Limited Edition
John Koller, Sony Computer Entertainment America's ever-talkative director of hardware marketing, has said that the third-party exclusive is a thing of the past.
“Exclusivity is something that doesn’t truly exist in this cycle”, Koller said to VG247. “What does exist is first-party product. That’s your exclusive product."
He also noted that in the last console cycle development costs were lower, meaning that games makers didn't need to put titles out across multiple platforms to recoup their costs.
At this point, SPOnG would like to draw your attention to game series that were once Sony exclusive but have stepped from the Sony stable into the great wide world of multi-platform releases. We don't have to, however, because Koller already did it.
“At that time (of the last generation) we had a Grand Theft Auto exclusive, we had EA Sports at the beginning of PS2, we had Final Fantasy. And then we had a tremendous line-up of first-party games, that started off with the Jak & Daxters but went to the SOCOMs”, Koller said.
He added that, "you either have your first-party line-up, or you write cheques, and you need to buy that down.”
He has, by and large, got a point. The difference between a third-party exclusive and a multi-platform game is typically an announcement (GTA, FF) or a year or so (BioShock, Lost Planet). There is, of course, a glaring great hole in his argument - Metal Gear Solid 4 - one of the biggest games of this generation so far. Is this Koller's way of quietly letting us know that Konami's tentpole PS3 game will be heading to the Xbox 360?
We're forced to assume, as well, that Koller is referring to 'next-gen' consoles, excluding the Wii and handhelds. Those platforms, thanks to their unique selling points, have had numerous platform exclusives of various degrees of notability.
Perhaps if Sony had a home console with more to differentiate itself from the competition, it wouldn't need to proclaim the third-party exclusive dead...
“Exclusivity is something that doesn’t truly exist in this cycle”, Koller said to VG247. “What does exist is first-party product. That’s your exclusive product."
He also noted that in the last console cycle development costs were lower, meaning that games makers didn't need to put titles out across multiple platforms to recoup their costs.
At this point, SPOnG would like to draw your attention to game series that were once Sony exclusive but have stepped from the Sony stable into the great wide world of multi-platform releases. We don't have to, however, because Koller already did it.
“At that time (of the last generation) we had a Grand Theft Auto exclusive, we had EA Sports at the beginning of PS2, we had Final Fantasy. And then we had a tremendous line-up of first-party games, that started off with the Jak & Daxters but went to the SOCOMs”, Koller said.
He added that, "you either have your first-party line-up, or you write cheques, and you need to buy that down.”
He has, by and large, got a point. The difference between a third-party exclusive and a multi-platform game is typically an announcement (GTA, FF) or a year or so (BioShock, Lost Planet). There is, of course, a glaring great hole in his argument - Metal Gear Solid 4 - one of the biggest games of this generation so far. Is this Koller's way of quietly letting us know that Konami's tentpole PS3 game will be heading to the Xbox 360?
We're forced to assume, as well, that Koller is referring to 'next-gen' consoles, excluding the Wii and handhelds. Those platforms, thanks to their unique selling points, have had numerous platform exclusives of various degrees of notability.
Perhaps if Sony had a home console with more to differentiate itself from the competition, it wouldn't need to proclaim the third-party exclusive dead...
Read More Like This
Comments
Mornelithe 15 Apr 2009 14:40
1/14
LoL, keep dreamin Xbot, MGS4 will come to the 360 when Kojima is dead.
3rd Party exclusivity - Here's my take. Alive or dead, I don't need it. Any mult-plat title, or '360 exclusive' comes to PC. My PC, stomps the dogmeat out of the PS3, and the 360. But, I purchased a PS3, because, simply put, PS3 first party titles, never hit the PC. Whereas, every 360 exclusive does...and Windows Live = Free, and it's the exact same experience as XBLA. So, point being, gaming companies never really put forth the effort on the PS3, unless they're Kojima, or internal devs for Sony. Why should I, as a gamer, buy their crap? Not going to do it. In fact, I'll do just the opposite, I'll wait until it comes out for PC, download that, and play the whole thing, with better hardware scaling, better performance, for free. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Morne
3rd Party exclusivity - Here's my take. Alive or dead, I don't need it. Any mult-plat title, or '360 exclusive' comes to PC. My PC, stomps the dogmeat out of the PS3, and the 360. But, I purchased a PS3, because, simply put, PS3 first party titles, never hit the PC. Whereas, every 360 exclusive does...and Windows Live = Free, and it's the exact same experience as XBLA. So, point being, gaming companies never really put forth the effort on the PS3, unless they're Kojima, or internal devs for Sony. Why should I, as a gamer, buy their crap? Not going to do it. In fact, I'll do just the opposite, I'll wait until it comes out for PC, download that, and play the whole thing, with better hardware scaling, better performance, for free. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Morne
Joji 15 Apr 2009 15:05
2/14
Strange it took so long for you to realise this. PS3 has suffered due to lack of games, but reliance on such exclsuives is only necessary, IMO, at launch, and maybe the first year.
I do feel, we aren't bothered by the multiformat nature of many games, whereas in past generations there was more focus on exclusives.
I do feel, we aren't bothered by the multiformat nature of many games, whereas in past generations there was more focus on exclusives.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Mornelithe 15 Apr 2009 15:15
3/14
I disagree, PS3 has suffered from a 'perceived' lack of games. That's merely a fault of gamers, the media, and PR campaigns from other companies to try and continue this ridiculous assertion. Those who claim the PS3 has no games, really, just need to stop talking, do the world a favor and put a bullet in their heads. If you've got a problem with the console, that's one thing. If you've got a problem with it's price tag, that's another thing. But outright lying about the status, quantity, and quality of software on the PS3, really doesn't do anyone any good. Including the games market. For example, look at what the monopoly on OS' has done to the Desktop market? Do you feel that the PC community as a whole, is happy with MS over Vista....or unhappy? Likewise, what happens when you have 1 company, who has a monopoly over the rest, say...Blu Ray for example. Prices remain high, innovation remains nill, and competition...well, doesn't exist.
I'd really rather not see the console gaming industry, turn into another MS dominated fiasco, like the OS market has. And for those with PC's, you should really be thinking twice about your purchases.
Morne
I'd really rather not see the console gaming industry, turn into another MS dominated fiasco, like the OS market has. And for those with PC's, you should really be thinking twice about your purchases.
Morne
OptimusP 15 Apr 2009 16:32
4/14
Joji wrote:
Strange it took so long for you to realise this. PS3 has suffered due to lack of games, but reliance on such exclsuives is only necessary, IMO, at launch, and maybe the first year.
I do feel, we aren't bothered by the multiformat nature of many games, whereas in past generations there was more focus on exclusives.
I do feel, we aren't bothered by the multiformat nature of many games, whereas in past generations there was more focus on exclusives.
Actually, the big exclusives determine and/or change the perception of your console and such also opens or closes certain market layers. The big exclusives also determine what sells on a console and such will determine the majority of third party effort on that console. The consecutive generations have more then proven this.
Also, the market leader is always created because its console received the most exclusives aka the most games. So exclusivity determines a lot more then some pleople think it does on the surface.
deleted 15 Apr 2009 19:08
5/14
right now i am lucky enough to own all home consoles and portanle so exclusives mean nothing to e other than the fact i hate the PS3 controls and prefer the Xbox 360 controllers, bu in the past i found the to be an annoyance, if they were on my system i didnt care if the competitiion got hold of it, and if it wasnt on my system sometimes id be pissed off i couldnt play it, maybe we are one step closer to the ONE console, and manfactors com into it only the same way buyng a DVD player would.
Mornelithe 15 Apr 2009 23:33
6/14
@ Haritori - I certainly hope not. One console would really be detrimental to the industry, as it was when Nintendo had the only console on the market (Don't get me wrong, loved the NES/SNES religiously). Prices stayed extremely high on games for a long period of time. Yes, the games were all there, but you know you've got a universal gaming machine as long as you have a PC.....except for any Sony game. They've traditionally kept their in-house IP strictly on their hardware, it simply drives the need to have one of their machines in your home. Fairly smart idea honestly.
It'd be nice if everything came out on all machines...however, I don't agree with the practice of porting. If you're going to make a game on the 360, use the 360's hardware to squeeze everything you can out of it. Likewise on the PS3, and PC users, given they've poured as much as they have into their rigs, should definitely get maximized hardware scaling.
Morne
It'd be nice if everything came out on all machines...however, I don't agree with the practice of porting. If you're going to make a game on the 360, use the 360's hardware to squeeze everything you can out of it. Likewise on the PS3, and PC users, given they've poured as much as they have into their rigs, should definitely get maximized hardware scaling.
Morne
tyrion 16 Apr 2009 07:34
7/14
It's nice of Sony to confirm what we said in June last year in a Feature on Third Party Exclusives.
Honour note: I wrote that piece. :-)
Honour note: I wrote that piece. :-)
Joji 16 Apr 2009 12:21
8/14
Hey, its okay to disagree, but try not to set yourself on fire Mon. Much heat radiating from your angry skull.
You miss what I'm saying perhaps. MGS i would have liked on my 360, and seeing how it sold on PS3, all I'm sayion is it would have made sense for Konami to capitalise on that. Perhaps their hands are tied up with Sony on the exclusive angle.
RE5 I own and great game it is too. I'm glad Capcom respected us enough to let us choose which version to buy, and thus their sales are much higher.
In a perfect world, we'd all own all formats, but its not a perfect world. If I can't experience MGS4 on what I have, its unfortunately a game I'll have to miss out on. A shame indeed for me, but more so on the part of Konami. I hope they sleep well at night with Capcom, EA etc taking all the bacon. Konami are finally waking up to this multiplatform angle, with the Silent Hill Wii game and Six Days, but more needs to be done.
But like I said, exclusives have their part to play, but over reliance on them, IMO, is a big mistake.
You miss what I'm saying perhaps. MGS i would have liked on my 360, and seeing how it sold on PS3, all I'm sayion is it would have made sense for Konami to capitalise on that. Perhaps their hands are tied up with Sony on the exclusive angle.
RE5 I own and great game it is too. I'm glad Capcom respected us enough to let us choose which version to buy, and thus their sales are much higher.
In a perfect world, we'd all own all formats, but its not a perfect world. If I can't experience MGS4 on what I have, its unfortunately a game I'll have to miss out on. A shame indeed for me, but more so on the part of Konami. I hope they sleep well at night with Capcom, EA etc taking all the bacon. Konami are finally waking up to this multiplatform angle, with the Silent Hill Wii game and Six Days, but more needs to be done.
But like I said, exclusives have their part to play, but over reliance on them, IMO, is a big mistake.
Mornelithe 16 Apr 2009 14:39
9/14
Hey Joji
Nah, I'm not angry, I just love how people attempt to interject a hidden meaning, where none exists. MGS4 is on the PS3, if you want to play it, buy one. If you don't want to buy one, forget about MGS4. It's that simple. Now, I'll tell you why this bothers me so much. MS entertains some great exclusives, had 1 year of exclusives while the Wii and the PS3 were still awaiting launch. Now that every sheep in the world has gone out and purchased a 360, they feel entitled...yes, entitled, to every game out there. Sorry, but that's a load of bull. Without exclusives, you'd have no reason to choose console A, over console B. It was fine when MS was writing checks to Take-Two, and Bioware...but when a 3rd party decides to make an exclusive for Sony...somehow that's not ok?
This has, and continues to be the riduculous double-standard the industry has forced upon Sony. What's ok for MS to do, is anathema for Sony to do, and we'll call them out on it every single time, no matter what. As I said earlier though, my PC has pretty much removed me from the console war (Except for timed/exclusives, I refuse to buy 3rd party exclusives for my PS3, likewise, I will not buy 360 exclusives. Those go on my PC, and that's free of charge...part of my 'teach them a lesson' program), but it still annoys the heck out of me that this double-standard exists. Sony may have over-reached with their vision of the PS3, wait, let me rephrase that. Sony could've given the developement industry a bigger headsup on what to expect from their new machine. But, does that mean they're subject to different rules than the competition? In my opinion, no.
Nintendo has exclusives, MS has exclusives, Sony has exclusives, heck...even the PC has exclusives. At the beginning of a consoles lifecycle, they're imperative to it's sales, because...if the expensive new system you're pushing only plays games that're available everywhere else...not too many people are going to be driven to make that purchase...correct?
Bottom line though, as I stated previously, Sony's in a very unique position to not have to cater to the 3rd parties anymore, much moreso than Nintendo or MS. They just don't have the internal dev support that Sony does, and as long as Sony keeps pumping money into the 1st party's that are running circles around 3rd parties anyway...people will soon realize the only real needed consoles are the PS3 and Wii, because you can get everything for the 360 on PC, it performs better, has much more functionality, can be installed so rarely any loading issues, and Windows Live = Free, so no paying subscriptions for XBLA while getting the same service.
Morne
Nah, I'm not angry, I just love how people attempt to interject a hidden meaning, where none exists. MGS4 is on the PS3, if you want to play it, buy one. If you don't want to buy one, forget about MGS4. It's that simple. Now, I'll tell you why this bothers me so much. MS entertains some great exclusives, had 1 year of exclusives while the Wii and the PS3 were still awaiting launch. Now that every sheep in the world has gone out and purchased a 360, they feel entitled...yes, entitled, to every game out there. Sorry, but that's a load of bull. Without exclusives, you'd have no reason to choose console A, over console B. It was fine when MS was writing checks to Take-Two, and Bioware...but when a 3rd party decides to make an exclusive for Sony...somehow that's not ok?
This has, and continues to be the riduculous double-standard the industry has forced upon Sony. What's ok for MS to do, is anathema for Sony to do, and we'll call them out on it every single time, no matter what. As I said earlier though, my PC has pretty much removed me from the console war (Except for timed/exclusives, I refuse to buy 3rd party exclusives for my PS3, likewise, I will not buy 360 exclusives. Those go on my PC, and that's free of charge...part of my 'teach them a lesson' program), but it still annoys the heck out of me that this double-standard exists. Sony may have over-reached with their vision of the PS3, wait, let me rephrase that. Sony could've given the developement industry a bigger headsup on what to expect from their new machine. But, does that mean they're subject to different rules than the competition? In my opinion, no.
Nintendo has exclusives, MS has exclusives, Sony has exclusives, heck...even the PC has exclusives. At the beginning of a consoles lifecycle, they're imperative to it's sales, because...if the expensive new system you're pushing only plays games that're available everywhere else...not too many people are going to be driven to make that purchase...correct?
Bottom line though, as I stated previously, Sony's in a very unique position to not have to cater to the 3rd parties anymore, much moreso than Nintendo or MS. They just don't have the internal dev support that Sony does, and as long as Sony keeps pumping money into the 1st party's that are running circles around 3rd parties anyway...people will soon realize the only real needed consoles are the PS3 and Wii, because you can get everything for the 360 on PC, it performs better, has much more functionality, can be installed so rarely any loading issues, and Windows Live = Free, so no paying subscriptions for XBLA while getting the same service.
Morne
deleted 16 Apr 2009 15:17
10/14
Mornelithe wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
I think that sums it up more..
as far as your stupid comments on first party software being more so on Sony`s platforms than MS and Ninty, are you insane!!!
GT5 has been in dev for ever, Home is s**te, and what ever else they have for us well i and most sony/MS/ninty fans coundly care less
Now MS, has massive first party support, Rare??? Halo Franchise???? what about Forza, Fable, and so on
Nintendo, well if you seriously believe they have less a first party support than sony, then you are insane!! Mario, Pokemon, Wii Sports, WiiFit, WiiWhateveryouwant, not to mention touch generations games, Nintendogs and so on.
i suggest you go back to bed with your PS3 and its higher price tag because sony tells us its a premium console, and 2007, 2008, 2009 year of the PS3?
Mornelithe 16 Apr 2009 15:20
11/14
haritori wrote:
Mornelithe wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
I think that sums it up more..
If you're a sheep, which apparently you are, yes, logical thought is beyond your means. That's ok, I've come to expect a certain...lack of intelligence or maturity from gamers this generation.
Morne
deleted 16 Apr 2009 15:51
12/14
Mornelithe wrote:
haritori wrote:
Mornelithe wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
I think that sums it up more..
If you're a sheep, which apparently you are, yes, logical thought is beyond your means. That's ok, I've come to expect a certain...lack of intelligence or maturity from gamers this generation.
Morne
there you go assuming again, gamers this gen?
OptimusP 16 Apr 2009 18:23
13/14
Mornelithe wrote:
Bottom line though, as I stated previously, Sony's in a very unique position to not have to cater to the 3rd parties anymore, much moreso than Nintendo or MS. They just don't have the internal dev support that Sony does, and as long as Sony keeps pumping money into the 1st party's that are running circles around 3rd parties anyway...people will soon realize the only real needed consoles are the PS3 and Wii, because you can get everything for the 360 on PC, it performs better, has much more functionality, can be installed so rarely any loading issues, and Windows Live = Free, so no paying subscriptions for XBLA while getting the same service.
I agree with Haritori, this is the most idiotic statement. Everyone, but everyone knows Nintendo has the best first-part support in the entire industry period, followed by MS network of development teams. The only consolemaker ever that was able to out-do Nintendo in first party development was SEGA. Sony keep saying they have the biggest employment roll and I expected to feel that this year but untill now, not much has come out frankly.
Seeing how hard the economic crisis is hitting Sony and how the company is actually shifting into survival mode (that's why there's no PS3 price-drop), I wonder how much of the huge pay-roll is left.
Mars 5 May 2009 02:14
14/14
All this talk on exclusive this, platform that. All right - my take:
Third-party exclusivity annoys me and I, for one, am glad to see it a thing of the past. Only a matter of time, really. It's not for third-party companies to create exclusive games to differentiate consoles - that's stupid, Back in my day, the company putting out the consoles made their fair share of games so there needn't be all this third-party exclusive title bull that prevailed in the last generation. If maker of Console X wants to differentiate itself in a games market, maybe it'd be a good idea that maker of Console X actually made its own games. Or at least but a company that does.
Sheesh.
Third-party exclusivity annoys me and I, for one, am glad to see it a thing of the past. Only a matter of time, really. It's not for third-party companies to create exclusive games to differentiate consoles - that's stupid, Back in my day, the company putting out the consoles made their fair share of games so there needn't be all this third-party exclusive title bull that prevailed in the last generation. If maker of Console X wants to differentiate itself in a games market, maybe it'd be a good idea that maker of Console X actually made its own games. Or at least but a company that does.
Sheesh.