120°

Discussing The Rumored End Of Console Exclusives On The Latest Skewedcast

Skewed and Reviewed look at the rumors of the end of Console Exclusives and the decline of physical Game media on a new Skewedcast.

piroh145d ago

I will make this short

For MS it's the only possible option, they bought many studios in hope for Xbox selling better. The plan failed and because of 70b mortage they have to go multi.

Regarding Sony the plan never changed, going multi because of 1k copies sold more on Xbox is useless.

Every "journalist" who wish Sony the same fate is either very stupid or paid by MS.

Garethvk145d ago

Did not wish them the same fate. MS knows the lack of global impact by the Xbox compared to the PS will require them to offset the rising development costs and risks by releasing on as many platforms as possible. Sony may have to do a Quid Pro Quo to make this happen as they have also seen some titles fail to meet expectations. So while a thousand or so Xbox sales may not move the needles much; it is still additional revenue and money is the name of the game. How well do you think a Switch and Xbox versions of Uncharted, The Last of Us, and even Ratchet and Clank will do?

ApocalypseShadow145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

He's still true on what he said above. Microsoft bit off more than they can chew spending an unheard of 70+ billion dollars. And the result is damn near full multiplatform support putting first party games on Sony's system. Microsoft's main goal in entering the console business was to beat Sony at their own game because they thought Sony was a threat to their PC software. The result was getting their ass whooped 4 times in a row. Even at Sony's lowest point in pushing Blu-ray adoption. Sony ended up beating them with that too as Blu-ray is built into Xbox systems that support disc.

The Xbox platform was on the verge of getting the plugged pulled. The last desperate effort to own Sony and acquire third party publishers was a disaster. Most developers Microsoft purchased were a nothing burger to Sony. Which is why Sony only wanted COD to stay multiplatform. Microsoft admitted it openly with Phil saying that gamers connection to their PSN games would not allow them to abandon PlayStation for Xbox. And we don't see Sony first party games coming to Xbox. Still not on Nintendo systems. PC is like a side hustle to make some cash on a non threat to consoles. In order to play the latest games at the highest quality to match PlayStation requires an expensive graphics card. PC surveying shows that most PC gamers aren't riding on the latest card tech. And PC has not stopped Sony from selling 100+ million consoles again and again. And on the side, Sony just ends up getting other exclusives by their platform winning or by supporting initiatives like China Hero or India Hero, Korean games, etc. Can't take those away. Sony just finds more.

As for Whelen below, how many Nintendo official games are on Xbox, PlayStation or PC? Far as I know, none. And Sony on Xbox is two pronged. Microsoft forced Sony in making MLB multiplatform by going behind Sony's back in talking to the MLB again and again instead of using those billions now trillions in making their own baseball game.
https://www.videogameschron...
Sony either was going to lose the license or go ahead and make the game. But they didn't release on Xbox. MLB published it. Microsoft then did another shady tactic to hurt Sony by putting the game on game pass as a way to sabotage Sony selling their game at $60-70 dollars. The funny thing is that MLB The Show 25 won't be on game pass. Lol. Support it by buying it or you get nothing for the year 2025 on subscription.

The other part was Sony buying developers like Bungie. Where games were already on other platforms. But what Sony published game is on Xbox like Uncharted, TLofU or Spider-Man? None.

Gamers always assume that Sony will go in the same direction as Microsoft. Sony didn't charge gamers for online and give nothing back like Microsoft. They gave back more games per year to play than what you spent on PSN. Sony didn't try to do always online like Microsoft and what fanatics said Sony would do. Sony didn't charge gamers for accessories on console like Microsoft as they let you buy whatever HDD or SSD you could get. Or made everything else built in.

Sony is following their own path. Yes. There were missteps. But those missteps are offset by the tens of millions of copies of their biggest single player games to take those other risks. Successes like Hell Divers 2. Failures like Concord. But Sony's not even close to where Microsoft is in losing exclusives. Because they're case by case releases on PC. But after those games sold truck loads selling PlayStations.

145d ago Replies(2)
Flawlessmic145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

Xbox needed to go multiplat due to declining hardware sales and massive expenditure on studios.

The lack of growth left Microsoft no options

Sony on the other hand is not in same space and with ms doing what there doing more xbox gamers will shift to Sony as the platform of choice which will means even more sales for sony.

In saying that rising costs and failed projects are definitely hurting Sony aswell. I can't see Sony ever releasing games on xbox willingly ever!!!

But what I can see happening and think needs to happen is Sony will launch on pc day and date soon aswell.

Pc and console crowd are different and it shouldn't hurt Sony to much hardware sales wise but will increase games sales massively.

Games like spider man 2 would've sold millions if it was day and date on pc and not years later where there is zero hype behind it.

Time are changing fellas

jwillj2k4145d ago

By your logic shouldn’t Spider-Man sell millions regardless of if it was day and date on PC since PC players wouldn’t be able to play otherwise?? we know someone’s not waiting a year and a half+ for a piss poor port on a PC.

The more logical notion is that PC players are buying PlayStations as well, negating Sonnys need to release their exclusives they date on PC, making the PC and afterthought and irrelevant until years later.

Flawlessmic145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

If we use helldiver as an example that launched day and date and sold like gangbusterssssss on pc!! Guarantee if that's was released on pc 2 years later it 100% would not have had the same impact because it's old news.

The hype of the moment cannot be understated when it come to people purchasing games.

Especially when most people have a go to multilayer game that takes up most of there gaming time and the hype of the new games that pulls them away for a while before going back to the same multi game

jwillj2k4145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

First off there’s no guarantee that it wouldn’t sell the same since
1 it is a live service game.
2 especially with it going to a PlayStation exclusive starved to PC market.

Hell tons of people are still playing runescape and WoW.

There is also the portion of pc gamers that would not wait two years for hell divers, once the reviews came out they would have gone to PlayStation or they buy it twice.

PC gamers don’t exist on an island like they would want you to believe, they have consoles as well.

Sony still makes that same amount of money. It’s just coming from PlayStation instead of PC.

Christopher144d ago (Edited 144d ago )

*** But what I can see happening and think needs to happen is Sony will launch on pc day and date soon aswell. ***

Goodbye market dominance of Sony's console then. The whole point is to provide games people can only play on your console, specifically SP games. It drives people to your hardware and thereby to buying more on your hardware from a storefront that gives them 10-30% of each sale. Releasing on PC day 1 would heavily reduce that hardware/storefront control and devastate them to the point where they would need to stop producing the hardware and just go third-party software developer. This would immensely shrink the PlayStation brand and revenue.

Personally, I prefer console hardware that is forced to be supported over PC for my gaming. I like gaming on my TV and streaming is shit for modern gaming still and way more expensive in the long run with proprietary storefronts or limited support. If Sony leaves the console market, I may just focus less on gaming as a hobby and try to fill it with something else. I honestly hope Sony doesn't go the way so many claim they should.

blackblades145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

Listening to a podcast is a waste time and energy.

ravens52145d ago

"Rumored". Let's just leave it at that.

gold_drake145d ago

the thing is

u cant compare Xbox with sony or nintendo.

xbox is failing the console market.

playstation and nintendo are not.

Show all comments (18)
290°

The Real Enemy of Gaming Isn’t DEI. It’s the CEO

From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
jambola18d ago

maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad

senorfartcushion17d ago

This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.

The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.

Calm down.

jambola16d ago

i'm very calm
you seem very upset however

Notellin16d ago

You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.

jambola16d ago

stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud

PapaBop16d ago

It's not like kids show with one bad guy? I present to you.. Bobby Kotick

ABizzel116d ago (Edited 16d ago )

DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.

DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.

DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.

DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.

DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…

The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.

jambola15d ago

you don't get to decide other people's motivations
sorry to break it to you

ABizzel114d ago (Edited 14d ago )

To each their own, however, nothing you said invalidates why some people take offense to DEI incorrectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 14d ago
Sciurus_vulgaris18d ago

Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.

Killer2020UK16d ago

The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.

We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'

LoveSpuds16d ago

This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.

Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.

GhostScholar16d ago

Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.

Soy16d ago

That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.

ABizzel116d ago

Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.

More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.

But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.

jambola18d ago

honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it

TiredGamer17d ago

I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.

HyperMoused16d ago

What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.

senorfartcushion17d ago

This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.

Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.

Christopher17d ago

Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.

TiredGamer16d ago

Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.

senorfartcushion16d ago

Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.

This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.

And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.

jambola16d ago

ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 16d ago
victorMaje16d ago

Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.

We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.

jambola16d ago

just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast

HyperMoused16d ago

Just like scooby doo, you have shown us the real monsters are us

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 16d ago
Inverno17d ago

Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.

coolfool17d ago

I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.

Show all comments (51)
70°

Why We Partnered With St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

Matt Miller: "Every subscription to Game Informer now raises funds for St. Jude. We want you to know what that means."

Read Full Story >>
gameinformer.com
thorstein21d ago

I subscribed to this not knowing about how some of the proceeds go to St. Judes.

Really cool that some of the money goes there.

Even if people don't subscribe to the mag, it might bring people to the charity.

jznrpg20d ago

One of the main charities my wife and I donate to. They help a lot of children and being a parent of 5 children I can’t imagine what those parents go through. I’ll probably get a sub to GI because of St Jude and of course because I love video games.

80°

Dungeons and Dragons is About to Break a 6-Year Trend

Though Unearthed Arcana's content primarily consists of subclasses and spells, WOTC's latest UA drop is set to shake up Dungeons and Dragons' future.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com