Titanfall, GTA V and the Problem with "Exclusives"

Hardcore Gamer: Spending money to artificially reduce options for the consumer isn’t competition. Spending money to distinguish your product from the many and make it the most enticing and cost efficient choice is competition.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
JOLLY11809d ago

I think exclusives are great!

medman1809d ago

I think first party exclusives are great. Paying for a third party title and calling it your own is not impressive. Sony is doing a great job mentoring and supporting indies and giving their first party studios freedom to experiment with the titles they make. Microsoft? I don't know what they're doing. They throw some money around for timed dlc and map exclusivity and now they throw money at respawn for a cod mech multiplayer only game. Where is the innovation? It's more of the same from Microsoft and as a long time gamer who owns both a 360 and ps3, it's getting more than old, it's getting rotten.

JOLLY11809d ago

If I just want to develop for a single console, I should be able to do so. If someone wants to give me development resources to build a game, I should not feel bad about that. I don't see what the problem is? If Titanfall is just COD with mechs, why are people so angry they can't play it? Everyone has COD. I personally think it is very innovative so I am buying a One for it. You seem not to like what it looks like, so why are you bothered?

TekoIie1809d ago


"If I just want to develop for a single console, I should be able to do so."

Oh really? So should the TitanFall devs be able to choose for themselves?

You should read this: http://dispatches.cheatcc.c...

3-4-51809d ago

Agreed, Mario should only ever be on Nintendo consoles and certain Sony or Microsoft games should only be on sony or microsoft consoles as well.

franwex1809d ago

Very well put. Nice read.

Kleptic1809d ago (Edited 1809d ago )

agreed...however...there is on glaring issue in it...

talking about 'PC' as a platfrom gets riddled with holes pretty quickly...who is this governing body that controls software for the PC gaming community? (hint: its not Microsoft)

That is where GTAV has a problem...MS, Sony, or both, very likely didn't want the game released on anything but their own platform...but its obvious that a bidding war between the two manfucturers wouldn't work well (it would've cost one or the other WAY too much to gain exclusitivity to GTAV)...but at the same time...who would front money to 'protect' a PC version? one...

thats the nature of a open platform...Many 'gamers' do not understand how making a PC game works...its 100% fundamentally different than releasing a game for a console...the publishing company for PC software has to obtain a license for windows development, as well as some various rights to logo's if they want to put 'windows' on the box or on ads...but thats it...there are no royalty payments per copy sold, there is no QA hoops that need to be jumped through over and over and over...there is nothing other than that initial license...

on the other hand...there is NO support from MS, other than the normal windows updates any licensed developer gets...problems with your net code? its your problem...problems building up a dedicated server network?...its your problem...can't get the game to run on 100's of different machines? its your problem...problems getting it to work on various versions of windows? still your problem...

MS and Sony offer all kinds of support tools for this kind of thing, all of which are included with development kits to begin with...PC doesn't have a 'parent' watching over it...PC doesn't have a controlling body making development easier, or cheaper, or faster...the only benefit it offers is freedom, and arguably a larger installed base depending on the type of game you're making...

exactly why Sony and MS can easily push 3rd parties away from releasing a PC version of any given game...the publisher makes an offer trying to estimate how much money they'll make on a PC version...and MS or Sony counters it, while probably helping with marketing and other stuff...

the point is...its not like 'PC' is able to make any form of counter i can't say the tactic of limiting PC games is unfair, or fair, its just completely different...

but...PC gaming is ascending again, big time...and the only thing that will happen is the price needed to prevent a PC release will be so big in the future; its going to happen less and less...

Jovanian 1809d ago (Edited 1809d ago )

never liked the idea of exclusivity. I think it stifles creativity and the amount of people who are able to experience your work, and unless you have very specific reasons why you cannot pursue multiple system launches due to inexperience or lack of funds or hardware constraints, games should strive to be released on as many platforms as possible without compromising quality. But as it is now most exclusivity is because a big amount of cash was offered for it, and I think thats a disservice to the entire gaming industry honestly

mhunterjr1809d ago (Edited 1809d ago )

'Spending money to distinguish your product from the many... Is iscompetition.'

That statement counters his own argument. Having exclusives does distinguish the product.

This whole 3rd party versus 1st party exclusive argument holds no weight. Whether MS is paying EA for titanfall, or Sony is buying Media Molecule whole, either way, the companies are paying to bring content to their device exclusively... And that content is what distinguishes them.

Visiblemarc1809d ago

Well, yes, but 1st party exclusives are a different matter. Even so-called second party exclusives. Because both those formats are tailored to hardware. Strict 3rd party exclusives don't bring anything directly to your user base that they wouldn't have had anyway if you let it come out as a regular cross plat. The argument is, take that money and develop true 1st party games with it to actually create something new.

mhunterjr1809d ago (Edited 1809d ago )

Again that argument still holds no weight. This isn't about wether or not 3rd party exclusives won't be able to take advantage of the hardware (which is BS anyway), its about whether exclusives in general are anticompetitive.

Whether or not SONY buys the studio, or MS pays a studio to develop specifically for them, doesn't change the fact that they are PAYING to have exclusive content.

Gears of War is a perfect example of a 3rd party taking advantage of the hardware. So is Beyond: Two Souls. Ryse looks to do the same, and Dead Rising 3 to an extent. so I'm not sure what you are getting at there...

Irishguy951809d ago

I can see where you're coming from, but sometimes it's just easier to hire a talented studio than set up there own one. I mean, look at Halo 4. 343i had so much money put into it and it just doesn't match up to Bungies games.

The guys who made cod 4 can make good games. They were hampered by Activision immediately to get the milk machine running after Cod 4. MS are securing respawn now to get their game exclusively on their system. Respawn are Respawn. MS can't recreated that dev team. It's a safer bet than making a new dev team although I personally wish they did, as we'd be getting Titanfall and another exclusive from MS.

Exclusives are bad for gamers and good for companies. They are for distinguishing one console from another. However they do help with the competition aspect so there is that.

Visiblemarc1809d ago


The point is a first party studio is an investment. You take x dollars and give your customer something that didn't previously exist. 3rd party exclusives involve seeing an 80% finished product intended for all platforms, and saying, "even though our user base will already get this product, let's take this 100 million we could spend on making them something new and spend it on making sure that other platforms don't get this game." It's a simple concept.

It would be similar to having 4 diners. One diner sees that hamburgers are being made and will be served to him, his wife and another couple for free(to keep the comparison direct). He has two routes bribe the chef to toss out the other couple's meal and serve only him and his wife the burgers(3rd party approach) or pay to order his wife and himself appetizers and dessert as well. (1st party approach). The meal cost the same either choice he makes, but the "1st party route gets his wife a better meal (while enticing rather than antagonizing loyalists of other platforms btw).

Sure it can broaden into discussion of platform strengthening but for our purposes, keeping the point directly on subject.

Also, as for your assertion that a game built multiplat for most of it's life will take advantage of hardware as well as one built from the ground up, I can only say you're wrong. 1st party games are, themselves, the only required evidence. Show me crossplats that can touch them.

Show all comments (16)