As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

company pay offs for game exclusives

2

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Nintendo also has plenty of IPs they can farm out to other companies like Sega and F-Zero.

    Couscous on
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    If anything, Nintendo's refusal to buy exclusives, either by arrogance or by smart business savvy, has REALLY hurt them in the N64 and Gamecube generation. The most blatent example was the "Capcom 5," of which only PN03 and Killer7 didn't get ported.

    On the other hand, buying exclusivity is a MASSIVE loss leader strategy, perhaps moreso than selling the consoles at a loss. And given the ever-rising cost of game development, the cost of buying exclusivity is going up quite a bit. After all, a company uses that money they get out of the exclusivity deal to offset the revenue generated by having their games on multiple systems. That's probably the true reason that Sony hasn't bought any exclusives this gen: The small install base of the PS3 versus the other 2 consoles means that Sony would have to spend extreme amounts of money to buy an exclusive, even a timed exclusive.

    I think you'll see less exclusives in the future, but more exclusive/bonus content. I can see the game coming out for all 3 systems, then each system having downloadable features unique to the system you purchased it on. This, of course, gets the publisher the most money possible (and might even get some avid gamers to buy the game multiple times, like with Soul Calibur 2).

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Let me just run a scenario by you for a moment.

    You've just spent 5 years developing a game. 5 years of your life, spending 15 hours a day without weekends off probably for the last year of it. Sony comes along and drops a huge bag of money on your lap if you keep it exclusive to their console.

    Now do you:

    A) Take the money and release the game without any further development issues?

    or

    B) Say screw you to Sony and spend another year or two porting the game to 360, increasing development costs even further?

    Which to you sounds like the better idea?

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • Red or AliveRed or Alive Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    If anything, Nintendo's refusal to buy exclusives, either by arrogance or by smart business savvy, has REALLY hurt them in the N64 and Gamecube generation. The most blatent example was the "Capcom 5," of which only PN03 and Killer7 didn't get ported.

    On the other hand, buying exclusivity is a MASSIVE loss leader strategy, perhaps moreso than selling the consoles at a loss. And given the ever-rising cost of game development, the cost of buying exclusivity is going up quite a bit. After all, a company uses that money they get out of the exclusivity deal to offset the revenue generated by having their games on multiple systems. That's probably the true reason that Sony hasn't bought any exclusives this gen: The small install base of the PS3 versus the other 2 consoles means that Sony would have to spend extreme amounts of money to buy an exclusive, even a timed exclusive.

    I think you'll see less exclusives in the future, but more exclusive/bonus content. I can see the game coming out for all 3 systems, then each system having downloadable features unique to the system you purchased it on. This, of course, gets the publisher the most money possible (and might even get some avid gamers to buy the game multiple times, like with Soul Calibur 2).

    Killer7 did actually get a PS2 port.

    Red or Alive on
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Good god, what publisher in their right mind would let a game languish in development for 5 years?


    (Note: Valve and 3dRealms are developers, not publishers)




    Edit: My bad Red, I was on the fence and couldn't remember.

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Well Ninty not buying exclusives sort of makes sense, in that third parties aren't as big for Ninty as First parties. Now, Third party software, brings more people in, and is always good, and they would do well to keep third parties happy, but Ninty is a really, really good game developer. And with their own hardware, they tend to be better than the third party titles. So even though the GCN is referred to as a "Failure" and Ninty "lost", they still did pretty damn well all things considered, just on first party sales. If third parties want to make games for the Wii, fine(And they seem to now), and if they don't, so what, SSBB, SMG, MP3, they'll all sell enough, and the DS hasn't exactly been losing money.

    Khavall on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2007
    Let me just run a scenario by you for a moment.

    You've just spent 5 years developing a game. 5 years of your life, spending 15 hours a day without weekends off probably for the last year of it. Sony comes along and drops a huge bag of money on your lap if you keep it exclusive to their console.

    Now do you:

    A) Take the money and release the game without any further development issues?

    or

    B) Say screw you to Sony and spend another year or two porting the game to 360, increasing development costs even further?

    Which to you sounds like the better idea?
    No offense, but you would be idiotic developing a game like that unless your plan was to only release on the ps3 from the beginning.

    Most developers start by buying or developing tools that allow them to run their engine across multiple platforms, then build the game resources, then spin off a couple of teams in tandem to assemble and test the final product on the platforms you are building for. Cross platform development does not add 1-2 years to the dev cycle... it is usually done inside the development process of the game.

    Your path only makes sense if they had an exclusivity contract from day one... and you would be kicked to the curb by year three for taking five fucking years to build a game.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Khavall wrote: »
    Well Ninty not buying exclusives sort of makes sense, in that third parties aren't as big for Ninty as First parties. Now, Third party software, brings more people in, and is always good, and they would do well to keep third parties happy, but Ninty is a really, really good game developer. And with their own hardware, they tend to be better than the third party titles. So even though the GCN is referred to as a "Failure" and Ninty "lost", they still did pretty damn well all things considered, just on first party sales. If third parties want to make games for the Wii, fine(And they seem to now), and if they don't, so what, SSBB, SMG, MP3, they'll all sell enough, and the DS hasn't exactly been losing money.

    Nintendo's been doing other favors lately, besides ye olde money hat, to get the games. Lower fees, publishing agreements, paying for the localization, and other boons. It works, but maybe not as well. Nintendo does what Nintendo does. Sometimes they buy up developers, and sometimes, they cut ties with those people. So far this has done nothing but pay off for them, so I don't question them. It would be nice if every once in awhile they did something ridiculous, like pick up Sega when it was on the market, but again, that's not Nintendo's way.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    Yeah. Nintendo's form of paying for exclusives is to buy the company. Like Monolith-soft.

    Which confused me, as they said they'd stopped doing that because, and I paraphrase 'When you buy a company you're only getting the name, not the talent'. Which I suppose was one of many, many reasons they eventually sold the once untouchable Rare.

    Hazz on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Hazz wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    Yeah. Nintendo's form of paying for exclusives is to buy the company. Like Monolith-soft.

    Which confused me, as they said they'd stopped doing that because, and I paraphrase 'When you buy a company you're only getting the name, not the talent'. Which I suppose was one of many, many reasons they eventually sold the once untouchable Rare.

    Sometimes you get the talent, but a lot of the time you're right, there is a ton of turn over. Nintendo doesn't even do this all that often.

    Monolith Soft
    Retro
    Rare

    You want to see a company that likes throwing its money around, look at the companies Microsoft have purchased in the past two generations. They've backed off a bit recently, but they sure did it a lot back in the day.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Smilingoat wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Protip: use of the term "M$" makes you sound like a moron.

    Also, Sony doled out tons of cash for exclusives during the PS2 era.

    Edit: Shogun, FF13 has always been PS3 exclusive.

    i own a 360 and have no interest in the ps3. want a wii.

    Um... 'kay. "M$" still makes you sound like a moron.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Smilingoat wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Protip: use of the term "M$" makes you sound like a moron.

    Also, Sony doled out tons of cash for exclusives during the PS2 era.

    Edit: Shogun, FF13 has always been PS3 exclusive.

    i own a 360 and have no interest in the ps3. want a wii.

    Um... 'kay. "M$" still makes you sound like a moron.

    What does it make you then?

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Smilingoat wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Protip: use of the term "M$" makes you sound like a moron.

    Also, Sony doled out tons of cash for exclusives during the PS2 era.

    Edit: Shogun, FF13 has always been PS3 exclusive.

    i own a 360 and have no interest in the ps3. want a wii.

    Um... 'kay. "M$" still makes you sound like a moron.

    What does it make you then?

    A critic.

    MKR on
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Sometimes you get the talent, but a lot of the time you're right, there is a ton of turn over. Nintendo doesn't even do this all that often.

    Monolith Soft
    Retro
    Rare

    You want to see a company that likes throwing its money around, look at the companies Microsoft have purchased in the past two generations. They've backed off a bit recently, but they sure did it a lot back in the day.

    They've also lost a lot of companies that were apparently Nintendo-only (at the time at least) like Left Field (who, if I'm right, did zilch in the meantime and are now back, working on the Wii) Silicon Knights and Factor 5. I'm probably missing a few. I suppose the problem is that some companies, EA for example, buy devs and then just sit on IPs forever. I wants me some new Syndicate :(

    Anyway, re: the actual topic, I really don't see a problem. Are there really that many exclusives on the 360 and PS3 anymore? I don't own either, so I don't follow it very closely. I presume the 360 has more because it was out a fair way before the PS3. I dunno. Anyway, Nintendo have a quite nifty way of having a game exclusive nowadays without having to pay a penny.

    Hazz on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Moneyhatting took a bit of a breather in the early part of this generation. It's going to pick up again soon as MS and Sony fight for the "Hearts and minds of the true next-gen audience" otherwise known as second place.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    And how well is leaving nintendo working out for SK and factor 5 (and maybe rare?)? I mean, how long has too human been in development?

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Spoit wrote: »
    And how well is leaving nintendo working out for SK and factor 5?

    Well, Nintendo never had a piece of either of them. They do own the IP behind Eternal Darkness though.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    There does seem to be an oddly high amount of devs leaving/severing connections with Nintendo and... not doing a whole lot afterwards. I mean, SK did a whole, original game on the GC!
    Spoit wrote: »
    And how well is leaving nintendo working out for SK and factor 5?

    Well, Nintendo never had a piece of either of them. They do own the IP behind Eternal Darkness though.

    Really? I thought Dyack said he wanted to do a Eternal Darkness trilogy? I suppose when your universe is basically an HPL rip-off/homage, you can just call it whatever you want.

    Hazz on
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    Good god, what publisher in their right mind would let a game languish in development for 5 years?


    (Note: Valve and 3dRealms are developers, not publishers)




    Edit: My bad Red, I was on the fence and couldn't remember.
    No offense, but you would be idiotic developing a game like that unless your plan was to only release on the ps3 from the beginning.

    Most developers start by buying or developing tools that allow them to run their engine across multiple platforms, then build the game resources, then spin off a couple of teams in tandem to assemble and test the final product on the platforms you are building for. Cross platform development does not add 1-2 years to the dev cycle... it is usually done inside the development process of the game.

    Your path only makes sense if they had an exclusivity contract from day one... and you would be kicked to the curb by year three for taking five fucking years to build a game.

    You guys should really do your homework.

    http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/finalfantasy12/news.html?page=1&sid=6146045

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FF_XII

    Note how development for FFXII was announced in 2000. It wasn't released until 2006. Six years.

    5 years, for a AAA titled game, is completely common. How long did it take for WoW to be developed? 5 years.

    Generally, when people make a game, they sign a contract with their publisher stating the timeframe that it will take to build the game. If the publisher thinks 5 years is ludicrous, as some of you do, then they'll refuse. But the realistic publishers that understand just how long it takes to build a game are generally going to give you the time that you ask for.

    I can't find an article that states when FFXIII development began, but I'm willing to bet in the end, the development time for XIII will be just as long, if not longer than XII due to having to work with the new PS3 hardware.

    What some of you haven't considered in this argument is: What if Square had developed the game with the intent to be exclusive to PS3 from the beginning, but realized partway through the development that the install base of that console will not be enough to even break even on the cost of creating the game? I would think that this has been a huge concern on Square's mind since Sony has landed in last place in this current generation.

    They say to Sony: "Final Fantasy XIII is going to create a negative revenue due to the small install base unless we go cross platform." Sony answers with a big wad of cash and Square's impending financial burden is eased.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Moneyhatting took a bit of a breather in the early part of this generation. It's going to pick up again soon as MS and Sony fight for the "Hearts and minds of the true next-gen audience" otherwise known as second place.

    Well not really. At all. I know of only a few instances where moneyhatting has been so prevalent, to be honest we do not know the inner workings and machinations of whats going on.

    People say Irrational was moneyhatted to keep Bioshock on 360 only. We dont know this. In fact, apart from a suspicious mention in one magazine like 3 years ago they have never officially announced Bioshock for the PS3. The small team at Irrational and the high development costs and protracted development time meant putting effort into making a PS3 version, with the PS3 install base as it is, is probably more costly than the benefits of sales would be. Developing simultaneously for PC and 360 cuts costs a LOT, especially with UE3 which is badly optimised for PS3 architecture.

    On the flip side, the highest profile PS3 only games arent being moneyhatted. Kojima productions has said since day one that MGS4 simply isnt possible on the 360. It utilises a lot of sound work and voice overs to fill the Blu Ray disc, and this is important to the experience, you cant just chop it up on multiple DVDs to port on 360, and I trust they know what they are doing. When they say it isnt possible on 360, I believe them.

    So no, moneyhatting isnt going to be how the 'war is won' as it were. People naively assume every exclusive is automatically a moneyhat, it isnt. Nintendo isnt some holier than thou company above this kind of thing either. If anything, Nintendo has less opportunity to moneyhat because they have no third party relationships at all. They dont need to pay themselves to keep their own games exclusive.

    The_Scarab on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2007
    In an industry with thousands of games, if you have to dig out the rare examples like FFXII, which went WAAAAAY over deadline and suffered terrible attrition during the course of development... or Half Life 2, which took as long as it did because Valve is insane... then you have to realize your point is moot.

    The vast majority of games take anywhere from 1-3 years to happen... three years being reserved for juggernauts like Halo 3, MGS4, etc. etc.

    When a game goes to five years, that means something went wrong, because you have literally missed an entire generation of hardware during development.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Moneyhatting took a bit of a breather in the early part of this generation. It's going to pick up again soon as MS and Sony fight for the "Hearts and minds of the true next-gen audience" otherwise known as second place.

    Well not really. At all. I know of only a few instances where moneyhatting has been so prevalent, to be honest we do not know the inner workings and machinations of whats going on.

    People say Irrational was moneyhatted to keep Bioshock on 360 only. We dont know this. In fact, apart from a suspicious mention in one magazine like 3 years ago they have never officially announced Bioshock for the PS3. The small team at Irrational and the high development costs and protracted development time meant putting effort into making a PS3 version, with the PS3 install base as it is, is probably more costly than the benefits of sales would be. Developing simultaneously for PC and 360 cuts costs a LOT, especially with UE3 which is badly optimised for PS3 architecture.

    On the flip side, the highest profile PS3 only games arent being moneyhatted. Kojima productions has said since day one that MGS4 simply isnt possible on the 360. It utilises a lot of sound work and voice overs to fill the Blu Ray disc, and this is important to the experience, you cant just chop it up on multiple DVDs to port on 360, and I trust they know what they are doing. When they say it isnt possible on 360, I believe them.

    So no, moneyhatting isnt going to be how the 'war is won' as it were. People naively assume every exclusive is automatically a moneyhat, it isnt. Nintendo isnt some holier than thou company above this kind of thing either. If anything, Nintendo has less opportunity to moneyhat because they have no third party relationships at all. They dont need to pay themselves to keep their own games exclusive.

    I don't think it will change the situation much at all, really. But as the PS3 picks up pace, I do expect it to happen more often.

    Never, ever, ever, discount the ability of developers to port games nor publishers want of more money. I do indeed doubt that a port of MGS4 would be "impossible" on two systems that have shown themselves to be nearly equal. It's called compression, multiple disks, what have you. Look at Capcom for inspiration. RE 4 on mobile phones! RE 2 on the N64! Megaman Xtreme on the GBC!

    Nintendo could moneyhat if they wanted to. They don't. The control scheme and the lack of comparative power and its position as market leader is more than enough to gain them exclusives. Also, they have done quite a bit in the past five years or so to rebuild their relationships with third parties.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Are we using "moneyhat" as a verb now?

    That's awesome. I mean that.

    Anyway, sometimes developers/publishers simply don't want to port a game for whatever reason, be it a lack of time, a lack of money/resources or a flat-out lack of interest (don't think it'll sell on one system, random stubbornness a la Kojima).

    But it's true that we really, really don't know what's going on behind the scenes and who's getting a bucketful of cash for exclusives. What is interesting is that comments from people from Ubisoft and Rockstar indicate that they wanted GTA4 and Assassin's Creed to be PS3 exclusive, but Ken Kutaragi didn't want to pay the money because he thought the PS3 would be a slam-dunk success without them.

    Woops.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    tarnok wrote: »
    You know what gets my goat? People who say "That's the way things are done, quit whining about it." I don't even care about the exclusivity thing, this argument is completely full of shit. It neatly dodges the question of whether or not the activity is right or wrong or indeterminant.

    Why should we be outraged at a politician lying; they all do it. Why should you punish Jimmy for talking during class; all kids do it. Why should I get a speeding ticket; nobody obeys the posted limit.

    This argument is crap. Because it is done does not make it right or even acceptable.

    I think this is my favorite post. Can you please provide some sort of explanation about how a development studio making any choice in regards to their development platform has moral implications (right vs wrong), or that how anything but the quality of a game can be judged on a scale of acceptability?

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Moneyhatting took a bit of a breather in the early part of this generation. It's going to pick up again soon as MS and Sony fight for the "Hearts and minds of the true next-gen audience" otherwise known as second place.

    Well not really. At all. I know of only a few instances where moneyhatting has been so prevalent, to be honest we do not know the inner workings and machinations of whats going on.

    People say Irrational was moneyhatted to keep Bioshock on 360 only. We dont know this. In fact, apart from a suspicious mention in one magazine like 3 years ago they have never officially announced Bioshock for the PS3. The small team at Irrational and the high development costs and protracted development time meant putting effort into making a PS3 version, with the PS3 install base as it is, is probably more costly than the benefits of sales would be. Developing simultaneously for PC and 360 cuts costs a LOT, especially with UE3 which is badly optimised for PS3 architecture.

    On the flip side, the highest profile PS3 only games arent being moneyhatted. Kojima productions has said since day one that MGS4 simply isnt possible on the 360. It utilises a lot of sound work and voice overs to fill the Blu Ray disc, and this is important to the experience, you cant just chop it up on multiple DVDs to port on 360, and I trust they know what they are doing. When they say it isnt possible on 360, I believe them.

    So no, moneyhatting isnt going to be how the 'war is won' as it were. People naively assume every exclusive is automatically a moneyhat, it isnt. Nintendo isnt some holier than thou company above this kind of thing either. If anything, Nintendo has less opportunity to moneyhat because they have no third party relationships at all. They dont need to pay themselves to keep their own games exclusive.

    I don't think it will change the situation much at all, really. But as the PS3 picks up pace, I do expect it to happen more often.

    Never, ever, ever, discount the ability of developers to port games nor publishers want of more money. I do indeed doubt that a port of MGS4 would be "impossible" on two systems that have shown themselves to be nearly equal. It's called compression, multiple disks, what have you. Look at Capcom for inspiration. RE 4 on mobile phones! RE 2 on the N64! Megaman Xtreme on the GBC!

    Nintendo could moneyhat if they wanted to. They don't. The control scheme and the lack of comparative power and its position as market leader is more than enough to gain them exclusives. Also, they have done quite a bit in the past five years or so to rebuild their relationships with third parties.

    Nintendo do moneyhat. To say they dont is ignorant. Like I said, they arent some holier than thou company above that kind of practice and I have no idea why people would hold them in such regard.

    The architecture of the PS3 is very different than the 360. The costs of 'porting' a game are not inconsequential. It is certainly lower than developing the game in the first place, as all the assets, design and sound are done. But to say it can easily just 'be done' is wrong. Developers need to spend resources on porting a game, and especially when it hasnt been done in tandem with development of the game.

    MGS4 on the 360 of course is possible. I dont think a single PS3 game cant be done on the 360. But if a port is commissioned, and there isnt exclusivity deals on the game, then it wont be around for a year or two. Not because of licensing, but the literal time it would take to make it work on the console. It isnt 3 men in a basement just 'porting it'. It can and often does require a large proportion of the engineering team to make it work, not to mention an erqual amount of time for testing and compatibility, as well as marketing and product development.

    The_Scarab on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    tarnok wrote: »
    You know what gets my goat? People who say "That's the way things are done, quit whining about it." I don't even care about the exclusivity thing, this argument is completely full of shit. It neatly dodges the question of whether or not the activity is right or wrong or indeterminant.

    Why should we be outraged at a politician lying; they all do it. Why should you punish Jimmy for talking during class; all kids do it. Why should I get a speeding ticket; nobody obeys the posted limit.

    This argument is crap. Because it is done does not make it right or even acceptable.

    I think this is my favorite post. Can you please provide some sort of explanation about how a development studio making any choice in regards to their development platform has moral implications (right vs wrong), or that how anything but the quality of a game can be judged on a scale of acceptability?

    He said he didn't care about that issue, but pointed out that the reason many people gave thus far was crap.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    The architecture of the PS3 is very different than the 360. The costs of 'porting' a game are not inconsequential. It is certainly lower than developing the game in the first place, as all the assets, design and sound are done. But to say it can easily just 'be done' is wrong. Developers need to spend resources on porting a game, and especially when it hasnt been done in tandem with development of the game.

    Two points:

    This is why all competitive commercialized engines are cross platform.

    And, as long as you have non-idiot programmers, it can easily be done in the sense that for a relatively known quantity of dollars and time you can redo your game on another platform. Different architectures, yes. Rocket surgery? No.

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    tarnok wrote: »
    You know what gets my goat? People who say "That's the way things are done, quit whining about it." I don't even care about the exclusivity thing, this argument is completely full of shit. It neatly dodges the question of whether or not the activity is right or wrong or indeterminant.

    Why should we be outraged at a politician lying; they all do it. Why should you punish Jimmy for talking during class; all kids do it. Why should I get a speeding ticket; nobody obeys the posted limit.

    This argument is crap. Because it is done does not make it right or even acceptable.

    I think this is my favorite post. Can you please provide some sort of explanation about how a development studio making any choice in regards to their development platform has moral implications (right vs wrong), or that how anything but the quality of a game can be judged on a scale of acceptability?

    He said he didn't care about that issue, but pointed out that the reason many people gave thus far was crap.

    Because it didn't address ludicrously inappropriate points?

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Moneyhatting took a bit of a breather in the early part of this generation. It's going to pick up again soon as MS and Sony fight for the "Hearts and minds of the true next-gen audience" otherwise known as second place.

    Well not really. At all. I know of only a few instances where moneyhatting has been so prevalent, to be honest we do not know the inner workings and machinations of whats going on.

    People say Irrational was moneyhatted to keep Bioshock on 360 only. We dont know this. In fact, apart from a suspicious mention in one magazine like 3 years ago they have never officially announced Bioshock for the PS3. The small team at Irrational and the high development costs and protracted development time meant putting effort into making a PS3 version, with the PS3 install base as it is, is probably more costly than the benefits of sales would be. Developing simultaneously for PC and 360 cuts costs a LOT, especially with UE3 which is badly optimised for PS3 architecture.

    On the flip side, the highest profile PS3 only games arent being moneyhatted. Kojima productions has said since day one that MGS4 simply isnt possible on the 360. It utilises a lot of sound work and voice overs to fill the Blu Ray disc, and this is important to the experience, you cant just chop it up on multiple DVDs to port on 360, and I trust they know what they are doing. When they say it isnt possible on 360, I believe them.

    So no, moneyhatting isnt going to be how the 'war is won' as it were. People naively assume every exclusive is automatically a moneyhat, it isnt. Nintendo isnt some holier than thou company above this kind of thing either. If anything, Nintendo has less opportunity to moneyhat because they have no third party relationships at all. They dont need to pay themselves to keep their own games exclusive.

    I don't think it will change the situation much at all, really. But as the PS3 picks up pace, I do expect it to happen more often.

    Never, ever, ever, discount the ability of developers to port games nor publishers want of more money. I do indeed doubt that a port of MGS4 would be "impossible" on two systems that have shown themselves to be nearly equal. It's called compression, multiple disks, what have you. Look at Capcom for inspiration. RE 4 on mobile phones! RE 2 on the N64! Megaman Xtreme on the GBC!

    Nintendo could moneyhat if they wanted to. They don't. The control scheme and the lack of comparative power and its position as market leader is more than enough to gain them exclusives. Also, they have done quite a bit in the past five years or so to rebuild their relationships with third parties.

    Nintendo do moneyhat. To say they dont is ignorant. Like I said, they arent some holier than thou company above that kind of practice and I have no idea why people would hold them in such regard.

    The architecture of the PS3 is very different than the 360. The costs of 'porting' a game are not inconsequential. It is certainly lower than developing the game in the first place, as all the assets, design and sound are done. But to say it can easily just 'be done' is wrong. Developers need to spend resources on porting a game, and especially when it hasnt been done in tandem with development of the game.

    MGS4 on the 360 of course is possible. I dont think a single PS3 game cant be done on the 360. But if a port is commissioned, and there isnt exclusivity deals on the game, then it wont be around for a year or two. Not because of licensing, but the literal time it would take to make it work on the console. It isnt 3 men in a basement just 'porting it'. It can and often does require a large proportion of the engineering team to make it work, not to mention an erqual amount of time for testing and compatibility, as well as marketing and product development.

    Here you go arguing with me again.

    I didn't mean to say that Nintendo never throws money at a developer to get a game done. That wouldn't be true. There is nothing wrong with paying companies off to get an exclusive game. You don't often see them do it though. I mean, look at last gen. Three supposed exclusives came out months or even days later on the PS2. Usually they just end up paying in other ways like picking up publishing duties on the various Square Enix titles or Baiten Kaitos.

    I didn't say porting was easy or cheap, but people must realize that a game like MGS4 would do very well on the 360, which is doing better in the west than the PS3. It may take a year, it might take two. They might even be working on it right now. It may never happen. We don't know.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Just saying. I agree with him but I don't give a crap about exclusivity. Just saying "that's the way it is" is a horrible way to argue for something.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    KungFu wrote: »
    Just saying. I agree with him but I don't give a crap about exclusivity. Just saying "that's the way it is" is a horrible way to argue for something.

    He's arguing about the morals of it, though, as if the discussion was about abortion, or something. What's it got to do with 'right or wrong'? zomg, a business spending money on something in order to make money? OUTRAGE.

    Hazz on
  • KungFuKungFu Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Ah, I missed that part. Apologies.

    KungFu on
    Theft 4 Bread
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    The architecture of the PS3 is very different than the 360. The costs of 'porting' a game are not inconsequential. It is certainly lower than developing the game in the first place, as all the assets, design and sound are done. But to say it can easily just 'be done' is wrong. Developers need to spend resources on porting a game, and especially when it hasnt been done in tandem with development of the game.

    Two points:

    This is why all competitive commercialized engines are cross platform.

    And, as long as you have non-idiot programmers, it can easily be done in the sense that for a relatively known quantity of dollars and time you can redo your game on another platform. Different architectures, yes. Rocket surgery? No.

    Of course. But it isnt flipping a switch either. Porting a game DOES take time and effort, resources and money. Most developers wouldnt think twice about doing it unless they had an exclusivity deal, but some would not. There are other reasons why porting is not simple nor easy to do, changing hardware, newer technologies, changing development teams, exclusivity deals, cost assessment and a lot of other five dollar words.

    So when people say 'if it isnt multiplatform it must be moneyhatting' I have to correct them. Because this is simply not the case i the majority of scenarios.

    While developers are of course just out to make money dont forget the publisher can also have a great deal of input into the development of the game.

    Gears of War, clearly it does have an exclusivity deal as it is a 1st party game, but Microsoft Game Studios put a lot of resources and time into the testing and IT work behind the game. If a game CAN be done multiplatform it can also stay single due to the publisher, even if it is 3rd party. I know that Activision have a history of keeping their games relatively multipurpose, but smaller publishers like Sierra, THQ or even some divisions of Capcom can and will keep a game single platform not just because of exclusivity deals but because of the relationship with the console manufacturer and the benefits this brings. Insomniac are kind of in the middle ground, while certainly third party (none of this 2nd party bullshit please) their IPs do have a connection to Sony and even without signed licenses, I would still expect them to remain primarily a Sony development house, just because of the time they have put into optimising and refining their game engines and assets to work on Sony architecture.

    Its much much more complicated than 'ololz moneyhatz' and it pisses me off when people degrade an extremely complicated industry down to fanboyish terminology.

    Also, this peculiar behaviour of the community to regard nintendo as some sort of 'good guys' who are incapable of practising business in the same way as the supposed 'bad guys' of Sony and micosoft. they arent and they do business in much the same way. To think of Nintendo as a company who amazingly has a different business structure which is incapable of moneyhatting is just plain wrong. they have done in the past, and will do in the future. because of their relationship with third parties it is true they 'moneyhat' or deal in a similar manner much less frequently. but they are hardly above that kind of thing, which in my opinion isnt unusual nor some sort of 'evil deed' it is being portrayed as.

    So many misconceptions about the video game industry are somehow taken as fact because they are repeated often enough by misinformed forumers or fanboys and this has to stop.

    The_Scarab on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Hey, finally The Scarab and I have a point of agreement. It's much more complicated than simple moneyhatting, and no one is above it. Also, exclusivitity can be a good business decision, and is in no way immoral.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • DigDug2000DigDug2000 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    The architecture of the PS3 is very different than the 360. The costs of 'porting' a game are not inconsequential. It is certainly lower than developing the game in the first place, as all the assets, design and sound are done. But to say it can easily just 'be done' is wrong. Developers need to spend resources on porting a game, and especially when it hasnt been done in tandem with development of the game.

    Two points:

    This is why all competitive commercialized engines are cross platform.

    And, as long as you have non-idiot programmers, it can easily be done in the sense that for a relatively known quantity of dollars and time you can redo your game on another platform. Different architectures, yes. Rocket surgery? No.
    <snip snip>
    I think there's probably a fine line somewhere in there between companies who pay for development of a game, and hence have a right to keep it on their platform, and companies who just go to a company and say, "We'll give you moneyhats if you make this game platform exclusive." Unfortunately for me, any attempt to disambiguate the two is clouded by all my biases.

    I get pissed off when I hear a game from some multiplatform developer that I want won't be on the platform I chose. I usually suspect in those cases that it had more to do with money changing hands than with the cost of the port. I occasionally bitch about it, but as has been said in here, that's how the industry works. Its the world Nintendo built back in the 80's and Sony capitalized on in the 90's, and that MS used to break into the industry in the 00's.

    DigDug2000 on
  • ViscountalphaViscountalpha The pen is mightier than the sword http://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Smilingoat wrote: »
    what do you think about it?

    there has been a lot of fuss about M$ paying some crazy amount of money to keep bioshock exclusive. are they the only guilty party? is it any worse than just buying up publishers? the subject got me wondering what you guys think.


    Whats the big deal? There is nothing wrong with this. Essentially the business sees this as way to keep a title to a console. Instead of title sales they get a large sum of money. Thats money they don't have to spend developing a title and being poorly ported over. I want to see more exclusives honestly.

    I am sick of these horrible ports.
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    I get pissed off when I hear a game from some multiplatform developer that I want won't be on the platform I chose. I usually suspect in those cases that it had more to do with money changing hands than with the cost of the port. I occasionally bitch about it, but as has been said in here, that's how the industry works. Its the world Nintendo built back in the 80's and Sony capitalized on in the 90's, and that MS used to break into the industry in the 00's.

    I really think multi-platform design is just hurting the gaming industry. Everyone is thinking about cranking out polished turds instead of doing a good job.

    Viscountalpha on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Hey, finally The Scarab and I have a point of agreement. It's much more complicated than simple moneyhatting, and no one is above it. Also, exclusivitity can be a good business decision, and is in no way immoral.

    Exactly. Im not saying moneyhatting doesnt happen, cause it does, from all sides. but its much less common than most internet dwellers think and it isnt some bad deed that companies should be quiet about. its good business stretegem to buy games exclusivity if you cant by other means. developers also dont feel guilty accepting this cash, it funds their games, and 1st parties who moneyhat dont just do so with pure money, they also held fund marketing and advertisement for the game, as well as provide after launch support such as dedicated servers or patch support.

    The_Scarab on
  • apotheosapotheos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2007
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    I think there's probably a fine line somewhere in there between companies who pay for development of a game, and hence have a right to keep it on their platform, and companies who just go to a company and say, "We'll give you moneyhats if you make this game platform exclusive." Unfortunately for me, any attempt to disambiguate the two is clouded by all my biases.

    The nature of financing game production - that being not going out of business - does not change if you finance it before you make it or if you finance it after.

    apotheos on


    猿も木から落ちる
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    I think there's probably a fine line somewhere in there between companies who pay for development of a game, and hence have a right to keep it on their platform, and companies who just go to a company and say, "We'll give you moneyhats if you make this game platform exclusive." Unfortunately for me, any attempt to disambiguate the two is clouded by all my biases.

    The nature of financing game production - that being not going out of business - does not change if you finance it before you make it or if you finance it after.

    Not to mention that it's not necessarily the developers going after the moneyhats, it's the console makers directly offering them.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • HazzHazz Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I really dislike the term moneyhats. Whatever happened to bags of money with dollar signs on them? Companies still use those, right?

    Hazz on
Sign In or Register to comment.