The problem with exclusives like Titanfall

#31zmousePosted 3/1/2014 10:50:30 PM
I don't see how it's lazy, it's seems smarter imo. As you said it's less risky, for them to buy exclusives from 3rd party devs instead of taking more of a loss if they own a studio that makes a flop.
#32IroncondorzPosted 3/2/2014 8:59:20 AM
3HP posted...
Ironcondorz posted...
3HP posted...
I really think it would benefit gamers more if these types of payed exclusives, timed or otherwise, didn't exist. The money that MS payed EA could have been spent employing more first party developers for in-house exclusives which would lead to more games for us gamers.

It is a really lazy business model to wait until you see a third party studio with an amazing game halfway through development and just throw a pile of money at them. It shows that MS doesn't want to take risks.

Just to clarify, I am only talking about projects that would have still come to fruition WITHOUT any involvement from MS/Sony.




You said a lot of stuff but it meant absolutely nothing in the context of this topic. Titanfall already had EA one of the biggest publishers around, Respawn/EA didn't need MS in the least. MS saw a game that was generating huge hype and decided to throw money at them. The point of the topic is that money would be better spent on new projects instead of trying to snipe 3rd party content from the competition.

Why don't you try thinking like a gamer and not like a MS executive. I don't care what makes them more money easier, i care about more games.


I simply explained to you that MS didn't just buy exclusivity the way you implied because it makes no sense for EA and MS to do so.

"EA doesn't need MS in the least" you say, well EXACTLY. That's why they aren't going to bought unless the payout is MORE than they could make selling the game on the PS4, which would be A LOT OF MONEY and more than MS would ever gain in return from making it exclusive. Your whole premise is MS payed money to keep Titanfall off of the PS4 out of spite, and EA went along with it just for the laughs, since more money could be made by both by not entering into whatever agreement you think happened.

First and foremost I am an adult who lives in the real world. I'm not some ignorant little kid whining about not being able to play some games. Gaming is a business and the people making your games have lives,bills,families,etc... They need to eat and making games is a JOB they weren't put on this earth to entertain you.

Your whole rant is just based on the selfish desire to have more games for yourself so you are no better than any executive acting in their own best interest.
#33CrysianiaPosted 3/2/2014 9:37:42 AM
zmouse posted...
I don't see how it's lazy, it's seems smarter imo. As you said it's less risky, for them to buy exclusives from 3rd party devs instead of taking more of a loss if they own a studio that makes a flop.


Might be better for the company, worse for consumers.
---
PSN - Sacred_Darksoul
#34kcypher2000Posted 3/2/2014 10:21:17 AM
Oh please this is just crying because sony has no games. This is a competition and MS does not owe anything to Sony consumers. What wrong with helping a studio pay for a game.

MS has first party games AND third exclusives while sony currently has nothing. I want a conpany that fights for my dollar like MS is doing and not Sony just marketing hype.
#35DionysusPosted 3/2/2014 10:37:20 AM
Ironcondorz posted...
I simply explained to you that MS didn't just buy exclusivity the way you implied because it makes no sense for EA and MS to do so.
It makes some sense because MS doesn't have much in-house developer talent. If they don't do this sort of thing, they won't have many killer aps. Hell, they just straight-up bought the GoW IP. I'm sure that Epic didn't give away an existing billion dollar franchise for nothing. Deals like that aren't really smart business if you are just trying to sell software, but it makes some sense if you are trying to sell hardware and you can't make your own software.

Also, we know that the game was in development for both last-gen consoles before MS purchased exclusivity. In fact, it uses the source engine in part because Respawn thought that it would work well on PS3. Now, it probably wasn't half-way done when the deal went down, but it was in development.
#36spacejamjordanzPosted 3/2/2014 10:59:52 AM
I agree with what you are saying, but you are looking at it from a consumer standpoint. Which makes sense too. Limiting access to a game does consumers no favors at all. I wish that we could just have one console that will have ALL the games we want to play, instead of being compelled to buy more than one. Titanfall makes it hard to ignore Xbox One especially so early in the new gen. That's what Microsoft wants. From a business standpoint, it made sense for Microsoft to lock it down. Once again, gamers don't really benefit, but Microsoft does. How much? only time will tell.

Each generation is a fight with your direct competitors. They are supposed to make moves that will make their console more desirable than the other. I am not saying you should like it, but you really can't fault them for that. Even if Titanfall 2 is on PS4, Microsoft will still benefit from brand recognition for the title. Pretty much the same way they did Call of Duty. When many people think "Call of Duty", they think "Xbox". The same could take place for Titanfall.
---
"Attack me if you dare. I will crush you." Ken Masters <Street Fighter II>
#37BTM4444Posted 3/2/2014 11:29:53 AM
It's not like Microsoft has money problems. The amount they paid ea for titanfall is just pocket change to them.
---
I'm a Proud Xbox One Owner :)
Microsoft will never sell the Xbox One without Kinect!
#383HP(Topic Creator)Posted 3/2/2014 4:09:04 PM
Ironcondorz posted...
3HP posted...
Ironcondorz posted...
3HP posted...
I really think it would benefit gamers more if these types of payed exclusives, timed or otherwise, didn't exist. The money that MS payed EA could have been spent employing more first party developers for in-house exclusives which would lead to more games for us gamers.

It is a really lazy business model to wait until you see a third party studio with an amazing game halfway through development and just throw a pile of money at them. It shows that MS doesn't want to take risks.

Just to clarify, I am only talking about projects that would have still come to fruition WITHOUT any involvement from MS/Sony.




You said a lot of stuff but it meant absolutely nothing in the context of this topic. Titanfall already had EA one of the biggest publishers around, Respawn/EA didn't need MS in the least. MS saw a game that was generating huge hype and decided to throw money at them. The point of the topic is that money would be better spent on new projects instead of trying to snipe 3rd party content from the competition.

Why don't you try thinking like a gamer and not like a MS executive. I don't care what makes them more money easier, i care about more games.


I simply explained to you that MS didn't just buy exclusivity the way you implied because it makes no sense for EA and MS to do so.

"EA doesn't need MS in the least" you say, well EXACTLY. That's why they aren't going to bought unless the payout is MORE than they could make selling the game on the PS4, which would be A LOT OF MONEY and more than MS would ever gain in return from making it exclusive. Your whole premise is MS payed money to keep Titanfall off of the PS4 out of spite, and EA went along with it just for the laughs, since more money could be made by both by not entering into whatever agreement you think happened.

First and foremost I am an adult who lives in the real world. I'm not some ignorant little kid whining about not being able to play some games. Gaming is a business and the people making your games have lives,bills,families,etc... They need to eat and making games is a JOB they weren't put on this earth to entertain you.

Your whole rant is just based on the selfish desire to have more games for yourself so you are no better than any executive acting in their own best interest.


I'm sure charging $80-$100 a game would also help their bottom line so does that mean you would like to bend over and take that in the *** too since you care so much about MS executives bank accounts?

For being an adult, your logic and your expectations as a consumer are pretty laughable.
#39IroncondorzPosted 3/2/2014 6:39:15 PM
3HP posted...
Ironcondorz posted...
3HP posted...
Ironcondorz posted...
3HP posted...
I really think it would benefit gamers more if these types of payed exclusives, timed or otherwise, didn't exist. The money that MS payed EA could have been spent employing more first party developers for in-house exclusives which would lead to more games for us gamers.

It is a really lazy business model to wait until you see a third party studio with an amazing game halfway through development and just throw a pile of money at them. It shows that MS doesn't want to take risks.

Just to clarify, I am only talking about projects that would have still come to fruition WITHOUT any involvement from MS/Sony.




You said a lot of stuff but it meant absolutely nothing in the context of this topic. Titanfall already had EA one of the biggest publishers around, Respawn/EA didn't need MS in the least. MS saw a game that was generating huge hype and decided to throw money at them. The point of the topic is that money would be better spent on new projects instead of trying to snipe 3rd party content from the competition.

Why don't you try thinking like a gamer and not like a MS executive. I don't care what makes them more money easier, i care about more games.


I simply explained to you that MS didn't just buy exclusivity the way you implied because it makes no sense for EA and MS to do so.

"EA doesn't need MS in the least" you say, well EXACTLY. That's why they aren't going to bought unless the payout is MORE than they could make selling the game on the PS4, which would be A LOT OF MONEY and more than MS would ever gain in return from making it exclusive. Your whole premise is MS payed money to keep Titanfall off of the PS4 out of spite, and EA went along with it just for the laughs, since more money could be made by both by not entering into whatever agreement you think happened.

First and foremost I am an adult who lives in the real world. I'm not some ignorant little kid whining about not being able to play some games. Gaming is a business and the people making your games have lives,bills,families,etc... They need to eat and making games is a JOB they weren't put on this earth to entertain you.

Your whole rant is just based on the selfish desire to have more games for yourself so you are no better than any executive acting in their own best interest.


I'm sure charging $80-$100 a game would also help their bottom line so does that mean you would like to bend over and take that in the *** too since you care so much about MS executives bank accounts?

For being an adult, your logic and your expectations as a consumer are pretty laughable.


I don't give a about MS and their bottom line. If anyone charges too much for a game I simply don't buy it. Oh but, by all means go ahead and cry about people making a living and rant about not being able to play a few video games out of the thousands that are released every year because boo hoo it's unfair. Since MS is the biggest perpetrator of "buying exclusives" why not add up every exclusive they've ever bought and compare it to how many games were released on rival platforms and see if it's anything worth a damn.

If you see this as some sort of grand injustice then you need to open your eyes to what is really going on in the world. I have no desire to feign some sort of righteous indignation over the video game market because I'm not some selfish brat and understand in the grand scheme of things I am truly blessed to be even playing video games, a luxury that not many even have.
#40IroncondorzPosted 3/2/2014 7:23:05 PM
Dionysus posted...
Ironcondorz posted...
I simply explained to you that MS didn't just buy exclusivity the way you implied because it makes no sense for EA and MS to do so.
It makes some sense because MS doesn't have much in-house developer talent. If they don't do this sort of thing, they won't have many killer aps. Hell, they just straight-up bought the GoW IP. I'm sure that Epic didn't give away an existing billion dollar franchise for nothing. Deals like that aren't really smart business if you are just trying to sell software, but it makes some sense if you are trying to sell hardware and you can't make your own software.

Also, we know that the game was in development for both last-gen consoles before MS purchased exclusivity. In fact, it uses the source engine in part because Respawn thought that it would work well on PS3. Now, it probably wasn't half-way done when the deal went down, but it was in development.


MS has plenty of in house development, they just choose to use plenty of third party studios too rather than running a bunch of studios themselves to obtain the same thing. Sure owning a studio and having them make Uncharted is good but what if those guys get tired of making those games? The talent is free to leave, so in the end owning the studio really doesn't mean much. It isn't very different than hiring a studio run by someone else, and if they get tired of making whatever game they simply split ways with each other. So in the case of Epic they probably got tired of making Gears and sold the IP to MS, otherwise they would likely continue making it with MS.

Furthermore, in house development or third party development still works almost the same way. Titanfall uses the Source engine which was made by Valve. Work is done on industry standard software, they probably outsource all sorts of things to third party "middleware" companies for a ton of work. Only the largest development companies can do everything in house and again that is part of the reason there is little difference between owning the studio and contracting a studio. Take a look at the opening credits to any game, ever see companies like CRIWARE listed?

There is a ton of stuff going on behind the scenes and it really makes no sense in raging over how these people choose to operate their business. Thousands upon thousands of games will be released in the coming years. Buy the ones you like and enjoy them. The costs aren't even that great, it costs close to $60 just to go see a movie with someone (including food). Hey maybe we can rant about all the exclusive deals movie studios make and turn it into some sort of consumer injustice.