Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Europe's Exclusive Game Deals Raise Ire

Posted by simoniker on from the spoiling-everyone-else's-fun dept.

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?

19 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. What do I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it sucks.

    1. Re:What do I think? by jrc313 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hear hear! There is something seriously wrong when platform exclusivity extends to regions. The whole thing really pisses me off! It's bad enough that we europeans have to wait 3 or more months to even sniff the games that are available for the machines we spend our hard earned on. But now we can't even play the games that we have heard so much about over that period thanks to Sony dropping a wad of cash in the publishers laps.

      The sad thing is that it seems to negatively effect games companies. Sony's exclusivity deals on Prince of Persia and Beyond Good and Evil have done nothing to help sales of the games. In Europe both have barely scraped the charts, despite both being excellent games. I really hope the pay-off was worth it (you fucking money grabbing cunts!).

      Bitter? Moi?

  2. No problemo by wan-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:My Take by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I think it's fine as long as it's on PS2 :)"

    That's the problem. Raise that barrier of entry, and it's that much harder for a company like Nintendo to come along and crack the market share.

    Why make a game for an audience of 10 million when you can publish it on Sony's platform to an audience of 50 mil?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  4. What do I think? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  5. The thorn in every games side by Goyuix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the reasons I bought a gamecube was some of the exclusive titles... well, and the fact I am a fanboy....

    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?) ... I think for the big pubishers like EA, it is a bad thing as they will likely not get the same number of sales.

    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.

  6. This is nothing new by IllogicalStudent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 .sig !
    1. Re:This is nothing new by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NES. During the 16 bit era Sega certainly gave Nintendo a run for its money, but during the 8 bit days Nintendo was at least as dominant as Sony is today. There is a certain subjective aspect to this, and I don't have the hard numbers to back this up in front of me, but I'd wager that Nintendo had a much stronger stranglehold on gaming during the 8 bit days than Sony has on it today. Both the XBox and the Gamecube are much more common than the Sega Master System was back in the day.

      As far as Sony buying the others out of the marketplace... maybe, maybe not. Third party popularity can certainly make a large impact, and I'd argue that it has been the driving force behind both the PS1 and PS2's success, but advantages of strong branding and strong first party support aren't insignificant either. Without being bought out directly, stealing away third party support can only have minimal damage to Nintendo. Nintendo in general has made a profit on hardware, and can produce a large enough(and largely composed of 'blockbuster' quality) supply of games by themselves. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have the first party developer record of Nintendo to fall back on, but it does have amazingly deep pockets to buy plenty of developers themselves, coupled with a business plan that seems to imply that losing money is acceptable(they're pouring money into something, no profits on it... obviously it is for some form of positioning, either in terms of attempting to make a profit on later generation consoles, or securing some form of foothold in the living room/entertainment center business).

      Strong first party support can falter. Since the NES days, Sega has been the only other hardware developer with a stable of game developers that could rival Nintendo, and they have bowed out. It took the one two punch of very bad decisions in one generation, followed by the PS2 hype undermining what confidence was left in Sega during the Dreamcast years. But, it wasn't a quick fall, and Sega had to make some serious mis steps(during the Saturn generation) to cause it to happen. At least from my persepective, Nintendo hasn't made those sort of mistakes yet. Microsoft still wants to break into the console area for some strategic reason, and they still have the money to blow on it. Only way they'll bow out is if they decide the advantagous position they're trying to achieve isn't worth the cost of the money they're blowing away on their console.

      This isn't the first time there has been a sole 'ruler' in the console market, and while Sony definitely has a strong lead, I don't even think it's close to as large a lead as some companies have previously held over the market. Exclusive titles from third parties aren't a huge danger to the market... the market has dealt with it before, and things turned out fine. Certain situations can be annoying(a title that exists for a platform but it bought out for a certain market, like this I-Ninja in EU example, or the Shenmue II no DC version released in NA). Frankly, I found the Shenmue situation more of a problem because it was a case of a game where the sequel makes use of the save from the original game. But without importing, a NA gamer can't do this because of a forced system change.

  7. Expanding Market Share by p7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. there's nothing wrong with it... by spir0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  9. Differential pricing by HalfFlat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. deja vu and the fanboys are to blame by some_guy_john · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:My Take by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's the problem. Raise that barrier of entry, and it's that much harder for a company like Nintendo to come along and crack the market share.

    You do realize the irony of that statement, don't you?

    --
    The ______ Agenda
  12. What's the big deal? by Pluvius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Elbeno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Europeans only have themselves to blame for using PAL TVs. A good portion major-manufacturer TVs in Europe are multi-standard, much more so than in the US where a multi-standard TV is considered specialist. Even the smaller European TVs can usually sync to a 60Hz signal, so for the most part it is just the territory lockout (where it can't be worked around) preventing Europeans from importing.

  13. Re: Monopoly?? by Pluvius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  14. Re:Europeans will always circumvent restrictions by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "So what's to keep Europeans from buying the US version of the game and running it on other formats?"

    You mean besides PAL vs. NTSC, the whole modding thing to make a system region free, or the inflation of prices that causes imported games to not be worth the trouble? Not a whole lot.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  15. Re:My Take by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are pretty uninformed, no offense. :)

    These games were already ported to the Xbox and/or GC for America - that is why there is controversy. These ports won't be released in Europe because Sony paid money to ensure that.

    And the Xbox has done pretty okay in Europe. Almost a million more sold than the GC. Why you would think it would sell like it does in Asia is beyond me - are Europe's tastes generally closer to America (where Xbox is currently #2), or Japan?

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  16. Re:not a popular opinion by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think that too much time is spent here worrying about Microsoft and not enough worrying about Sony.

    I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, it IS true. I think people need to realize and remember that in the gaming industry (at least the console industry), Microsoft is the new kid on the block. More than that, hes the geek, the nerd, the kid no one likes, the black sheep, etc. Microsoft may be king of PCs, but when it comes to consoles, Microsoft has to use the Xbox as a money landfill otherwise the Xbox woulda gone the way of the Dreamcast years ago.

    Think about it. Slashdot. Microsoft. Not exactly a friendly relationship, its more like a Cold War U.S./U.S.S.R. relationship with both sides having nukes pointed at each other. On the other hand. Slashdot. Sony. Geeks and gadgets, what could go wrong?

    Nintendo MAY have been the monopoly in the NES days, but thats debatable due to weak gaming industry at the time. Sega was never in a position to become a monopoly. Neither was Atari. Certainly not (yet) Microsoft considering their market share with the Xbox. But Sony? Square exclusives, a horde of third-party support, enough sports games to keep a gamer busy for a month, and enough market support to shovel crap out and still break even.