Today on The Xbox Dive, Chris and James discuss Studio MDHR and the annoucement that Cuphead is a full Xbox One Console Exclusive. But, is that really a good thing for Cuphead or Studio MDHR?
It's also available through many PC channels as well. If MS helped fund this game in any way, shape or form then they should be entitled to some sort of benefit.
I agree and I'm sure Microsoft paid them well for getting exclusive rights to it.
to be honest, I am more excited that the game is finally releasing. I hope all that effort paid off in the end. Sure we would like to see games on all platforms, but it is also a way to set yourself apart from the competition.
If Microsoft doesn't own the intellectual property then I'm not sure what you're talking about
how much money would somebody actually pay to own the right to something while also not owning the thing itself?
It doesn't really make any sense.
Also isn't this still releasing for PC?
@_-EDMIX-_ - this is also releasing on PC, which we cover. As for owning IP, companies do it all the time, they are mostly considered 2nd party games at that point. Studio MDHR can own the rights to the IP and still make a deal to ONLY release that game on the Xbox One. That means that Sequels, or "Definitive Editions" or something like that, could in fact come to other platforms. Unless, of course, the deal they signed with Microsoft clearly states that it can't.
It's coming to steam and Windows as well.
Tbh, looks like an old good platformer, but nothing crazy.
Can't really have paid them that well if they had to mortgage their homes, right? I'm guessing that MS came toward the end of development and gave them funding to make it more than just a boss run game.
At the end of the day its the developers choice, and it's up to fan's to voice their opinions on it if it's something that upsets them. But, everyone seems to be okay with this gaming going full exclusive... Not ruckus being made here. Like I've commented in other articles about this game, I hope its good and successful. This game is getting major hype, based mainly on it's look/style. I really don't know how this game will turn out, it could go either way but it's definitely has a look to it. If people forget, this game was suppose to come out last year i think. It was suppose to be a boss run game, it consisted of a bunch of boss fights. The delay was to add more platforming/levels/progression to the game.
Is it good? Yea, it's good. Could it be better with an extra 60 Million "potential" customers... maybe.
@neol. I don't disagree with you that somebody theoretically could do that except it's simply doesn't really make any sense on why someone would make a deal to not use a property they actually already own as opposed to just selling the property in the first place.
It literally contradicts the entire point of the deal.
I mean you would have to consider how much money could have company actually pay another company to not use something they own? Would technically the price of such a thing kind of Justified just buying the property?
That's almost like saying how much money can I pay you to exclusively drive your car? How much is it worth for you to not drive a vehicle you legally own? Would it not have to benefit you more than selling the car?
Think about it.
This sounds like a timed deal.
If it releases on steam then it should be fine
@Edmix. Ms own the publishing rights to Cuphead. So they need to approve it being released elsewhere, hence no ps4 version. As the developers still own the IP though they can make sequels.
Microsoft will help fund games they don't own. Remember Sunset Overdrive? At the very least, it's a respectable business decision that fosters developer relations.
I don't think Cuphead will be hurt much by exclusivity. No more than any other console exclusive. It's a reason to invest in the Xbox One. Even if you don't want to, most people own a PC/ Laptop that can run Cuphead. It hurts no one in my opinion.
It's not really a tough question, these guys caught Microsofts eye, so Microsoft compensated them well in an cinsile exclusive deal....so YES Cuphead being console exclusive is a good thing.
Exclusives help differentiate platforms, I mean unless you want ps4 and X1 to have all the same games then surely X1 should have some exclusive games ps4 does not. You simply cant say it's only good when Sony gets exclusives but bad when Microsoft does.
True its also on Steam. But to answer the question, exclusivity is good as long as the devs are satisfied and they are paid because they will be missing too many sales otherwise.
This is probably the most important part. The Devs are in charge of their creation. If they feel they are being compensated properly, then nothing else really matters.
Many people don't realize that multi-platform is a luxury it is not something that every single developer can actually afford to pull off.
I mean of course they're missing sales but the game has to be made first before they can even miss a sale but what's the point if they can't even afford to get it off the ground on one or two systems?
Many people that are opposed to exclusivity rarely ever think about this.
If Microsoft is giving them funding to allow this game to exist in return for timed exclusivity, it's something the team must do for the time being. I mean it makes more sense to finish the game and worry about multiple platforms later.
The devs are self publishing the game on Steam. Microsoft have nothing to do with it there. The devs will get 70% of the profits after Valve take their 30% cut.
It should sell pretty sell. I know a few people that have been looking forward to Cuphead for quite a while.
I've had the game on my Steam wishlist for several months now. It's looking like a great game.
Microsoft wanted them to go back and make the game bigger. I'm sure they either paid them salaries, some exclusive bonus or funded the whole thing.
No one makes exclusives for free. Microsoft helped them in some way. But we'll probably never know exactly how
Is any game being exclusive a good thing? Just limits potential crowd and criticism, nothing else.
I totally agree. I said it in the show, but Exclusives only ever benefit the Platform holder. It's not good for developers OR consumers! Unless you are a troll who just wants to rub it in your friends face that they can't play something. haha
Can you also say that developers like Guerrilla Games, Naughty Dog, Turn 10 and etc. are in a safer place as a company in an industry that has developer disband left and right? Of course, those first party developers can still be scrapped of course, just look at Zipper. If I got a job working for Naughty Dog I would feel like I am in a good position to keep my job. Also, most first party developers are top notch and hire top notch developers/artists. As a first party developer you only need to worry about one system and not 2 or 3. You also have money coming in from your publisher as well which can take a load off because we all know people work best when there isn't a lot of stress around. Once again, since your game is an exclusive, your game won't get as many eyes on it just who ever has that particular platform. I will say that exclusives get way more attention compared to games that are multi-platform. Just on this site and IGN, I have seen a lot of Crackdown 3 articles, GT Sport, Motorsport Cuphead (lol), Mario Kart, Spiderman, Sea of Thieves to name a few. Of course, you see a lot of multi-platform as well. We can all agree that Quantum Break was a decent game but not a system seller for MS. That game alone got so much attention because it was exclusive to MS. As a gamer I should have most of the consoles because I want to play all the cool games that come out and I am not a troll. Why would an exclusive hurt a gamer (budget could be an issue)? This is only a hobby to 99% of us and it is an expensive one. We have MS Sony and Nintendo who put THEIR own money into these first party developers who are super talented AND create more jobs in these fields. The 3rd party exclusive deals are a different story and I will agree with you there.
1st party studios will always be seen as totally acceptable to sell hardware. Another acceptable practice would be something like Bayonetta 2 where somone like Nintendo helped fund the project but I would only accept such practice if the game would never be made otherwise. This is something we as consumers are never privy to. We have no idea if Capcom could make Dead Rising 4 without the help of Microsoft or Street Fighter 5 without the help of Sony. I personally think those tactics stink. They are self-serving. If Capcom can't make games without hardware makers getting involved then maybe they should sell their IP's and do soemthing else.
With indie games they often need the backing of a big publisher.
The biggest joke has to be exclusive content, timed or full.
? how is it not good for the Developers? If the publisher is paying for the game to exist because the team could not properly fund the game then the trade-off is rewarding the team with funding.
They're not forced to accept any publishing deal they don't want.
I would also say that developers working exclusively on a platform allows them to fully 100% focused on making the best game possible as opposed to worrying about multi-platform issues.
Making a game multi-platform is technically a luxury it is not something by default that every developer can afford to do.
I would argue that there are many games that would never even exist at all to even be worrying about being rubbed in your face if it wasn't for first-party Publishers taking a chance and funding.
Disagree strongly. Exclusivity often comes with additional platform support and up-front financial guarantees (the latter of which lowers the fiscal risk of a sales flop), both of which can and often do result in a game superior to what would otherwise be developed.
There's a reason why such a high percentage of the very best games are exclusives.
I agree. It can really hurt developers through less salew, but at the same time, gamers want that "exclusive" feather in their cap. It's a double edged sword.
You assume that the cost to make games for multiple systems is static. Without outside funding a bunch of Games wouldn't get made, there are multiple examples of this throughout gaming history.
Seriously it's simple math.
Product A doesnt get made= $0
Product B gets released s to less people= upside$$$
first party exclusives are Okay and obvious. Third Party exclusives are bad for devs and consumers.
I would greatly disagree with that especially in regards to Developers.
So if Microsoft Sony or Nintendo help fund a game in return for exclusivity that was never going to exist because they could not afford it to, you're telling me it's a bad thing that they gave them money to help the game exist? How does it benefit you for the game to never exist?
I mean do you guys seriously not fully understand that multi-platform is a luxury only to the top publishers? Look at Square Enix even they don't release games on all three or four platforms.
I mean consider you're not seeing Final Fantasy 12 remaster on Xbox One or switch or PC (yet)
It's not saying that Sony made a deal with square it simply saying the game itself may not have been popular enough to justify multiple platform development.
Mind you that is from a huge company so how could you explain this to a small developer?
I mean even Sega as limited platform releases because they cannot justify spending on platforms that don't buy their damn games so how could you justify this spending to a company that is making a very small independent game? That is making a very small independent game?
I'm sorry but you guys need to stop with this stupid emotions policy
Give us some real logical financial reasons why it would be bad for a developer to accept funding for their game in exchange for exclusivity.
First actually fully tell us why it's bad for developers in full detail please...
Single word responses are for single tracked minds....
Great deal for Microsoft and horrible deal for the developer... Not one xbox exclusive paid off for anyone this generation...
I'm sure xbox gamers will enjoy this bad boy and never speak of it a month later
You're kidding me right? Ryse son of Rome and dead rising 3 were over 1 million at launch of the system. Titanfall sold millions. Halo 5 was 5 million in 3 months. Forza horizon 3 was 2.6 million in 3 months, I can keep going.....
Kribwalker.... Really? Didn't the studio behind Son of Rome shutdown (or majorly reduced staff) because of poor sales? Selling 1 millions copies of a game isn't that great. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of making the game.
Dead rising games had much greater sales on the 360, which is probably why Capcom decided to bring the franchise to playstation
TitanFall was supposed to be the game that put xbox on top and it barely kept it on life support. Exact reason why the sequel came to ps4 (probably regretted not releasing multiplatform the first time)
All the other examples are pointless since they're games released under first party studios. So.... Doesn't really match up to what cup head is doing.
That's why I said great for Microsoft and most likely bad for the developer since they'll miss on some sales to make a quick buck.
I don't blame Microsoft, since that's the game and having cup head as an exclusive is better than not.
Lol ok bud. How is it a horrible deal for the developer that they're getting funding for this damn game to exist?
Mind you with an install base of around 30 million you would have to be on cocaine if you really expected 100% of the install base to buy this game that actually could be said about any game on any install base.
@krib-absolutely agreed. Dead Rising in ryse son of Rome did well for those Developers based on their current Financial situations.
Capcom is not in the best financial place right now and Crytek is damn near almost going out of business.
They needed the funding for those games or they likely otherwise would not exist I have no idea why people have this stupid believe that if the exclusive deal never happened for some games that they otherwise would have been on like 4 platforms
There are many games that released that only release on one or two platforms not even because there's some sort of deal but because they cannot afford to develop multi-platform in the first place.
@SkippyPaccino Sorry that argument about Son of Rome causing Cryteks financial issues is laughable. They are a company that has always overstepped it financially and Rome had nothing to do with it. Maybe it is the four of five studios they opened up over the years but hardly producing any content. Since Crytek was fully paid by Microsoft to build the game they didn't lose money on it.
Titanfall, It sold better overall to the limited population at the time compared to Titanfall 2 numbers with the much larger audience 3 years later. Where were all the millions and millions of PS4 console buyers that clamored that they wanted the game too? They didn't come to the party in those same clamoring numbers *not even close) when it did finally reach the PS4 console as well.
You can talk all you want about sales but, PS4 attachment rates are about 20% lower than Xbox attachment rates.
Where are your arguments exclusivity with Sony and third party? What about SF5 or FF XV? Aren't they missing out on sales?
Well for a company selling a product that is very similar to a competitive product made by an even more respected company in the same market, yeah it is a good thing for them.
If the game is exclusive on the platform that dominates the whole console market, then is not absolutely a bad thing.
Exclusivity also allows for the developer to focus on 1 platform and ensure full quality and detail. Look at Naughty Dog games or Horizon, God of War, infamous and others. Also, look at Hideo Kojima when he developed Metal Gear exclusive first on Playstation and how he manage to squeeze the best of the platform and the games still manage to be a huge blockbuster hit.
Exclusivity is good and Sony has proven that with their studios. Look at the first Titanfall and how it really hurted to be exclusive on a platform that doesn't have a big market grip.
Being #1 doesn't always mean big numbers when it comes to games as look at TF2 for example that didn't do that well despite being multiplat
You also have to remember that TF2 came out really close to the release of COD IW and BF 1. Two massive games that sell a lot of copies and games that are similar to TF to an extent.
"Is Cuphead Being Xbox Exclusive a Good thing?!"
Same can be said about every 3rd party exclusive to Nintendo or Sony. Is it a good thing?
At least this one is also getting a PC release.
Agreed. We talk about Cuphead, because it was just recently announced, but we also mention exclusives as a whole. Exclusives aren't going away, but it is a good talking point.
2014 is considered recently?
I enjoyed well paced informative and entertaining
People complain about Play Anywhere because most games come to pc, but I know that if for some crazy reason I would lose my Xbox, I'd still have a large amount of my library on my pc. I see that as a win!
Well you could also lose your pc at the same time, than you would be screwed.
I don't disagree with you from that perspective but you have to consider there's lots of people that might own both platforms and originally purchased an Xbox one with the belief that there would be content only to be found on Xbox One
I mean that's like me getting a streaming service because I believe there would be exclusive content only for the majority of the content to windup on Netflix another service I own
I'm sorry but I just don't have reasons to own two services for the same content.
I mean people sort of have their own right to complain about the sort of being misled about the content.
"At least this one is also getting a PC release."
so...it's not an exclusive then? what are we talking exclusivity and use Cuphead? I don't understand
I like the Cuphead subtitle; "Don't Deal with the Devil". So much Irony. lol
Let's just say that, we picked the key art for a reason! ;)
So you picked it just because you personally think MS is the devil. CLASSY.
Here's how it seems to go around these parts.
"Oh that game looks cool, I wish it was on PlayStation, but instead of openly admitting I'm jealous of MS having this particular exclusive (which all platforms have a blend of 1st party, 3rd party, or timed exclusives, or timed or exclusive DLC, etc... nobody is doing anything wrong here) I'm gonna come up with yet another conspiracy theory, or at least spout rehashed phrases I use to convince myself that the devs of this game are 'poor pawns' who were 'mind controlled' by EVIL MS overlords, and act like MS is the only entity capable of evil in the gaming industry simply to have an outlet for my jealousy and pettiness."
"Oh and I'll also pretend to have a killer gaming PC"
DAE ELSE THINK M$ IS THE DEVIL XDDD SO EDGY
It's a XBO gaming console exclusive,they deserve to have exclusives.
Hey, I'm a huge Xbox Fan. I'm not saying they don't DESERVE to have the exclusive. Our topic is more just to the health of running exclusives, especially when they are 2nd or 3rd party. Thanks for commenting.
So, MS needs to have exclusive, but they aren't allowed to have 2nd or 3rd party exclusives?
I'm not quite sure i understand the point
Whether people like it or not, consoles need exclusives to sell their console. Microsoft was smart to lock this one down. But since it's on steam and gog, I can still get it.
It's not Xbox exclusive. It's on Steam. And thank God for that.
It is an Xbox Console Exclusive, which is what we were talking about. However, in the video we do confirm that it's coming both to PC and MAC.
It is not coming to Mac. The actual developer said it "could" come to Mac or Linux in response to a question about it being a Microsoft exclusive, not that it was a planned option.
Which is good for people who own a computer - but for people who only game on consoles, it's an Xbox exclusive
well people said exclusives are important for brand and that ms needs exclusives so... seems like a start to working on that problem.
Funny, because trending on N4G at the top along with this story is another store about the lack of Xbox exclusives. N4G must have a four five stories a week about the lack of Xbox exclusives argument. And people pile on in these stories on how little Xbox has and they need more. But, when they have an nice exclusive that everyone seems to want then argument switches to people believing exclusives are bad or people argue it should come to the PS4 because it a bigger market.
Only on N4g can you have an article complaining Xbox One has no exclusives next to an article complaining that Xbox One has an exclusive.
What a stupid question. Just ponies upset they are not going to see the game on their system.
Thanks for your input, but we are an Xbox Exclusive show. The Xbox Dive. It is a very valid question and one that we discussed thoroughly. Thanks for taking the time to comment though.
So the same can be said for Spider man exclusivity? Just xboners upset they are not going to see the game on their system?
I would say that is a fair statement. I am sure there are many Xbox fans that would like to play Spiderman when it releases.
Where is the show asking if Spiderman exclusivity is a good thing? I would like to go comment on it but I did a quick search and didnt find one.
We are actually an all Xbox show, but we do have quite a few friends and fellow co-hosts on other shows that only own Playstation and want nothinh more than Cuphead to come to their platform.
Great show much appreciated
Don't worry if you don't own an xbox to play this. You can just go PC and go buy it on the Windows game store. That way you can really stick it MS by doing that.
Or they can buy it on Steam