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?

Comments

not a popular opinion

[NanoGator]

"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.

My Take

[servicepack158]

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. :)

Re:My Take

[papadiablo]

I think it's fine as long as it's on PS2

That may be fine for you, but it might not be fine for the people with the other systems in that area. If the game makers are willing to do this, then there's really nothing we can say/do about it, but I get the impression the only person they're hurting are themselves. Is there going to be as much buzz about the Xbox or Gamecube versions if everyone's playstation 2 friends have been yappin away about it? This will cause lower sales on the Xbox and Gamecube versions and therefore hurt both the game companies and the players who don't get to experience a great game.

Re:My Take

[CaptMonkeyDLuffy]

Actually, I think he was pointing out that at one point in time(the 8 bit generation), Nintendo held a lot more power of the console market than Sony does now. There were some pretty stringent legal agreements in place to prevent third parties from developing for the competition(aka the Sega Master System, a system which in its day had a lot less market share and mind share than either the Gamecube or Xbox do now).

Nintendo once had a barrier of entry as large or larger than Sony has raised, but in the end they lost their number one position(though they have kept it in the handheld arena). Thus, discussing Sony's current stranglehold on the number one position, and using Nintendo as the 'underdog trying to break in' is ironic, given that Nintendo's current position is an example of the fact that Sony's current position isn't guaranteed in the long term.

Re:My Take

[AvitarX]

Sony had the huge advantage of capturing the expanding market.

Where about 1/2 of my friends with Super Nintendos got N64s (all the non Final fantasy types) Play station was the first system for a lot of people. I don't know any non SNES owning person that went for anything but the PlayStation. I know a lot of older people who wern't gamers that then went and baught a PS2 (though Xbax did well in that segment too from what I can tell).

If Nintendo can generate and crack teh female gaming market they could easily come out on top. But Sony so far has just been dominating in new markets like it is nothing.

Europeans will always circumvent restrictions

[El]

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?

Re:No problemo

[MBCook]

I can understand that, but just how much did the developer get paid? If they've already made the game and ported it to the other systems (which must be true if it was released in the US on all systems) then the simple act of now pressing and selling new disks (yeah, translation, sure, but not much work) wouldn't cost much and you'd get all those sales. Sony would either have to pay a TON of money, or the games weren't worth that much in the first place so they probably aren't that great.

Territorial or universal...

[Cutriss]

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.

Re: Monopoly??

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The Same Thing Happened to HO Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

But I don't OWN that system!

[robbway]

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.