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.

No problemo

[wan-fu]

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.

Re:My Take

[NanoGator]

"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?

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:Europeans will always circumvent restrictions

[El]

Ok, other than the fact that you would have to by a US Xbox, a power converter, and an NTSC-to-PAL converter which would degrade your picture quality just to play a US game in the EU, what's to stop you?

This is nothing new

[IllogicalStudent]

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.

Re:This is nothing new

[CaptMonkeyDLuffy]

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.

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.

Differential pricing

[HalfFlat]

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.

What's the big deal?

[Pluvius]

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

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.