Top
590°

SCEA Boss: Microsoft’s Focus On Exclusive DLC Is “Hysterical”

Microsoft has been focusing heavily on getting exclusive DLC on its platform, however most of them a usually timed-DLC, meaning they eventually end up on the PS3. Think the GTA IV packs and also the Modern Warfare 2 packs.

Sony Computer Entertainment North American boss, Rob Dyer, thinks that’s just “hysterical”.

Read Full Story >>
gamesthirst.com
The story is too old to be commented.
alaa2645d ago

The man has a point there. If the DLC is eventually going to come to the PS3, then I see now reason to fight so hard for it.

I understand an exclusive game but DLC? Nah, I wouldn't spend so much cash on it.

Then again, MS has enough money to buy anything so...

kaveti66162645d ago (Edited 2645d ago )

"So, from my perspective, we offer a few things that give a publisher an ease of development. They can be certain a 100 percent of the user population in our world can do their DLC.”

According to Dyer, there’s also the problem of space that Microsoft’s console suffers with, noting that the PS3 can hold more than 9gigs on a Blu-ray disc."

This would be a good point if Rockstar hadn't released the GTAIV DLC on a disc the same day they put it on XBL.

That excerpt of the interview is barely about how Microsoft focuses too much on DLC and is more about hardware and SKU differences between PS3 and 360.

The SCEA guy is basically saying (probably for the publishers to hear) that selling DLC for PS3 games would be better because more PS3 owners have the ability to download the content since they all have hard drives.

Also, he goes off on a tangent about Blu Ray to reiterate that their discs can hold more data than DVD.

I think this is weird because yesterday I read an article on here where Sony had said that they don't want DLC, they want to play the full game on the disc. So, there's a contradiction here.

Does Sony want publishers to concentrate more on them when it comes to DLC or does Sony not want DLC?

It's obvious to me that a company, any company, is going to want to be part of something that can be profitable. If DLC is profitable, I don't see Sony rejecting it. Microsoft is buying timed exclusives and timed DLC because Microsoft doesn't have many first party studios to make them true exclusives.

This has been said so many times before.

colonel1792644d ago

"I think this is weird because yesterday I read an article on here where Sony had said that they don't want DLC, they want to play the full game on the disc. So, there's a contradiction here."

I don´t think is a contradiction, wht I got from there, is that they have the advantage to deliver the content on the disc, instead of DLC (that´s what they want-from the interview-) but if they do DLC then the hard-drive in every console is another advantage

ShinMaster2644d ago

"Microsoft is buying timed exclusives and timed DLC because Microsoft doesn't have many first party studios to make them true exclusives."

Yes

C0MPUT3R2644d ago

.....................
...building more 1st party studios, and creating new IP's?????
.
The longer MS doesn't build up or acquire new studios for true exclusive games.
.
The Faster SONY will be dominating the industry again.
.
What held up SONY this gen was clearly price. Since the PS3 has been $299 they haven't been able to stay on the shelves, & it will only accelerate more and more as the price cuts continue.
.
....................

XabiTheHumble2644d ago

@kaveti6616 you have to read the whole article he is the whole statement "Microsoft has been really aggressive with getting DLC exclusives. Is that a place that you're looking to compete?

RD: I think it's hysterical that they're aggressive about that because if you're a publisher and a developer, you have to make a decision as to how you're going to have that delivered as a DLC exclusive. They've got two different machines. Are you going to give it for the arcade user or the guy that actually has a hard drive. We don't have to worry about that.

So, from my perspective, we offer a few things that give a publisher an ease of development. They can be certain a 100 percent of the user population in our world can do their DLC.

If you want to go and have a conversation with Rockstar -- and talk about how many people were actually able to download their exclusive content they did for Microsoft -- it would be a very different story. That's a part of it. But we also have the ability to put a lot more than 9 gigs on a Blu-ray disc, and in fact, I want to do more than that because it really shows off the difference between our machine and their machine.

You mean you want to put more content on the disc, rather than encourage DLC?

RD: Yeah, because that way, 100 percent of the users are going to get it. 100 percent. What are we, north of 70 percent on the network now? 73, I think. Microsoft probably the same... [That's] still a significant number of people that aren't able to get, whether they don't have broadband, whether they just flat out can't get on the network. Whether or not you do it, they're not using it. I want it on the disc, that way when they buy it, they get it. So, if I can do that, that's great.

Now, you can talk about why DLC is important to help limit the used game business and to keep people holding onto [the game]. I'm all about that, too. I love that. But I want it on the disc so that 100 percent out there that can play this thing."

Persistantthug2644d ago

kaveti6616 said,
"This would be a good point if Rockstar hadn't released the GTAIV DLC on a disc the same day they put it on XBL."

When THE LOST AND DAMNED was released back in Feb. 08, there was no disk for it...it was Download only. It remained so until "BALLAD" was released.

shadow27972644d ago

How in the world did Kenrocc_42 get disagrees? All he did was quote the interview to give the quotes in the article context. 90% of the words in his post aren't even his.

I read the full interview and it was a very interesting read. I love hearing about this industry from different perspectives.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2644d ago
NastyLeftHook2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

well said, gaming is changing alot since last gen. and regardless of dlc or bluray, i just want one game on one purchase.

avengers19782644d ago

What's funny is the amount of money MS spends for that stuff. and it almost always doesn't matter. The sales for GTA where basically the same on both PS3 and 360 even though they had exclusive DLC, well timed anyway. MS spends way to much money on this kinda crap.

feelintheflow2644d ago

Since GTA was considered a "Sony" game, even though san andreas did show up on the xbox, I don't think that there is any way that the 360 would have sold that many copies if it didn't have the dlc exclusive, at least we thought at the time it was going to be exclusive. People forget how bad the xbox was killed by the ps2, so the fact that the 360 did as well as it did was a huge surprise and the money ms spent was well worth it. Don't forget they were trying to give people a reason to buy the 360 over the ps3, and exclusive dlc for the biggest selling game was one of the reasons that they did.

WhittO2644d ago

its true and it only hurts sales in the long run since most people would have stopped playing the game long before the DLC finally goes multi-plat.

MS should focus on channelling all that money into new and original IP's for their console, not worrying about having 1 up on the PS3, which in the end doesnt matter since most people dont see the "exclusive" DLC as the better version of the game, since it almost always goes multiplat anyway

sikbeta2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

I don't think is "hysterical", I think it's Worthless, cos at some point the same DLC will go to PS3, anyways DLC FTL!!!

Rob Dyer is the man that Wants Entire Games on Discs and not DLC:

http://n4g.com/news/527857/...

Inside_out2644d ago ShowReplies(4)
WildArmed2644d ago

Whether I agree or not doesnt matter.
But i dont like the attitude Sony has been picking up from it's competitors.
They should stick to their stuff and not talk about their competition, because I hate it when it all gets blown out of proportion because Greenburg said he prefers Live.. or Dyer said DLC focus is 'hysterical'.

- Ghost of Sparta -2644d ago

When you have no 1st party developers, what else can you do? Hysterically sad is more like it.

Sarcasm2644d ago

Microsoft: "We have Exclusive GTA, Fallout 3, and MW2 Content!"

Sony: "ROFLMAO Go ahead!"

blackmagic2644d ago

For Microsoft, this whole generation has been about evening the third party playing feild I think. MS may be paying only to get timed exclusive content but it also gets the developer working on their platform which many weren't willing to bother doing last generation essentially giving sony free exclusives. Once the developer is familiar with the hardware, it is unlikely that they will make an exclusive title again... Not without a dollar value attached to it atleast. Even companies like square enix don't seem to be interested in exclusives now... Sony >definitely< has better first party line ups however.

HolyOrangeCows2644d ago

He agrees that the DLC as used games sales is goofy because only about 70% (I think it was 70...) actually have access to the internet, thus a large chunk of people aren't even getting to play that part of the game.

He agrees that Microsoft's battle for timed DLC is idiotic.

He agrees that the arcade 360 and the option not to use a hard-drive is holding it back b/c it splits the users.

zeeshan2644d ago

Sony either makes the same money that M$ does or makes even more. That's because the amount of money that M$ pays just to get timed exlcusive DLC probably kills the profits that they could get. Sony doesn't spend a dime, the DLC comes to Sony platform and they earn a buttload of money. Who makes these insane and hysterical business decisions? Yes, that's right, MICROSOFT!

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2644d ago
Zerodin2645d ago Show
reintype2645d ago

Specially, the MW2 DLC. I mean, 1 fricking month, and MS had to beat their collective chest, boasting it out to the world? If that isn't HYSTERICAL, then I don't know what is.

TOO PAWNED2645d ago

funniest part it had no effect on sales

Godmars2902645d ago

More notably, it had no effect on console sales.

Elven62645d ago

Are you sure about that? Wasn't it November or December 2009 where the Xbox 360 sold nearly 1 million units in the US due to Modern Warfare 2?

It broke XBL records by over 1.5 million so I'm sure the Microsoft higher ups and stock holders are pleased.

TheHater2645d ago (Edited 2645d ago )

yeah it was also the same month MS banned 1+ million xbox 360 from playing online.

@Elven6
It was confirmed by MS Major Nelson

Elven62645d ago

Was that 1 million ever confirmed or was it just rumored?

Elven62645d ago

I was looking for a link, not just a "XXXX said so".

WildArmed2644d ago

ouch.
I really hate those LMGTFU links.
They really hit my nerves..
even if they aren't meant for me =p

ukilnme2644d ago

@ ^^^ and PirateThom

I guess the reason for the banned consoles does not matter huh? Right.

rob60212644d ago

the MW2 DLC was pathetic.. buying it out just so their fans can have one up over Sony fans for a month, really does make you question why they would throw their money around like that. No one cares we'll wait a month, no ones going to buy the other version just to get ripped off on DLC earlier. It is kind of funny all the 'exclusive' stuff MS buys first costs an arm and a leg, like they're giving their fans a 'deal'

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2644d ago
PirateThom2645d ago

Modern Warfare 2 or the wave of banned consoles?