Are timed exclusives good for the gaming industry? (Opinion)

So in the past few years in the gaming industry, platform timed exclusives have become the “norm” and with the recent announcement of COD:Infinite Warfare having a longer beta on PS4 over the Xbox …

[Canthar]

Depends on the length of time. One month sure, one year definitely not.

[bouzebbal]

The games are usually better and more optimized because devs have more time to work on them (star ocean 4, TR..).

[admiralvic]

Honestly, the only right answer is no. Timed exclusives offer nothing for the consumer, so they offer us no advantage. They simply exist so one console can get a leg up on another.

[-Foxtrot]

It depends on the time but for me I also think it depends on the game. By that I mean does the game have a bigger history with a platform. If Kingdom Hearts 3 ended up being a PS4 timed exclusive world wide then I doubt many people would care since it's a Playstation "thing" and has been for a long time with the main games anyway. But when it's something like Tomb Raider which has history and deep roots with the PS brand it doesn't sit right with people and for obvious reasons. It's like if Gears of War wasn't bought by Microsoft and Epic decided to continue with it by making it multiplatform then Sony snatched up timed exclusive rights...it just wouldn't sit right with me with it having deep roots on the Xbox.

In the end I think it just depends on the game.

[DragonKnight]

Have to disagree. Timed exclusives aren't good for anyone but the specific parties involved. They lock out gamers on a different platform which isn't of any benefit to the first platform's gamers. If the game is then improved for the excluded platforms then the original has the inferior version which doesn't help the early adopters. In the end, we know that being available to more people = more money and more likely a better reception. ROTR has been consistently hammered for being irrelevant now, something that would not have happened were it released day and date on all platforms.

[-Foxtrot]

I don't agree with it but since it does happen and it's out of our hands I'd rather see it done for franchises which belong on that console and won't be missed on another. That way there isn't a huge uproar unlike something like TR, a PS icon jumping ships.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I'm sorry Dragon but I definitely can't agree to that, simply because you know not of many of those developers financial troubles.

[DragonKnight]

@EDMIX: No one plans games they can't fund, and 3 platforms worth of money is greater than one and an exclusivity retainer.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@drag- except a budget is never always absolute and in fact it is improbable that a budget will remain exact most times Publishers go over budget and it sounds to me like you don't really know that much about business if you simply assumed it wouldn't exist simply because they didn't have the money at the time.

They could get government loans, they could get Extensions by specific investors, they could also get clearly funds by other means Midway through development if something changes.

do you not understand how many games change concept mid direction? Do you think that cost was always known? Take Borderlands, look at Final Fantasy 15, sorry but your belief that funding a game is this exact specific amount is extremely naive.

Can you seriously with a straight face say that games all get created with a budget that they know from day one that remains exact it down to the single penny on the final day?

Do you seriously even read what you post sometimes? Lol

Apparently you believe all Publishers can tell the future and all budget accordingly lol think long and hard about what you're seriously trying to say because if we use your logic basically all games have a fixed costs known years prior to release.

[Obscure_Observer]

DragonKnight

Totally agree

[_-EDMIX-_]

I wouldn't really see Kingdom Hearts 3 being timed exclusive simply because why would Sony pay money for a game that's already going to sell better on their platform? Also why would Square even have plans to release it elsewhere in the future especially based on how it does in the West and never even being on a platform like Xbox?

It just wouldn't really make much sense for either parties it would actually make more sense for square to actually not even make an Xbox version and just save the money especially if this game doesn't get its returns from Xbox Ones version.

Consider you're already talking about a publisher that likely has gambled quite a lot creating an Xbox One version in the first place believe me you don't need to convince them to not make an Xbox One version no bribery necessary they're already taking a huge risk.

Please look at it from squares perspective to fully understand why they would or wouldn't.

[freshslicepizza]

name one third party game where you would be supportive if it was timed on another system other than sony's hardware?

timed exclusive deals are only good if the support helped get the game hyped. i look at a game like limbo and braid which i think both were timed exclusive on the xbox 360. they were both amazing games and possibly the exposure on xbox arcade helped identify them because back then nintendo and sony paled in comparison for digital sales.

a game like tomb raider helped nobody other than gloating from microsoft. same thing with street fighter 5 which isn't even timed exclusive to make matters worse.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Buddy I can't name you one I could name you like a dozen Metal Gear Solid Final Fantasy Devil May Cry GTA you name it if for whatever reason a game could not be created that I was a fan of I would be completely fine if the company got funds from another publisher you have to understand that not everybody cares about this stupid console war crap that you desperately pray to.

Do you seriously think that I care that once upon a time Oblivion, Lost Planet, BioShock , Ninja Gaiden, Splinter Cell , Dead Rising and the list goes on was timed on Microsoft's platforms?

And?

Those Publishers fell upon hard times and they had to seek some sort of financial help in exchange for being delayed on another platform but I could care less if it was delayed a long time ago on another platform because of financial reasons at the end of the day what's important is that the damn games made in the first place.

I'm sorry but not everyone is out here with some stupid political agenda.

The time to deal with Tomb Raider likely could have helped Square in the respect of we don't really know just how much money Microsoft gave to them for all we know it was enough for them to break even to where they may not really care about some of the Lost sales if you consider that Microsoft may have already paid for them and it was still known that the title was coming to the PlayStation 4 so for all we know Square probably broke out pretty good regardless.

Their job is to make money and you could not determine whether or not they were successful or not if you don't know the exact number Microsoft gave for that year.

At the end of the day PlayStation 4 owners get a more polished Tomb Raider Xbox One and PC owners still got Tomb Raider in my personal opinion everybody still got what they wanted...

I could hardly say that it "helped nobody"

Are PlayStation 4 owners still not getting Tomb Raider?

Twenty years from now do you honest-to-god believe that anyone's going to care that one year that game was delayed somewhere else? Do you seriously think that right now people care that a long time ago Splinter Cell was timed on Xbox?

Body get outside the house once in awhile, a world exist outside of console Warz lol

[Obscure_Observer]

@Foxtrot

I would to like to hear your toughts about Shenmue being a PS4 exclusive since it has a history with Xbox.

Oh yeah. Some could say the same if Sony turn out to PAY for exclusive content on Mass Effect Andromeda, Half Life or a brand new KOTOR.

[Sonyslave3]

Man I find it hilarious people who hate on Tomb raider time deal have no problem with SF5 and No man Sky and Destiny deals 😞

[FITgamer]

Since when was SF5 a timed exclusive?

[Youngindy21]

SFV is still a franchise that has typically been on multiple consoles though.

[MasterCornholio]

Also Destiny was never a timed exclusive.

[Aenea]

Some content is though...

[bouzebbal]

lol typical deceived fanboy... even your knowledge is broken.

[Aenea]

No Man's Sky was never a timed exclusive.

[Rude-ro]

That one year timed content on destiny is a jab at Microsoft for wanting destiny to either be an exclusive or a year exclusive on the Xbox brand. They said no then approached Sony for said deal.
Timed exclusives here or there are not bad, but when it is the only way Microsoft can claim exclusives outside of their repetitive circle and they are well known for their monopoly tactics throughout their history, people do not like it.
It would help if Microsoft would make a new game to kind of say hey, we do want to be in the gaming business.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

Some timed exclusives such as Rise of The Tomb Raider, and the timed capcom exclusives occur because the IP holder can't afford to make the game otherwise.

[PhoenixUp]

It's always going to happen so I don't see any reason to get upset anyway. I rarely buy new games day one so when they do arrive on my platform of choice at a discounted rate I end up getting it.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

Regardless, I think its shitty. I wish timed exclusive wasn't a thing.

[I3loggs24]

No, and neither are actual exclusives, sell your console on its own merits and innovation, Consoles might then actually become competitive systems.

[Christopher]

Industry? Yes.
Gamers? Not usually.

Gamers != Industry.

[DragonKnight]

Not really good for the industry. Devs lose out on, depending on the deal, potentially a year's worth of sales. Not beneficial to them, only to the first party.

[_-EDMIX-_]

How did they lose out? Have you seriously not considered that they probably didn't even have the funds to release on multiple Platforms in the first place? Do you just assume that every game by default is going to release on 5 platforms?

[DragonKnight]

Do I have to explain math to you now too? Again, no one plans games they can't fund. The majority of timed exclusives are the first party approaching the third party, not vice versa. ROTR, Destiny, these are perfect examples of this. Games that would be made anyway yet *insert first party here* waved a check around. In cases like Bayonetta 2, Nintendo approached Platinum, otherwise it wouldn't exist for anyone. It's a very different scenario.

[Christopher]

Devs lose nothing. You're thinking Publishers. And, more often than not, the typical agreement is for millions in advertising which makes up for sales loss potential in the short term.

[_-EDMIX-_]

How could you explain math in an equation you don't know?

Didn't really think that through did you?

For all you know Microsoft and Sony approached Activision, Electronic Arts etc and propose to them timed deals regarding pieces of content that they could possibly create when those pieces of content may have not even been made without those Publishers funding...sooooo yea.

Mind you how do you know it is first party approaching third parties? Do you have a link to the actual real facts or?

Capcom is struggling financially, this company a couple years ago announced that they were even open to being bought out , don't you think it's strange that Nintendo , Microsoft and Sony are funding several of their titles? So I'm a little bit doubtful that it's nearly every company approaching them and not the other way around.

Take this into consideration before last generation Capcom didn't even released the majority of their games on multiple platforms day and date last generation they made an attempt to do that and I believe financially it begin to Cripple them.

During the PlayStation 2 era Capcom released the majority of their titles on a single platform only two release elsewhere at a later date they were more conservative with their money.

Onimusha was brought to the Xbox after the fact , Okami was brought to the Wii after the fact , Resident Evil 4 was ported to the PlayStation 2 and so on they were very conservative and it worked for them only during last generation did you see them become way loose with their funds and essentially trying to release titles on three or even four platforms at once this did not help them and I would say that is when this begin to really threaten this company's livelihood

I just don't think they had the funds to release some of those big titles on multiple platforms while also being Triple-A and the fact remains that this company did indeed state it was open to being bought out exactly when they were even doing those loose moves.

Just say you never saw Capcom open to buy out during the Super Nintendo or Playstation One or PlayStation 2 Generations.

Do you just think that Sony has been paying Sega for years for the Yakuza series? Lol have you not seriously consider that some companies just don't have the damn money to do what you're suggesting? Especially an install bases that are even known to purchase their game in droves

[Markusb33]

It's good for the platform holder and customer who chose that system. Personally I don't care about tomb raider as too much time passed. Although the game is probably quality and time hasn't changed this, the interest and hype was before it originally launched and now I am interested in psvr and other titles due out. So unfortunately I would only pick up tomb raider in the summer, when there are no releases at all and the game is very cheap new or used.

[zsquaresoff]

EXCLUSIVES YES, TIMED EXCLUSIVES NO

[WelkinCole]

No here is why

1. Money spend on it is better use to make actual exclusive
2. They are going to come out on either console and such it does not make any sense to pay to delay it on another console. There is no actual benefit to the console gamer that come on first in this regard because they were going to get it regardless.

[Manubiggs]

It's risky because if it is not a hit upon release, it does not bode well for its subsequent release on other platforms. It will be interesting to see how well Titanfall and Tomb Raider do on the PS4 in the packed fall release window.

[Aenea]

Depends.

What is your definition of the gaming industry? The people making the games or the people buying them?

Reason I ask is simple, I'm assuming that for the developers a huge chunk of cash before release to make their title timed exclusive is rather good for them financially.

For gamers it's not so good, having to wait a month or a year is silly in my eyes. Some get so upset that they don't want to buy the game at all or threaten to wait until it drops in price or get it 2nd hand. I don't think those people are a majority hence it's not hurting the publisher as much as they want to think it does.

So the gaming industry, which normally means the people making and publishing and earning money from games are happy with this sorta thing since it means extra income which they can use to employ more people, invest in new ideas, etc., so from that view point I feel it's good for the industry.

As a gamer it sucks though and would love it if it ended!

[admiralvic]

It really depends. I think a good example of this is Destiny.

How many do you think were actually swayed by the exclusive content? Do you think the exclusive content in the expansions impacted a lot of purchases? etc.

For me, I just pick the one that is on the console I like or my friends are playing. If all my friends buy Destiny on the Xbox I imagine I won't be swayed by the exclusives. This is my problem with the practice. It's hard to say how much of an impact said practice makes.

How many people actually picked PS4 over Xbox One over the exclusives in Destiny? Will the delay have an impact on Tomb Raider? etc.

I strongly believe it makes little to no difference to the consumer with the vast majority of titles, so you get a practice that hurts consumers and ultimately results in console makers wasting money.

[Redx165]

No, its all against us gamers in the end.

Games like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Dead Rising 4 are great examples. You shouldn't hold back a game for a year to get people to buy your console.

If you want gamers to buy your console give them real incentives.

- New First Party IPs
- Free Online
- Constant updates that improve the system
- Great free games

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

I agree with the first three, but the last one?
Ehhh...
Gaming is an expensive hobby, yeah, but most free games on consoles, these days, either suck, or turn out to be games we've already bought and played through before they were offered as freebies...
There are some that are okay, though, like Lost Reavers.
Bare-bones and repetitive as all heck, but at least not horrible.

[eldingo]

Heck no i dislike this kind of thing in almost every form possible the only time a game should be any kind of exclusive to me is in two different scenarios.

1.Its a first party game made by the console owning company themselves to make their platform look better by offering a game only they have.

2.a console publisher funding a game that would otherwise not exist at all without it being an exclusive to the platform its being developed for since the devs can't fund it themselves and need monetary support (see bayonetta 2 on the wii u).

if its not one of the two examples above then heck no its not good for the industry sony and microsoft buying the exclusive rights for street fighter 5 and dead rising 4 is not good at all for the industry along with any other games that did this kind of thing these aren't games that need that kind of thing to exist capcom took the money because they could and arbitrarily made them exclusives for the sake of monetary gain not because they needed the money to publish them.

[C-H-E-F]

Nobody that I know buys a console because a game they want to play is a timed exclusive. I really don't understand the point in timed exclusives. Also, when people have to wait on a game like Tomb Raider a whole year before they can play it, they expect the price to be substantially low, but these publishers/devs think that the game is still worth 59.99 when in fact they don't realize that although it's a new game to one console the game has depreciated still so they need to put the game out for what it's worth not for what they think it's worth. Games that are timed exclusive I encourage everyone to buy them used so these devs don't make money off of our purchase. I've been doing this since last generation. It's ridiculous, how they try to con us, then cry when we find a way to con them back.

[DeeBeers]

So good, bros.

[gamingisnotacrime]

The tomb raider exclusive was a nice move by microsoft, while not so good for gamers. Tomb raider has been on ps since forever and for ps4 gamers to miss out for a year is jusr not cool. This is a nice game btw

[Segata]

No but actual exclusives are.

[XXanderXX]

Have no qualms with the practice as long that its used on New IPs or small indies of sorts.
As for established franchise that's when I must decide weather to support or not support that studio .
Sounds self-centered but just like those Studio heads I have to make a choice that best serves my needs .

[iistuii]

No...

[_-EDMIX-_]

As much as I despise them , I'd have to say they are still a necessity.

people have to seriously consider money does not grow on trees , not every developer is just billionaires and some developers just do not have the funds and likely could get a game out sooner or at all if somebody help push the funds while then retaining the IP

[lastking95]

No

[ChickenOfTheCaveMan]

For the studio it's good because they get some money upfront and the exclusivity might make the game sells more on the chosen console. The con is you're losing sales on the other console for like a year and after that year they might not be that interested in the game. The 22 vs 43 million is also a factor on what will be that first timed exclusivity.

But it's really a gamble because with the example of the RoTTR, it did not sell well on X1, PS4 got U4 in between, so the appeal isn't really there because of that exclusivity combined with the hot FPS season (Battlefied 1, CoD, Titanfall 2) and others (Dishonored 2, Watch Dogs 2, FF), so I don't think it will sell well on PS4. Let's hope for the studio that timed exclusive money was sweet as hell.

As for the gamers, I think it's fair game. Sure it sucks, but we can't complain about the business side of video games, if you're pissed just don't buy the game even when it comes to your console or wait for the bargain bin. I don't judge, but it sounds crazy to me to buy RoTTR like in the first month of release on PS4.

[TheRealHeisenberg]

Only if they come to PlayStation first. Boycott or bargain bin if the other way around right?

[DivineAssault]

Nope.. It turns off gamers that see sellout companies.. IMO.. Im still buying TR but not for $60