Sony on DLC: 'Nothing is ever exclusive'
by Alan Tsang 
{ Oct 29th 2008 at 1:45PM }
Back in May, David Reeves hinted the possibility that the upcoming Xbox 360 exclusive DLC content for Grand Theft Auto IV is heading for the PS3 version in the future. It looks like Sony is at it again -- when pressed for a statement about the exclusive downloadable content the rival console is getting by videogamer.com, SCE managing director Ray Maguire said the following: "One thing to remember, nothing is ever exclusive. Things get wrapped up for a period of time for a large amount of money and if it's a strategic decision by competition to do that then we have to live with that.
Maguire also took the chance to take a jab at the competition's practice of buying exclusives. "I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."
It's almost common consensus at this point that exclusives from third-party publishers are a thing of the past. However, can we say the same for DLC content? Time will tell, we suppose. What's your 2 cents?
Maguire also took the chance to take a jab at the competition's practice of buying exclusives. "I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."
It's almost common consensus at this point that exclusives from third-party publishers are a thing of the past. However, can we say the same for DLC content? Time will tell, we suppose. What's your 2 cents?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
kentuckyfried @ Oct 29th 2008 1:53PM
"I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."
lol...oooh, 'dem is fightin' words.
anthonyjh @ Oct 30th 2008 4:11AM
What an idiotic comment, Zues.
Hife @ Oct 29th 2008 1:54PM
I try not to be a raging fanboy, but the money microsoft throws at people just to screw over Sony really does piss me right-the-F off.
kentuckyfried @ Oct 29th 2008 2:12PM
me too. It's a really arrogant attitude when a company runs around going, "we'll just outgun the competition by throwing money at the problem", at the cost of innocent consumers as well.
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 2:23PM
Honestly, let MS do it. If that's how they want to run their business and it's completely legal then that's their decision. Of course, people such as myself consider their (IMO immoral) tactics to be more of a 'cop out' of being able to say "look at our console we have all of this "exclusive" stuff that we took away from the competition [with all of our excess cash sitting in the bank]. We also have the cheapest initial cost [though 90% of you will have to upgrade things after you learn of the missing features/components]"
If most of the "exclusive" content will come to PS3 anyway and Sony is able to invest their R&D into making more titles like LBP then it makes complete sense not to get into a pointless money war....
Adis @ Oct 29th 2008 2:48PM
I MUST AGREE, M$ is buying up gamers in masses. They used the same strategy in the computer business and they will (and are) doing it in the console business. Sooner or later, console gaming will become the next windows. No competition and crap like Vista so people HAVE to use it.
Copland @ Oct 29th 2008 4:40PM
Adis,
>No competition and crap like Vista so people HAVE to use it.
I'm really concerned about the same thing...
It would definitely be a nightmare.
If this happens, I would eventually stop playing games...
g-B0y_fr35h @ Oct 29th 2008 6:23PM
Dude, me three. I try not to be a fanboy myself but...I totally feel you on that. I think it's so freakin' retarded the way MS keeps buying PS exclusives just to "beat" Sony. And to release DMC 4 on 360 was crazy! It's like what system did everyone play DMC 1-3 on!?!? Whatever...
Tidus @ Oct 29th 2008 6:14PM
You're right guys. That's why I hate MS. I'm feelin kinda proud now that I chose ps3 :D
DrunkRaba @ Oct 29th 2008 6:42PM
I also look at it like this, what does Microsoft actually add to gaming by being in it? How many games does Microsoft MAKE every year? They produce many, pay for them, but they don't actually make very many at all. Sony and Nintendo heavily invest in MAKING games. Microsoft just pays a few second party game companies to make games for them "exclusively".
While Sony and Nintendo do have their second party developers, they are each putting out a lot of good games as well.
Zeus.:God @ Oct 30th 2008 2:39AM
I don't get you guys. You're all complaining about Microsoft paying for exclusive content, yet you're all blind to see that Sony and Nintendo do the same damn things...
I enjoy all the current consoles, as well as those in the past, but I find that PS3 fanboys are by far the most ignorant... Well... Aside from a small portion of 360 fanboys.
Hife @ Oct 30th 2008 11:14AM
Well Zeus, in my opinion you are a little ignorant if you don't see a difference. Sony may have been just as bad in the past, I don't know though (I was never too involved before this generation). But you can't tell me throwing gobs of money at someone to hold their PS3 version release for a month or going after the biggest names in the PS3's lineup is not a bitch move. How about they work on building their own brand names instead of embarrassing Sony.
That said, I'm ready for exclusives to end, with the exception of first party games.
And, while there may be a disproportionate amount of ignorant PS3 fanboys right now, that's only because the 360 is still in the lead. If the PS3 ever pulled ahead the pre-teen and frat-daddy xbots would come out in droves.
Lard @ Oct 29th 2008 1:59PM
"I would much rather that we were investing money into making sure that we've got great R&D and we start producing games like LittleBigPlanet, rather than paying other people a huge amount of money to stop people playing their product."
Ironic then, that Sony spent a huge amount of money to stop people playing Little Big Planet.
Schoolimangooli @ Oct 29th 2008 2:02PM
They build that IP from the ground up.
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 2:11PM
WTF are you talking about?
kentuckyfried @ Oct 29th 2008 2:15PM
So people on the 360 are actually pissed that they can't play Little Big Planet on the 360?
I don't think that has anything to do with Sony throwing a whole s***load of money at Media Molecule to keep it from going to 360, and more to do with MM choosing the ps3 as the platform for their project. But I don't know for sure. Can anybody verify with some fair certainty that this's the case?
Phil @ Oct 29th 2008 3:27PM
Wiki says they pitched the idea after leaving Lionhead and Sony helped fund their development and creation of Media Molecule...
DrunkRaba @ Oct 29th 2008 7:12PM
How dumb are you, really?
Pete @ Oct 29th 2008 1:59PM
Does that mean that the "PS3 Exclusive Mirror's Edge DLC" really isn't PS3 exclusive?
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 2:18PM
Assumption can be a bad thing. Just b/c a game is exclusive only for a given amount of time, doesn't mean they can't use the term 'exclusive' b/c during that specified time, the content really is 'exclusive'.
Basically take 'exclusive' with a grain of salt....
Mmmbacon @ Oct 29th 2008 2:14PM
I find it ironic how the situation is now reversed. For those with short memory, the Playstation brands road to dominance was built with hard cold cash and the Playstation exclusives they bought. Sony ended up on the top of the heap because of it. My how times have changed....
kentuckyfried @ Oct 29th 2008 2:16PM
And these titles included....?
I would think that Microsoft's pockets have always been deeper than Sony's, since Sony's never made an OS that's been the dominant one since the early 90's and perhaps even earlier.
Kid Chemical @ Oct 29th 2008 2:26PM
Grand Theft Auto comes to mind. Or are we supposed to forget Sony paid for exclusive rights to Vice City and San Andreas?
Ponying up cash for Square's early Playstation titles come to mind too.
Mmmbacon @ Oct 29th 2008 2:34PM
"And these titles included....?"
Your kidding right? Once Nintendo stopped the partnership with Sony (Sony was building the CDRom for Nintendo's Super NES) they said to hell with you guys we'll make our own system. Bam PSone born. Sony eventually built up nice inhouse development, but until that was established their gameplan was to buy their way into the scene with exclusives, keeping certain titles from the sega saturn, dreamcast nintendo64 et al. As far a titles, just go look an the PSones library, there were a ton of PSOne exlusives (Tomb Raider series, Crash Bandicoot, Final Fantasy, Tekken etc etc) that firmly established the ps1 as the dominant console of the time. It was a great strategy and it got sony's foot in the door. I'm not sure what your reference to Microsoft is, as my comment was concerning the PSone and its advent. Microsoft and its xbox were just a gleam in big bill's eye at that time. I was just trying to say, that the 360 is trying to do with exclusives, what Sony did to enter the gaming market. Ironic.
Peace!
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 2:53PM
Yes, but how much did it cost them back vs. what it costs today? Also, those weren't timed exclusives. That's what gets me. Instead of investing more money into R&D for 1st party titles to help differentiate their console, MS instead takes advantage of impulsive consumers by purchasing games (with currently known, large install bases) and basically says "Here look what you can get with our console. You can X title right now. You can't play it yet on the competition's". Don't get me wrong MS has some great 1st party titles, but really only a handful and none are really revolutionary or innovative....something that could be changed with more R&D IMO....
j.howlett @ Oct 29th 2008 5:04PM
tomb raider was multi platform just like resident evil (sega saturn) ff7 went to ps1 because square was didn't like the limitations of carts the others were really defacto because what other mainstream console was there and it became tradition.
Arnon @ Oct 29th 2008 6:06PM
Devin, it doesn't matter how much it cost them.. the point he's getting at, is everyone thinks SONY is something 'pure' and that they never do this sort of thing, when in reality, that's pretty much all they did for their first 2 consoles.
Gonzo @ Oct 29th 2008 2:05PM
And how often is the DLC worth it?
I was pissed that Oblivion didn't get any of the DLC until I saw it in action.
It is pretty sleazy to pay the publisher bucketloads to keep something exclusive but I suppose it'll bight them in the ash in the end when it doesn't properly scare people into buying their machine. The bucketloads of cash could go into useful things like new apps or updated hardware or something that could actually be of some use to their existing customers but they've already proven that the common gamer is the least of their concerns.
hppypnts @ Oct 29th 2008 2:15PM
I'm with Lard on this one.. I mean really don't be moron, you want to talk smack about MS, go ahead but don't in the same sentence mention your exclusive title, which I guarantee you would make more money if it was a multiplatform release. It's like these people hate money, they make all their profit on software and still insist on platform exclusive titles.
Brett from Atlanta @ Oct 29th 2008 2:33PM
Media molecule is a first party developer for sony, like insomniac and a few others. Why the FUCK would sony make a first party title of theirs multiplatform?! Do you ever think microsoft would let halo go to any other platform, no because it is a first party title that grows brand name association. You think halo you think xbox. Sony is doing the same thing with LBP. Wow, some people here are really just clueless.
Brett from Atlanta @ Oct 29th 2008 2:33PM
Hey did you know that Media molecule is a first party developer for sony, like insomniac and a few others. Why the FUCK would sony make a first party title of theirs multiplatform?! Do you ever think microsoft would let halo go to any other platform, no because it is a first party title that grows brand name association. You think halo you think xbox. Sony is doing the same thing with LBP. Wow, some people here are really just clueless. If they have a great first party title that sells consoles then they will make much more money via hardware than the difference they could make through multiplatform software sales.
Peter @ Oct 29th 2008 2:43PM
Halo: Available for PC.
Aways find that funny, exclusivity on the XBox, with a few notable exceptions generally means XBox and Windows. It's why I wonder at people who have both.
Peter @ Oct 29th 2008 2:08PM
I wonder how much money MS paid to delay Rock Band for PS3 in the UK for six months.
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 2:32PM
Good question. I really hate MS's tactics this gen. Why can't they just make great games that make people want to buy their console? With exclusivity someone always has to lose/miss out, and the one who loses is always the one who either doesn't have the money or doesn't feel the need to get into a price war. I wonder if Sony ever bids up the price for exclusivity on certain titles knowing MS will bid higher....that would be funny....
Fane @ Oct 30th 2008 6:23PM
@ Devin
Because (contrary to popular opinion) they don't know how to make good software any more than they know how to make good hardware. Think about it: has Windows ever worked correctly, or IE, or anything else they've made?
Sure, they've bought a few good developers (e.g., Bungie), but their first-party games are few, far-between, and only occassionally good.
blackbeard_ @ Oct 29th 2008 2:15PM
I for one am sick and tired of this exclusive bullshit. A game is just software and it can run on any hardware (I am a programmer myself). I am tired of the political bullshit and sales and marketing nonsense. Each platform/system (gaming or not) has its pros and cons but all exclusives do is make the end users and customers (us) suffer while big money monster corporations bicker over bragging rights.
Games can be made to scale their performance/graphics/etc depending on the hardware... their is no reason for exclusives other than politics. You want to play games in full HD?... get a PS3. If that doesn't matter to you get a different console.
I own a PS3 because, for the most part, I want HD content/games and a BluRay player to watch HD movies. And I prefer the PS3 controller... its more comfortable for me than any of the others.
Ham @ Oct 29th 2008 2:15PM
Lets face it, if the shoe was on the other foot people here would be happy as hell. Don't bitch over it now.
Bill_Gates @ Oct 29th 2008 2:22PM
lol....you just said bitch. no but seriously im mad...not really though.
naxe @ Oct 29th 2008 2:19PM
ive been saying this from the begining. Exclusive games are one thing. Its like hiring a company to make something for you. but when something is multi plat their shouldnt be any exclusive DLC. Its a cheap shot to sway potential buyers that dont know any better.
but it does not suprise me at all. Microsoft built their company on bullying the competition and alot of questionable business practices. they have released sub-par products with a whole slurry of Patches to try and fix the problem.
360=RROD........
Vista=still has alot of bugs.......
Xp=was met with horrible reviews and more bugs then any other software launch.
98=Major CRASH at press release.
and yet people still wait in line like robots. it baffles me.
Kdiggyd123 @ Oct 29th 2008 2:26PM
Microsoft is leading the charge in exclusive downloadable content because they lack first party studios. Microsoft only has three publishers, while Sony has many more (not sure how many exactly).
Sony will continue to invest in the third party studios, and Microsoft will continue to pay for exclusive content. It’s there way of competing. I for one, am more than happy that Sony spends the money on there studios. I would rather have another triple A exclusive title, than a few extra missions, or maps.
Eggy @ Oct 29th 2008 3:13PM
Hear hear. Finally a half decent comment.
Personally I don't really mind about exclusive DLC because I rarely buy DLC. Ive been a PC gamer for so long that I've come to expect to get stuff for free and not be nickle and dimed for every map or weapon that gets added to the game. It is however lame when entire games get delayed for a platform simply because money was exchanged.
Popfrogs @ Oct 29th 2008 3:33PM
Eggy: It's all well and good, as long as other games don't get MegaMan9'ed. Where they take a complete game, then strip features out, then sell those features back to you at a premium.
Konami is nearly guilty of this with Metal Gear Online. However since MGO is pretty much completely separate from MGS4 I let it slide.
Darrenj @ Oct 29th 2008 2:44PM
Makes perfect sense. let 3rd parties make their games and sell it through whoever they want.
Let the hardware makers come up their own stuff to attract us their systems. Competition makes for some great games. So is MGS4 the great last xclusive. LOL
Nick @ Oct 29th 2008 2:47PM
If you believe that Sony doesn't pay for exclusivity then LittleBigPlanet is not an issue. It's ultimately up to the developer, anyway.
DeathroW @ Oct 29th 2008 2:47PM
Sony didn't pay MM to keep it exclusive, MM were nobody - they were just a group of guys with a good idea, they took it to sony and sony agreed to take them on, give them studios, fund their project entirely with the obvious contract being that it is owned by sony.
What microsoft is doing is different, they are just going to these 3rd party developers and giving them the money that they think they would make on making the game multiplatform, so that they are not loosing anymore money.
However microsoft obviously have some of their own first party games, fable 2 being an example. Just what sony do is build up their first and second party studios so that they can make themselfs games that will never be touched by anyone else, hence the reason sony are pointing their attention towards their first and second party support instead of 3rd party titles because like he said, nothing is ever exclusive.
Basically, LBP is a first party game - however i'm not sure if MM themself are a first or second party development team or even a 3rd, all i know is that LBP is a first party title that is only here today because sony liked their idea and gave them everything they needed to make it.
Devin @ Oct 29th 2008 3:06PM
Actually what MS is doing is NOT paying for 100% exclusivity, but Timed exclusivity meaning that they are taking advantage of both A) impulsive buyers who can't/won't wait and B) misinformed consumers thinking that b/c the game isn't out on the other competition's console at the time of launch that it won't be coming later on
This is where MS's tactics piss me off. Sony has done this, too, though with UTIII (though no examples of 'exclusive' DLC), but that's the only example I can think of so far in terms of AAA 3rd party titles....
Popfrogs @ Oct 29th 2008 3:30PM
MM is an independent studio that had very heavy (development and capital) support from Sony. So they'd be considered second party (I think).
First party = in house, third party = fully independent developer, second party = independent dev with cash and programming support.
It's kinda vague like first world/third world. The second world is nearly nonexistant.
John @ Oct 29th 2008 2:49PM
Ironic comment about R&D...
When Playstation 2 was introduced, lots of complaints from developers on how difficult it was to code for, because of the Dev tools. I've heard similar rumblings about the PS3, and the different processors that can be utilized... it isn't easy. From what I've always heard, the development tool engine apparently lacks compared to the XBox alternative.
Sure, MS has invested heavily in exclusives, but they've got a pretty solid software platform for developers to show their stuff. I don't think Sony can quite say the same... then again, they don't have hardware issues. Developers need effective tools to show off the PS3, which I think will come in time, but MS certainly gives Devs lots of tools to work with from the getgo.
Mattchewie @ Oct 29th 2008 3:19PM
Why should it be easy though. One can argue that the reason why PS dev'ing is harder is due to the fact their machines have the more advanced architecture. When compared to say the xbox, which is little more than a cut down PC with a tailored version of windows running on it. All the tools in the world might be cool but if they powered by aging ideology then what good are they? I mean see upteen tools that leverage ftp, does that mean its the best solution? Some would argue scp is the better option but there are fewer clients that use it.
Then really, we have to define "hard". Hard as in "it takes me 20 lines of code to do what I can do in 2" or hard as in "The logic doesn't make sense". Example one would be hard to deal with, however example 2 can be dealt with through using the product and collaboration with other development teams.
trapper12 @ Oct 29th 2008 2:57PM
Just to come to speculation, M$ is already scheming another big game in the future to outdue Sony. They (M$), are spending money just alone for DLC, but they lose a sum of money from their investment. Why do you think M$ always wants you to pay for Xbox Live, plus them using P2P for their servers. It's just a tactic to sway to average gamer to pay for their own misconceptions. Yeah noting is ever exclusive especially in this generation of consoles, but times will change when either console gets a lot more consumers buying their product to decide whether it's exclusive or not from the developers IMO.