The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all know why it happens. For the developer, a better deal with the publisher and Console manufacturer. For the console manufacturer, a reason to buy their console. But is it really a good thing, for the consumer, that third-party titles like Final Fantasy 10 and Munch's Oddysey are only available on one console?
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> That's crap.
>
> The word "exclusive" means that it will only ever be
> released on one platform.
>
> The word is losing it's meaning now, as during E3 many games, for all
> three consoles, were called "exclusive", despite the fact
> that a PC version had already been announced!
>
> The exclusive should mean "This game will only ever appear on
> this console. End of story." But it doesn't mean that any more at
> all.
Exclusive means first. Exclusive to PS2 - first to the PS2. If exlusive meant that it would only be on one console, on the front they'd put 'exclusive for Xbox' rather than 'only on Xbox'. If a game is exlusive, it doesn't mean it can't come out on other consoles.
I used to think as you do, until my English teacher told me otherwise
YOU are wrong, I am right.
> That's crap.
>
> The word "exclusive" means that it will only ever be
> released on one platform.
>
> The word is losing it's meaning now, as during E3 many games, for all
> three consoles, were called "exclusive", despite the fact
> that a PC version had already been announced!
>
> The exclusive should mean "This game will only ever appear on
> this console. End of story." But it doesn't mean that any more at
> all.
Exclusive means first. Exclusive to PS2 - first to the PS2. If exlusive meant that it would only be on one console, on the front they'd put 'exclusive for Xbox' rather than 'only on Xbox'. If a game is exlusive, it doesn't mean it can't come out on other consoles.
I used to think as you do, until my English teacher told me otherwise
YOU are wrong, I am right.
Dringo wrote:
> Come on lets face it if there wasn't any Nintendo games and if Capcom
> hadn't of put Resident Evil on the cube how well would it have done?
> Not very well at all... i don't like this opinon.
It's a pretty stupid opinion - it's like saying Arsenal wouldn't have won the league if you took away all their good players. Ermmmm, of course!
> Come on lets face it if there wasn't any Nintendo games and if Capcom
> hadn't of put Resident Evil on the cube how well would it have done?
> Not very well at all... i don't like this opinon.
It's a pretty stupid opinion - it's like saying Arsenal wouldn't have won the league if you took away all their good players. Ermmmm, of course!
Come on lets face it if there wasn't any Nintendo games and if Capcom hadn't of put Resident Evil on the cube how well would it have done? Not very well at all... i don't like this opinon.
PinkPig wrote:
> Of course they don't own Square, just as Nintendo doesn't own Rare.
> In fact, the latter of those companies seems likely to stop it's
> Nintendo exclusive titles. As I mentioned in my own post, I am aware
> of the GC FF game - but this ISN'T going to be a conversion or port of
> any of the PSX or PS2 titles.
>
> Sony DO have ownership in Square - they own around 20% of the company,
> if I remember correctly. Thus, they have a lot of influence. And
> there have been rumours that they will try to stop the Squaresoft -
> Nintendo agreement. I hope this isn't true, and it probably wouldn't
> succeed in any case - but it would still be great to see a PC or GC
> port/conversion of FF 10 and above...........,
So you think the GC won't get FF11... we'll see.
Nintendo own erm well the last i heared 42% of RARE, believe it or not after no announcement of going multi-format at E3 it looks unlikely to happen.
> Of course they don't own Square, just as Nintendo doesn't own Rare.
> In fact, the latter of those companies seems likely to stop it's
> Nintendo exclusive titles. As I mentioned in my own post, I am aware
> of the GC FF game - but this ISN'T going to be a conversion or port of
> any of the PSX or PS2 titles.
>
> Sony DO have ownership in Square - they own around 20% of the company,
> if I remember correctly. Thus, they have a lot of influence. And
> there have been rumours that they will try to stop the Squaresoft -
> Nintendo agreement. I hope this isn't true, and it probably wouldn't
> succeed in any case - but it would still be great to see a PC or GC
> port/conversion of FF 10 and above...........,
So you think the GC won't get FF11... we'll see.
Nintendo own erm well the last i heared 42% of RARE, believe it or not after no announcement of going multi-format at E3 it looks unlikely to happen.
½pint wrote:
> Just to clear this up, exclusive means first, not only for. Ie.
> exclusive on Xbox means its coming out on Xbox first, it doesn't mean
> that it won't come out on other consoles afterwards though.
That's crap.
The word "exclusive" means that it will only ever be released on one platform.
The word is losing it's meaning now, as during E3 many games, for all three consoles, were called "exclusive", despite the fact that a PC version had already been announced!
The exclusive should mean "This game will only ever appear on this console. End of story." But it doesn't mean that any more at all.
> Just to clear this up, exclusive means first, not only for. Ie.
> exclusive on Xbox means its coming out on Xbox first, it doesn't mean
> that it won't come out on other consoles afterwards though.
That's crap.
The word "exclusive" means that it will only ever be released on one platform.
The word is losing it's meaning now, as during E3 many games, for all three consoles, were called "exclusive", despite the fact that a PC version had already been announced!
The exclusive should mean "This game will only ever appear on this console. End of story." But it doesn't mean that any more at all.
Exclusive games are a dying breed - most of the titles that are currently exclusive are so either because the console maker owns large amounts of the developer or the deal only lasts for a few years. It simply doesn't make sense for the publishers to sign up to these deals at the moment.
In the 32-bit era only Nintendo and Sony really existed properly, and Nintendo had enforced strict, and basically unfair rules on the publishers for nearly a decade. Sony, on the other hand, was offering low licensing fees and cheap media for the games - so everyone jumped into bed with Sony and a phenomenon was born. The choice was simple and many developers went for it. Add to this PlayStation's image versus the N64's, one cool, hip and trendy, the other, you know, for kids! Therefore it was hard to market a franchise (or it's characters) across both platforms. Could you imagine the pictures of Lara Croft in a bikini that frequently flash up in a SR advert at the top of the forum screen alongside Yoshi? From a marketing point of view it was a tricky prospect and as the characters often became the franchises most valuable asset, it wasn't something that could be risked.
Therefore exclusivity deals were rife and helped to secure the Play Station’s place as market leader, and by quite a margin. Then the decision becomes even easier - will you take Sony's bags of cash and huge installed user base, with cheap unit reproduction and high margins, or go and develop for Nintendo's expensive and restrictive cartridges with a fraction of the customer base? The choice was easy, and became easier as more and more people expected the FMV and large sound library that cartridges couldn't afford.
Jump forward to now and we see the fields being levelled, as the slates are wiped clean. Sega launch first with the Dreamcast and no one in their right mind would sign over a franchise exclusively to the people who brought you the Saturn. Dreamcast flounders, 3rd parties suspicions are confirmed (through it may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy). That leaves us with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft - all offer similar hardware and media, the Gamecube's disks have less storage, but when you've been working with 700MB for the last few years its hard to see what you'll fill a couple of Gigs with anyway. The problem is there is no clear market leader this time around (yet).
Sure, a few signed up to Sony in the early days, but thoughts of Microsoft's past success must worry people - no one wants to have their properties signed up to e.g. Sony and cause them to miss out on a larger potential market. However, things were subtly different now - both Sony and Microsoft would rely on 3rd parties and Nintendo had realise with the N64 that their in-house titles wouldn't be enough to get the kind of market share they wanted. So, the 3rd parties suddenly have all sorts of power as they are negotiating with three different groups and can play them off against each other.
Here comes the big one - if everyone is trying to offer you exclusivity deals, why sign up? Sure, the initial signing bonus is great and lessens the risk inherent in developing any title, but the risk of signing up to the third place console in a three horse race is too much. Also, you want as many potential buyers as possible, which means developing for all three consoles. The cost of developing a title for one or all isn't that different, epically as all three consoles offer similar performance and you can split the same marketing three ways. It's the obvious business choice to go multi-format, and it’s a choice the empowered publishers can make.
So why are we seeing exclusivity deals at all then? In a word, inertia. It's the done thing and it boosts sales as everybody likes to think they are special and only people who own their console can share this gaming experience. Okay, no one consciously thinks that, but its going on their somewhere right at the back of your brain - the bit that would tell you to hunt in a pack if Tesco's didn't exist.
These aren't normal exclusivity deals either - for example, all Sega's family of developers are for a limited time period. Of course, they won't be too keen to let that be common knowledge, as the console people know that this devalues their exclusivity deals, but it is still the way things are. The developer's like the lump sum payment they get for signing up to one console alone as it covers the risky development of a game, but ultimately the deal runs out and they can open up the title to the whole market.
We are in a generation were the publishers wield the power, not the console makers. It's the end of an era, and no coincidence that Nintendo have just appointed a new President, as Yamauchi was the cruellest and most calculated when it came to dealing with the developers. Ultimately this will lead to more development teams being bought out by the console makers as they try and get some exclusive talent.
One thing is for sure; it's a good time to be a gamer as the console you choose to buy is getting less and less important. That said, with the low, low prices we are seeing on the high street, why not get them all? I'm just off to complete the set now by going out to buy an Xbox - though I did mean to leave the house about a quarter of an hour ago, but ended up typing this :)
In the 32-bit era only Nintendo and Sony really existed properly, and Nintendo had enforced strict, and basically unfair rules on the publishers for nearly a decade. Sony, on the other hand, was offering low licensing fees and cheap media for the games - so everyone jumped into bed with Sony and a phenomenon was born. The choice was simple and many developers went for it. Add to this PlayStation's image versus the N64's, one cool, hip and trendy, the other, you know, for kids! Therefore it was hard to market a franchise (or it's characters) across both platforms. Could you imagine the pictures of Lara Croft in a bikini that frequently flash up in a SR advert at the top of the forum screen alongside Yoshi? From a marketing point of view it was a tricky prospect and as the characters often became the franchises most valuable asset, it wasn't something that could be risked.
Therefore exclusivity deals were rife and helped to secure the Play Station’s place as market leader, and by quite a margin. Then the decision becomes even easier - will you take Sony's bags of cash and huge installed user base, with cheap unit reproduction and high margins, or go and develop for Nintendo's expensive and restrictive cartridges with a fraction of the customer base? The choice was easy, and became easier as more and more people expected the FMV and large sound library that cartridges couldn't afford.
Jump forward to now and we see the fields being levelled, as the slates are wiped clean. Sega launch first with the Dreamcast and no one in their right mind would sign over a franchise exclusively to the people who brought you the Saturn. Dreamcast flounders, 3rd parties suspicions are confirmed (through it may have been a self-fulfilling prophecy). That leaves us with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft - all offer similar hardware and media, the Gamecube's disks have less storage, but when you've been working with 700MB for the last few years its hard to see what you'll fill a couple of Gigs with anyway. The problem is there is no clear market leader this time around (yet).
Sure, a few signed up to Sony in the early days, but thoughts of Microsoft's past success must worry people - no one wants to have their properties signed up to e.g. Sony and cause them to miss out on a larger potential market. However, things were subtly different now - both Sony and Microsoft would rely on 3rd parties and Nintendo had realise with the N64 that their in-house titles wouldn't be enough to get the kind of market share they wanted. So, the 3rd parties suddenly have all sorts of power as they are negotiating with three different groups and can play them off against each other.
Here comes the big one - if everyone is trying to offer you exclusivity deals, why sign up? Sure, the initial signing bonus is great and lessens the risk inherent in developing any title, but the risk of signing up to the third place console in a three horse race is too much. Also, you want as many potential buyers as possible, which means developing for all three consoles. The cost of developing a title for one or all isn't that different, epically as all three consoles offer similar performance and you can split the same marketing three ways. It's the obvious business choice to go multi-format, and it’s a choice the empowered publishers can make.
So why are we seeing exclusivity deals at all then? In a word, inertia. It's the done thing and it boosts sales as everybody likes to think they are special and only people who own their console can share this gaming experience. Okay, no one consciously thinks that, but its going on their somewhere right at the back of your brain - the bit that would tell you to hunt in a pack if Tesco's didn't exist.
These aren't normal exclusivity deals either - for example, all Sega's family of developers are for a limited time period. Of course, they won't be too keen to let that be common knowledge, as the console people know that this devalues their exclusivity deals, but it is still the way things are. The developer's like the lump sum payment they get for signing up to one console alone as it covers the risky development of a game, but ultimately the deal runs out and they can open up the title to the whole market.
We are in a generation were the publishers wield the power, not the console makers. It's the end of an era, and no coincidence that Nintendo have just appointed a new President, as Yamauchi was the cruellest and most calculated when it came to dealing with the developers. Ultimately this will lead to more development teams being bought out by the console makers as they try and get some exclusive talent.
One thing is for sure; it's a good time to be a gamer as the console you choose to buy is getting less and less important. That said, with the low, low prices we are seeing on the high street, why not get them all? I'm just off to complete the set now by going out to buy an Xbox - though I did mean to leave the house about a quarter of an hour ago, but ended up typing this :)
You think that the Gamecube isn't being as succesful as the PS2 and X-Box? Without showing any bias, I'd say that it's actually doing pretty well for itself - much better than the Dreamcast or N64.
OK, it's not likely to catch up with the enormous sales and number of games of the PS2, but I know far more people with a GC than an X-Box. Perhaps Microsoft have found their niche, but I still think that the GC is being helped by now having both exclusive titles, AND also titles such as Fifa which are on all of the consoles anyway.
OK, it's not likely to catch up with the enormous sales and number of games of the PS2, but I know far more people with a GC than an X-Box. Perhaps Microsoft have found their niche, but I still think that the GC is being helped by now having both exclusive titles, AND also titles such as Fifa which are on all of the consoles anyway.
I guess Nintendo putting 'Only For' in the corner of many of their exclusive titles isn't helping anything.
In fact, it would seem that only Sony doesn't do it, as MS does it too.
And they (debateable) have some of the best exclusives.
Even though im a Ninty fan, good work Sony.
In fact, it would seem that only Sony doesn't do it, as MS does it too.
And they (debateable) have some of the best exclusives.
Even though im a Ninty fan, good work Sony.
I won GAD for my view on exclusivity - here's my two cents...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Exclusives – are they a thing of the past? Only in the last few weeks we have heard the news that Grand Theft Auto 3 is making the short trip over to Xbox territory, along with State of Emergency, (and if the rumours are to be believed) Metal Gear Solid 2. If that wasn’t enough to shock you we had the recent revelation that after years of ill feeling Square are to develop Final Fantasy games for Nintendo again. But what has instigated this unusual trend? Why are developers no longer willing to make that commitment, to settle down and try for best sellers? (God I’m starting to sound like a relationship counsellor now). There are many reasons for this, starting with…
Uncertainty. It has got to be creeping into the mind of developers and producers, especially third party ones, that if they pledge their allegiance to one console and it ends up being used as a floor mop then they are going to lose out, big time. No one wants their rivals to wipe the floor with them (hence the mop analogy). And with two next gen consoles out, one waiting in the wings and no-one honestly sure who is going to emerge victorious, developers seem to be hedging their bets a little. Plus pressure is probably being applied by producers who don’t want to sign a deal to a console that might go the way of the Dreamc…dodo.
There is also the distinct (in fact, almost definite) possibility of pressure being applied by producers to make a quick buck by porting the same game over. With Microsoft entering the industry money is being splashed about nonchalantly and the fat cats are seeing dollar signs in their eyes. Why commit yourself to one console and make £2m when you can move to another, double your target audience and make £4m? It’s an argument that is hard to argue against, especially for those of you with a mind for business.
Which leads me nicely onto my next point. Some developers may be scared of losing out and when we are at a stage (as we are now) where choice is becoming larger and someone is going to have to lose out, developers may feel that the only way to ensure success is to appear on every platform. Ok, maybe I am being cynical; maybe developers just want the widest audience possible to enjoy their games? That may be so, but you’ve got admit that it is food for thought.
So what about the consoles that can boast exclusives? Well Tomb Raider and Playstation were exclusive – until Lara appeared on Dreamcast, the first sign that no franchise ever stays in one place, no matter how successful. Shinji Mikami and the Resident Evil boys recently made the unusual step of committing themselves to one console, in this case Nintendo. Why? I’m not entirely sure. But if the Gamecube isn’t as successful as PS2 or Xbox, which I’m afraid to say early sales figures seem to indicate) then don’t be surprised to see them jumping ship, and even as I write this rumours are filtering out of Japan that Resi 4 may still be heading to PS2. Abe’s Odyssey is another example of an exclusive, but I think that that had more to do with PS2 not having the power to run the game than being bitten by the Xbox bug. And the most obvious example – Rare. But even if you examine the situation there closely it doesn’t really seem like an ‘exclusive’. Rare are a second party developer part owned by Nintendo, and if they’re mischievous Christmas card is to be believed, then they too may go multi format.
Looking at the evidence I would say that, in the future, it is unlikely we will see the word ‘exclusive’ adorning a certain title. At the moment the only true exclusives are Nintendo, and what’s to say they might go multi format in a few years if Gamecube doesn’t work out? Before you put your doubters hats on and start criticising, think what you might have thought of Sega going multi format say, five years ago? Exactly. No one would have predicted it but look at them now! They have gone from struggling console developers to one of the most powerful and influential software developers in one feel swoop. Who’s to say it might look an attractive prospect for Nintendo in few years? Certainly not you or I (sorry to disappoint any budding visionaries amongst you). With developers scared of losing out and a desire to be noticed as the console ‘war’ hots up, it is starting to look that exclusives may certainly be a thing of the past.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Exclusives – are they a thing of the past? Only in the last few weeks we have heard the news that Grand Theft Auto 3 is making the short trip over to Xbox territory, along with State of Emergency, (and if the rumours are to be believed) Metal Gear Solid 2. If that wasn’t enough to shock you we had the recent revelation that after years of ill feeling Square are to develop Final Fantasy games for Nintendo again. But what has instigated this unusual trend? Why are developers no longer willing to make that commitment, to settle down and try for best sellers? (God I’m starting to sound like a relationship counsellor now). There are many reasons for this, starting with…
Uncertainty. It has got to be creeping into the mind of developers and producers, especially third party ones, that if they pledge their allegiance to one console and it ends up being used as a floor mop then they are going to lose out, big time. No one wants their rivals to wipe the floor with them (hence the mop analogy). And with two next gen consoles out, one waiting in the wings and no-one honestly sure who is going to emerge victorious, developers seem to be hedging their bets a little. Plus pressure is probably being applied by producers who don’t want to sign a deal to a console that might go the way of the Dreamc…dodo.
There is also the distinct (in fact, almost definite) possibility of pressure being applied by producers to make a quick buck by porting the same game over. With Microsoft entering the industry money is being splashed about nonchalantly and the fat cats are seeing dollar signs in their eyes. Why commit yourself to one console and make £2m when you can move to another, double your target audience and make £4m? It’s an argument that is hard to argue against, especially for those of you with a mind for business.
Which leads me nicely onto my next point. Some developers may be scared of losing out and when we are at a stage (as we are now) where choice is becoming larger and someone is going to have to lose out, developers may feel that the only way to ensure success is to appear on every platform. Ok, maybe I am being cynical; maybe developers just want the widest audience possible to enjoy their games? That may be so, but you’ve got admit that it is food for thought.
So what about the consoles that can boast exclusives? Well Tomb Raider and Playstation were exclusive – until Lara appeared on Dreamcast, the first sign that no franchise ever stays in one place, no matter how successful. Shinji Mikami and the Resident Evil boys recently made the unusual step of committing themselves to one console, in this case Nintendo. Why? I’m not entirely sure. But if the Gamecube isn’t as successful as PS2 or Xbox, which I’m afraid to say early sales figures seem to indicate) then don’t be surprised to see them jumping ship, and even as I write this rumours are filtering out of Japan that Resi 4 may still be heading to PS2. Abe’s Odyssey is another example of an exclusive, but I think that that had more to do with PS2 not having the power to run the game than being bitten by the Xbox bug. And the most obvious example – Rare. But even if you examine the situation there closely it doesn’t really seem like an ‘exclusive’. Rare are a second party developer part owned by Nintendo, and if they’re mischievous Christmas card is to be believed, then they too may go multi format.
Looking at the evidence I would say that, in the future, it is unlikely we will see the word ‘exclusive’ adorning a certain title. At the moment the only true exclusives are Nintendo, and what’s to say they might go multi format in a few years if Gamecube doesn’t work out? Before you put your doubters hats on and start criticising, think what you might have thought of Sega going multi format say, five years ago? Exactly. No one would have predicted it but look at them now! They have gone from struggling console developers to one of the most powerful and influential software developers in one feel swoop. Who’s to say it might look an attractive prospect for Nintendo in few years? Certainly not you or I (sorry to disappoint any budding visionaries amongst you). With developers scared of losing out and a desire to be noticed as the console ‘war’ hots up, it is starting to look that exclusives may certainly be a thing of the past.
Just to clear this up, exclusive means first, not only for. Ie. exclusive on Xbox means its coming out on Xbox first, it doesn't mean that it won't come out on other consoles afterwards though.
Page: