By now, we're all familiar with the contrasting business practices between Sony and Microsoft, especially when it comes to "writing checks" to publishers. But SCEA's hardware marketing boss John Koller clarified that stance still further.
According to VG247 , Koller said Microsoft pays for more exclusive and timed exclusive content because of a lack of security where there first-party lineup is concerned. Sony, on the other hand, has plenty of faith in their first-party titles, which is why they're stricter when it comes to handing out money to third-party publishers. Said Koller:
"Microsoft has had a much more lenient policy to writing cheques than we do. We don't feel the need to write cheques necessarily with every publisher, like they did with the Lost and Damned and some other titles, because we feel very strongly in our first-party line-up. I think it's safe to say that we'd put our first-party line-up against anyone's…"
The question is, do the fans agree with Sony's firm position on the matter? There's little doubt that what Koller says is true; that Sony's first-party lineup is impressive and – at this time – appears to easily outstrip the competition. Therefore, in order to remain competitive in the realm of the exclusive, it would make sense for Microsoft to open up its deep pockets and find ways to make third-party publishers stick with the Xbox 360 for certain things. But many believe Sony could put a huge crimp in Microsoft's plans if they simply opted to do the same; it would neutralize MS's advantage. Others, however, say this is "dirty playing" and Sony should just stick to what they do best.
So where do you come out on the issue?
I think Sony should stick to their guns on this one. The only thing I would like top see them do is bring the RPG genre into the 'first party' arena. That said, I believe that there are many first party games in Japan that we never see here, perhaps Sony could spend a bit more on localizing some of those games and bringing them to the US and Europe?
Either way, yes, I do think that the first party games from Sony lead the way. It does force Microsoft to purchase third party games – because Microsoft is unwilling to invest directly in development.
If Sony does not go down the same route of purchasing exclusives from publishers, then I do think they need to pay closer attention to their customers and fan base in general when picking the game genre for future games. For example, gamers on PS3 have been clamoring for JRPG games and as yet there has been little reward.
Sony could also ensure that some of their first party titles are actually completed – yes Gran Turismo 5, I am looking at you.
Everything above applies equally well to the PSP.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 4/14/2009 11:11:31 AM
Very well put Highlander.
I too feel that Sony should take the higher road on this topic and put more money behind first-party developing rather than third for the simple reason that we have seen time and again that if a game is wholly developed with the PS3 then it is leaps and bounds ahead of anything out there while if a developer is multiplating the game and ports it over from developing it on a PC or an Xbox then it usually falls short of what we all know it could have been.
Oh and very much agreed that they should localize and bring games to NA and EU from Japan. I'm looking at Yakuza 3 on this one.
There are numerous games I would love to have, yet they are only available in Japan. My wife is desperate for the Idol Master games on PSP, but the sun is more likely to go Nova than these games get an NA release.
It's not always necessary to revoice the entire game. Sticking to the the example of Idol Master on PSP, I suspect that 95% of the prospective audience in the west would be more than happy with the original J-Pop tracks so long as the actual dialog was re-voiced. I think this is true of very many games, it's not necessary to fully localize a game so long as the dialog can be understood. Good grief, a lot of keen gamers would be happy with subtitles over the top of the original Japanese dialog. I could cope very nicely with subtitles…
no
yes
There are no remaining arguments for the fanboys aside from exclusive titles and PDLC that M$ has to buy.
Last edited by elass0wyp0 on 4/14/2009 11:17:46 AM
I think Sony should shut up and widen the browser in the next update
Uh what? Nothing to do with what we're talking about, but yes on an off-topic note, I don't have any problems with the browser, just needs to be more reliable since it crashes frequently.
Sony's 2009 first party lineup is formidable. There's no need for them to spend unnecessary money on bringing in a bunch of games that nobody wants just to cover up a lack of first party games. I don't think anything MS has paid for has been anything to write home about. Maybe a few more JRPG titles would be nice but the Square-Enix we are seeing isn't the one of old. If Sony is going to pay for 3rd party exclusives, they need to go to the people who are making great games, like Sega WOW of Valkyria Chronicles fame.
Last edited by n/a on 4/14/2009 11:27:21 AM
Even though I think SONY's 1st/2nd party lineup has been doing a good job, just is just more PR spin.
yeah, it is PR spin, but its not total hogwash, like the crap Aaron Greenberg spat out the other week. And i really don't think its much of an insult to MS either, more of an observation.
He didn't say "MS first party and exclusive games sucks balls" he just said they don't have any confidence in their first party games enough to the point where they don't have to sweeten the deal and get timed exclusives exclusive dlc ( both very, overused phrases this gen )
What Sony is doing is respectable, but I would question whether or not it's good business sense as far as not buying exclusives. Personally, I like what they're doing. I love that they say, "We don't have to BUY good games. We make our own." That's pimpin'. Buying exclusives is trickin'. But, from a business perspective…I dunno.
If there's one thing this generation has taught us, is that honor gets you third place. Cheating, rushing, putting out a crappy product…that turns a bigger profit. Sure, you'll spend more money in the long run repairing and replacing systems, extending warranties, and buying your exclusive content, but it still leaves you with the larger install base.
It's not about "honor", it's about profitability. To purchase an exclusive, specially the BIG ones cost a LOT of money, and it gets worse as each console userbase widens. That is why, the "lets pay third parties to make exclusive games for me" practice is getting too cumbersome even for the deep pockets of MS. If you look carefully MS exclusive lineup for this year is pretty weak.
Sony strategy is smarter and long sighted. They are building a lot of awesome games that push PS3s out the door, even with the higher price, while MS is stuck with multiplats.
I dont think that its because MS doesnt have faith in their first party games as much as it is that they dont have any, or at least any that can truly compete with what Sony and the PS3 have on the horizon.
Sony's first party games are top-notch, BUT they would really hurt MS if they paid for some exclusives, the really good ones.
This article has that "Well Duh" vibe about it.
Sony has shown time and again it values it's customers. Are there things they can do better? Yes. But that can be said about any company.
Some of the third party games are more likely to bring more success than first party games do. Final fantasy XIII is probably the most anticipated game of all time and it could've cause a spike in playstation 3 sales if it wasn't going multiplatform.
You are right, FFXIII could be a HUGE spike on sales worldwide (though it will be in japan where that franchise is still exclusive), but lets be real on this one.
Suppose 5 million of copies are sold on the xbox360. That means,
60$ x 5million = 300million$.
So SE probably will require something in-between 300-500mill$ to make FFXIII exclusive on the PS3. I rather prefer all that huge money on some news IPs, that wasted on a game that we are getting anyway.
Last edited by raztad on 4/14/2009 6:53:44 PM
Game developers do not see the entire retail price of a game. I remember reading years ago (could be outdated, but a decent reference point none-the-less) that the retailer sees about 20%, the publisher about 60, and the developer ends up with about 20% of the retail purchase price going into their pockets. Royalties are paid to the licensee from developer and the publisher, but not the retailer. This is another point that makes digital distribution more attractive to the developers, and 1st party devs more profitable for sony (as their own publisher) and less so with MS.
20% of 60.00 is $12 a game. If a game like TLR was expected to sell 2 million copies on the ps3, 25 million dollars would be a fair price to pay for 360 exclusivity. Considering how crappy TLR performed (barely broke 30fps on my computer, which is a very decent gaming rig), I would have been surprised to see it move more than a million copies, meaning exclusivity could have been much cheaper than that.
If FFXIII is to sell 5mil copies for the Xbox, exclusivity might have been as "low" as 60million. Considering sony is still losing money on every console, releasing a system seller like this before truly breaking even on the console might mean far greater financial pain. This could also explain the delay on GT5; if history is to be believed, it will move PS3s at a great pace once released, and they may be waiting for that to be less economically damaging.
Since Sony take a cut on so many points in the value chain, 3rd party exclusives much FAR less financial sense than 1st and 2nd party studios, other than for the PR of obtaining a high buck franchise. Though it can be argued that sony could use the push considering how they have fallen down on their marketing as of late.
Sony should pony up some cash for third-party exclusives because if it combines that tactic with its stellar first- and second-party games then its set, match, and game over for its competitors.
This is what Sony did so well in the PS1/PS2 eras.
There really wasn't even a contest in either the ps1 or ps2 era…so I doubt they paid for anything…
The way I see it, if any console is hurting for exclusives it's the Xbox. Sony has come out with one AAA exclusives after another this past 10 months or so. The rest of this year seems pretty impressive too. 1st party are the only exclusives that matter, and Sony has the definite advantage there.
In all honesty i think neither the 360 or the PS3 have many great exclusives moat of the better games seem to be going multi-platform, Street Fighter IV, Fallout 3, Dead Space, Bioshock, Tekken 6, FFXIII.
PS3 Exclusives:
MGS4, Resistance 1&2, Uncharted, Siren: Blood Curse
Though i cant wait for Heavy Rain, if its anything like Farenheit it will be amazing.
Who cares!!!! Most of you guys wouldn't want to play a MS exclusive anyway, so what difference does it make who has what exclusives. Just play the games that you want to play on whatever system you want to use, and don't worry about it. Surely your not jealous of any of the MS exclusives. Is that why you complain so much about it? Who cares if MS pays for it. Who cares whether or not Sony pays for it! Besides Sony has more important things to worry about taking care of than that. Play the ps3 games, and forget it!!!!!!!!!
Exclusives doesnt just mean the xbox exclusives
We're at war sir, pick a side.
" so what difference does it make who has what exclusives. Just play the games that you want to play on whatever system you want to use, and don't worry about it."
Hmmmm is it me or is that a contradiction in its self, the point is that as they're exclusives you cant play them on what console you want…..
Duh! I meant if you want to play a Sony exclusive use or buy a ps3, and if you want to play a MS exclusive use or buy a xbox 360. As does Ben many people have both systems, and if you don't shut up and play the one you have. Otherwise who cares who has what exclusive. Pretty simple!!!!
Lol, a wise man once said; "Don't feed the troll…"
Notice how right off the bat he made it a "YOU guys" vs MS. Way to stoke the fire man.
Ultimadream is NOT a troll, he is just grumpy all the time, about a lot of different things. once you learn this, he's not so bad.
@ultimadream, you had have known what he meant lol
I think he was referring to Ultima feeding the troll, not being the troll~
The only good MS exclusives are the Halo games(except for Halo wars) and the Gears of War games.
No, Theres Dead Rising and Fable II
Oh yeah I forgot about those 2.
System sellers should be snapped up if it's cost feasible, otherwise yeah let MS sink themselves by relying 90% on third party games. Letting FFXIII go screwed everybody, not just Sony.
In my opinion the PS3 isn't even competing with M$ or the Wii….
Wii – 7-11yr olds
Xbox360 – 11-17yr olds
PS3 – 25-31yr olds (which most adults with jobs can afford! and best part hardly any annoying kids!)
Wii is for the casual gamer. 360 is for the hardcore. PS3 is for the elite gamer.
To me the Playstation brand is taking all the "old school" gamers from the Atari, NES, Master System, Genesis, SNES era and carrying them to the next level of gaming. So I say, Sony do your own thing and don't worry about the competition cuz there is none!
"Live in your world, play in ours!"
What about the 18-24 year olds?
lol yeah, and what about 32 and older?
Hey, let's NOT forget us 56 & older gamers either!!!!
Generalizations are silly.
I'm 38 and grew up playing games on the Fairchild Channel F, Atari 2600 and Intellivision then the NES and Genesis and I also play games on the 360 (and actually like to!)
I completely disagree. I am 25 and enjoy at least a few games on all of the systems. To break people down into casual, hardcore, and elite is pretty ridiculous.. what about people who like to play all kinds of games? I'm sure there are plenty of those out there.
The real battle going on has nothing to do with the game companies or the gaming consoles.
There is no "fanboys" just age groups, old generation vs new generations.
The real battle is the "Old School" gamers vs the new "Soulja Boy" era gamers.
Thats where the "BEEF" is.
Since us old skool gamers have the money, do you think we could arrange to silence a few of the Soulja Boy types?
I think you're right with this. The demographics of the Neilsne numbers make for interesting reading. They revealed that the primary users of both Wii and 360 are those without the financial resources to pay for games, they rely on Mommy and Daddy for their stuff. The primary PS3 audience is a whole generation removed from the 360 and Wii crowd, and it shows. I have great hopes that the greater diversity of games on the Wii may create a new generation that is closer to the 'old skool', but the middle generation is hooked on fps, action and horror.
One thing to consider when everyone is feeling smug about the games on the Wii, look at that primary audience again 6-11 years of age, that's who the games are aimed at. So when a veteran hard core game reviewer deigns to review a Wii game, their expectations are driven by different things. In other words I don't think that the reviews of Wii games in general are representative of how the games themselves are received by their target audiences.
That said, it's still very interesting in light of Sony's stance on first party games that the typical PS3 gamer is the one with the money, perhaps Sony knows what it's doing with it's price strategy after all?
What do u think Ben?
I think we should all remember that games are designed for FUN.
"War," of any kind, never fits.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/14/2009 3:23:29 PM
Thanks you Ben. (Claps in corner.)
Does anyone remember why we started playing video games in the first place? To have a good time! It was fun!
We did it for that feeling we got when Mario made that impossible leap to the next mushroom platform, when we helped Link track down that last hidden key, when we finally made it through those damn underwater levels with Sonic.
And here's the thing I like least about gaming today, the generational gap. It seems most kids getting into gaming are more interested in the competition than the fun. Rather than saying "Damn, that was a sweet head shot," we've got kids screaming obscenities and straight up bigoted insults at someone who got a lucky shot. It's a turnoff and a blemish on the community. I'm not saying friendly competition isn't fun too, but let's keep it civil. Nobody likes a sore loser, or a condencending winner.
lol, end rant. Damn kids stay off my lawn!
It's one thing to go looking for trouble, it's quite another to fight the idiocy of others if only for the sake of injecting a little intelligence into the debate.
Its good to see Sony getting a bit aggressive, especially now that they have the 1st party lineup to back them up. Sony's 1st party titles are the best games on the market, regardless of platform. Nothing can come close to what Sony's developers can do.
well Sony does have a point, but that doesn't change the fact that this is total PR, with the added bonus of causing M$ to release a press release in a couple of hours that amounts to "nuh-uh, loser!", much to our own amusement
Sony has a valid point. Their 1st party lineup has been stellar the past 12 months. They would be wasting money throwing out cash to lock up a 3rd party title. As many of us have been saying since the PS3 launch along with Sony, this gaming generation is a marathon, not a sprint. The PS3 was built for at least 10 years of great gaming, while serving as the foundation for the PS4. I'm just grateful that we have competition between the three machines.