Reeves is a prat

KSPRAYDAD

Thats an interesting way of putting it...is this similar to Insomniac and Naughty Dog? Pretty much unofficial second parties.

Exclusives though, they're still really important, more important than ever, and Sonys loss of FF XIII as an exclusive is still bad for them.

Sony are doing the right thing helping Quantic Dream, heres hoping heavy rain is great just like farenheit!

excel_excel

@Insomnia Bob: True.

I kind actually like the way he's thinking here, as much as it pains me to say. I tend to be more excited by "exclusive" titles from 2nd party groups like Insomniac or (at least previously) Bungie than I am in exclusive titles from 3rd party publishers... probably because it often feels a bit like a game of loyalty for sale rather than a passionate dedication to a platform.

And I'm sure he'll catch a bit more flak for saying it... but I'm not seeing Nintendo pay for 3rd party exclusives either.

dv8godd

@Agnates: Precisely. Whenever there's some sort of business deal involved you better believe that someone (ex. CFO) is scrutinizing every part of the deal, making sure they've crunched the numbers correctly, assessed their options, and feel they're doing something that's (at least mutually) beneficial to their business and organization.

def PD

@Candlejack: Valkyria Chronicles looks really, really nice. Then again it's not a traditional JRPG in any way, but I wonder if that's a good or a bad thing. And you're right, it unfortunately does not look like a system seller.

FP_slomo788

Oh, but I wasn't expecting something like MGS4 to happen ever again, anyway.

Mr. Tambourine Man

@Insomnia Bob: How does it hurt them? It's merely an added option. If they want to sign an exclusivity deal, they can sign it for more money than they think their profit will be by going multi platform. How would that hurt them? If not for more money, at least for the general same amount they believe it will sell, except they get the cash instantly which could be a big boost for the company. There are many factors considered here to just claim it hurts developers and publishers like that. Publishers hurt developers also, but you see where they can be useful too, though their use will lessen with the advent of the digital distribution. Anyway, it's similar for deals like that, they have their use depending on the situation.

Agnates

I agree with this, helping small devs with funding etc is a better way of doing things rather than shelling out tens of millions.

3Sixty

its a dumb move nowadays to take an exclusive deal, the userbase has spread over 3 platforms, where in the previous gen it was all ps2. going exclusive now == less sales then multi platform

LlamaNL

I say let exclusivity die. It might be good for console makers, but it's not good for publishers, developers, OR consumers.

Insomnia Bob

Kojima Productions is a development studio, am I right?

hezz05

well unless they have a special relationship with the designer, like maybe they do with Kojima? Rockstar designers usually have strong feelings about platforms. Like how Valve's Gabe Newell loves the 360.

What he says does make sense though, and Sony has been doing a good job fostering devs like Quantic dream, and PSN devs like Q games etc.

asTer0id

Dayum that's one huge face on my screen! Get it off, get it off *ahhh*

Eon.

Why? Sony could well be funding MGS5 at least partially. Maybe Konami wouldn't ever let them publish it but they would definitely take their money to help create it and thus make it exclusive. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what happened with MGS4 too.

On the other hand, I think Sony focuses too much on shooters or action games instead of RPGs. They need to get some more games like White Knight Chronicles down the pipe. The Xbox is getting IU, Last Remnant and Tales while PS3 has...nothing I would consider a system seller this year.

Candlejack

Could be but it'll take some time for that to become the norm since current partnerships are not easily dissolved.

Sparx

I don't mind games not being exclusives, but sometimes quality depends on IT being exclusive. Few multiplatforms are good all around and they don't take the time to utilize one system's capabilities. A developer working on one system will give it more time and care than a multiplatformers. Especially if they don't have the resources. This is where Sony or MS can step in and say, we'll help fund it if you give us some exclusive rights. But this might work for new developers only, once they make it big, they're going multiplatform because it makes sense. They'll make more money. The key then is to have great internal developers making original titles so that they'll sell more consoles. The more consoles out there, the less dependent they'll rely on exclusives. Look at Nintendo, they have some great games and sell a ton of consoles. Developers go to them to sell games instead of nintendo trying to get them to make nintendo games. Of course this resulted in junkwares for nintendo and the majority of it sucks. Sony is on the right path, having some original titles but not to the point where everyone and their mother making games for the ps3 is probably a good thing. Being a little harder and more expensive to produce games might be a good thing for consumers. If anyone can make games then we might not have quality games. This way only those who can afford to make games will make it for a system such as the ps3.

karateka

Wait, I thought they didn't want exclusives? Or is it they want exclusives on the PS3, but not on any other platform?
[kotaku.com]

Bursar

@excel_excel: I was thinking about that just now. Then remembered some were complaining they over did it.

Shinryoma

im really beginning to dislike this guy. with an effigy!

kitsuneconundrum

Also Kotaku where are the evil red eyes!!

excel_excel

@excaliburps: they've used to own squaresoft back in the days.

animexplorer

It's pretty sad that exclusivity is so close to being dead. I keep seeing gamers who want it to die, but I don't understand why. We may have multiple consoles in the coming generations, but without exclusives it it will be like a one-console future. There was actually a point to owning both a Sega and SNES, both had a huge selection of different games. I own a PS3 and 360 and it usually comes down to me getting real nit picky on deciding what platform to choose for a specific game. Next generation I may just have to suck it up and only buy one system, because there will be even less of a reason to own them all if exclusives are basically nonexistent.

DirtySyko

i hate multiplatform games - all of them - because they are incomplete piece of shits. exclusives use the potential of hardware (most of the time) and deliver quality titles with less bugs unlike multiplatform games for losers. GTAIV, R6Vegas2, Virtua Fighter 5, almost all EA, Assassin's Creed games and many more are best examples of shitty multiplatfom games that HAD/HAVE a lot of bugs.

Exclusives are the ones that should be bought, multiplatform - rented at most or pirated.

animexplorer

David Reeves, how are you going to get exclusives when Microsoft can throw tons of money at developers to get them to release on XBox 360 only, do temporary exclusives, or break existing relationships with another platform? Oh, that's right, you'll do it by keeping the PS3 price high and using the money siphoned from such a high price to hopefully pay developers to stay on your side, assuming there's anyone left now other than Insomniac and a few others. So someone at Sony finally figured out you have to use money to get money...brilliant! Someone is learning.

I don't really like exclusives though. Yeah, it's good for hardware makers since it pushes their platform, but it's bad for consumers because it tethers them to a certain platform to play specific games. I know this is by design though.

What ever happened to making games for the PS3 first and then porting to other systems? Not enough developers jumped on that train it looks like.

BigDragon

What he said made a lot of sense. Though there's still the possibilty that whomever's the top dog next gen can still have some sort of "exclusivity" deal because of the consumer base.

If I was Sony or the other three, I'd do the same thing. Developers who have a lot of talent and are not that big a risk financially can be inked to more funding,more media push for their games,etc. In exchange is exclusivity. Not to mention if they publish said games they might even have a hold of the new IP that the developers did. Depending on their negotiations of course.

EA and the like can't be expected to be not platform agnostic. The way the cost of game development these days. Unless they have the demographic and the user base to make it worth their while (See PS2).

I'm also a bit curious to Sony's involvement with Square Enix. I forgot the figures but they do own a substantial amount of SE don't they?

So in turn there's also the big chance that FFXIII being released on the 360 be good for them fiscally...Or I might be blowing smoke out of my ass. =D

excaliburps

@Bursar: How does that story say they don't want exclusives? Or for the ps3 but not for other systems? From the get go it was a silly question designed to make it so that a man of his position couldn't answer without catching flak so in turn he sorta gave a silly answer. I think simply states that he felt confident enough in the ps3 exclusives that he really wouldn't need 360 exclusives. so i guess to sum this up your post made no real sense.

Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert

I hope I can expect something like MGS4 in the future. That game rocked and we need more like that. Please dont tell me its the end of AAA titles.

boots555

I'm not convinced exclusivity is dead.

In this particular generation the developers took different roads (Sony went with the Cell, 360 had a more traditional harddrive, Nintendo sacrificed horse power for affordablity and interactivity) but I won't be surprised if the next generation finds all the consoles being very similar once again.

Sure they will probably have a few differences, but not like this round. At which point it will be the games that make each platform stand out. That said, I still don't see Nintendo shelling out for exclusives like Sony or MS, it's just not the way they operate.

EmeraldDragon

In other words, don't expect something like Metal Gear Solid 4 to happen ever again. Ever.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. MGS5, had MGS4 sold better, would still be a PS3 exclusive because Sony has exclusivity with the developer, which in this case is Kojima Productions. Konami doesn't factor into the equation because Kojima holds so much sway in the company.

Mr.Bates

Of course this is the way to go...and it should have been the way these guys were going from the start...work with a developer, and publish the game yourself. Let them be the IP developer, and you serve as the the marketing arm...problem is that you have to front the development cost for them, which they were hesitant to do...now, there is no choice. Pay for the game from the start, and it's yours.

hiruu

Hello Fellow Gamers. I've stated years ago that exclusives were going the way of the dinosaur. Developers & publishers want to make more money. The BEST way to do that is to put the game on everything with a button. We might not like EA, but you can't deny the FACT that they're one of the LARGEST gaming companies in the world. They rake in hundreds of millions per year. Name a company that's exclusive that makes more money than EA.

Some of you say that exclusive games are better than multi-platform games. I say that they can all be great games, regardless of the platform. It up to the developers & programmers to create better games.

What I would like to see is competition on multiple platform. For example. Gears of war on PS3/X360, RFOM on the X360/PS3, HALO on PS3/X360, COD4 X36/PS3..etcc. More cross-platform competition. Now that would really be kool.

Jagosix

@Mr.Bates: Had MGS4 sold better? Didn't Konami put out some really great numbers for MGS4 sales worldwide?

Also, you're probably right about the developers themselves. I mean, after all, I'm sure Square would have loved to make VersusXIII multiplat. Nomura has complete control of that project however.

Black-Dog-Howls

No exclusivity will be the end of multi-consoles. Imagine a world with only one game systems. The mind boggles.

peace4myheart

There may be a slight flaw in Mssr. Reeves words. Yes, developers would be a good way to gain exclusivity on titles, but with Activision, EA and Ubisoft buying the smaller developers left and right then such exclusivity gets less and less of a chance from happening. It will still all come down to who is willing to pay for the exclusivity and for the moment it looks like Microsoft is more than happy to use its huge cash reserves to acquire them.

Tull

@animexplorer: I don't think they owned Square. They did buy a substantial amount of stock. When that happened, everyone thought it was a full-on lockdown of Sony and SE's relationship.

And hey those "back in the days" wasn't that long ago...Damn you just made me feel old. =D

excaliburps

next move: no exclusivity at all, theyll hypnotise every developer and publisher so theyll make games for sony only.........it could work, if not they will successfully kill a brand at last.

ibunkun

@BigDragon:
"Oh, that's right, you'll do it by keeping the PS3 price high and using the money siphoned from such a high price to hopefully pay developers to stay on your side"

Where you dropped on your head as a child?
The PS3 is still sold at a loss. How exactly do you siphon money from a loss?

VishusBurn

@peace4myheart: That world would suck, a monopoly is never good. When anyone becomes the only source of something they can truly do whatever they want. You'll see less innovation and then you get the fun choices of you can either buy it, or not. I want such a world to never come for gaming.

Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert

@Jagosix: Here's a tip - multi-platform games will NOT sell consoles as much as great exclusives. Rather, with the advent of online gaming still exclusive to specific consoles, multi-platform games will tend to edge the competition more in favor of the console with the bigger audience, and get more people in with that respective audience.

That's why the 360's managed to get the upper hand with every PS3/360 game (even if it's "good" on both consoles, e.g. GTA IV) because they already have the bigger audience.

Frank

@excel_excel: Sony owns Naughty Dog, bought them in 2001.

What I want to know is how Reeves squares this with the whole "Sony doesn't buy exclusives" line that Sony execs always seems to throw out when Microsoft buys exclusivity.

waywardchemist

@animexplorer: VF5 was first developed on the ps3...I'm glad it worked well for me...maybe you meant the 360 version :) I agree...multi sucks most of the time.

karateka

@waywardchemist:
They can't. If the developer leaves the prospect of a games exclusivity open for auction; M$ will always be the higher roller.
They don't buy exclusivity because the only money fights they could win are ones over games that M$ has no real interest in.
Choosing to fund small developers is a good solution, but not always effective, as there is know way of knowing if the final products will be worth the investment.

VishusBurn

@Jagosix: Of course multiplatform games can be great games given the same attention as a company developing for 1 platform, but the fact is they went multiplatform so that they can greate a generic game that works on multiplatform, they don't have time to customize it...that is why a lot of multiplatform sucks. It's not impossible, but they aren't doing it.

karateka

Dunno about this. While devs definitely benefit from working closely with console makers on exclusive content (see Epic and Gears of War), the same developer may see the benefit of releasing some games multiplatform to reach the largest possible auidence (see Epic and Unreal Tournament III).

Truthfully? There are no rules. Know this.

DARTH_TIGRIS

@VishusBurn: "Where you dropped on your head as a child? The PS3 is still sold at a loss. How exactly do you siphon money from a loss?"

Wow, that was way over the top and uncalled for. Obviously I know they're sold at a loss -- it's been Sony's strategy from the beginning and I just posted earlier today saying that very thing. I thought about explaining why I called it siphoning, but I think it'd be too much for you especially since the short version of the explanation is in the sentence you quoted.

BigDragon

I'm of the mind that publishers will suffer a diminished role in a market where digital distribution will be prevalent and I believe that that's where the market is heading. Reeves would be correct in that context.

However, that's not where the market is at the moment. Physical media is still the de facto standard for major titles. Sony still needs to play ball with the publishers not the developers in most cases and start getting exclusives to the PS3 and PSP again.

Altersparck

@dv8godd: That first comment was for "@Neo-Senku: The..."

BTW duder... your name is breaking the reply button javascript.

dv8godd

Who said monopoly? Single console future does not necessarily mean single manufacturer future.

Think about it more like a consortium of companies dedicated to creating and supporting standards that they can all manufacture to... like DVD, CD, VHS, etc.

@peace4myheart: I don't think that world would be all that different in the end. The arguments and battles would continue between manufacturers and their fanbase... just on different topics. As long as there are enthusiasts interested in discussing anything, they'll find something to gripe over.

Game stores might get better organized though.

dv8godd

@BigDragon: Yeah, Ok....
I read your earlier post and found nothing that explains how you use a net loss on a hardware sale to bribe a developer.
Do you hand them a bill?.. cause I think that would only work if you were also holding a gun as you did so.
"Here, pay this bill pay this bill or I'll shoot. oh and while your at it, make me some exluslusve games. HAr Har Har(evil laughter)"

Are you suggesting that they will never drop the price and that sometime in 2009 when they finally cost less to produce and ship than the current MSRP they will start using that money to start bribing devs?

Please do explain, because although it may in fact be to much for me, I'd still like to try to figure it out.

VishusBurn

every article mentioning this guy has a super zoomed-in picture of him...

I'm sure, zoomed out, he looks like a normal, nice guy. But zoomed in, he looks like he wants to reap my soul.

vr0oM

Hmmm... all the more reason to have a stronger first-party lineup. Perhaps in time, those will be the only true blue exclusives.

To Sony's credit, they have bolstered their first-party lineup considerably in the last few months, and into the coming year.

jerimas

this guy fails to mention market share. while paying out the ass for an exclusive is how it works, the amount it takes a system holder to pay varies depending on market share. a system holder has to pay much more to keep a big profile game exclusive onto a system with relatively few shares than it takes for a company to keep a game on a system with lots of hardware already sold.

maraxusofk

To disagree with what he has said here would only prove to me that you are a moron. We all know that the PS3 is not PS2, neither is the Xbox360, if you want exclusivity from a third party developer then you are gonna have to pay up. I think MS can handle that on many occasions simply because it's MS but its a temporary fix which will not do them any favors in the future. First party devs not only provide 100% loyalty but are also known to push the boundaries of the system that they are aligned to.

Paying to turn exclusive third party games into multiplatform ones (or vise versa) gains one nothing in the way of crucial system sales. Look at FFXIII for example. Yeah its now on the Xbox360, so what, its still exclusive (maybe) in Japan therefore there will be no X360 purchases for a game where such a move is crucial. Its also not gonna have a huge impact in the U.S as xbox360 owners who want the game will simply get solely on the xbox360. There are still plenty of titles on the PS3 that will entice new owners regardless of FFXIII release.

I feel its right for Sony to focus on third party devs and I feel MS should follow suit. Not only does it mean upcoming talent is given a chance but that talent can also sit down and fully get to grips with the hardware at hand, meaning we get more games like Uncharted, Halo, Fable, and Killzone.

TotaleeAwesome

Of course, that's why Sony better be working something out with Starbreeze RIGHT NOW in order to secure another great adventure title for their system. ;)

I wish I could sneak into Sony's studios and see the slew of titles they have under wraps right now.

Heck, I'd love to see what 3rd parties M$ is wooing over too since their system badly needs more hot exclusives (excluding Fable II and Gears 2).

sascha23

@DirtySyko:

i for one am happy exclusivity is dying cuz all it does is breed ignorant fanboys. arguing with one is like trying to argue wit an inbred over his origins.

@VishusBurn:

i think wut he means is that even though the ps3 is sold at a loss, the money that is gained from the sale is then used to fund exclusivity. this logic is heavily flawed (in other words bigdragon doesnt know wut hes talking about) because sony earns money from the system when a retailer orders the system from them at a cheaper price. the system is marked up by the store afterwards to sell for profit. since the system is sold at a loss, sony is basically paying out of their own pockets regardless of how many systems are being sold. yeah vishusburn, i think the guy was dropped on his head too.

@BigDragon:

ppl dont develop on the ps3 first because it is more expensive to develop on it. most ppl develop on a pc first and then port it onto the system because a pc's hardware is more familiar and better, so a developer can set whatever limitations they want to a game AFTER they developed it to comply wit the hardware restraints of whichever system the game is being ported to. thats usually the case, but not always.

maraxusofk

@maraxusofk: "so a developer can set whatever limitations they want to a game AFTER they developed it"

So wrong on so many levels the simplest of which is you think they make a game without any constraints then magically reduce it down to the level of a given console. That would make it run like shit, or not at all, or requite a complete remake of all the assets. Development kits obviously already have the same limitations of the systems the game is made for.

Why do people keep saying exclusivity is dying anyway? We still have all the first party games, second party games and all the games first parties are willing to pay to keep exclusive, it's how it's always been. The fact some franschises that used to be exclusive are now multi platform only means someone wasn't willing to pay this time, they're obvisouly still getting other deals still though, and of course smaller developers just don't have development kits for every system out there so that can be a factor also.

As long as there are multiple platforms there will be exclusives and I don't see Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo combining to make a single uber platform any time soon, like, you know, as long as they have even slightly different strategies and goals, like Nintendo making so much money just via the hardware alone for example.

Agnates

exclusives are a good thing really. if a developer has to spread himself thin and developed for two/three different consoles at once, we get The Orange Box, were the PC version ran nice, 360 was okay, and ps3 version was dookie. if the developer can focus on one platform, they can obviously create a better game.

pandafresh

@Agnates:

i was primarily thinking of ff13 when i wrote the statement. guess im wrong lol. oops

well exclusivity is not going to be gone forever. what exclusivity dying means is that as the future progresses there will be fewer and fewer exclusive games as game development costs continue to rise. nintendo will always have their big first party franchises exclusive. but most system will have their third party games go multiplatform if they hope to recuperate the cost of developing (unless they are paid a great deal to keep a game exclusive)

maraxusofk

"We have to accept more and more that platform holders themselves cannot have exclusives unless they're given millions and millions of dollars not to develop a particular game for one particular platform."

But Microfost has billions it can just throw away. But I think giving devs funding in exchange for exclusivity is a great idea, the industry will have alot of new stuff coming from that, rather than tired old ideas being rehashed.

VengefulRonin

"In other words, don't expect something like Metal Gear Solid 4 to happen ever again. Ever.

The funny thing is, once I read that, I already knew who wrote the article.

I'm just waiting for a five-minute rant on Seesmic.com, Luke. That'll be the hook, line and sinker.

jtyson

@Insomnia Bob: Agreed. If developers do accept that sort of deal, aren't they just saying they prefer to take the money and run, rather than earn the money by doubling or tripling their market share? And all the while giving the middle finger to possibly half the gaming community?

otakudaddy

I didn't want to read the entire interview, as I think Mr. Reeves tends to talk out his...bum sometimes.

I'd like to see how Sony plans to handle all the responsibilities that publishers are responsible for -- marketing, customer support, testing, etc. Either Sony has the superior manpower and capital to handle publishing duties for the entire industry, or they only have enough to fund one or two projects at a time (which is more likely). Sure, they can publish their own first-party projects, but can they handle the workload of third party developers as well?

In other words, this is not going to cause a huge shift in the industry, as this is simply not an efficient way to run a console business. For him to say that they don't need publishers for exclusives is burning a pretty big bridge.

boopadoo

"In other words, don't expect something like Metal Gear Solid 4 to happen ever again. Ever."

Thanks for clarifying what side of the fence you're on... now somebody throw a rock at him and knock him off.

And what exactly is the harm in "helping" the developers as opposed to "buying" them flat out to prevent them from making a game on rival consoles?

Enigma_20XX