Reeves: Exclusives with publishers probably 'a thing of the past'
by Alan Tsang 
{ Aug 26th 2008 at 4:30PM }
David Reeves, president of SCEE, discussed his views on exclusives in an interview with GameIndustry.biz. Reeves believes that an enticing software lineup is more important than price in terms of promoting hardware sales. How does he plan to secure this lineup, more specifically exclusives? By "investment in our own intellectual properties -- as particularly Phil Harrison and I tried to do in the last five years with SingStar, or with The Getaway, or with Buzz! ... It's like a patent. We can take them forward."
Reeves states that he is aware of the situation where publishers "cannot have exclusives unless they're given millions and millions of dollars not to develop a particular game for one particular platform." Instead, Sony plans to work with developers instead. He cites Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain, which he proclaims a "platform driver," as an example: "a great game, it takes a lot of time to develop, they need a little bit of funding, external development. In exchange, it's exclusive -- that works."
The Sony exec doesn't completely discount the possibility of an exclusive with publishers though. "We have to accept that exclusivity is not a thing of the past, but it is probably with publishers. We might do a few things, where we feel that we need a push here or a push there." What are your thoughts? Is it possible to secure exclusives with publishers without the aforementioned "millions of dollars"? Is establishing relationships with developers like Quantic Dream key to the PS3's success?
Reeves states that he is aware of the situation where publishers "cannot have exclusives unless they're given millions and millions of dollars not to develop a particular game for one particular platform." Instead, Sony plans to work with developers instead. He cites Quantic Dream's Heavy Rain, which he proclaims a "platform driver," as an example: "a great game, it takes a lot of time to develop, they need a little bit of funding, external development. In exchange, it's exclusive -- that works."
The Sony exec doesn't completely discount the possibility of an exclusive with publishers though. "We have to accept that exclusivity is not a thing of the past, but it is probably with publishers. We might do a few things, where we feel that we need a push here or a push there." What are your thoughts? Is it possible to secure exclusives with publishers without the aforementioned "millions of dollars"? Is establishing relationships with developers like Quantic Dream key to the PS3's success?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
drdre74 @ Aug 26th 2008 4:44PM
At the end of the day its all about money. Show me the money! If a system doesn't have any games that the other systems don't have then why would anyone buy that system? Besides brand loyalty. That can only get you so far. I bought my PS3 for exclusives like LBP and Metal Gear and Uncharted. If those weren't on only PS3 i wouldn't have gotten a Ps3. So yeah Sony get on the ball and pay some people like M$ does and get those damn exclusives and bring home that money.
Nathanical @ Aug 26th 2008 4:58PM
i think he was refering to the third party games, from the publishers who have no real incentive to go exclusive one way or another. With games costing so much more to develop this generation, these publisers will want to maximise the games exposure to the consumer by making it available across multiple platforms. Sony will always have its exclusives coming from its own native studios. Investing their money in those developers, rather than trying to bribe publishers into going exclusive or even multi, is a sensible route to take imo.
Iridium @ Aug 26th 2008 5:09PM
Publishers don't have anything to publish without a developer making it. Here's a cool fact, if a developer makes a really good game with a lot of good press there will always be a publisher that will come along and stamp the discs.
Another fact would be that new publishers will come along to take up the slack for the big publishers passing over games. Publishers have no talent and publishers take most of the cash.
Twinturbo120 @ Aug 26th 2008 4:51PM
I think nothing is very in this country and if they want something there going to have to pay for it. "working" with devs doesn't work....You need to pay em
Lars @ Aug 26th 2008 7:54PM
Bull. Sony is doing pretty good considering their current stance of not bribing for exclusivity.
One of the main reasons I jumped on the PS3 bandwagon was because of that stance. And it's the reason why I'm essentially boycotting Microsoft.
'Bribing' for exclusivity is just something I think is plain childish and just morally wrong. The strengths of the hardware should draw consumers, not how deep your pockets go, or how good you are at keeping software away from your competitors.
reson8er @ Aug 26th 2008 4:52PM
I think with the amount Sony is investing in 1st and 2nd party exclusive games its understandable that they are employing this strategy.
From their perspective, so long as the PS3 is getting the game anyway, be it timed or simultaneous release, they seem pretty confident that their 1st and 2nd party line-up is strong enough to push consoles.
I tend to agree with that outlook, as it seems to now paying off for them when you look at Microsoft and their almost non-existent 1st party lineup.
That being said, it seems to be in their best interest to secure certain games to be exclusive on the console. I think they really missed an opportunity this gen with allowing games once branded with Playstation to be secured by their competitors.
Only time will tell if their inward focused initiative pays off. I know for me personally in 2008-2009 it has.
Iridium @ Aug 26th 2008 4:52PM
Developers mean more than any publisher.
Publishers do not have talent and they take most of the cash. If a developer makes a good game with a lot of good press there will always be a publisher that will take the game.
In fact new publishers will spring up to take the clask of th ebig publishers if they fail to publish games people want.
Iridium @ Aug 26th 2008 4:55PM
I swear my keyboard has delays on some keys. slack not clask.
TinyTim121 @ Aug 26th 2008 4:53PM
Without purchase, you won't get an exclusive publisher, espicially with all the extra money you can make with multi-platform games.
I remember when Final Fantasy XIII went to 360, looked on IGN and they had a poll asking which Final Fantasy XIII game are you looking forward to? 360 or PS3? Most votes went to 360.
More and more publishers are gonna want that extra bit of cash from both 360 and PS3 gamers, take 2K games with Bioshock.
SuperGayParade @ Aug 26th 2008 4:53PM
I think paying for exclusivity is dirty, and admire Sony for their approach. They want to ATTRACT developers with better hardware and better development support. Insomniac is not 1st party Sony but they're developing for them exclusively because they're easier to work for. Other companies have a different model, a business one, which takes them where the money is for the quickest profit. If they knew anything, they'd know they could make a better game on the PS3 and if they're game is good enough it will sell systems.
Devin @ Aug 26th 2008 4:57PM
In regards to 3rd party offerings, I guess as long as they have good relations with developers and the games are offered to their truest potential on Sony's platform(s) then I (the consumer) will be happy.
But, if they allow 3rd party developers to develop games for the 360 first and then port them later to PS3 then Sony loses my dollar because that isn't allowing the HW (that I know is better than the competition) to be truly represented.
Popfrogs @ Aug 26th 2008 5:00PM
I think he's right on with what he's talking about. Exclusives bring their own rewards and drawbacks for each publisher.
Right now and for the forseeable future Sony has an awesome stable of first party developers with great games. Back in July Sony reiterated the importance of in-house development. After all, when you're counting on game sales to make up for hardware losses, it makes sense to have 100% control over the games themselves from the beginning.
smastroyin @ Aug 26th 2008 5:02PM
Reading between the lines in all of these comments since E3 seems to be "Square asked us for a ton of money to keep FF13 PS3 exclusive and we said no."
SuperGayParade @ Aug 26th 2008 5:49PM
Yup.
bbcorps @ Aug 26th 2008 7:51PM
i read it: squenix asked for a ton of money to make ff13 a timed exclusive and sony said no way.
Arnon @ Aug 26th 2008 5:17PM
This doesn't seem like it would be enough to drive devs to completely secure a deal with making a game exclusive.. People just want money these days.
b @ Aug 26th 2008 5:31PM
Playstation systems have always been the best to me because they have the same style of controller more inovatitive games and better graphics. With games Like Little Big Planet R2 Killzone 2 GOW 3 Rachet & Clank
MAG Heavy Rain Tekken 6 who cares about other exclusives that we dont play. Its not the quantity its about the quality and my money is on playstation.
iamkid @ Aug 26th 2008 9:08PM
dont forget about some other good ones like heavenly sword, motorstorm, gran turismo, and warhawk, theyre pretty good imo
OptimusPrime @ Aug 26th 2008 5:41PM
Although buying exclusives from third party publishers is dirty, if your competitor is doing it, you should not just stand there and take the punches. Just consider for a second if Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy XIII where still Sony exclusives. How many more consoles will they have pushed? They definitely would have lost 100-200 million dollars in securing these titles, but in the long run, I think it would have payed off.
scratch @ Aug 26th 2008 6:01PM
i think sony's approach is the way to go. find needy developers and give them the support (financial and technical) to bring a new (and hopefully unique) game to market, with your specific system in mind. then the exclusivity comes naturally. it will be the exclusives the give the unique flavor to each console experience. and so far we can see that sony is benefiting with truly unique and potentially gaming-extending titles like littlebigplanet, heavy rain, etc...
paying large quantities of cash to an already well-funded publisher to withhold a game from a different platform is brutish and a waste of resources. large publishers are mainly going to put out the same games on all (most) platforms. large sums of money may change their mind in limited instances (ie for a single game) but it would be prohibitively expensive to secure that behavior indefinitely.
bottom line, as others have said - support the developers, get them used to your hardware, make them feel appreciated, and they will give you great games, often exclusively; simply because they don't have the resources for dual development.
Mattchewie @ Aug 26th 2008 6:32PM
I totally agree with leveraging your first devs. In a way this is what MS has (kinda) done. They used Halo and GOW to get people into the console and the return was publishers not being able to ignore their install base. However since they didn't jump fully into this method, they are now coming up short.
I feel that sony needs to keep the hammer running on those first party games but while in transition, they should (and should of) payed for the BIG titles to help move consoles a bit quicker. I would of paid to keep GTA on the PS and then paid square to keep FF. Those 2 titles alone are with their weight in gold and I believe the install base numbers would be MUCH closer.
Once their FPT's became known, then they would have the power to say no.
On a side note. People saying they look forward to FF on 360 more doesn't surprise me. They have a lager install base and if its like most web polls, people can vote more than once so I'm sure there is more than one xbot that voted 20+ times in a row.
dlem28 @ Aug 26th 2008 7:48PM
Exclusives keep the industry 'honest' and that benefits gamers.
-Jad- @ Aug 26th 2008 8:00PM
True, but the money talks on the major of the times. All that i want are more RPG ASAP lol.
Zim @ Aug 26th 2008 8:46PM
I think Sony has the best approach, as getting developers to create exclusive titles willingly for the PS3 would generate better games.
But paying lots of cash for something would just make the developers more lazy. As they are doing it for the cash, more than anything and so game quality would suffer.
maximumpwr @ Aug 26th 2008 8:34PM
I too feel that Sony should have paid to keep the exclusivity on some of their biggest games,but if they work closely with developers, than we can be certain that the game will look and play fantastic on our playstation 3.
pliny5678 @ Aug 26th 2008 10:34PM
David Reeves is dreamy!
devilmaker @ Aug 27th 2008 4:54AM
Err, This might sound a little daft, but I think if Sony got some developers to create games for the PS3 that used the system's full potential and full Blu-ray capacity. It would become near impossible for a game to get ported to the 360 without it being toned down and using multiple discs. Therefore making the game an 'exclusive' as it simply can't be ported easily or well. I still want to see what Square Enix's plans are to move FFXIII onto 360, it surely can't all be fitted onto 1 DVD. Welcome back to the old days of switching discs 360...