Google+

30 comments

  • BladedFalcon - June 6, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    I'm not exactly sure of what's the point of this article? I mean, what? that companies will pay money to get ahead the competition? hasn't this been the case since the birth of civilization and economy? :P Not to mention... If nothing else, this article reinforces the fact that third party exclusivity is becoming less and less relevant. I mean, all mentioned here, including the GTA exclusive content... Actually didn't end up mattering because both Lost and Damned and Ballad of gay Tony made their way into the PS3 not that long after anyway. At worst, those kinds of deals only means that the other party has to wait an extra months to get the content. But no one nowadays is willing to dish out the amount of money necessary to secure a permanent exclusive, not even microsoft. Again, how many non-first party exclusives did MS end up retaining this generation? I can't say it with 100% certainty, but I'm confident that the number is 0.
  • GR_AndyHartup - June 6, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    Splinter Cell Conviction springs to mind. Plus games like Condemned, Amped 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted (original) that the console launched with. Plus, the GTA Episodes deal was big, back when it was announced. It's easy to forget that the deal kept GTA DLC exclusive for a year - which was a serious kick in the teeth for PS3 owners. COD DLC - that's still huge. It's the most popular DLC on any system, and it's still one-month Xbox exclusive. Remember the fuss about Dawnguard? That was huge too. It isn't necessarily about the wait. What does a month matter? It's about the psychology of owning the biggest games like COD and Skyrim. If you have a PS3 or Xbox (or you're looking to buy one) what format would you play COD or Skyrim on at launch? The one that gets the DLC first or second? The point of the article is that third-party exclusives are going to have a big influence on the next-gen. Microsoft has already made that clear when they've talked about Xbox One. And because they're so important, I think they will spend money to keep big games away from Sony. Last gen, Microsoft had first-move advantage - so most 'next-gen' games in 2005 were 'exclusive' because PS3 wasn't on sale. Now that the PS4 and Xbox One will release at roughly the same time (and they look to have very similar specs), big exclusives are more important than ever.
  • BladedFalcon - June 6, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Well, yes, yes they are. But again, you're talking about timed exclusive for DLC, not even proper games. I really don't see it as a huge deal, at least, not personally. Because, I mean, yeah, those people that are impatient will probably wanna get the game on the console with the timed exclusivity. But anyone owning the other console and not to other is likely to just wait out the months, or even year it might take for the exclusive to arrive, rather than to dish out the price of an entire new console. What I'm trying to say is, I don't really think Third party timed exclusivity is nearly as important as, say, first party exclusivity, because THAT one IS permanent, and those titles are what separate and differentiate on console from the other.
  • klyonawesome_ - June 6, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    Microsoft pays for third party exclusive content rather then invest in first party games. Sony invest a lot in first party games. Metal gear solid 4 is the last high profile exclusive? Where have you been? The last of us comes out in Almost a week. Halo and gears? I assume you mean third party. In that case it doesn't make sense to sell only to one install base. I don't understand the point of your article. Exclusive have always been important. It's the launch of a new console and Microsoft failed to make the proper investments in exclusive games. Most likely timed exclusives.
  • Sinsational - June 6, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    Microsoft can grab whatever exclusives they want. None of it will convince me to buy their piece of shit console. Would I like to play ME2 and Fallout 4? Obviously. Is it enough to make me buy Microsoft's shitty console? Fuck no. I'm gonna stick with the console that cares about games first and foremost. Microsoft can fuck themselves.
  • dondiablo29 - June 6, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    I don't like this one bit, multiplatform franchises going exclusive but it probably will happen. I really hope Fallout or The Elder Scrolls will stay multiplatform though...
  • bass88 - June 6, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    I'm guessing timed exclusives at most. Too much money to lose by ignoring the competition.
  • BladedFalcon - June 6, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Yep, just look at this entire generation. Anything that wasn't published by Microsoft ended up being a timed exclusive, and eventually came into the PS3 anyway.
  • FoxdenRacing - June 6, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    A classic Gamber's Ruin gambit. The law of diminishing returns is going to bite them, and hard, if they keep throwing their money around like this. Even in a best-case scenario, throwing $25M around means the dev is expecting to sell 2.5M copies or less [minus DLC income] on the competing system. If the game gets less than that number of additional sales from 'buy that system to play [some exclusive game]' converts, it's a win for the devs...and an unwise investment for MS. If the game would have sold more by going cross-platform, it's a loss for the devs. They have a lot of money to throw around...but with sagging shares of the desktop, office, and mobile markets, how much money will they have in the future? Long story short, MS is betting the farm on GameBros. I don't know how well that'll turn out for them. They turn out in droves for a couple specific game series...but aren't exactly avid customers outside of that.

Showing 21-30 of 30 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.