Slashdot Mirror
Sony Europe's Exclusive Game Deals Raise Ire
An anonymous reader writes "Eurogamer has an editorial up about Sony Europe's recent practice of paying for PS2-exclusive titles from Namco, Ubisoft, Rockstar and others for European release. The author doesn't seem to mind short-term platform exclusives too much, as long as there's a PC version around at the same time, but complains loudly about Kill.Switch and I-Ninja, which were both released on other formats in the USA but are permanently exclusive to the PS2 in Europe." What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?
I think it sucks.
"What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?"
I think that too much time is spent here worrying about Microsoft and not enough worrying about Sony. Sony's starting to get into the de-facto monopoly position that Windows was at many moons ago, and as a result, you're going to see stuff like this happening. (Square anybody?)
I've pointed this out before, but it fell on deaf ears since people generally like Sony's products.
"Derp de derp."
What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?
This is where the companies actually make money - through software and licensing fees for the platform. They always lose money on hardware and securing exclusive titles is one of the only ways to make money. Exclusive content is one method that they can try to guarantee licensing revenue for a that platform (since the amount is actually tied into the number of games they sell).
Now, some people might not like this, but I will try to draw an analogy here. Does your copy of iMovie run on Windows XP? iMovie works the same for Apple the way that exclusive content works for game console manufacturers. However, in Apple's case, it's the reverse: they make money on the hardware and not so much the OS.
I think it's fine as long as it's on PS2 :)
Although that Xbox with all the games and emulators on it is cool.
It's probably not all that easy to migrate it from a ps2 (64bit) to xbox (Intel) to Gamecube(who knows what).
Besides in asia, xbox sales are weak from what I've heard. Even gamecube is more popular. Don't know what the E.U. stats come to, but I imagine they are the same. :)
that it's a matter between the game-maker and the console-maker. If that is what they decide on, similar to X-Box & Splintercell, then it is their right to do so. Of course it sucks for consumers who DON'T own a PS2, but that is why they do it of course... Just like I have to buy a happy meal, just to get the toy :(
Kill.Switch and I-Ninja, which were both released on other formats in the USA but are permanently exclusive to the PS2 in Europe. So what's to keep Europeans from buying the US version of the game and running it on other formats? Should I start up a web site to sell stuff that is restricted in EU but available in USA into the EU market?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?
I think there's money to be made on eBay, boy-o.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
One of the reasons I bought a gamecube was some of the exclusive titles... well, and the fact I am a fanboy....
... I think for the big pubishers like EA, it is a bad thing as they will likely not get the same number of sales.
OK, in all seriousness that is allowed on Slashdot, every company is going to try to get exclusive titles because it drives sales not only of their consoles, but of the game itself. EA Sports are almost always cross platform, and sell quite well. For the sake of arguing, let say that by going PS2 exclusive, they would sell twice as many titles for the PS2, since no one would buy for the PC, XBOX, Gamecube.... but they are still going to sell fewer titles (maybe?) than combined across all platforms.
Publishers and Console Makers: exclusivity is generally looked at as a good thing by the big boys (Sony, MS, Nintendo) partly because it is hard to measure how sales would have differed. Besides, exclusivity helps with branding (can you name a very famous plumber?)
Developers: Then again, for the small shop that is trying to produce a hit, getting exclusivity could very well mean a first party contract which means big bucks and success for the developers - or going cross platform crushes their budget and they go out of business. Who knows... any additional insight?
Gamers: Quite frankly some games are better suited to PC vs. console, and others better suited differently. It is certainly more of a gray area between consoles, and I think it boils down to individual gaming preferences. Do I enjoy game x on the PS2 or gamecube more? Generally the differences are pretty minimal, though games that are exclusive generally push the limits of the system a little bit more, and seem a bit more polished - but that is not always the case either. In the end, I would say it is somewhat of a wash for the heavy gamer since he is likely to own at least two or three consoles... but for the casual gamer it can certainly leave them high and dry.
While I dislike the practice, as it basically forces you to buy every console out there (provided you want to play the games), it's nothing new. Nintendo had exclusive Squaresoft, then Sony had it, and while now, Square-Enix seems to be branching out to more be a multiplatform company, the GBA and Gamecube titles, interestingly, are both exclusives to each console, respectively. I bought an XBox because of Star Wars: KOTR, there's an exclusive. I bought a PS2 for GTA3: Vice City. I bought a GCN for Resident Evil and Zelda.
It's a marketing ploy, and it's not going anywhere, because it works. If "Console A" is the only one with "Game B" that you have to have, you'll buy `em both. Period.
Sucks, but it's true.
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
I don't like this practice.
It looks to me like Sony wants to expand market share or lock in market share in Europe. Does it bother me that this is how it works? Not really. I would prefer being able to get all the titles on the console of my choice, but I realize that I received a heavily subsidized piece of hardware so that Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo can make a profit on licensing fees from the software that runs on those systems. I can't blame them for trying to optimize profits.
they are paying the money to have the game made, it's their game, they can release it when and where they want.
I haven't rtfa, but could it just be that releasing certain games on other platforms are not going to bring them enough revenue?
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
If it wasn't for the semi-exclusitivity deal (or if history is a guide, serious cross-platform delay) with Sony and the next GTA, the PS2 would be the hell out of my house.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Lots of people seem to be weighing in only on one side of this debate, and that's console-specific exclusivity. I think a large amount of attention (and legal focus, possibly) should be paid to the territorial lockouts, however. Why is it that people find it perfectly reasonable to complain about the MPAA and DVD-CCA implementing DVD region coding, but not nearly as many people get up in arms about game region coding?
I remember when Advance Wars 2 was scheduled to come out in Great Britain, and it kept getting delayed for no apparent reason. Some of the UK shops started importing US product, and Nintendo tried to come down on them for it. But the fact of the matter is that there was plenty of demand for the game, and Nintendo was sitting on it for no good reason.
For those of you that don't know, Nintendo uses no region coding or lockouts in portable software (yet), so a US GBA can play Japanese and EU games. For some time, US gamers had to import Shining Soul, a Diablo-ish RPG based on Sega's Shining Force series, because Sega only released it in Japan and the EU, and wouldn't release it here.
Furthermore, Nintendo markets and publishes games to the different EU territories specifically, so having an EU-specific (IE - multilanguage) game isn't a problem either, especially on handhelds where NTSC/PAL/SECAM isn't an issue.
So, localization issues aside, why are the game manufacturers given leeway when we take the MPAA to task for the same tactics? Why is it that I must void my console warranty if I choose to import legally produced and purchased game software from other territories? My modded PSX is almost dead from drive failure, and I have quite a few DDR games that I won't be able to play anymore unless I chip my PSone. And that just sucks.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
The thing that gets me, is the tying of products to regions.
On one hand, we have all the big media companies pushing for uniform (and to them, highly favourable) IP laws around the world. On the other, they engage in what is essentially price fixing by charging differing amounts in different markets, and then seeking technical and legal means to prevent the free trade of their own products.
This current story would be a storm in a tea cup if there were no issues in importing games from other regions.
Highlighting this sort of hypocrisy is the recent move in Japan of the music publishing industry to restrict through changes in copyright law the importation of CDs of Japanese artists' music from overseas. These CDs, containing pretty much the same music, sell for a third to a half the cost in South Korea and Taiwan, and after importation, can be about 1000 yen (circa US$10) in Japan. How did these CDs get to be printed legally? Because these very same companies sell the rights to do so to the foreign publishers in the first place.
It must be great to have enough money that you can buy laws that grant you even more.
This is not a troll, just a plea for gamer self reflection. Mortal Kombat 3 was the first exclusivity deal Sony ever worked out. Sure you could get it on Genesis or SNES, but who was gonna dust off their aging 16 bit system to play a game that was faster (minus load times) and truer to the arcade on a new 32 bit console. Square and their Final Fantasy games are a different story altogether, because it was a format issue rather than a money being thrown around kind of issue. Sony fanboys had no problem accepting these kind of shady business dealings because they did in fact have the nicest 32 bit system. But now that so many (not all, but basically those who went to XBox because of its prettier graphics) of the Sony fanboys who helped Sony become the evil console overlords that they are today, now all of a sudden have a problem with Sony's shady dealings. It is you (giant finger pointing!) who have degraded console videogames into a mere graphics pageant and popularity contest. Who cares? You? Thats good for you if you dont care about playing games and are more interested in wowing your friends (or non friends) with your $200 show and tell exhibit. Consoles should be a fun way to kill time and entertain friends, but to care which console has game X with its real time light sourcing and reflections is utterly insane. Sony and those gamers out there (not necessarily Sony fanboys) who believe graphics make a game what it is are destroying MY hobby and I'm pissed. I hope you non-fanboy, videogame enthusiasts are just as pissed as I am.
How the hell is it a monopoly when there are 2 other systems to compete? It's not like the consumer doesn't have choice. You don't like the games on PS2? Then buy one of the other two consoles.
Getting exclusive rights is just sensible business practice. It sucks for gamers, but it's perfectly legit and wise from a business standpoint.
Companies should be allowed to do anything they want to increase their profit margins, as long as those things are legal. The only way securing third-party exclusivity would be illegal is if it led to a monopoly. This is pretty unlikely for the simple reason that it tends to be bad business for a third party to stay exclusive. Fewer systems on which your game is available equals lower sales. That's why Sony usually has to pay big bucks to secure exclusivity. Since Sony's finances are finite and the other two console makers also have a lot of money, this effectively keeps Sony from buying up all of the third-party gaming. (Though the PS2's popularity compared to the other two systems is a big advantage for Sony.)
Does it suck that console makers are allowed to reach exclusivity deals with third parties? Yes. But it also sucks that console makers are allowed to keep their own first-party games exclusive. I don't think anyone would sanely expect them not to, though.
As for territorial lockouts, they're completely pointless. At least they are in Japan and North America; the Europeans only have themselves to blame for using PAL TVs.
Rob
How the hell is it a monopoly when there are 2 other systems to compete?
I say the exact same thing about Windows, but no one listens to me.
Rob
"How the hell is it a monopoly when there are 2 other systems to compete? "
You tell me. I didn't say Sony was a monopoly.
"Derp de derp."
And for free
Settlers Of Catan - Beta
I say the exact same thing about Windows, but no one listens to me.
Excellent point
From your link: "BMX XXX is scheduled to ship on November 15 for the PS2 and sometime in mid-November for the Xbox and Xbox . For more details, check out our Xbox of the PS2 game."
And all the words "Xbox" are links to the Xbox version of the game.
Someone needs to do a little work editing news, it seems.
I don't think any of you are actually getting the point. The deal is here, that a game (eg Prince of Persia : Sands of Time), comes out in the US on all consoles, but in other parts of the world, Sony uses it's market power to delay the release of the game for months on end, giving uninformed gamers the impression that the product in question that it won't be coming out on other consoles. This is completely different from Splinter Cell, which came out on the XBox first because it was the best console for it, and then Sony PAID Ubisoft the total cost of porting the engine to the PS2 when they found out how big the games' market was. Using money to delay the release of an already finished product to artifically increase sales of said product on your platform is a bullshit idea.
I say the exact same thing about Windows, but no one listens to me.
Because...
You do not get a PS/2 with every TV you buy / have bought for the last 10 years.
The XBox has more console marketshare than Linux has on the desktop.
OTOH,
Windows does not require a license from Microsoft to distribute software for it.
I feel the same way about those suckers who destroyed model railroading! Back in the day, it was all about track layout; how many cross-overs, bridges, suicide curves you could have, etc.. Then these "scenery" bitches broke into the hobby, touting all their "realistic" tree models and houses that lit up. One asshole even started putting little Mechwarrior miniatures around his track!! Now every hobby store display looks like a damn Precious Moments or Thomas Kinkade painting!
What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?
It's awful. It's precisely the reason why I will never buy and iteration of Halo. Microsoft fucked over Mac and PC gamers by making Halo an X-Box exclusive for so long.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Oligopoly.
I could be wrong, but isn't that state where the major companies make it incredibly difficult for start-ups to exist? Like a car company?
What do you think of hardware manufacturers locking in games to certain platforms, whether a territorial decision or a universal one?
In the case of territorial decisions, I think that all it does is convince the average person to ask their friend (or friend of a friend, or friend of a friend of a friend, etc.), "So, that whole pirating games thing... how do I do that?"
These game companies bitch endlessly to lawmakers and the press in multiple nations that mod chips, piracy, and imported games are ruining their industry, but then they go and make decisions that give more of their customers a reason to stab to them in the back just to get the products they want. Sony Europe may make a quick buck on these deals, but when Microsoft's European branch secures a similar deal, more people will be convinced to mod chip their PS2s, and then Sony Europe's money will start flowing to Sony America or Sony Japan. And then they'll whine more about mod chips, but this time it won't just be the fault of Sony as a whole for setting up a business model that is hurt by imports. It will be Sony Europe's fault, specifically, for ruining their own market.
The PC game industry already has a problem with piracy that is, in large part, their own damn fault. Their copy protection mechanisms have ruined their games on certain systems and they've annoyed the Hell out of all of their customers by making them jump through hoops just to enjoy their games. So more average, normally law-abiding PC gamers go out and get cracks for their own games, which puts more bandwidth in the game crack torrents and more copies of the cracks in people's P2P folders, which makes it much easier for the people that are just flat-out pirating the game. Now Sony Europe has figured out a way to give that same "I'm getting screwed, so I can do what I want now" justification to console gamers. And they will pay for it.
The more hoops European gamers have to jump through to play their favorite games, the fewer hoops they'll have to jump through to pirate them. It's the simple supply and demand principle of game piracy.
I-Ninja isn't exclusive to the PS2. Go to Amazon.co.uk and you can see that I-Ninja is being released on the gamecube on the same day as the PS2 version.
Well I agree with the general sense of the article that it would be nice if money has to be spent in this direction then fund new exclusive games, don't bribe non-release of existing ones. However, I have to say if every game came out for all formats I would have just stuck with my PC (which has the ultimate exclusive titles, those apps I need for college work) and screw the XBox and PS2. So it makes sense to me if the big consoles do everything in their power to get exclusives and survive.
I think they'll gain a lot more buyers doing this then they'll lose due to the boycotters the article expects (besides not wanting to give up a good console, I suspect most gamers don't even read gaming news, much as most US anime fans actually watch dubs and not subs..) - and of course more buyers is actually good for those of us who have already bought and will buy future Sony consoles since it could help prevent them from dieing out early and leaving the owners in the dust like so many Sega consoles have done to people...
It's so bad it makes it hard to choose a game system..
Do I want Halo 2 or do I want Viewtiful Joe?
Do I want the newest Final Fantasy game or do I want Ninja Gaiden?
It's getting to the point that any real gamer can't get away with owning just one system.
It was easy back in the day.. you had once choice..
NES, then SNES (no sega for me, wasn't worth it), then the PS1, and now who knows. There are must have games on every system that are exclusive. If I had a GC I would want x-box games and ps2 games, or the other ways around.
The editorial is one of sour grapes, because the author either doesn't have the PS2 or he'd much rather have it on a different platform. I'm not sure why he's picking on kill.Switch (sorry, never heard of it) and I-Ninja (sorry, doesn't look adult- or original-enough).
It completely overlooks the fact that the US has all sorts of exclusivity licenses. Some stores, Target, Toys R Us, and Best Buy, license entire titles of video games, CDs and DVDs to be sold in their store exclusively for "X" months. Video games, same thing. And many titles are developed entirely for one system because of anticipation of sales and/or system capabilities.
The companies that sign this agreement aren't stupid. They realize the contract exceeds anticipated sales if released in multiple venues. At the same time, license owners will make more on the licensed product than if it were equally available in all venues/formats. It's a relatively low-risk gamble.
For video games in general, most of the reason to license to one system is to improve sales for that system and in system hardware. If system A has a 40% market share, and B has a 60% market share, system A will have 100% of a market share of the licensed game for "X" months. And they may sell systems if the game is hot enough. Compare this to 40% if available for both. If the license estimates 50% of all total sales in the life of the product, and the product sells 110% of the original estimated sales (perhaps the price during the license is 10% higher), it illustrates my point. If the game is a bomb, everyone loses.
I think this illustrates that because of proliferation in the US of more systems, we may have less of these exclusive titles. Not to mention that when given the choice, a smart gamer will pick the version with the best features. Me, personally, I'll either choose the software's originally programmed platform, or the platform with the best features.
And now, the downside of cross-platform programming: mediocrity. If you program using a higher-level that is compiled into each system's-level software, you simply can't add system-exploiting software. This makes the games seem the same, but will cause automatic differences, errors, and often unintended consequences. From there, any system-exclusive content is always sledgehammered in after-the-fact.
I bought it, and used one of the many region circumvention devices available to play it on my American Dreamcast. It influenced my decision not to buy an X-Box, though to be fair Microsoft's evil behavior in the past probably had more to do with it.
As to Sony, they are evil and powerful in the gaming industry right now, there isn't much that anyone can do about them. I've known about their maliciousness since the American PS1 lockout of the Japanese Rockman classic games (even modded PS1s), something that still sticks in my craw. Basically, Sony's leadership said, "even though we are never going to allow these games to have an official release for the American PS1, we're still going to make sure that they are among the first games to detect mod chips and stop working. Don't worry though, I'm sure the pirate version that will be out soon will have a hack to get around it. You just can't play the legitimate version.") I guess if I were religious I could console myself by the fact that Sony's executives will spend the rest of eternity in the fiery pit of Hell, even if they are rich, happy and evil right now.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
You do not get a PS/2 with every TV you buy / have bought for the last 10 years.
As I said elsewhere, I didn't have to buy Windows the last time I built a PC, and building a PC is pretty easy to do. The average consumer simply can't build a console or a TV, or even have a small-time technician not constrained by OEM policy do it for him.
The XBox has more console marketshare than Linux has on the desktop.
What about the Mac?
Windows does not require a license from Microsoft to distribute software for it.
Wouldn't that be in Windows' favor as far as not being a monopolistic OS goes?
Rob
Hopefully Nintendo does this so I only have to buy one console to play the Mario, Metroid, and Zelda games ... oh wait.
I don't think it will go over so easily in the States, but I haven't even bought a PS2 so it's not like I'll be playing their exclusive games anyway.
Although Gran Turismo 4 is making the purchase of the system more likely.
No sig for you!!