Approvals 10/3 ▼
gangsta_red (2) - 2528d ago Cancel
littlefatgirl (2) - 2528d ago Cancel
pgraham81 (3) - 2528d ago Cancel
minusthebrant (1) - 2528d ago Cancel
Jamester0722 (2) - 2528d ago Cancel

Is Cuphead Being Xbox Exclusive a Good thing?!

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?

Read Full Story >>
Create Report !X

Add Report


+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)


Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2528d ago
Neonridr2528d ago

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.

neolego2528d ago

I agree and I'm sure Microsoft paid them well for getting exclusive rights to it.

Neonridr2528d ago

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.

_-EDMIX-_2528d ago

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?

neolego2528d ago

@_-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.

bouzebbal2528d ago

It's coming to steam and Windows as well.
Tbh, looks like an old good platformer, but nothing crazy.

its_JEFF2528d ago (Edited 2528d ago )

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.

_-EDMIX-_2527d ago (Edited 2527d ago )

@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.

2527d ago
conanlifts2527d ago

@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.

DarXyde2527d ago


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.

4Sh0w2527d ago (Edited 2527d ago )

It's not really a tough question, these guys caught Microsofts eye, so Microsoft compensated them well in an cinsile exclusive 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.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2527d ago
Eonjay2528d ago

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.

neolego2528d ago

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.

_-EDMIX-_2527d ago

Absolutely agreed

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.

Seafort2527d ago

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.

Ausbo2527d ago

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

TheOptimist2528d ago

Is any game being exclusive a good thing? Just limits potential crowd and criticism, nothing else.

neolego2528d ago

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

madforaday2528d ago

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.

freshslicepizza2527d ago

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.

_-EDMIX-_2527d ago

? 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.

frostypants2527d ago (Edited 2527d ago )

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2527d ago
Jamester07222528d ago

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.

BlackTar1872527d ago

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$$$

Zeref2528d ago

first party exclusives are Okay and obvious. Third Party exclusives are bad for devs and consumers.

_-EDMIX-_2527d ago

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.

Not feelings..



First actually fully tell us why it's bad for developers in full detail please...

Single word responses are for single tracked minds....