Why does Microsoft play ‘me first!’ with cross-platform releases?

If content is obviously superior on Xbox Live, why then does Microsoft feel the need to strong-arm publishers into first-release contracts for their digital releases? There are plenty of justifications for such a policy, and you can be sure that they all center around financial benefits that accrue to Microsoft. But in order to soften the mercenary truth of the matter, Microsoft VP Chris Lewis fell back on some trite and dubious claims about these decisions being in the best interests of consumers.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dangert122642d ago

What microsoft does make sense for them but will actually ruin the game Industry.

They play me first so they can make the sales when there's still hype around the game which will be alot more during Its first release then Its 2nd release on another console as the hype Is not carried on for the other console a new game takes Its shine and you sometimes forget you wanted such and such a game happend to me with bioshock and a few others that are not registering at the moment

Dlacy13g2642d ago

Spot on. Plus its not as though MS will not take games that are on both platforms, they just dont want games coming to the XBLA after having come out on say PSN before. If you look at the sales of games like a Limbo on the PS3 or Outland it tanked on the PS3 because they came out later. Outland was not intentional but rather due to the PSN issue but you can see the effect coming out later has.

buddymagoo2642d ago (Edited 2642d ago )

Just imagine if Nintendo was to use this tactic way back at the start of this generation, scary! Bottom line is, play fair.

darthv722642d ago

back in the genesis and snes days you had several games that would appear on one platform before another. Like SF2 was a huge hit on the snes. A system seller if you will. Genesis got a version some time after and it wasnt as big a seller because people that wanted it pretty much got it for the snes or got the snes to play it.

Playing fair is the usual for many developers/publishers but there will ALWAYS be higher profile games that each side will want to promote as being available first on their platform.

In some cases, the second time around does better than the first so it really shouldnt matter so long as everyone gets a turn.

maniacmayhem2642d ago (Edited 2642d ago )


Nintendo was notorious back in the NES day. You had to pay a hefty license fee just to use their system. Not only that but nintendo could refuse to publish your game for any reason they saw fit.
It's part of the reason those illegal games came out and nintendo started using their "seal of quality" stamp.

I don't understand your logic...
You claim the hype isn't carried over for the other platform because of it being overshadowed by other new games...well wouldn't it be a new game on the other platform especially if your a one console owner?

2642d ago
theonlylolking2642d ago

Limbo sucks. On XBL they had tons of interviews on limbo and kept hyping it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2642d ago
Blues Cowboy2642d ago

@dangert12: Your logic makes sense, but it's also very naive. By creating two separate launch dates for a single title, Microsoft's policy effectively doubles the amount of publicity that a game receives and leads to better sales across the board.

To use Limbo as an example: when it launched a year ago, Limbo enjoyed strong sales due to its quality and exclusive status. A year on, it was released on PS3 and PC with an all-new hype campaign. Not only will people now make a *point* of buying Limbo since it's finally available on other platforms, but a small (but important) minority of "fanboys" will buy it *because* it's no longer an exclusive. Plus, the publicity has a knock-on effect of making XBLA consumers aware of the title again.

The PC and PS3 versions also tend to launch with better optimisation and extra content. It's win-win.

Tony P2642d ago

Eh. Doing "what's best" for customers is just a spritz of altruistic perfume on a completely self-serving idea.

WarPonyDestroyer2642d ago

COD is their biggest seller. It's a 2005 console, not much more groundbreaking games coming down the pipe. Of course they want a lock on the sales.

newleaf2642d ago

Whats ps3's highest seller?
Anyway, I don't want sloppy seconds, if a publisher thinks x360 owners aren't good enough to have a game at the same time as ps3 owners then they can keep their game, true story.
PS3 owners don't seem to mind sloppy seconds, evident in their excitement for games like ME 2 and Oblivion coming to their consoles 1 year after their 360 and pc releases so publishers can keep on doing that for them.
Unless its a question of team size and for the sake of good production, don't bring that ish here

darthv722642d ago

"PS3 owners don't seem to mind sloppy seconds, evident in their excitement for games like ME 2 and Oblivion coming to their consoles 1 year after their 360 and pc releases...."

Yeah but the excitement is not from the game coming to PS3 but from the game can no longer be rubbed in their faces as an exclusive. Sales of such titles kind of show that.

If the hold outs were so much inclined to get the game then they would have gotten it when it was finally released. instead they can use the no longer exclusive nature as some sort of ammo in this (stupid) console war.

FFXI1012642d ago

"PS3 owners don't seem to mind sloppy seconds, evident in their excitement for games like ME 2 and Oblivion coming to their consoles 1 year after their 360 and pc releases "

Some people excited because they like the games and they were looking forward to play it and/or they like the developers. What's wrong with that?

So if games like Fallout or Rage or Skyrim somehow came out on PS3 first and 360 later you would not want to play it just because they were release on other console first? You are re****ed and don't call youself a gamer please.

dark-hollow2642d ago

Then why some people gets pissed when an ps3 exclusive gets multiplat??
Isnt that suppose to increase the sales and don't "ruin" the industry?

UltimateIdiot9112642d ago

The only one that I see fan going crazy about is FFXIII. If you read the other article, you would know that if a game is to be release on both console simultaneously, it should be the same otherwise MS reserve the right to refuse it.

Which backs up fans' rage, first MS has hardware limitation namely using DVD. Because it's multiplat, it fails at manly level to take advantage of either console but more so to the decrement of the PS3.

Now, with a policy like this, it reinforces such harm towards consumers.

When consumer is losing out and developer's creativity are being limited, it is ruining the industry

dangert122642d ago (Edited 2642d ago )

what i mean like if bio shock hype for ps3 was built up like the original release it would off attracted alot more attention

Like if they went game shows then showed us the extra content etc remember some games get almost 6mnths hype
were as these new releases of older games on new platforms do not hold so much as a candle to games that have just been revealed and are coming out around the same time causing you to forget its even coming

and yes It would be a new game but like i said the hype/advertising is much less the 2nd time round

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2642d ago
zeal0us2642d ago

Each of the three company have strict policies
M$ probably being the strictiest
Sony the least and Nintendo right down in the middle.

dangert122642d ago

I don't think sony's is strict...I think theirs makes sense for them on a biz standpoint they do not try to gimp the other formats games etc If i owned one of the big companies EA/Activision I'd say ok no deal I'll just make games for the pc/Ps3/wii u and handheld console and carry on supporting the wii if they want

no fifa ,madden, mass effect mirrors edge battlefield etc watch all them fans scatter across to the ps3/pc and make money from them that way

and shit those cod fans will do anything for cod lol
that would make ms look at there policy

BrightFalls762642d ago (Edited 2642d ago )

If people don't like it then don't support Microsoft, nuff' said. I think it's more than fair. It's their company, their money and their console.

latinalover2642d ago

what will MS do when battlefield 3 comes out because they are PS3 then Xbox 360

Silly gameAr2642d ago

And, totally screws gamers that play other consoles. But hey, it's MS's money, company, and, console, so I guess it's only right for gamers that don't own an xbox to come last on the deal.

UltimateIdiot9112642d ago

I didn't buy a 360 but WAIT! Why is that developer has to hamper and be forbidden to take advantage of the ps3 when making multiplat titles? Why are they not taking more advantage on the PS3?

That doesn't sound fair.

It's like that spoil rich brat on the playground that doesn't want to see anyone getting more attention/better stuff. The moment someone does, he will refuse to talk/do business with them. Thus, ruining the fun and mood.

peeps2642d ago

Pretty simple really... If you really want a new title coming out, and it comes out first on 360 or has timed dlc for 360, chances are you'll buy it for 360 (if you have both consoles).

And for the people getting their first console this gen. Say they really wanted to play COD, and that was the only game they were really interested in. They'd most likely buy a 360 due to getting dlc first.

When people really want something they will get it whenever they can. I know personally I imported UT3 from America because I couldn't wait for the EU release a few months later

latinalover2642d ago

PS3 will get battlefield 3 DLC first

peeps2642d ago

what dlc have they announced or is it just gonna be 1943, a game I bought when it releases over 2 years ago. What I was on about was future dlc, although I do see EA partnering with Sony a lot more with exclusive content, how much content I'm unsure of though

radphil2642d ago

"If you really want a new title coming out, and it comes out first on 360 or has timed dlc for 360, chances are you'll buy it for 360 (if you have both consoles). "

My view on that is different. Many devs now are making it so that those that have to wait later on, get more extra content, than if they went out and got it immediately.

Plus most devs are making it harder to buy games out on Day 1, because of any assortment of either bugs, dlc abuse, revisions, etc.

Cpt_kitten2642d ago

because sony didn't call dibs fast enough?

course sony is paying studios tons of money to develop exclusives for them so all is fair

who really cares anyway

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.