Developer Says Exclusivity Deals Can Help Indie Games

Alfador_VII

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,326
0
0
Nurb said:
A game with exclusivity for a certain amount of time is fine, because it can build up buzz, but NOT permanent exclusivity for most games. Having some exclusive system-sellers I can understand.

Imagine how much more money the developers would have if Journey was released on all platforms not long after Sony released it... I'm still avoiding watching the "let's play" videos of it in the hopes I can buy it for PC sometime and experience it fresh.

On the other hand if Sony hadn't picked up flOw and signed a 3 game contract with thatgamecompany, then they would hever have had the money to make Flower and Journey.

So yes, the devs could have made more money releasing on all platforms, however without the Sony money, it would never have been produced.
 

RanceJustice

New member
Feb 25, 2011
91
0
0
Exclusivity is almost always a poisoned apple offered to developers, especially indie developers, to take advantage of their current cash-strapped nature in return for getting them to do something that will likely blight their earning potential greatly in the future.

In this day and age, when the barrier to game creation and publishing is lower than ever (Kickstarter, Ouya, Android, Steam Greenlight, Desura, "Alpha Funding" strategies, investors more willing to back indie projects etc..) there are many ways for developers to raise money than "selling their soul" and being forced to say... not patch the PC version of your game because the Xbox version hasn't been patched yet, release certain content on Xbox first, use DirectX/XNA instead of open technologies that are easier to port etc..

Whenever I hear "exclusive" in terms of any sort of content, platform, or sales deal, it usually means that I, as a player am going to get a worse experience. Its going to mean that the game is going to be more expensive (Remember that the increase in gaming prices to $60 from $50 came from X360/PS3 licensing fees, and then greedy Bobby Kotick and friends saying "Hey, they're used to paying $60 for console titles, so charge $60 for all new games! They won't know any better!"), I'm not going to get all the in-game content unless I pre-order from Gamestop, I'm not going to be able to play the game on my preferred platform of PC, etc... which is going to make me less likely to purchase a given title.

There are many success stories that illustrate how when the blinders of the "exclusivity" are removed, developers prosper, especially indie studios. I can think of those like the devs behind "Cthulhu Saves The World and Breath of Dead VII" reporting that in all the time (months to year etc..) they were on Xbox Live exclusively, they made less money than in one weekend (or was it week?) when they launched on Steam! Other devs have similar experiences and many of those that have managed to create a thriving game on open platforms (ie selling on PC via Steam, Desura, direct from the developer etc..) find that the frustration and cost of attempting a console release is a huge drain...and honestly, good riddance. I didn't even know that Papo Y Yo existed until I saw news of its coming PC release, but now I've purchased the title to support what seems to be thoughtful and engaging storytelling. I can guess that its Steam release will definitely be financially beneficial on a massive scale in comparison. I can guarantee there are many games that are handicapped by their platform exclusivity just like this - for instance, Valkyria Chronicles is renowned amongst JRPG fans, yet the first one being exclusive to PS3 and the latter 2 being PSP only (which was really a crime) led to much lower sales figures - I can guarantee that much like many of the games from XSEED etc... if the Valkyria series was quality-ported to PC, it would thrive.

To be perfectly frank, I think it is time to end the entire industry's reliance on exclusive deals and consoles as a whole. I think there are many developers and players like myself who are tired of feeling held hostage and squeezed for every bloody penny by console manufacturers and publishers. Today's consoles are little more than locked down, proprietary PCs that are designed to remove control and choice from the player, getting them to give all that up to play the games they wish. Do you want to play Metal Gear Solid 4 or Valkyria Chronicles? Well then, you HAVE to shell out money for a PS3 and accept the way that PSN works etc. Want to play Halo? You have to subscribe to Xbox Live and continue to watch their ad-laden dashboard and adhere to their rules lest you be banned - you can't simply decide you want to rent your own Halo 4 server that you access without Xbox Live. It goes on and on.

Its time for the idea of the "console" as a piece of hardware you buy, but others control, to come to an end. Its time for developers to make games to be accessible and available with the best experiences for the user at lower prices and fewer middlemen clawing to take from both developer and player. "Consoles" should continue to evolve into true small form factor PCs, that put the user in control. I'd love to see a day when I can be assured that any game I want to play will be available for the PC, and built on open technologies (like OpenGL, OpenCL etc..) that make it easier to run on or port to any operating system (see: Linux!). I'll support those that move in this direction financially (ie Humble Bundle, Desura, and Steam are all selling Linux native titles now), but I'd love to see the day when Metal Gear Solid, Valkyria Chronicles, Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Castlevania, etc.. are not being "held hostage" and requiring me to "rent" proprietary locked down hardware and obey what the manufacturers of that hardware and online service decree, in order to enjoy the games I want to play. There's a better way for both developers/publishers and gamers, and that is to put an end to these exclusivity demands created by money-sucking middlemen simply to keep themselves relevant to an industry that has the capability to thrive without their heavy-handed tactics any longer.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Exclusivity can be a great thing for a game... if it's done for the right reasons. Games developed for a specific platform can really take advantage of said platform's capabilities without having to compromise for portability's sake. It can have its UI custom tailored to the platform as well. There are some pretty awesome games for the various platforms that did just this.

On the other hand, if you aren't doing that, then exclusivity pretty much hamstrings your sales to no one's benefit(except of course that of the company that conned you into an exclusivity deal).
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
The 'help' lies in the 'deal' part. It's not like people go into exclusivity for a single platform just because the makers ask them. It's a business transaction, and I'd wager what they get in exchange is advertisement they couldn't possibly afford otherwise.