing material had only said "coming 2015", which would imply a multiplat release, along with all of the preorders happening on the ps4 during that time frame....that was right in the public eye, no rumor mill digging required. Both situations are third party deals for sure, but it's pretty hypocritical to try to make a point that it's alright in MS/SE's case but not in Capcom & Sonys. It's backwards in either case. The only small difference is that Yoshiri Ono himself said that SFV wouldn't happen w/o Sonys involvement while Larry Graham from CD said that Rise would've existed w/ or w/o Microsofts involvement.
jb227: I'm not going to bother responding to your other points. They have been covered well already in the media and in discussions. It is pointless. Regarding this: "Also, I never heard any kind of rumor that SFV was coming to all platforms prior to its reveal because i remember it being a surprise right up to the point that it was announced as an exclusive" You need to look a little harder, and further away from your favorite console: www.eventhubs.com/news/2014/j un/11/capcom-looking-developing -street-fighter-5-ps4-and-xbox- one-focusing-helping-beginners- considering-pay-advantage-model s/ "RotTR has always been a multiplat whose prior entry hit both consoles & whose first marketing material had only said "coming 2015", which would imply a multiplat release" TR was announed at MS conference. Nothing else was discussed even the platform. Everything else was your assumption. SFV was by all account also a multi-platform game and Capcom's biggest IP. I think everyone else also assumed that the next game would be multiplatform just like TR. You can try and manipulate the entire thing anyway you want to make YOU feel better, but both games are multiplatform series. They are both exclusive now, but one of them has come out straight with the information to the public, and the other has not. Double standards, are exactly that. I don't need to know the backdrop, because we all know both games would be made regardless of platform "buy-out" or not. So please stop the BS! Anyone that isn't a fanboy can see you are making yourself look like a fanboy, hypocritical and blind with double standards.
article relating to Rise of Tomb raider Timed Exclusivity should stop because PS4 gamers don't care. As ps4 gamers get 5 exclusive from SE while X1 get 1 timed. If anyone got raw end of deal it's Ms.
Yet here we are discussing MS and Square Enix with Tomb Raider. Nobody says anything about the other games including the elephant in the room, Street Fighter V!
Especially when it's games that shouldn't of been exclusive...aka tomb raider
Or Street Fighter.
And SFV is a lifetime exclusive.
I know it's been said a billion times, but the situations are hardly the same. Street Fighter's fanbase is mostly on PlayStation. Tomb Raider's fanbase is mostly on PlayStation. Thus, one of them being exclusive to a device that doesn't contain a majority of the fans makes no sense. How you feel about 3rd party exclusives isn't an issue. I have nothing against someone who doesn't agree with this practice. But all of the facts of the matter should be laid out in plain site for dissection. Then you can draw a conclusion. Capcom went to Sony for help on SFV. The same has not been said for ROTR (a game that was announced as a multi-platform title, might I add). Street Fighter, in fact, wasn't ever announced as an exclusive, either. The PC is a platform where people can play it who either A,. Have a PC and don't want it on PS4 or B. Don't have a PS4 and are building a gaming PC. Consider all of that. @ Rookie_Monster: Considering your altering stances, especially in regards to Tomb Raider (prior to the inevitable PS4 announcement that you claimed wouldn't ever happen), tread carefully when discussing this subject.
@neverheavyman, "STREET Fighter's fanbase is mostly on PlayStation." What a bunch of bull....the X360 versions of SF4 has been used and is the preferred version in EVO and other fighting tournaments. Also, when the game was released in 2009, here is the sales breakdown for it on NPD. http://www.wired.com/2009/0... Top 10 Software, February 2009 1. Wii Fit WII 644K 2. Street Fighter IV 360 446K 3.Street Fighter IV PS3 403K In the UK launch week, PS3 has 53 percent of sales compared to 47 percent for the Xbox 360 which is pretty much neck and neck. Oh, SF4 3DS version ain't doing too bad either with over 1.3 million sold as of today. Gosh, wouldn't Capcom love to just be able to make a SFV port for 3DS??? Please don't use the preferred card every time one of these situation pertaining to a game is bought up. I swore I even heard some PS people claimed Shenmue fanbase is on PlayStation as well..even when it never have a game release for any of Sony's platform prior to Part 3. Also, do you really believe Capcom needed help to make another SF? I mean that is like Konami asking for help to make another Metal Gear. Sony money hated the game just like for most part, many were surprised Nintendo locked up Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil Zero, and RE 1 remake as GC exclusives for awhile. Don't think too much in this.
Fun fact...street fighter would of not been made.......tomb raider was still being made and would of come out even without microsoft exclusivity...get your facts straight.
SF's platform of choice last gen was the 360 for sure. SF5 not coming to the X1 at all is a massive loss for X1 gamers. Lifetime vs timed, who's screwing who?
@ Septic: If the 360 was the "platform of choice" for Street Fighter last gen, why did it sell better on the PS3? I mean, I get that EVO tournaments are the one thing Xbox fanatics cling to, but the numbers didn't lie. The PS3 versions of all three SFIV games sold better. Thus, that would be last gen's platform of choice, as that's where the majority of gamers bought it. Still, that is just a piece of the story. SFV not being on the Xbox this gen, I'm sure, was an incentive for Sony's help. The IP selling more on the PS3 last gen was just enough of a reason for it to make sense. In Tomb Raider's case, the PlayStation, again, is the clear platform of choice. Always has been, regarding this franchise. Square Enix, as far as they HAVEN'T said, didn't need help with the game, unlike Capcom with Street Fighter, as they HAVE said. The writing has been on the wall since SFV was unveiled. No tricks, no runarounds. Tomb Raider has been a cluster-f of nonsense. That's the difference. How one feels about exclusivity deals becomes secondary, in that case. As I said above, I'm not against critics of it. It can be a very frustrating practice, for gamers. But the way Tomb Raider was handled was unprofessional and that's what gamers should also be annoyed with!
@ RookieMonster: It isn't a "bunch of bull". Go look up any sales stats for the franchise. It always sells better on PlayStation (and before that, generally sold better on Nintendo platforms). EVO tournaments, launch weeks, and 1.3 million 3DS owners doesn't change a thing. The fan-base is bigger on PlayStation (and Street Fighter is relatively large in Japan, somewhere the X1 is basically non-existent). You being a "devoted PS4 fan" and all, I wouldn't expect such facts to be out of your range Oh, and a side note, yes, I DO believe Capcom over you, a person who is, often, pretentious. When you're ready to use your last bubble to continue your devotion, don't bring your inflated opinion. If you have something that proves that the majority of Street Fighter units aren't sold on PlayStation, I'll happily concede to that point. So, get to it. Edit: Your edit tallies are from 2009, not to mention, in just ONE region. This is also when the 360 was a good deal ahead of the PS3. I'd like to see SFIV total sales, in addition to, SSFIV, and Ultra SFIV. Keep it coming. Edit 2: We could even use VGC (though most probably don't take them very serious). Still, it has the PS3 version of SFIV @ 4.10m and the 360 version @ 2.88m). This site historically under-tracks both PlayStation hardware and software. Keep that in mind.
"You being a "devoted PS4 fan" and all, I wouldn't expect such facts to be out of your range" LOl, I am a devoted PS4 owner. I am just telling like it is of the hypocrisy that some of you are splatting out. FIRST two games I have put money down and pre ordered for 2016 are both PS4, including SFV. http://oi60.tinypic.com/29d... How about you, did you pre order SFV for your PS4 and get the beta code? :) "I'd like to see SFIV total sales, in addition to, SSFIV, and Ultra SFIV. Keep it coming." How can we get a fair accessment when Sony money hated Ultra SF4 and exclude it from release on XB1 and adding artificial tallies to the PS side? LoL "PS4 SFIV @ 4.10m and the 360 version @ 2.88m Wow, that is such a HUGE disparity! Sarcasm So what you are saying is, if somehow EA made mass effect 4 or Take 2 made Bioshock 4 exclusives to XB1, PS owners like yourself wouldn't mind it, because you know, these X360 versions sold more than the PS3 versions too and it's fanbase started on xbox. If you say no, then you got me, you win.
@ Rookie_Monster: As I expected, you have your tunneled opinion and nothing else. For the record, I don't care what you claim to do/own/pre-order, your behavior has spoken for itself and a lot, and I do mean a lot, of people agree with me. You're fooling no one. In regards to SFIV, I wasn't disappointed there either. No solid source to back up your nonsense. Face it, Street Fighter is bigger on PlayStation and that's how it will remain (obviously, since the X1 won't even receive Street Fighter V). Next time, provide sources or don't bother replying.
But.. MS is focused on compelling first party Exclusives. They're also doing deals on the side tho' like the closest competitor. Lara wants to chill with the big boys, Master chief and Marcus Fenix :D.
Why not with Nathan Drake though, they are made for eachother
Too much of a pretty boy, she needs a man not a mirror :p OT this is why it is essential to own all consoles
Oooh Straya... Ouch haha. Don't let Drake hear that.
All of you digust me by you guys saying.
I think with Microsoft now focusing on first party, Sony already having an army of first party studios and Nintendo having their unique first party, you will inevitably see less and less 3rd party exclusives. DLC and exclusive content will still probably be money hatted though
Good thing first party is what Phil Spencer and crew will be focussing on.
It's rich coming from a Microsoft employee. LMAO! I personally think its WAY past time SONY started doing it. It sucks for gamers, but if its going to happen at least its not 90-100% Microsoft doing it anymore. They did this every chance they got on 360. OF COURSE its a dumb practice that should die, I just don't know if thats going to happen.
Sony invented 3rd party exclusives. They used to have Madden, Metal Gear, GTA, Final Fantasy... many others. They crushed SAGA with it, and M$ had a hard time competing. If not for a 3rd party exclusives like Halo and DOA3 (neither developer was owned by M$ at the time) Xbox might have failed. M$ had to learn how to sweeten the deal to get Madden and GTA to come over, then focus on others. 360 success changed a lot of that.
Halo (Bungie) was a 3rd party developer prior to Mac Expo 98 after their showing of halo at said expo , Bill Gate bought the studio for $50 million . Halo has always been owned by MS.
Third party were around before Sony even produced their first console. I remember Nintendo had plently of deals with them during the SNES era.
Nintendo would like a word with you on that one.
Welcome to being a Nintendo fan. :)
Post-Super NES, that is. But their handhelds hardly ever had a problem getting 3rd-party exclusives, though.
...not getting all the consoles is even worse. I can't feel sorry for someone in this boat unless they just can't afford them all.
Both the Street Fighter V deal and the Tomb Raider deal disgust me as a gamer.
Yeah, I agree that Sony should start focusing more on first party AAA exclusives and less on exclusive marketing packages and timed-exclusive DLC for cross-platform games. MS was bashed to death the entire last generation for these practices, but since the beginning of this generation, the unacceptable became acceptable according to Sony fans and for whatever reason. MS still gets bashed for TR around the clock every day, but the same people bashing MS are praising Sony for SFV, even though SFV is a permanent exclusive and PS4 will get TR a year later. I've probably never seen hypocrisy any worse than this, coming from Sony fans, of all kinds of people... This generation is the worst for fanboys, but the Sony camp is currently the only one this extreme.
All fanboys are filled with hypocrisy. You picking sides honestly makes you sound like a fanboy yourself.
Another article bashing TR 2 deal with no mention of street fighter 5. Hey get over it.
MS obviously made the right call with this because people can't stop bitching about it. Why would they tie a deal with a game nobody cares about?
A deal happen when both sides are happy! Sometime a 3rd party wants a big cash bag of money, sometime it's help and sometime it's marketing power behind their game. As for console makers, usually the deal is about swaying the consumer to their brand instead of the competitor. PPL always analyse the TB deal as Square wanting lots money instead of Square wanting a major brand recognition for Tomb Raider which is what MS is providing at the moment.
Nobody complained about third party exclusives ruining everything during the NES, SNES, PS1, and PS2 eras.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.