What benefit does console exclusivity bring developers/publishers?

[Omaeka]

I've always wondered this. I'm no business expert but so many games come out for a single console and do well, that you just cannot imagine the payout from the console manufacturer would equal doubling sales profits or even more. With Naughty Dog I can see why as Sony own them. Bungie or Unreal however make no sense, Halo has sold over 50 million units throughout the series and it wouldn't be daft to think it could have hit 100+ if it was out on PC and PS3. What exactly would Microsoft offer Bungie in order to make such a huge profit loss worthwhile? It's not like Microsoft owned them like Sony does ND, as they are multi platform developers now.

Unreal are the same with Gears of War, except they started this generation as a successful developer with no obligations to Microsoft, why did they choose to bring out such a successful franchise on a single system? Dead Rising 3 is another one, it's probably Capcom's strongest franchise at the minute as everybody is happy with the way it's gone and it's starting to get the foothold is deserves, yet Xbox ONE exclusive? With Capcom months away from bankruptcy it's quite hard to imagine why they'd limit such a potentially profitable title to a single console.

What are the benefits? Can it ever even mitigate the losses let alone be worthwhile?

*I know I haven't referred to any Playstation exclusives, but that's only because I can't think of any off the top of my head that Sony doesn't own or publish.

 

[Shamikebab]

Money.

Bungie or Unreal however make no sense, Halo has sold over 50 million units throughout the series and it wouldn't be daft to think it could have hit 100+ if it was out on PC and PS3. What exactly would Microsoft offer Bungie in order to make such a huge profit loss worthwhile? It's not like Microsoft owned them like Sony does ND, as they are multi platform developers now.

Microsoft own Halo

 

[Omaeka]

Enough to make the potentially halved sales figures worthwhile? I doubt it, if it was then GTA and COD would be exclusives. It just makes exclusive title developers look short sighted, except the small ones who usually take a deal for reduced licence fees and paid-for development.

 

[Shamikebab]

Of course it is, what other reason can you think of?

Financial is the reason, whether through money up front, financial support, marketing support etc.

 

[ps3ud0]

I cant see the money involved outweighs the possible profits from selling on multiple platforms but as Shami says maybe the form/timing of that money makes it more appealing.

Where game development now costs so much upfront for multiple years before seeing turnover let alone net profit, perhaps its more than sensible to forego that potential, when youve got cold hard cash and the stability it brings right now...

'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' comes to mind...

Theres also a possible positive of this practise for consumers (as I generally feel exclusivity only suits platform owners and developers) in that it might allow some companies the ability to produce/invest more games over the same period. Capcom seems to be doing this right now as I just dont think theyd be doing Dead Rising 3 and something like Deep Down if it wasnt for the 'downpayments'/technology/assistance theyve had from the respective platform holders...

I dont see exclusive games where investment isnt in the developer (so called first parties) but the game, being as prevalent this generation as it has in the past. Either that will mainfest itself in the inability of platfrom holders paying enough to secure exclusivity or the developer being more aware/inspirational about possible profits across multiple platforms. The problem is we will just end up having more of this silliness of having timed exclusives and/or exclusive/timed content...

It does make me wonder with the medium being as successful as film that we will start seeing game investment from non-gaming entities as ultimately the profits involved now and the timescales involved arent that indifferent. The main concern from me as a gamer is that games now cost more to make and longer to develop so this whole cookie cutter mentality we had for most of this generation just doesnt look like it will disappear, perhaps moreso with such non-gaming investment...

ps3ud0

 

[Zhokel]

Hmm how to put this...

Ok Developers side first,
The game needs to be funded during development obviously, for everyone's wages, bills etc and tools. This can be done via self-publishing, out of their own pockets, which then means it needs to sell to make their money back and then some to make it worthwhile and any future projects.
So they may go seeking a publisher (or even approached by possible publishers) to help foot the bill. The publisher then pays for the development, wages, marketing etc and then takes a sizeable cut out of the sales so they get their money back (the devs also take a cut of course). The developers may also get bonuses if they meet certain milestones set out by the publisher. Basically it's a safe lot of money as long as they meet targets. Publishers such as Sony and MSoft may also provide the dev kits etc with no charge to those developers if they're the ones publishing it.



So for the publisher...
Well in a case of Sony and MSoft it's pretty easy. It's exclusive... you have to buy that console to play that game (well you don't but you get what I mean xD). So that's a lot of potential console sales so in the long term it plays out better for them.


It is basically a much bigger financial risk if a developer self-publishes, that's a lot of their own money wasted if it flops. It is a much safer route to get a publisher (to some degrees of course, I am just simplifying it xD). If that publisher just so happens to be a console manufacture, then it will be (the majority of the time) be exclusive to that platform, you don't argue with the person paying your bills

 

[ps3ud0]

Zhokel I dont think the topic of self publishing was really under discussion, more the fact that when platform holders publish games they are necessarily exclusive and the reasonings behind why a developer would go down that route compared to going with a platfrom agnostic publisher instead.

Well thats what I got from the OP

The main concern from me as a gamer is that games now cost more to make and longer to develop so this whole cookie cutter mentality we had for most of this generation just doesnt look like it will disappear, perhaps moreso with such non-gaming investment...

ps3ud0

Sorry forgot to add that its the reasons why I look at first party investment as I tend to think thats where we are more likely to see creativity and AAA actually happen...

ps3ud0

 

[Zhokel]

Sorry, I was trying to say that it's either publish or self-publish and why you may go for a platform holder. The publisher chooses you, not the other way and if either Sony or MSoft has the bigger cheque then you take it, you don't really get that many second chances :\

Platform holders publish games to sell consoles and for the long term potential bigger install base and the developer took it because it was the biggest cheque? I can imagine that Sony and MSoft will pay for any possible loss by not going to the other platform, and as also said, they most likely provide the dev kits free and any other support. I know MSoft also allows you to use their dedicated QA team during development. With Sony you can prob share a lot with Santa Monica, ND etc, there are a lot of benefits to developing for a platform holder.

MSoft and Sony have A LOT of resources developers love other than money that your general publisher most likely cannot provide.

 

[slinxy]

First party companies such as naughty dog don't have a choice, they are a sub company of Sony. They either owned in full or a large enough part is own by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo.

Second party companies, who are independent companies but one make games for one particular console manufactures like thatgamecompany (Journey) and Giant Sparrow (unfinished Swan) are normally new or small companies that require help and backing by a big company so they sign a long term agreement. Sometimes, they just prefer the relationship or history that they have with a console manufacture.

3rd party companies exclusives is completely cash driven, some games development are completely funded by the console company. It's a win win for the 3rd party.

A lot of the Japanese games are exclusive to the Sony as xbox 360 basically don't exist in Japan. They have a cultural difference and when they have tried to selling the games in the states, it's just not been worth their while.

My hat goes off to companies like Atlus, NIS and to some degree square Enix for taking the risk and exporting games to the western world.

 

[wedgie]

Couple of important points being missed here. First of all, it's quite rare for an already successful franchise to go single platform after being multi platform. Gears, Halo, those were new IP's and in no way guaranteed to be a success when deals were signed, it's not as simple as taking a successful franchise and saying what if we could double 50 million sales? For every new IP that is successful, there's probably 10 that go nowhere. Both Gears and Halo make total sense as far as console exclusivity goes, Microsoft own Halo and owned Bungie until the last couple years, and since Epic were instrumental in convincing Miscrosoft to make a last second increase to the RAM in the 360, it is in no way surprising that Miscrosoft would look to Epic for a showpiece to justify the decision.

On top of that, some titles simply would not exist without an exclusivity deal (Bayonetta 2 is an example of one that I believe wouldn't be made at all without whatever support Nintendo is providing). The console exclusive is all but dead these days anyway, usually it's timed at the most. Other than when a platform holder owns the IP, the dev, or is funding the project, I think the number of games hitting all platforms will continue to rise. It just doesn't make sense any more, the console wars of the PS1 era are gone. Back then it made sense to back the 'leader', and the main platform holders (and in particular Sony) were very aggressive in securing these deals. Now the market is so big and porting is so easy that as many have stated, it's making less and less sense to limit your sales to a single platform.

 

[ps3ud0]

A lot of the Japanese games are exclusive to the Sony as xbox 360 basically don't exist in Japan. They have a cultural difference and when they have tried to selling the games in the states, it's just not been worth their while.

My hat goes off to companies like Atlus, NIS and to some degree square Enix for taking the risk and exporting games to the western world.

Yaah I read an article over VGA247 IIRC, regards how MS and Xbox brand is perceived over there both by the Japanese public and developers and its pretty much a non-existent brand that only caters to hardcore gamers. The devs dont seemed that impressed by the support MS US give to MS Japan and to themselves - it still seems part of it is a language/cultural barrier.

First of all, it's quite rare for an already successful franchise to go single platform after being multi platform. Gears, Halo, those were new IP's and in no way guaranteed to be a success when deals were signed, it's not as simple as taking a successful franchise and saying what if we could double 50 million sales? For every new IP that is successful, there's probably 10 that go nowhere. Both Gears and Halo make total sense as far as console exclusivity goes, Microsoft own Halo and owned Bungie until the last couple years, and since Epic were instrumental in convincing Miscrosoft to make a last second increase to the RAM in the 360, it is in no way surprising that Miscrosoft would look to Epic for a showpiece to justify the decision.

Though I agree I think investment in those games was more to do with the calibre of the developer than the particular IP itself; Bungie werent an unknown prior to Halo and whatever they were selling would be worth backing. Im amazed they had the ability to go independent again...

ps3ud0

 

[HangTime]

I don't know how publishing agreements work but I suspect exclusivity agreements are a 'safe' option and give guarenteed revenue to the developer. In other words, if you agree to make your game exclusively for Xbox, then MS will give you a big wedge of cash irrespective of how many copies you sell.

 

[Fr0dders]

It drives sales so console owners will pay more than they would for cross platform. Plus some of the studios are owned by the console maker so there's no chance of them making a cross platform eg forza is published by MS and made by a developer it owns

 

[Omaeka]

So it's definitely less risky if you're unsure about an IP, that's fair enough. It still doesn't make sense though as to why already successful IPs end up being exclusives like Dead Rising 3. Unless Microsoft has literally paid them 50+ million, I can't see how losing out on such a big chunk of the market can be worthwhile, especially now that the PS4 has edged it's way out in front and some gamers have literally boycotted the ONE.

As for Forza, I dunno. State of Decay had the same thing, Microsoft published it and let them use their platform presumably free (highly doubt Undead Labs could afford dev kits and licences this early on) and now they've released it on PC. I bet Turn10 could release Forza on Windows if they wanted to. Weirdly though it always seems to cost large studios bucketloads of cash to port games to PC whereas the smaller studios manage to do it without any financial hassle, otherwise they wouldn't do it for a loss.

That's an entirely different topic though.

 

[Shamikebab]

Microsoft own Turn 10, it's up to them not Turn 10 what platforms it's released on.

In the end the reason is nearly always Financial, either directly or indirectly. They're businesses.

 

[ps3ud0]

So it's definitely less risky if you're unsure about an IP, that's fair enough. It still doesn't make sense though as to why already successful IPs end up being exclusives like Dead Rising 3. Unless Microsoft has literally paid them 50+ million, I can't see how losing out on such a big chunk of the market can be worthwhile, especially now that the PS4 has edged it's way out in front and some gamers have literally boycotted the ONE.

But DR has some history with MS, so its likely Capcom were aimable to a possible exclusivity deal with DR3. How well did DR2 sell compared to DR1? It might be the case it might have not been enough to make financial sense to go multiplat with DR3. Regards market share of the consoles, well these decisions would have been made years ago before such traits had made themselves obvious...

ps3ud0

 

[Davey_Pitch]

You also have to appreciate it's not simply a case of releasing it on both platforms, so you'll double your sales. Most people own both consoles, so would still only buy one copy of the game. Also, are the increases in sales going to be worth the additional developmental costs of putting the game out across multiple platforms? I imagine for a lot of developers/publishers, the guarantee of X amount of money from Sony/MS is worth it if they are unsure how well the game will be received and if developing the game across multiple platforms will be costly.

 

[ps3ud0]

I very much doubt most people own both consoles - think Davey_Pitch you are in a gaming bubble on that one. Owning multiple consoles really is a hardcore gaming mentality, but to assume that market is the majority seems pushing it...

ps3ud0

 

[Davey_Pitch]

I very much doubt most people own both consoles - think Davey_Pitch you are in a gaming bubble on that one. Owning multiple consoles really is a hardcore gaming mentality, but to assume that market is the majority seems pushing it...

ps3ud0

Perhaps "most" is the wrong word, but I'd imagine a fairly large percentage will own both consoles. I think it's a very narrow minded gamer who doesn't, but that's just my opinion.

Edit: Obviously aiming that comment at proper gamers, not the casual gaming market.

 

[ps3ud0]

Perhaps "most" is the wrong word, but I'd imagine a fairly large percentage will own both consoles.

LOL Davey_Pitch thats sounds like a load of rubbish (sorry that comes over a bit harsh, but it was my reaction ), love to see your actual justification behind that. Id say people that own both consoles is still a minority, definitely less than 50%, which kinda makes you original point moot...

EDIT: Just saw your caveat, which makes your original point moot, as I doubt developers/publishers only think of the 'proper gaming' market as their target market and not everyone with an applicable console...
EDIT2: So many moots

ps3ud0