"We will make sure that the PS5 generation will have more dedicated software than ever before", according to Sony boss Jim Ryan.

[steel6burgh]

10 hours ago, JourneySilvers said:

I agree its not terribly unreasonable, but its disappointing nonetheless. A lot of the games that encompassed the hype around the PS5 reveal just keep getting pushed further and further back. Especially Deathloop, I was very excited for that one. Not angry about it, just making observations. I really hope the trend of announcing games too early and then pushing releases back and back is a product of COVID and not a new standard. 

I think a lot of it has to do with COVID, but i also think a lot has to do with what happened to 
Ubisoft with Breakpoint and what happened with Cyberpunk as well.

[Platinum_Vice]

19 hours ago, Eraezr said:

*snip*

• Overhead leadership which supports specific genres. E.g: Sony emphasizing on high production value single-player games while Microsoft leans on multiplayer shooters/a.k.a episodic deliveries of content. A Microsoft leadership is not empathetical to these sorts of ideas. They don't want a gaming climate which popularises single hit AAAs, they want the easy games-as service.
• Overhead leadership which nurtures studios and games. Dreams? It came out and it's a solid piece of software that is showing interesting potential and creations. MS's Project Spark - a similar premise to Dreams? Canned. MS's Scalebound? Canned. Guerilla Games taking seven years with a risky and expensive project? Horizon Zero Dawn. You think Astro Bot Rescue, a critically acclaimed PSVR game (90 on metacritic) was made because the market bends to Phil Spencer's opinion that VR games feel like "demos"? No. And this doesn't just apply to their gaming division, I've been a Microsoft consumer with their other products like Windows Phone and Zune. No matter how good the hardware was, or how promising the concept was, Microsoft is simply unwilling to put in the grunt work to elevate their projects to success. They lack Apple's dynamism, Sony's humility in an uphill battle. Just look at how things fared in the last generation, with Phil Spencer pushing game passes (meagre compensation for devs) and emphasis on hardware refreshes over true console gen resets. Microsoft doesn't know how to nurture or stay grounded.

To choose a PlayStation over an Xbox is to vote with my wallet for what kind of games and creeds I like to see in the industry. If exclusives continue to bolster hardware sales, then looping back to funding for the right kind of games (Bloodborne, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Ghost of Tsushima, etcetera) thereby powering a creative synergy, then I support exclusives. It's naive to think that the picture for software exclusivity is as simple as "More people get to play the said game, why not?" which disregards a listing number of factors, rippling effects and corporate culture. )

*snip*

 

I strongly disagree.

 

The core of your position appears to boil down to: 

I like Playstations's culture and games the best.

Therefore, 

PlayStation cultivating exclusivities benefits gamers as a community.

 

Which makes no sense. 

 

For example, I want to play Nintendo games because their culture promotes creativity and innovation above other potential ideals. I cannot do this without entering into the Nintendo console environment due to exclusivity. I therefore cannot vote with my wallet and therefore Sony cannot see that I would like those ideals prioritised.

 

All three major console companies are becoming more entrenched in what differentiates them from each other and a more defined market share will follow.

 

This will inevitably lead to a top-down inspired focus on those entrenched ideals and then a lack of overall diversity. In a creative medium, diversity is essential. We all complain about a lack of innovation in our favourite franchises.

 

Will Microsoft produce Wolfenstein and Fallout games without microtransactions? Probably not.

Will Nintendo produce hardware that can run a game like Breath of the Wild with cutting edge graphical fidelity? Probably not?

Is Sony leaning into Blockbuster AAA titles with low risk? It appears so. We will suffer for this. Do we want another TLOU1 game already or would we rather something else in that universe? Or a new IP? Crazy times.

 

If all games released on all systems, all of those companies would have access to 66% (very loose maths, I'm extrapolating) more consumers to buy their products.

 

[AJ_Radio]

This sounds like a typical response from a corporate asshat.

 

You can have fucking Andrew Wilson of EA or Bobby Kotick of Activision throw out the same garbage and people would still clamor to them. They can keep their games, the only game that appeals to me so far this generation is Demon's Souls for the PS5.

 

We got enough games already. But potentially the actual stuff we want to play will be on other systems. Sony of course is going to take their sweet fucking time in trying to get a proper release, or just reject them completely, like they have done on a number of Japanese anime games.

[Eraezr]

3 hours ago, GonzoWARgasm said:

 

I strongly disagree.

 

The core of your position appears to boil down to: 

I like Playstations's culture and games the best.

Therefore, 

PlayStation cultivating exclusivities benefits gamers as a community.

 

[...]

 

Not really. A more correct conclusion is:

 

Gamers like different cultures and kinds of games

Therefore, 

Ecosystems of exclusivity cultivate a democratic market where the sensibilities of the consumers dictate the trends.

 

Irrespective of what kinds of games I prefer (and mind you, my own tastes for interactive entertainment aren't 1:1 to what PS Studios produce, it's more of a Venn diagram), the bottomline is that Sony's majority market share proves what a greater slice of the pie are choosing from the exclusivity offerings. I could suddenly prefer games as service tomorrow and the market share would barely shift an inch.
 

Quote

 

This will inevitably lead to a top-down inspired focus on those entrenched ideals and then a lack of overall diversity.

 

 

Not true, as per the above. And this balks at Yoshida's PS Indies initiative, among the other long list of indie exclusives which have been brought like Journey or Bound. Just because TLOU is famous, it doesn't mean the dozens of other unique titles are wiped from history's existence. I am (as everyone else is) complicit in how prolific such games are.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Eraezr

[PIECREAM-4-U]

I don't really see this as a good thing thus far considering all of the ps5 exclusives have been garbage except for demon souls which was a remake of a good game and astros which is a tech demo.

 

I want good exclusives. Not just exclusives. 

[peffsi]

Jim Ryan's quote sounds like standard PR. He's not going to say "PS5 will have fewer exclusives than ever before" because that doesn't sound good. And it's so early in the gen that we won't know the full tally until like 7 or 8 years from now. By then, nobody (except console warriors) will care if Jim Ryan "lied" about it.

 

I'm all for exclusives if it means they will take FULL advantage of PS5's unique features. DualSense, activity cards, optimized loading, optimized game design. 

[TJ_Solo]

8 minutes ago, peffsi said:

Jim Ryan's quote sounds like standard PR. He's not going to say "PS5 will have fewer exclusives than ever before" because that doesn't sound good. And it's so early in the gen that we won't know the full tally until like 7 or 8 years from now. By then, nobody (except console warriors) will care if Jim Ryan "lied" about it.

 

I'm all for exclusives if it means they will take FULL advantage of PS5's unique features. DualSense, activity cards, optimized loading, optimized game design. 

 

Well, he wasn't going to say fewer games but there was no absolute need to say more games either if it isn't true. Marketing still needs to be truthful other they get sued like what happened with the PS3 and Killzone.
 

[peffsi]

5 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

Well, he wasn't going to say fewer games but there was no absolute need to say more games either if it isn't true. Marketing still needs to be truthful other they get sued like what happened with the PS3 and Killzone.
 

Then maybe he is actually confident that they will have more PS5 exclusives. They are most likely making deals in the background that aren't public yet. And he would know what the first parties are planning.

They've recently announced deals with new studios to publish their first games. Jade Raymond's studio, and another studio with a bunch of ex-Destiny devs (though we don't know if that means PS5-only or PS5/PC-only). They probably have a lot more of this kind of thing planned, in addition to whatever their first parties are doing. All of this is not public knowledge yet.  The fact that he said it is a "good sign" for people who like exclusives, and a "bad sign" for people who don't like exclusives. 

 

And anyway, what does "dedicated software" actually mean. Does it actually mean PS5 exclusive, or does it mean PS5 exclusive that may be ported to PC later. VGC used "dedicated software" in their translation of his quote, but they use "exclusives" in their headline. I don't know and I can't see the original Japanese article to judge for myself (it is paywalled).

 

[starcrunch061]

1 hour ago, Dan-lives-here said:

I don't really see this as a good thing

 

Honestly, I don't really see a "thing" at all here. There's really very little content in saying that Sony will have more "dedicated software". And it's not like someone can say that he's lying; if in 5 years, Sony in fact does not have more "dedicated software", he can just say that, at the time, data suggested that Sony would have more "dedicated software".  

 

There are absolutely good reasons to criticize Ryan (if not for his decisions, then at least for his cavalier attitude). But this isn't one of them. Hell, as my quotes suggest, I don't even know what the hell "dedicated software" means. 

[DaivRules]

20 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

There's really very little content in saying that Sony will have more "dedicated software".

I read it as “more dedicated” software. Like it’ll have a level of intelligence that’ll make the software really want to run on PS5 hardware. 

[Fr_0zt]

"Alow us to introduce ourselves"

 

-Corona-chan, inevitable ww3, etc 

 

 

TL;DR

not gonna happen.

[NxtDoc]

On 4/22/2021 at 8:39 AM, Dreakon13 said:

Exclusives are good for business, bad for gamers.

 

As a primarily Playstation gamer, I want to see the Playstation get all the best games possible.  Whether that's through multi-platform releases or exclusivity, it doesn't make a ton of difference to me.  The part of me still mired in the console wars, wants to see Sony kick everyone elses butt at the end of the day.  Xbox still middling in their B- and C-tier exclusives means I have one less console to buy, one less online subscription service to hunt down deals for, etc.  The part of me who has aged a bit since the height of the console wars, kinda wishes exclusivity didn't exist and all gamers could play the best games out there regardless of platform... but that just isn't realistic.  Exclusive games and services are the best way to bring gamers over to your team, and the more gamers under the Playstation umbrella, means more consoles sold and more software sales in the future.  So it is what it is, I want to see gaming thrive and my investments validated.

 

This is of course assuming Ryan and Sony actually have plans to continue to push their first party game forward, because they've certainly been quieter than their competition about it.

 

I vemently disagree that exclusive games are bad for gamers.  There are several things in the Gaming Industry that are bad for Gamers, and exclusives are certainly not one of them.  

 

PlayStation Exclusives are built around quality as well as a fun and engaging experience with the goal to not only sell a $59 to $69 game, but a $500 console.   

 

Now, if you look at Xbox they have said they don't care if they sell a console.  And their 1st party games show it.  They are almost always unfinished, low on content, and low in quality.  Such as, Sea of Thieves, State of Decay, Crackdown 3, We Happy Few, and MANY MORE. And unfortunately Halo, Gears and Forza Motorsport have been on a steep decline, and ran into ground. WITH PREDATORY MICRO-TRANSACTIONS.  Which is actually bad for gamers.

 

I do not know where this ridiculous sentiment came from.  But exclusives are actually good.  And I would hate to see it go away as it is competition.  Stone and flame, sharpen steel. Gamers will buy games, and the console they are on if they want the game.  Hence the term system seller.  

 

 

"Services".  Games are not a service.  They are an experience.  And Xbox, and "games journalists" if we can even call them that anymore, championing game pass is horrible.  (And also odd consider PS Now has over 1000 games.  More downloadable PS4 titles than all of gamepASS, and has more 6th and 7th Gen games at the same price and no one champions it).  Game Pass should have been rolled into Xbox Live, if anything at no additional cost.  But no, they added another subscription.  It is just unsustainable.  Especially considering that Xbox's games are already low in quality.  Any most dummies in here championing Phil Spencer is hilarious.  That guy is awful.  Look at his game releases since he was head of Xbox games, while under Don Mattrick in 2010.  Halo, Gears, Forza, Halo, Gears, and Forza.  You guys are clueless.

 

On the topic.  I hope so.  Jim Ryan already seems out of touch in regards to Playstation's legacy.  Which is bizarre, due to how long he's been at Sony.  I look forward to Playstation's exclusives lineup 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by NxtDoc
Correction

[Dreakon13]

6 hours ago, NxtDoc said:

 

I vemently disagree that exclusive games are bad for gamers.  There are several things in the Gaming Industry that are bad for Gamers, and exclusives are certainly not one of them.  

 

PlayStation Exclusives are built around quality as well as a fun and engaging experience with the goal to not only sell a $59 to $69 game, but a $500 console.   

 

Now, if you look at Xbox they have said they don't care if they sell a console.  And their 1st party games show it.  They are almost always unfinished, low on content, and low in quality.  Such as, Sea of Thieves, State of Decay, Crackdown 3, We Happy Few, and MANY MORE. And unfortunately Halo, Gears and Forza Motorsport have been on a steep decline, and ran into ground. WITH PREDATORY MICRO-TRANSACTIONS.  Which is actually bad for gamers.

 

I do not know where this ridiculous sentiment came from.  But exclusives are actually good.  And I would hate to see it go away as it is competition.  Stone and flame, sharpen steel. Gamers will buy games, and the console they are on if they want the game.  Hence the term system seller.  

 

 

"Services".  Games are not a service.  They are an experience.  And Xbox, and "games journalists" if we can even call them that anymore, championing game pass is horrible.  (And also odd consider PS Now has over 1000 games.  More downloadable PS4 titles than all of gamepASS, and has more 6th and 7th Gen games at the same price and no one champions it).  Game Pass should have been rolled into Xbox Live, if anything at no additional cost.  But no, they added another subscription.  It is just unsustainable.  Especially considering that Xbox's games are already low in quality.  Any most dummies in here championing Phil Spencer is hilarious.  That guy is awful.  Look at his game releases since he was head of Xbox games, while under Don Mattrick in 2010.  Halo, Gears, Forza, Halo, Gears, and Forza.  You guys are clueless.

 

On the topic.  I hope so.  Jim Ryan already seems out of touch in regards to Playstation's legacy.  Which is bizarre, due to how long he's been at Sony.  I look forward to Playstation's exclusives lineup 

 

 

 

Game Pass gets buzz mostly for the fact it tends to get new releases day one, something Playstation Now doesn't do... which I'm guessing is because Sony has more to lose giving their blockbusters away for $15 per month.  And regardless of how good the games are under Phil Spencer's tenure, there's no denying he's just seems like a good dude that actually plays games and maybe almost gives a damn.  It's refreshing to see out of a company and industry that's usually so out of touch.  Relax.

 

Fair enough on the exclusives.  Competition pushes innovation, yadda yadda yadda.  I'm just saying in an ideal world, my PC and Xbox friends would be able to enjoy The Last of Us and Ghost of Tsushima without dropping $500 on another system.  And I wouldn't have to drop another $500 on an Xbox, or $1000 on a PC, if they ever get an exclusive worth playing.  It's good for me that I can play those great games, but it's bad for them that they can't.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Dreakon13

[Paperclip1776]

13 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Game Pass gets buzz mostly for the fact it tends to get new releases day one, something Playstation Now doesn't do... which I'm guessing is because Sony has more to lose giving their blockbusters away for $15 per month.  And regardless of how good the games are under Phil Spencer's tenure, there's no denying he's just seems like a good dude that actually plays games and maybe almost gives a damn.  It's refreshing to see out of a company and industry that's usually so out of touch.  Relax.

 

Fair enough on the exclusives.  Competition pushes innovation, yadda yadda yadda.  I'm just saying in an ideal world, my PC and Xbox friends would be able to enjoy The Last of Us and Ghost of Tsushima without dropping $500 on another system.  And I wouldn't have to drop another $500 on an Xbox, or $1000 on a PC, if they ever get an exclusive worth playing.  It's good for me that I can play those great games, but it's bad for them that they can't.

Agree with you on Game Pass and Phil Spencer's tenure.  

 

Regarding exclusives, I know you know this but the point of exclusives is to get customers attracted to their system.  By having it available for everyone, there would be little to distinguish between one product over the other.  Sure, there's UI preference and even how the console looks vs the competition, but it's all about the games to drive sales of both the game and consoles.  

 

As I mentioned, I know you know this info.  I bring this up because commenting that 'everyone can enjoy games if there were no exclusives' would ultimately be bad for games in general.  Games would no longer be the driving force to get people on your platform if they were available everywhere, so games would very likely reduce in quality, at least from the 1st party developers.  I would suspect you wouldn't see blockbuster games like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, and Horizon simply because Sony wouldn't see a return on their investment since it would be available anywhere.  I've heard the argument that if it's available on every platform, they would sell more games.  Ok, I agree with you.  But, there's a reason why all gaming companies have exclusives and strive to increase exclusivity every generation.  The attach rate for customers that purchase a Playstation or Xbox or Switch is much more valuable than selling more games.  It's a fact.  If selling more games was more profitable, that's what everyone would be doing.  Game companies that sell exclusives will very likely sell more products to those customers on their platform, so even those Sony wants to sell millions and millions of copies of The Last of Us Part II, it's a "system seller" that will drive sales on accessories, other software and even more microtransactions.  Saying "system seller" is not a bad thing, it's what keeps the quality of our games strong.

 

Final point, if all games were available to everyone, gamers would heavily rely on 3rd party developers.  With less competition in the market (1st party games would be scaled back or eliminated altogether), that means less incentive to make quality games even from 3rd party.  Sure, they would still be competing with each other, but Ubisoft's lineup (more open world games) is very different than Activision's lineup (more FPS games, run and gun), which is very different than EA's lineup (more sports, team-based) which is very different from Take-Two's lineup (games-as-a-service, i.e. GTA V and RDR 2).

 

I'm with everyone that wants to play all games.  I would love to play Halo games and Forza and likely some of the cool, future games that will come from Bethesda that will be exclusive to Xbox.  If I really want them, I'll have to save up and buy their system to get it.  Exclusivity drives quality and competition, which is more important than having every game available on all platforms.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Paperclip1776
Added content

[Dreakon13]

4 hours ago, Paperclip1776 said:

Agree with you on Game Pass and Phil Spencer's tenure.  

 

Regarding exclusives, I know you know this but the point of exclusives is to get customers attracted to their system.  By having it available for everyone, there would be little to distinguish between one product over the other.  Sure, there's UI preference and even how the console looks vs the competition, but it's all about the games to drive sales of both the game and consoles.  

 

As I mentioned, I know you know this info.  I bring this up because commenting that 'everyone can enjoy games if there were no exclusives' would ultimately be bad for games in general.  Games would no longer be the driving force to get people on your platform if they were available everywhere, so games would very likely reduce in quality, at least from the 1st party developers.  I would suspect you wouldn't see blockbuster games like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, and Horizon simply because Sony wouldn't see a return on their investment since it would be available anywhere.  I've heard the argument that if it's available on every platform, they would sell more games.  Ok, I agree with you.  But, there's a reason why all gaming companies have exclusives and strive to increase exclusivity every generation.  The attach rate for customers that purchase a Playstation or Xbox or Switch is much more valuable than selling more games.  It's a fact.  If selling more games was more profitable, that's what everyone would be doing.  Game companies that sell exclusives will very likely sell more products to those customers on their platform, so even those Sony wants to sell millions and millions of copies of The Last of Us Part II, it's a "system seller" that will drive sales on accessories, other software and even more microtransactions.  Saying "system seller" is not a bad thing, it's what keeps the quality of our games strong.

 

Final point, if all games were available to everyone, gamers would heavily rely on 3rd party developers.  With less competition in the market (1st party games would be scaled back or eliminated altogether), that means less incentive to make quality games even from 3rd party.  Sure, they would still be competing with each other, but Ubisoft's lineup (more open world games) is very different than Activision's lineup (more FPS games, run and gun), which is very different than EA's lineup (more sports, team-based) which is very different from Take-Two's lineup (games-as-a-service, i.e. GTA V and RDR 2).

 

I'm with everyone that wants to play all games.  I would love to play Halo games and Forza and likely some of the cool, future games that will come from Bethesda that will be exclusive to Xbox.  If I really want them, I'll have to save up and buy their system to get it.  Exclusivity drives quality and competition, which is more important than having every game available on all platforms.

 

You're right, I do know all of this.  My original post even went as far as to call it unrealistic.  Ya'll can relax lol.

 

That being said, I do think a world without first party exclusives would probably figure itself out.  Whether it's better prices, better service, better accessories, or something else I'm not creative enough to think of... these companies wouldn't just suddenly give up on finding an edge and beating the competition.  The idea that quality games can't exist without first party status is a little short-sighted... who knows whether Naughty Dog exists without being a Playstation first party studio, but really, if that dissolved tomorrow, what's stopping them from making franchises like Uncharted and The Last of Us and boatloads of money under a different banner?  It's not like their talent would suddenly disappear.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Dreakon13

[Paperclip1776]

1 hour ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

You're right, I do know all of this.  My original post even went as far as to call it unrealistic.  Ya'll can relax lol.

 

That being said, I do think a world without first party exclusives would probably figure itself out.  Whether it's better prices, better service, better accessories, or something else I'm not creative enough to think of... these companies wouldn't just suddenly give up on finding an edge and beating the competition.  The idea that quality games can't exist without first party status is a little short-sighted... who knows whether Naughty Dog exists without being a Playstation first party studio, but really, if that dissolved tomorrow, what's stopping them from making franchises like Uncharted and The Last of Us and boatloads of money under a different banner?  It's not like their talent would suddenly disappear.

I'm relaxed , thanks.  I'm just responding cordially to your comments is all. 

 

You make a good point that the industry would probably figure itself out.  I agree with that.  

 

You spoke on a couple of topics:

1. Alternative to exclusivity; gaming platforms creatively figuring out another way to make profits through better service, prices, accessories or something else.  

2. Quality of games can exist without 1st party games.  

 

1.  Alternative to exclusivity.  I suppose it's possible that there's other alternatives to exclusivity.  IMO, the flaw in this argument is that these companies would be doing something else if they thought it would make them more money.  Look at the format at Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.  All of them have exclusivity, subscription models, and blockbuster 1st party games (Xbox is working on a better lineup with their recent acquisitions).  In 2021, the current exclusivity format works best for these companies and an alternative method would set them back.  Gaming industry will continue to evolve, gaming happens continue to evolve, and the age of gamers continue to evolve.  An alternative method in 2028 might make sense for better prices, better services, better accessories but they don't make sense in 2021.  I would invite anyone to provide any hard facts to the contrary.  My hard facts is the current format.  These companies continue to make record profits.  Yes, COVID helped a lot with current profits but video games was on an upward trajectory years before COVID reared its ugly head.

 

2.  Quality of games can exist without 1st party games.  IMO, not in 2021 they can't.  Less competition always equals less motivation to innovate and provide the best value (price) to their consumers.  3rd party games won't go to crap, but it doesn't mean the overall quality will continue to climb either.  To use your example, Naughty Dog on its own could continue to create amazing works of art.  But would they?  Maybe.  History in any industry would dictate that less competition ultimately equals less quality.  Any industry.  These companies have less motivation to deliver outstanding quality because you can't get that brand anywhere else now.  Who's Naughty Dog's competition today?  Mainly, itself.  Its got such a high reputation to improve upon the last game that they really do everything they can to deliver the best experience possible.  If in your world 1st party doesn't exist and Naughty Dog exists as it does today with amazing talent as a standalone company, I would bet the farm you won't see the creativity it has under Sony because they won't take as many risks.  One bad risk can sink a studio and that alone would deter them from innovating outside their comfort zone.  Look at Visceral Games under EA.  They were dismantled after their in-progress Star Wars game was taken from a linear, single player type game and sent to another studio with more experience delivering multiplayer games.  Why?  Because EA believes multiplayer games makes them more money.  Are they wrong?  I'll say no based on EA's quarterly financial results recently.  My point is, it's not short-sighted in 2021 to think that quality games as they look today won't exist without 1st party developers.  There's a ton of 1st party developers across the industry so we aren't talking about 1, 2, or even 15.  There's a lot more than that.   I don't believe the industry would go into a tailspin and every game would be bargain bin fodder but I think it would take some time before games would come back to the quality that we see today.

 

Exclusivity is the current format and looks to be the format in the near future.  Time will tell if it evolves into more subscription models as internet access becomes more available and stable around the world, or if we're even going to see another console generation; the PS6.  I wasn't sure 8 years ago when the PS4 launched if there would be a PS5 but after the initial reception to the PS4, it was easy to see a PS5 in the future.  If I were to guess, PS6 and Xbox Z/Y is almost a done deal based on the current sales and excitement for both Xbox X/S and PS5.  

 

In the end, there's no way to know for sure if I'm wrong and you're right or vis versa on this topic, but we both have our arguments; one a little more wordy than the other. 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Paperclip1776
changed wording

[Dreakon13]

1 hour ago, Paperclip1776 said:

In the end, there's no way to know for sure if I'm wrong and you're right or vis versa on this topic, but we both have our arguments; one a little more wordy than the other. 

 

Agreed.

 

Third party doesn't mean independent, and it doesn't automatically mean getting in bed with EA or Ubisoft.  Any publisher can help fund and foster talented studios, Sony/Playstation is just one of the better ones the last generation or two.  It's hard to imagine how such a radically different environment could be sustainable... and I won't spend too much time arguing something so hypothetical.  I just don't personally believe first party exclusives alone are propping the industry up, and if the day ever came where we saw fewer first party exclusives, innovation can probably be found in other places.  Even if I can't tell you exactly what that would be.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Dreakon13

[EDGES]

Exclusives are absolutely a good thing, that is non debatable, from multiple points, business, creativity, strategy, diversity

[melodicmizery]

he says exclusives as if it benefits gamers at all. exclusives really only benefit whoever is making the console for them. it doesnt do the gamers any good. when dead rising came out my friend didnt say "ha ha i got a xbox and you dont" he said come over and try this game youll like it. and then i almost bought a xbox for it.  which would of been a waste of money. these companies always act like they are doing us a favor lol

[Paperclip1776]

8 hours ago, melodicmizery said:

he says exclusives as if it benefits gamers at all. exclusives really only benefit whoever is making the console for them. it doesnt do the gamers any good. when dead rising came out my friend didnt say "ha ha i got a xbox and you dont" he said come over and try this game youll like it. and then i almost bought a xbox for it.  which would of been a waste of money. these companies always act like they are doing us a favor lol

Respectfully disagree.  

 

Exclusives do benefit gamers with quality games that we want to play and they help the industry provide stronger competition with other platform exclusives as well as 3rd party games made by publishers like Activision, Ubisoft, EA, and Take-Two Interactive.  Look at The Last of Us series, Uncharted series, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo, Forza, Gears, Gran Turismo, Mario (wholly crap ton of successful games): all of these games are exclusive to one console platform and all are AAA, high quality, high production value games that drive billions of dollars in sales and tens of millions of gamers.  How does this not benefit gamers?  We're getting amazing quality games.

 

Are companies making games solely to benefit the gamer?  Absolutely not.  These companies are in business to make money, especially these large, public companies that have thousands of shareholders that want more money than they did the year before.  Exclusives drive sales of their consoles and it gives you a reason to buy their console.  

 

You may personally never buy a console because of an exclusive game on that platform but millions of other people do buy consoles specifically for the games on their platform.  I would say that's probably a top reason on how customers choose a certain system to buy.

 

Company marketing techniques are designed to try and appeal to your desires so of course they're going to do what they can to drive you to buy their latest console.  Exclusives are done by every platform in the industry (Sony, Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Stadia, Epic Games) and there's a big reason why: they drive future sales on other things like accessories, other games, and yes, even micro transactions.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Paperclip1776
changed wording

[PIOTREK27-1982]

Not gonna happen. Squaresoft published over 50 games on PSone alone. Most of them were exclusives. Today ND makes 2 games during whole gen. Studio Japan is closed, Evolution is closed and Studio Liverpool is dead. Bend will join them in few years for sure.

[Paperclip1776]

3 hours ago, PIOTREK27-1982 said:

Not gonna happen. Squaresoft published over 50 games on PSone alone. Most of them were exclusives. Today ND makes 2 games during whole gen. Studio Japan is closed, Evolution is closed and Studio Liverpool is dead. Bend will join them in few years for sure.

50 games for a system over 20 years ago can't possibly be compared to Naughty Dog's 2 games during a whole generation.  The games aren't comparable.  Play The Last of Us and then go and play 5 games from Squaresoft and see if you notice a difference.  Production values, game assets, art direction, storytelling; hundreds of people working on these games compared to maybe dozens of people working on games from the PSOne era.  And games these days take an average of 4-5 years to make.  It was an average of a 1 year turnaround in the PSOne era.  Apples to oranges, there's absolutely no comparison.  

 

Calling out the studios that closed is accurate but you didn't mention that Sony has the largest lineup of 1st party developers ever in 2021.  And these are studios that can work on multiple AAA projects at the same time.  Santa Monica Studios, Bend Studio, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Polyphony Digital, San Mateo Studio, London Studio, San Diego Studio, Pixelopus, Insomniac Games.  Not to mention, they do 2nd party deals all the time.  There's multiple 2nd party deals going on that were announced, i.e. Firewalk Studios (former Bungie/Activision employees), Square Enix, Haven (Jade Raymond), Housemarque (Returnal), Lucid Games (Destruction AllStars).  

 

Studios will get closed for different reasons but you can't say for a fact that Sony is in a worse place with studios in 2021 than they were at any other time in history.

 

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.  Thanks!

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Paperclip1776
Added words

[Z1MZUM]

Exclusive games killed Nintendo. Or did it save Nintendo? After all, their latest product makes people feel exclusive. 

 

Studios will come and go, it just doesn't matter.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Z1MZUM

[melodicmizery]

On 4/27/2021 at 9:47 AM, Paperclip1776 said:

Respectfully disagree.  

 

Exclusives do benefit gamers with quality games that we want to play and they help the industry provide stronger competition with other platform exclusives as well as 3rd party games made by publishers like Activision, Ubisoft, EA, and Take-Two Interactive.  Look at The Last of Us series, Uncharted series, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo, Forza, Gears, Gran Turismo, Mario (wholly crap ton of successful games): all of these games are exclusive to one console platform and all are AAA, high quality, high production value games that drive billions of dollars in sales and tens of millions of gamers.  How does this not benefit gamers?  We're getting amazing quality games.

 

Are companies making games solely to benefit the gamer?  Absolutely not.  These companies are in business to make money, especially these large, public companies that have thousands of shareholders that want more money than they did the year before.  Exclusives drive sales of their consoles and it gives you a reason to buy their console.  

 

You may personally never buy a console because of an exclusive game on that platform but millions of other people do buy consoles specifically for the games on their platform.  I would say that's probably a top reason on how customers choose a certain system to buy.

 

Company marketing techniques are designed to try and appeal to your desires so of course they're going to do what they can to drive you to buy their latest console.  Exclusives are done by every platform in the industry (Sony, Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Stadia, Epic Games) and there's a big reason why: they drive future sales on other things like accessories, other games, and yes, even micro transactions.

thats a fair point. but i dont see how me paying $400 to play one game is to my advantage. there is plenty of other great games that came out that arent exclusives. and plenty of exclusives i have no interest in. i dont know how a game company is making more money by sticking to only one console. its not from game sales so it has to be the company throwing boatloads of money at them. they could make it for both platforms and have twice the sales and the user doesnt have to buy a whole new consoles for it. 

[Paperclip1776]

5 hours ago, melodicmizery said:

thats a fair point. but i dont see how me paying $400 to play one game is to my advantage. there is plenty of other great games that came out that arent exclusives. and plenty of exclusives i have no interest in. i dont know how a game company is making more money by sticking to only one console. its not from game sales so it has to be the company throwing boatloads of money at them. they could make it for both platforms and have twice the sales and the user doesnt have to buy a whole new consoles for it. 

Thanks for responding.

 

Your Quote: but i dont see how me paying $400 to play one game is to my advantage.  there is plenty of other great games that came out that arent exclusives. and plenty of exclusives i have no interest in.

 

My Response: As we all know, video games is a hobby, not a necessity.  If you really want to play an exclusive game, you either need to know someone that has the game or buy the hardware to play it.  Exclusives are an advantage to gamers because it drives competition.  More competition = better quality games.  If you buy an exclusive, there's a strong likelihood you will also purchase other things on that platform, such as accessories, other software purchases, subscriptions, and the dreaded micro transactions.  It's fair to say you won't like or purchase all exclusives that come out, most people fall into that reality.  However, most people also like some of the exclusives and that adds up to millions and millions of purchases for a quality AAA exclusive.

 

Your Quote: i dont know how a game company is making more money by sticking to only one console. its not from game sales so it has to be the company throwing boatloads of money at them. they could make it for both platforms and have twice the sales and the user doesnt have to buy a whole new consoles for it. 

 

My Response: Two words: attach rate.  When a customer purchases an exclusive game like The Last of Us Part II, they don't just purchase the game, they purchase an extra controller, they purchase Playstation Plus subscription, they purchase other interesting games on the Playstation store, etc.  Of course, this doesn't apply to every customer but more times than not, a customer will purchase more products from that platform when they've invested in the expensive hardware.  The reason you seen every platform have exclusives (Playstation, Xbox, Switch, Stadia, Apple Arcade, Steam, Epic Games Store) is because the attach rate of other items far exceed the sales of the game being purchased on other platforms.  Every generation, there's more and more exclusives between platforms because that's a way for the company to get you into their ecosystem. 

 

Look at Epic Games Store: there was an article recently that confirmed they lost around $300 million dollars to exclusives and the company was ok with it.  Why?  Because in the long-term, they are creating new customers that will purchase future content on their store, not the competitions store.  Here's the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/epic-games-is-losing-an-absurd-amount-of-money-on-exclusive-games/1100-6490008/

 

Concluding this, if game companies thought making a game and releasing it multi-platform was more profitable, they would do it.  There's a reason every game company is not only selling exclusive games to their platform, they're also increasing them.  Look at Xbox with all of their acquisitions in the past couple of years and how Sony is reinvesting in their 1st party software.  It all equals more money in future content than releasing it multi-platform.  

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Paperclip1776
changed wording