War On Video Game Exclusives

Typically, we have “exclusive” fallout from the console war which forces the hand of the consumer to purchase all consoles to play all the games they love. Many hardcore gamers are into first person shooters like Halo and Gears of War but also like their Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy fixes. In years prior, you’d have to invest in Microsoft and Sony’s solutions to get your fix. Now things are changing.

With these third party developers playing neutral in the war on consoles, Microsoft and Sony are forced to rely on near “first-party” titles to keep their army strong. Metal Gear Solid is a Sony exclusive and Gears of War and Halo have been Microsoft’s hype babies for a year or so now. The problem? Many of these exclusive games are not divisions, subsidiaries or in any way under the wing of the console makers.

Nintendo holds exclusive rights to almost all their hard hitting titles. Mario, Link, Zelda, Samus Aran and all their mascot style characters are designed, developed and marketed under the name “Nintendo.” These characters are all part of Nintendo’s lineup of solid best selling titles including the Metroid, Zelda and Super Mario Bros. series and all their spin-offs. Nintendo has the power to re-implement their characters into games like Mario Party, Mario Kart, Links Crossbow, Metroid Prime, Metroid Pinball and a huge array of other first party titles.

Microsoft and Sony must continue to play nice with Konami, Bungie, and Epic Games to keep their exclusivity. What happens if one of these developers “betrays” their console and starts shipping multi-platform?

Epic Games and Konami are big time developers with their own independent thinking, would they ever push away from their exclusive deals with their partners? Bungie is no longer part of Microsoft but is bound, in some ways, to deliver Halo products on Microsoft’s console (for now). If these hard hitting blockbuster titles go multi-platform the war would get bloody.

These major publishers could indeed ship non-exclusive product lines in favor of a wider audience if, in fact, the console units grow closer in sales numbers. Sony’s PlayStation 3 console slowly creeps up to the sales figures of the Xbox 360 which means publishing a title on one console may only net you 50% of the possible audience (assuming a small number actually own both consoles). Given both are “hardcore” consoles, this also means those gamers are ready and willing to buy 2-3 video games a quarter for their console(s).

Why would a publisher settle for half the audience when they can ship on two platforms and grab a bigger piece of the pie? The console developer, Sony or Microsoft, would have to bribe pay the publisher money for an exclusive or timed exclusive deal. That’s all fair in business, but what if the competition becomes heated enough that a paid exclusive pays out less than selling on both consoles?

If the major publishers backing Microsoft and Sony opt to ship on both consoles this will force Sony and Microsoft to form higher end first party development teams (or buy them) in order to solidify real exclusivity. In essence, expanding teams (in all gaming genres) like the Microsoft Game Studios to ship more games per year as a sharp weapon against the competition.

The only other option for the console makers would be to let the “exclusives” model die and develop a game industry of watered down consoles with the only major difference being the logo and design of the box.

It might be a hard pill to swallow, but the only way to hold up the highest degree of competition and first party titles is to force everyone to want to buy all consoles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Robbie Bach says: There Will Be Multiple VictorsRobbie Bach says: There Will Be Multiple Victors

It’s amazing to think we’re in our third year of “next generation” console bliss. Three years have passed since the first Xbox 360 shipped, for good or bad, and it’s time to start thinking about the future.

Or is it?

Bobbie Bach, Microsoft Entertainment and Devices president, seems to believe this generation of consoles will expand out further than the typical four-year release cycle. Perhaps because the console developers have invested so much money in defeating each other in the market and making their console “number one” in the eyes of their investors.

Bach does not believe we’re cresting on the current generation, that is for certain, and we’ve yet to hear any hype over a new next-generation console from Microsoft. They were the first to market so, theoretically, they should be the first in the next-generation as well, right?

Their move to be number one was really a strategic attack which has paid out well, leading them above the past domination of Sony and Nintendo before it. However, they are holding strong with the Xbox 360 and there might be cause to sit tight and let this generation playout before bringing in another piece of hardware.

Bach stated that he believes consoles today are competing at different levels than ten years ago. There isn’t one clear winner, there isn’t one dominating console. There will be victors in different areas of the industry; casual consoles, top game sellers, best graphics and others. It’s not about sheer “units sold” it’s more about being profitable and building a community around your hardware, see Xbox Live as a great example.

Next generation will be full of fantastic new features, ways to connect and crazy hardware specifications, no doubt, but… for many of us, it will take years before we forget the pain and suffering we paid shipping our dead Xbox 360’s back to Microsoft for repairs. Would you be willing to buy into their next generation as their first customer?

(Thanks, 1up)

Exclusive Artist Deals In Rhythm Games Not Good?Exclusive Artist Deals In Rhythm Games Not Good?

Rhythm games are the new FPS for a lot of gamers, a broader audience of gamers, and the market is thriving and demanding new titles. Harmonix and Activision are at the front of the battle with Konami following a bit behind but still contending (we think) very soon.

Each company plans to up each other with cooler instruments, tighter controls and new in-game options and multi-player fancies. It’s a business and each competitor tries to gain a lead by whatever means needed to win… or do they?

Harmonix stops short when it comes to purchasing exclusive rights to music artists, for now at least. Harmonix’s Eric Brosious went on blogger record saying, “We prefer not to sign exclusive deals with artists because while it seems like the competitive “business” thing to do, in the long run, it’s really not good for anyone. We think we should be working to get more music out to more people.” (kotaku)

As Marky Mark once said, we need “Music for the people” not for in-game exclusives making us choose between Guitar Hero and Rock Band titles. We’ve seen what EA has done to the football franchise by taking control of the NFL roster, money talks and the best game doesn’t always win.

If Activision decides to buy up a ton of great exclusive content and you’re a rock band gamer, you’ll lose out in a ton of great content. For some gamers, that might mean losing out in some artists you’ve never heard before which also means the artist loses out in new fans. We’ve seen younger gamers fall in love with the sounds of Boston and The Police, bands famous way before the birth of many of the Rock Band fan base.

You can tell Harmonix is a development group with roots in music while Activision is a development group with their roots in business. While exclusive access brings you an advantage, in terms of broadening the culture of music, it does very little. Harmonix may be in the right but will that matter in the end when business deals hit the table?

p.s. sorry about the Marky Mark reference, but it had to be done. Bringing out a bit of my own childhood there…

Diablo 3: How Many Headlines Can It Catch?Diablo 3: How Many Headlines Can It Catch?

Imagine we told you the story of a game where you hack things up over and over and over and over by clicking the mouse to gain items. These items allow you to go into harder areas of a dungeon and hack things up over and over again. Would you buy into it? Probably not.

Yet Diablo, since its inception, has fascinated gamers with the fundamental goals of hacking and slashing your way to a hellish beast in hopes to hack and slash him as well. It does, however, have a firm storyline which has gotten better with age and usually marvels gamers with graphic advancements set to blow the mind.

Diablo II had some nice graphics, but they were not mind blowing and earth shattering but the game continued to be fun to play. So fun, some gamers continue to play Diablo II even today, grinding out armor and weapons. What’s the fascination?

Blizzard Entertainment seems to be born on the wind of success, each title pulling more gaming headlines than the last. Diablo III has taken over gaming RSS feeds, headline news and has presented itself on social media sites like it was the second coming (perhaps, just the opposite?)

Diablo 3, graphically, and functionally, seems to highly exceed the levels it set with the last two titles. Destructible environments being one of the best additions to the franchise, along with new classes, weapons and enemies.

The core of the game, based on the gameplay footage, is fundamentally the same: beat baddies in excess and capture cool items. Blizzard has mastered the “grind” for items and the repeated quest plots in all of its title, especially World of Warcraft, but they’ve done it in an addicting manner. We know its repeatative yet we desire to continue to play. Work of genius.

How much Diablo 3 can a single person play before growing bored? For most, boredom is quite the opposite of the hack and slash experience, choosing to sit down with their Fritos and Soda and waste away the days.