The big news to hit the Internet recently, is that Capcom's newly announced Street Fighter V will be exclusive to the PS4 and Windows PC.
The mere mention of yet another high profile 3rd party IP getting the console exclusivity treatment has caused outrage amongst gamers. More specifically the Xbox crowd, who are outraged that a game from such a popular, previously multiplat franchise will become a console exclusive. Those on the Sony front have been quick to point out the hypocrisy in such a statement, raising the counter argument that Xbox fans were fine with console exclusivity, when Square Enix previously announced they'll be releasing Rise of the Tomb Raider the next title in the highly acclaimed and previously multiplat franchise, Tomb Raider exclusively on Xbox 360 and Xbox One.
Though we eventually learned that Rise of the Tomb Raider is in actual fact only a timed Xbox exclusive, and we have no real reason to assume that this is not also the case for Street Fighter V. The parallels between these two exclusivity deals have been drawn and discussion has led to outright arguments as it so often does.
All valid arguments posed on the subject essentially boil down to this "If it's not OK for Sony to purchase exclusivity rights for a popular multiplat title, then it's not OK for Microsoft" Which in all fairness is true, but what is fair in life is of little consequence in business.
It really should come as no surprise to anyone, to learn that the vast majority of console exclusivity deals are made with each participating companies best interest in mind. When either Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo for that matter, decide to purchase exclusivity rights for a popular 3rd party multiplat title, it is more often than not because they wish to use the wide spread popularity of that IP to entice gamers who do not own their console into purchasing it. Because once you own their console you'll probably want to justify that purchase by buying more exclusive games.
But what is in it for the developer you ask? How could it be in their benefit to have their popular multiplat franchise become a console exclusive? In the end, are they not effectively cutting off half of their potential consumer base?
Well, apart from the large sum of money they receive for going through with an exclusivity deal, the developer also receives aid in promoting and advertising their product. Because when a popular multiplat title becomes a console exclusive, you can bet the company who now owns the rights to sell that game on their console will want to let everyone know about it.
This makes perfect sense from a business stand point, but can be seen as quite the dick move by those gamers who now have to wait for the timed exclusivity deal to end. They could do exactly what the company who paid for console exclusivity is hoping for and take the plunge. However, purchasing a new console in order to play the game is not a viable option for everyone.
People suggesting that Microsoft provoked Sony into making Street Fighter V a console exclusive, is that really not just a convenient way to point the finger and play the blame game? These decisions are not made so arbitrarily.
Yes, Sony in this instance may well be doing what Microsoft have been doing for years. But it would be foolish to claim that Microsoft are forcing their hand, and it would be outright delusional to suggest that Sony themselves have not previously purchased the rights to have popular 3rd party titles exclusively on their consoles.
For every Titanfall there is a Bloodborne, and for every Rise of the Tomb Raider there is Street Fighter V.
When all is said and done, 3rd party exclusives exist because they make money. I'm not trying to justify them, just pointing out the reason why they are still a thing and that this is the only reason and justification Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo will ever need. On the other hand though, people are starting to wise up to the fact that many 3rd party exclusives are really just timed exclusives. Making the obvious choose to wait it out, until the game you want is inevitably released on your console of choice a year later with all their patches and DLC on the disc may even save you money in the long run.
For the record, I don't personally feel that multiplat titles like Street Fighter or Tomb Raider, should be made exclusive to just one console. My reasoning is simple, making a game that is part of a long running multiplat franchise, exclusive to just one console inevitably deprives people who have played a large part in making that franchise so popular in the first place.
That's my view, but whatever your opinion may be on the matter, the petty blame games and hypocrisy needs to stop. If a big company chooses to purchase the exclusive rights to a popular 3rd party multiplat title, it will have nothing to do with small minded One-upmanship. It will simply be because they believe profit can be made.
Thanks for checking out my blog. It's been quite a while since I last wrote one and I'm probably a bit rusty. Never the less, I thought the subject would make for an interesting read.
As always, do let me know what your personal views are in the comments section.
The Terran Armada DLC has dropped for Starfield! Use our Terran Armada Trophy Guide & Roadmap to earn all 10 Trophies!
Erika Ishii: "I walked in on him petting Nate Fox"
The upcoming Assassin's Creed Blaf Flag remake, titled Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced, will release on July 9, 2026.
Its also a lot cheaper to develop for one system at a time. And less risky financially. Nice blog
Double post so I may as well make good use of it.
The Game Awards is on in a couple hours, be sure to check it out if you can handle all the pop music and celebs crammed between game reveals/awards.
street fighter is a very old franchise and has been on many platforms but what i find alarming isnt this being exclusive but just how divided the xbox and playstation fans are. thats really what this boils down to because i haven't read much of anything in relation to the wii u not getting it. after all street fighter on the snes was a huge game with lots of marketing and even a fighting stick made for it. so its not like sony has earned this exclusive deal or has made a great partnership between capcom and sony.
third party exclusives are a partnership. it could be because they have a marketing deal. it could be like bayonetta where the hardware maker funds the project or helps. it could be a case where the hardware maker is funding all the advertising. it could be because that particular system has the largest targeted userbase to sell to and developing on one system is easier. it could just be a timed exclusive deal. whatever, its between the two partners but when we see this being console exclusive it means to me they want to keep it away from its closest competitor. microsoft did it with titanfall. they did it years ago with games like bioshock too. go back even further and sony did it with gta on the ps2.
how many nintendo third party exclusives come to their console and the pc, any?
the thing is gaming is expensive which is why each time this happens fans get upset. its business, thats all it is. its not a service to the fans or the misconception its to get the best out of the hardware. thats just pr stunt work. it is meant to exclude others to help sell hardware. it also questions the whole business practice with videogames and why exclusives are used to leverage hardware sales. do we see this with other electronics? a tv maker sells their product based on what that product offers and value proposition. game systems base most of their value on software which explains why exclusives are at the forefront in marketing their products.
***More specifically the Xbox crowd, who are outraged that a game from such a popular, previously multiplat franchise will become a console exclusive. Those on the Sony front have been quick to point out the hypocrisy in such a statement, raising the counter argument that Xbox fans were fine with console exclusivity..***
Why are people getting this bit of history all mixed up?
It was the Sony fans that were outraged that a popular franchise like Tomb Raider was announced as a Xbox One exclusive. There was huge articles and talks on this very site that claimed MS is killing the industry for these practices that have been going on since the days of Nintendo and Sega. But when MS does this it's outrage and bottle throwing and rioting in the streets.
Xbox fans are now pointing out, where is their outrage now that Sony is doing the same thing? That is where the real hypocrisy is coming in.
Why do people keep saying that MS started it? Sony did this with Tomb Raider II, they bought the exclusive rights to keep the game off of the Sega Saturn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment America signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue dollars and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive"
Why is Sony fighting back, fighting back from what? They have been doing it since the beginning. If anything MS is fighting back.
Xbox fans are upset because the same rage that was thrown in MS's direction during TR has not even been seen when SFV is rumored to be a PS4 exclusive.
With the insane rise of costs for development and the high cost of maintaining a 1st party studio you will definitely see these big guys (Sony, MS, Nintendo) going the 3rd party exclusive route. Whether it's buying an established IP or funding a new IP, it is just better business to have an outside party make the game and release it on their console.
"Making a game that is part of a long running multiplat franchise, exclusive to just one console inevitably deprives people who have played a large part in making that franchise so popular in the first place. " - I think this is the most important thing and the only time where I feel it's an ok compromise is when a game is funded which won't have existed without one of the big three stepping in. At the end of the day we as gamers are the one that benefit there because rather that never having to play the game, we gain a choice as to when we can play the game.
Things like Bayonetta 2, Titanfall(Intially before E3 buyout) are cases where games that would otherwise not existed now exist thanks to MS/Nintendo taking the risk and funding the projects.
Things like TR are not beneficial to us because the game was going to come out for X360/XB1 before the deal their were no signs development was in trouble that CD/SE needed help.
With SFV 5 there is still the slim chance Sony did a TF where they saved the project in turn for exclusivity where timed or full console. The effects on the same at the end of the day as if they did the same as MS with TR but personally it's a less "scummy" move in the sense that whilst there aim was to gain exclusivity for their platform, the repercussions of their deal is that SFV 5 sees the light of day rather than being left in limbo.