Why first-party video games matter
The Xbox 360 is getting exclusive content through Microsoft's acquisition of BigPark.
(Credit: Microsoft)Microsoft announced last week that it plans to acquire video game developer BigPark for an undisclosed sum. According to the company, BigPark will become part of Microsoft Game Studios. Its developers will "work on exclusive titles" for the Xbox 360.
Exclusivity has almost gone missing in the video game industry in recent years. Today, the game space is characterized by high development costs and multiplatform titles. It's practically impossible for most third-party game developers to offer their games on just one console, if they want to turn a profit. Because of that, console game libraries (especially the Xbox 360's and the PlayStation 3's) are looking increasingly similar.
Microsoft's intended acquisition of BigPark is an important step for the company. It gives the software giant more opportunities to create titles for its game platform that consumers won't be able to find elsewhere. It adds another developer to its team, and it helps Microsoft invest in more first-party franchises.
One of the best ways to differentiate a product in the video game industry is through first-party video games. When consumers go to a game store with a finite amount of cash, they need to decide between the Nintendo Wii, the Xbox 360, or the PlayStation 3. Features like Blu-ray disc compatibility, motion control, or online gaming will play into that decision. But besides price, it's the console's library of games that will weigh most heavily in their purchase.
Perhaps they're Halo fans. Or maybe they love Mario. Whichever platform has top-notch exclusive titles--which in today's environment are increasingly becoming only first-party games--will have a better chance of winning the customer's business. The more compelling the first-party titles, the greater the chances that the console will attract consumers.
Nintendo is the leader when it comes to first-party titles. Its franchises--Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Pokemon, and others--have proven to be extremely profitable for the company. But when you look at first-party games on Microsoft's Xbox 360 or Sony's PlayStation 3, there's no comparison to Nintendo.
BigPark's Microsoft-exclusive titles could make the Xbox 360 become a must-have for some, thanks to this acquisition. It gives Microsoft an advantage. And in the game industry, every little advantage counts.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
If you look closely at the real "first party", the developers that Sony owns, you'll see it's a very... very small list. Nintendo by far has way... WAY more real internal first party developers then Sony could ever have.
Seriously? Gears of War and Halo come to mind. Forza and Gran Turismo. Final Fantasy is suprising making an open shift but has been exclusive for years. Everything that's made by Nintendo, Zelda, Super Smash, Mario, Wario, Mario Cart (which happens to also be the only things that sell well for the Wii). Some of the biggest sellers in the industry are exclusives. Even DLC is being made exclusive. It looks like microsoft lost big by throwin $50 million at the GTA4 DLC exclusive rights. Though it may have made for a larger number of orig. game sales since people knew the DLC was coming to the 360 only, the sales of the DLC itself hasn't come close to that $50 mark.
Exclusives are the name of the game, each side paying big bucks to keep titles on thier console only, or delay release on another console by months.
It continues to amaze me how this author is able to write anything in this industry. Do your research.
The only legitimate argument you have is for DLC, which is for the most part very exclusive, due in large part to the low development costs associated with them.
I don't always agree with this author, but I don't believe he knows nothing of this industry.
Oh, exclusivity is nice. Especially as fan service.
Quality is better.
Having a lot of B-grade exclusives may fire up the fanboys who already voted their souls away to one platform or another, but the real question is which exclusives actually help sell the console.
And draw in new buyers.
And yes, the Nintendo exclusives *as a group* do that.
So does Halo.
Not much else left beyond that, though.
Not in any meaningful shape.
Just look at the sales numbers.
And just look at the sales numbers. source (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/npd-nintendo-drives-08-industry-sales-past-21-billion-/?biz=1) 6 of the 10 top games in 2008 were exclusives, and of those 4 that weren't, one was the perennial madden, and 2 of the other were GTA on seperate consoles.
It's amazing how some people can ignore that when Sony regularly puts out great titles in God of War, Uncharted, Buzz, Motorstorm, Killzone, Wipeout, Warhawk, Socom, Little Big Planet, etc. And those are just some of the more recent entries.
And Microsoft isn't gaining an advantage here, it's merely trying to catch up with Sony and Nintendo.
Enough said....Microsoft, as most have said already, has....Gears 1 and 2, Halo 1,2,3, Halo wars, Halo ODST (soon), GTA DLC, etc, etc... and NOONE mentioned Left for Dead?
Last i checked, Microsofts much maligned XBOX live system, which of course we all know is a subscription to the tune of 50.00 a year, actually 13 months, has over 10 million PAYING subscribers. Granted, a small part of them are possibly a 1 or 3 month sub, but nonetheless, someone paid for it. And what does the PS3...PLAY B3YOND....(aka Play B3HIND XBOX live) have? a few million FREE subs on a substandard system/online setup?
Sounds to me like Sony and the like are playing catch up to Microsoft and the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars they are getting from us loyal players every year.
" It's practically impossible for most third-party game developers to offer their games on just one console, if they want to turn a profit."
Both from that second para, both greatly in error. 3rd party companies are most certainly able to make a profit off of exclusive games. The argument could be made that nearly every multiplatform game released on the Wii is an exclusive in and of itself. Tho they share the same name, the bulk of the assets and much of the design are entirely different from the PS3/360 releases.
3rd party exclusives are still huge. Metal Gear Solid? Gran Turismo? Mass Effect (kinda)? Hell, Gran Turismo 5's not even out and it's sold a hojillion copies of what ammounts to a preivew of the game.
The kicker here is that MS and Sony aren't going to pay big bucks for exclusivity unless they're confident it's a hit. Gran Turismo and MGS are no brainers.
Games don't have to be multiplatform to make money... games have to be GOOD to make money.
It means games that might otherwise stick to consoles have often ended up on PC ;-)
Well that's fine and all, but there are two other things to consider. The PS3 has some wonderful exclusive content that the 360 doesn't have (and visa versa) already, so adding more like this is not helping either party or the consumer. Also, these single platform games are likely to die out. Even companies like Square Enix are doing the multiplat thing.
Sony...just what is their killer 1st party title? Killzone? Resistance? Good games but really anyone who doesn't own a PS3 has probably never heard of them. I would say it used to be GTA or Final Fantasy but not now. I don't even know what there is to be excited about in Playstation land anymore. :(
on any platform content is king, so the saying goes -- the quality of the games available should be high to appeal to a wide demographic, otherwise you're just coming down to a numbers game -- amongst long-time gamers, there is always huge anticipation and excitement about innovative new features (along with predictably sky-high prices), with the launch of of a new console, the high never lasts, and doesn't translate into long-term sales.
the real market is split clearly between those who have no fixed budget and want the best hardware available (college students/grads), those who want the best bang for their buck (teenagers), and those who enjoy cutesy cartoon-like graphics (primarily asia, as well as female and gaming noobs) -- the price of the console hardware as well as the software is carefully aligned with the target market -- neither Microsoft, nor Sony nor Nintendo wants to fight over the same slice of the pie.
the most significant aspect of first-party, exclusive titles is that they don't force developers into the tragic one-size-fits, lowest-common-denominator design -- multi-platform titles always fall well short of the hardware's potential and the quality that buyers expect, particularly on cutting edge hardware (just think of how disappointing the early titles were for the X360 and PS3 on launch). sadly this scenario is playing out over and over, and ultimately will lead to Nintendo taking (back) the market in future generations of their mediocre hardware platform.
that may suit Microsoft fairly well, however, with the home PC taking over living rooms at a rapid pace, if consoles become redundant, Apple may end up being their only real competitor.
The days of an exclusive games are gone, its more about extras and the experience.
First party titles aren't why people are buying Wii's, its the motion controller and innovation that captured the casual market. Also pair that with cheap development cost for a non HD platform and you have a gold mine for developers.
What made the PS2 successful was the sheer volume of games for it so it had something for everyone, not something exclusive. Its all about volume and options.
By the way Exclusivity is still not going to save sony ps3. Consoles are now in a decline.
- by DarkHawke May 12, 2009 11:16 PM PDT
- Make up your mind, Don. In a column you wrote in October 2007 ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9796479-17.html?tag=mncol ), you downplayed the Wii's chances of long-term success BECAUSE it was first-party game heavy, and DIDN'T have as much third-party support as the XBox 360 or the PS3. Now it's all important to have exclusive FIRST-PARTY games?! Which is it?
- Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)