Upset About PlayStation Exclusive Content? Prepare For More, Says Industry Insider

Timed-exclusivity is something that doesn't matter to me, personally. I can wait a little bit to play games that I want to play on the system I want to play them on. And, hey, at least Series X is getting FF XVI. I doubt the Switch, or its successor, will get it.

In short, watching this as a mainly Nintendo guy is pretty...meh.

It is what it is at the end of the day. You only have so many first party studios and those studios can only make a certain number of games. Naughty Dog took their sweet time of their 5 years to make TLoU2 and 343 is taking 5 years to make a single Halo game.

If you want to fill your "exclusive-meter" at some point you need to buy the third-parties. Microsoft had 22 console launch exclusives in their last showcase (if I remember right) and some of them are quite a big deal (like Stalker 2).

I have no doubt both Sony and Micro will do this as much as they realistically can, while their first party studios are getting a grasp on new consoles. Because the AAA type of first party exclusive that people expect cannot be made in a year or two anymore.

Well, the particular content that has been announced as exclusive for PS isn't something that I wanted, but I don't agree with timed exclusives or exclusive DLC content.

Having games like Bioshock and Mass Effect as timed exclusives did nothing but funnel the money MS' way, and blocked PS owners from the games. Wasn't a benefit to gamers at all. Having DLC as exclusive (then timed exclusive) for Destiny did nothing except block Xbox players from accessing that content for years.

I have no problem with a proper exclusives like the Bayonetta games. But timed and DLC exclusives can go to hell.

@Richnj You hit the nail on the head, it funnels money. Isn't consumer friendly, but it makes a tonne of money for the other side, and ultimately, that's the aim of all of the big three.

I'll be waiting out all timed exclusivity agreements (unless PS5+PC at launch) after how much of a disaster FF7R was on console.

And that game was the epitome of "can't wait it out" for me.

Meanwhile, Push Square users keep bashing on Phil Spencer due to the timed exclusives in the latest Games Showcase ("B-but he said he's n-not a fan of them, what a... a... hypocrite he is!").

Is Sony that insecure about their first-party games that they can't help buying timed-exclusive third-party content? They boast of having the best first-party games in the world and embracing "the power of generations", also known as "limited backwards compatibility" and "turning PS4 DLC into a PS5 exclusive", so I don't understand why they have to do this.

I can live with timed exclusives, my backlog is large and I have plenty to keep me busy. FFVII Remake might had been the last time I bought a PS timed exclusive.

I just hope a FF16 does not end up being a generational exclusive.

All aside, all this pursuit of third party exclusive content almost makes it sound like Sony knows they don’t have anything of their own to hook players for the next year or two, and they feeling the competitive pressure.

@Richnj I’m with you. I’ve seen a lot of that stuff this gen and it’s annoying. In the 360 gen though I actually think they were true exclusives that eventually were brought to other platforms after complaining and/or companies deciding they could get a few more bucks.

Great example is Mass Effect. That was made as a true exclusive and MS had some level of rights to the first game, which is why ps3 didn’t get it until 2012 (after ME2 had already released and ME3 was set to come out). So that one wasn’t “held back” as a timed exclusive so much as it was meant to be a true exclusive and eventually MS let it come to other systems (kinda like Cuphead which was also funded in part by Ms).

But yeah when these are set from the beginning then it’s annoyingly because it is taking content away from parts of the gaming base.

@BlueOcean they know their heavy hitters are not going to show up until 2022, at the earliest.

Doesn't bother me at all. I just vote with my wallet. Didn't buy Destiny 2 at full price because the xbox version was an inferior product. Refused to buy No Man's Sky since they wanted almost full price for a game that had been out for years.

I only can't think of a situation where this practice ended well for the game's developer. I mentioned this yesterday on an article over at Pushsquare but usually when games do this practice there is an underlying issue.

You can tell Sony are panicing to an extent with this news.
They are launching with a short Spiderman spin-off since the sequel obviously isn't close to ready.
Then Rachet and GT maybe next year as far as we know right now. Horizon 2 is probably a late 2021/early 2022 game.
To fill that void they will throw money at publishers to get timed exclusives and the like.
Now imagine is MS undercuts them on console price as well...

That’s ok as all this does is push me more towards the Xbox, I am finding Sony’s attitude and business model a bit old and tired here, Microsoft showing another way with Game Pass. I have really not enjoyed Sony’s exclusives either finding them a bit boring. I wanted to play The Last Of Us 2 and I ended up hating the story in that game.

timed exclusives are fine until its something big.

Lots of gamers wait until something big launches like GTA or Elder Scrolls to pick up the next gen console.

Since they are waiting for that game if its timed exclusive (and like most deals now, we wont know for how long) it will pick that console.

@BlueOcean I don't think they are in-secure, this makes sense for them

Microsoft is focussing on value and consumerism on the Xbox-brand, but they are not soft, and their business set-up is different, they will off-set that cost by increasing prices elsewhere such as Linkedin Recruiter Licenses and other areas of their businesses and brands. I work in recruitment and those prices are cringeworthy.

Sony don't have that luxury, outside of Film and Console, their other businesses have very low market-share. So they are going all in on those that have a significant market stake.

It's not insecurity or anti-consumerism, Microsoft did the same in the 360 days to gain market share. Sony are doing it this time to ensure they keep theirs.

I've always said neither model is wrong, but Sony don't have the other businesses to fall back on and offset costs for losses made, like Microsoft do with Xbox.

@Jaxx420 I think MS knows the it’s long game that matters anyway. I found a lot of PlayStation users picking up Xbox this year, whelps you still bought one before the end of the generation, so your numbers still count. ^^; And then there is Gamepass, which again is another avenue for both PC and Mobile now. I think Sony will sell more boxes; I just don’t think MS cares.

Anyway, I can wait. I waited for FFVIIR. I’m a lot older than I used to be and there is a ton coming out at the end of the year. I’m way more concerned about MS figuring out IOS than Sony Shenanigans.

@AlexSora89 Pushsquare is kind of a cesspool...

@mousieone MS doesn't need to care about selling more consoles and Sony does - that's the key difference. That's not any flaw on Sony's part it's just Playstation and Sony Pictures are their primary businesses.

For Microsoft, Xbox is a massive business but Windows and their Enterprise solutions is bigger. If Xbox was to fail and go under, Microsoft would not be in trouble for example, for Sony they would be.

@Jaxx420 well true but even the Xbox brand I don’t think needs the box either. Xbox has some many different revenue streams now that the box is just one form. The launch of companion xCloud is another.

@AlexSora89 The difference is that Phil keeps talking about how he doesn't like timed exclusives; but does it anyway. Sony has never said anything along those lines and they actually embrace them. Regardless of what you think of the practice. Their messaging is a lot more straight forward. Phil says one thing, but does another.

I think that's what people mean when they talk about hypocrisy.

@djshep1973 Console wars have about as much chance of going away as the smartphone wars, sadly.

I wish it it was a thing of the past too - especially now more than ever when there is genuinely now a market for all the big three to co-exist and really be successful.

@Octane there is a lot there to unpack though with that statement. Most of MS exclusivity are independent devs that MS helps fund their projects or get them started. Plus the games aren’t completely exclusive as most if not all are available on PC and sometimes even Switch. I’m not saying it’s not tricky marketing but just be virtue of having a PC version it ceases to be “exclusive”. That’s the part that people ignore, most MS games aren’t exclusive they just aren’t on PlayStation. I’m not saying that 100% but most of the time it is what’s happening.

At the end of the day, it's just a business decision. Both Microsoft and Sony are as guilty as each other here as both have been doing it for years - just think back to the 360 era (albeit most were timed exclusives). The market leader is always going to cut more deals like this to help bolster and assert their position even further.

Microsoft should fight fire with fire, I say. Get more exclusive content, more exclusive betas and the like, and if they really want to make waves, get a much sought-after third party exclusive like a new Dino Crisis or a new Splinter Cell (and help fund it to avoid another Rise Of The Tomb Raider controversy and keep it as an exclusive). Let Sony know two can play this game.

This is just Sony being Sony. No surprise here.

I'd heard that Mario games are going to be exclusive to Nintendo.

@mousieone Games like Tunic and Sable were going to be multiplat and were quite far in development when MS bought the rights. Not saying it isn't true, but there are definitely plenty of exceptions. And most of Sony's "console exclusives" hit PC as well. It's all about keeping it off the other consoles these days.

@Octane I’m not sure I agree with you about Tunic considering as far back as 2 years ago it was a. “Xbox game”. Honestly, it’s a one man crew, pretty sure he needed MS funds to help him out of the gate. But I guess you can spin how you want to.

Can you honestly say that Square-Enix or Activision-Blizzard need the money like a smaller dev does?

@mousieone When it was revealed it was a PC/Xbox/PS4 game. MS acquired the rights about two years ago, which is the moment it turned into an Xbox console exclusive. It made another appearance last year at E3, but now it's gone AWOL unfortunately.

And I'm not saying that. I understand it's way more valuable for a smaller studio to get a head start than a big studio like SE or Activision. They don't need the money.

Doesn't effect me in the slightest. Console wars in the Mega drive and SNES era were justified as very few people could afford both systems. Nowadays it is common place for people to own all systems. For the last 3 generations I have gotten all consoles and hopefully I'll do the same next gen.
I do think the developer could benefit from the big check they receive for the timed game or content which is good for them and in turn good for the industry.

@Octane okay so you are kind of reiterating what I said. My point was I know what Phill said, but a) they aren’t exclusive so he’s not lying and b) MS usually “funds” projects with their “exclusivity”. It’s less about scooping I up the rights, and more a fair trade for the money they receive.

Noe let’s talk Tunic, which isn’t AWOL BTW; it was at the MS Showcase last month.The game started development sometime between 2015-2016, The developer started showing the game off in 2017, but like the recent Kickstarter for Eiyuden, yes I’m sure they were “target all platforms” but the game was at the moment still only running on PC. Sometime around 2017-2018, when the game was only about two years in development MS gave them money. Now I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t look like the swooped in a d graves the rights; it looks like they helped fund it with their money but it such a way that the dev maintains his rights.

Even with the larger projects like PSO2, that had more to do with servers and MS basically footing the bill for those things than getting the rights. And it Sony wanted to bring PSO2 to the West; they had years literal years, The fact is that they too needed to servers because just like Sega; their cloud runs on Azure.

Well prepare to watch GameStop make a ton of cash from used sales . Awesome