Sony as you know has a strong line up of Playstation 3 exclusive series such as Killzone, LittleBigPlanet and Infamous, recently they have now been critizing platform exclusiveness and has “warned” that it limits the games’ marketing potential.
third party exclusives...change the title
Actually to put their comments into perspective... they basically don't want to shell out lots of money for an exclusive when they could 1) Spend less money to secure exclusive DLC (Baman, RDR, AC:BH) 2) Use their money for their own first party studios. It has the added benefit for 3rd party devs as their games are still multiplatform, but some extra content for 1 version won't be a problem.
Thats smart. It means they can focus on their own titles whereas M$ is running short. Third party titles will come to PS3 anyway lol
maybe this is meant as a response to the Resident Evil 6 timed exclusivity rumours
@ malandra Svenson already commented on that. http://www.capcom-unity.com...
Such a stupid article. They meant that it is better for 3rd party developers, because they don't want to force a company to make a game exclusive in that sense, because it limits their market. But at the same time, it means they can pay for exclusive content, which keeps both the developers and Sony happy.
"Sony Dislikes [Third Party] Console Exclusive Titles" Fixed :P and it's no like Sony "dislike" Third Party Exclusives, just use the money for First Party Games...
Is it really that hard for the reader to figure out on their own?
But 3rd party likes Sony, Yakuza / Agent / FF versus 13 / MGS 4 And SO MANY PS1 PS2 Games !!!! ....... etc
Exactly what I was gonna say. They were referring to third party exclusives. Of course, that's a bit ironic too since the PS3 has a few of those coming too. haha
Sony hates MGS4? Anyway, I prefer exclusive games over exclusive DLC because having the latter will alienate the other console's fanbase.
They didn't pay for MGS4 so no. Also, the title can be a bit misleading.
MGS4 was under contract
Well, just make every exclusive game multiplat and we're done.
Just buy a Ps3 and your are done. Much easier than developing 15 games a year on two different platforms.
I was kidding, i know that making multiplat games is harder than exclusive ones.
Actually, just put a $120.00 graphics card in your desktop PC and you're golden. No limits, no excuses, maximum fun and maximum profit for developers because they are not subsidizing the hardware via licensing from the big 3.
err...that doesn't solve the problem that you still need a PS3 to play PS3 exclusives! they don't come to PC EVER! some 360 exclusives too. so, what's your point?
Well badz149, my point is that if we didn't have consoles, this subject wouldn't even exist. However, others would probably come to take their place... like OS wars and so on. Picture it badz149... No special licensing... lowered costs per game... costs of computer equipment very affordabled... more games being made for an open platform... More choice. More freedom. More fun. More money being made for developers. Developers don't have to rely on publishers as much as they do. A video game renaissance is born. A dream? Perhaps... but, a beautiful one.
As long as Sony keeps making games like they have been, I could really care less if they make a console! I don't play consoles, I play games! I could get a better PC and just upgrade every five years like usual! Somehow, I know it will hurt the market though, so the status quo should continue!
I get your vision and it's good that you're accepting it as a dream. but let's look at it from another perspective "More choice." - with only PC as the only platform? that's LESS choice than what we currently have! now, people who are comfortable with kb+m can game on PC, those who want it simple and stick with controllers can game on consoles and those who just game casually can stick to the DS or phones. everybody wins! granted that there'll be platform exclusive games, but that's not up to us gamers to decide but to follow the platform with games we want. "More freedom." - not exactly. there's no freedom if you're being limited to just 1 platform IMO! "More fun." - this is highly opinion. based on what you enjoy the most and everybody has different taste, FUN is not something that can be generalized. "More money being made for developers." - no guarantee for this as if PC is the only platform available, competition will be fierce as well and things will never be the same. "Developers don't have to rely on publishers as much as they do." - maybe it's hard to digest this fact but many studios available currently are 'alive' because of the publishers having their back and some even diminished not because of publishers axing them out, it's just because of their own incompetency. "A video game renaissance is born." - I don't know about that as renaissance was launched because of the restrictions put on people during that time but now, the gaming market is as crowded as ever. I don't think any renaissance is needed but maybe we could do with some new fresh ideas. long comment, sorry but just want to share my view
Badz149 - It's cool man, I don't mind a long comment, I make plenty myself. I understand where you are coming from and enjoyed your comment. I want to add that a computer is an all-in-one solution. If you want to game using other input methods and control schemes, there is no limit to what you can do with a computer. It accepts pretty much everything. But, a closed system with forever be static and that is the curse of all closed platforms that have strict control placed on them. I think there is a viable reason to have handhelds and don't think of it as an all or nothing proposition. I think both can exist, because you can't take a desktop with you on a road trip or the train. However, who knows what the future might hold? Developers rely on publishers, like coke heads rely on their dealers... that is all I will say about that. Having one stationary platform like the computer, would open up so much more innovation and opportunity for not just the developers, but the end consumer. I think the state of the industry has created an upwelling of indie development and that is largely fostered by the pc gaming community. That is a true renaissance created by the weight of the system in place, that same system that trends toward stifling innovation in favor of tried and true formula. Remember... all things start with a dream. Reality has to begin somewhere.
19 Disagrees? God damn cant you fanboys take a joke?
3rd party Exclusives are pretty close to being at an end anyway. Most people by now can own all three consoles pretty cheaply and exclusive means jack squat to you like it does me anyway.
The promblem is SONY is prepared to make the best looking , best playing games on the markert purely for their Hard-core audience however they are not prepared to spend money they can you to make games on markerting their games .
theres still a ton of exclusives out there and that will never change
I think they just love all the free marketing they get from Microsoft on multiplats. Sure that powerful GTA/Battlefield ad might have a big 360 logo at the end, but the PS3 owner isn't gonna disregard that game or run out and get a 360 to play it, they will just say "Oh I'm gonna get that for PS3", the ad still does it's job of showing you the game even though it's paid for by the other platform.
“When you make a title exclusive, you limit its promotional power; we don’t want to do that,” Sony brand manager Scott McCarthy said. “We want games to be as big as possible — it’s great for the industry. We work very closely with our [third party] publishers, not necessarily to lock down games exclusively, but to lock up exclusive parts of games.” when sony says it its cool, when MS says it they are ruining gaming perhaps I'm over simplifying, buts its near the end of my work day, and I'm tired. I'm going home to play Killzone 3. Does anyone know if they retro map pack is available on psn and if so how much does it cost?
It's a pretty noble way to go. You pay for making your own games better, instead of paying to make other peoples's games reach fewer.
Even worse, exclusive DLC has been one of the most anti-consumer things I have seen this gen. Anyone who buys a multiplatform game, regardless of platform, should have the same level of support and content.
I don't see that as being anywhere near as bad as paying for outright exclusivity, assuming that exclusivity was paid for with the sole purpose being to keep it off the competitor's console. Exclusives for the sake of taking advantage of a single console's strengths however, I think is great. Still, I agree they both suck. I think the best option would be for Sony or MS to get the DLC, not as an exclusive, but instead, have the DLC for free on one platform. Offer all DLC on both platforms, but give Sony and MS the option to basically buy the DLC at a discounted rate for all owners of the game.
well said, both of you.
At the start of a console generation, 3rd Parties will be tempted to go exclusive. When the console numbers hit 20 million, 3rd parties will be tempted NOT to go exclusive.
Why waste money by throwing it at developers for timed exclusive DLC? Developers have been pumping this crap out in record time just to get a free check from M$. I like that Sony would rather spend money so it's studios can just pump out great games. Seriously PS3 Exclusives vs. 360 Timed DLC is a NO BRAINER!! Sony has given it's gamers and the gaming world some of the greatest games ever versus Microsoft just buying up DLC on Multi-plats. In the end when the time is up PS3 owners get the DLC anyway which is dumb and a waste of cash.
Exclusives are great
If they made a multiplatform game that uses 2dvds for the xbox,then i would get it for my ps3,but if it only uses 1dvd for the xbox,its a waste.Just my opinion folks.I rather like exclusives,because it was made for the console.
how about if you can install the 2nd and 3rd disc and just use the 1st disc all the time.
"It's great for the industry" yeah, and fuck the consumer...
Sony dislike exclusives? then why do they have so many and so many good ones at that, shouldn't it be Microsoft hates exclusives, it looks that way anyway.
read the article.
At no point did they say they dislike exclusives in that article :|
Can somebody fire Sony brand manager Scott McCarthy? The point of a ‘brand’ is surely its unique selling points. I know that Sony were convinced that this was the Bluray with the PS3 but, no, it actually it is the games. So why would you want to weaken your brand by having lots of multiformat games instead of lots of exclusives? The only sensible truth is that exclusive games cost too much and that they have to be picky. If they have any sense, they will be willing to pay to try to make Bioshock Infinite a timed exclusive.
Sony is thinking of how much money they can make if they port Uncharted and their other first party games to the 360 and the Wii. - and of course their NGP games to the 3DS so they will actually sell some. ^^
Uncharted on the wii would look horrible.
"Sony Dislikes Console Exclusive Titles". HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! So Sony dislikes GT5,Uncharted,inFAMOUS,Little big planet,Ratchet and clank,Killzone...... LOL!the xbots are so deperate
The only reason we see less 3rd party exclusives is because the 360 & PS3 are neck & neck sales wise. If there was a bigger install base difference we'd see more exclusives on which ever console was leading like the PS2.
Sony is responsible for the VERY BAD MARKETING that made exclusive games for PS3 sell like smelly shit. The Killzone 3 marketing campain AGAIN is a total flaw if you ask me. It's a great (maybe the greatest) shooter but it doesn't get half the attention the average COD title gets. If Sony would market their products in a better way they wouldn't have to come up with stupid comments like this.
It's not like there are that many 3rd party exclusives these days anyway.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.