Sony UK exec on DLC: 'Nothing is ever exclusive'

You're not meant to ZING! yourself.

You're right. It was kinda painful.

i think sony has more sense than paying more than a small country has for digital game content

Yes because it makes so much sense for Sony to allow their competitor to get exclusive rights to certain DLC for one of the most popular gaming series. Sony sure does have alot of sense.

FAT MAN

are you sure it was the DLC or the higher install base of the 360? you know way more people have a 360 than a PS3.

i have both consoles and i have GTA IV on PS3, and i can say that i stopped playing GTA IV so long ago now, i couldnt care less about the DLC. if i cared that much, i would just buy a 360 copy on eBay. but then again, thats just me personally.

And trust me.. if DLC for GTA IV adds 20+ hours of content.. which would probably mean another city, you would care a lot.


DLC does help sell more.. it lets the consumer think that they're getting more than the other version. GTA IV on the 360 sold 3:1 in the US and UK compared to the PS3 dude.

FFXIII ON 360!!!!!!!!!!!


Oh wait.

FF13 for Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2? Alright, here you go. Don't be surprised if Gears of Wars crosses the floor when Microsoft's 3 game publishing deal with Epic expires.

@Replica23:


Mass Effect and Bioshock were never truly "exclusives", as they were both released on the PC as well as the 360.

I do know what you mean though.

Yes Replica.. because Microsoft would be all out of money and there would be NO WAY for them to make another deal because Microsoft hates money and wants Gears of War to succeed on another console.



Rofl.

Obviously my sarcasm and/or point were lost on most or there are just too many sensitive pro-360 users lurking about. My point was, shut up with the "haha, Sony lost this and Sony lost that" and realize both companies are shedding 3rd party exclusives. Microsoft is just willing to spend money to get priority on content (something Sony has done in the past), which may or may not pay off. Why Sony choose to change is explained in the article above. Business-wise it's a lot more sensible to dump money into projects you own, plain and simple?

I honestly don't think many care though.

exactly.

Halo song in GH3 on the 360.

How much does a byte weigh?

Gears of War 3? Gears of War 4? Gears of War 5?
You all know its coming.

Gears of War WILL most likely cross over to PS3 , unless MS make ANOTHER deal with epic games .

Gears of War WILL NOT cross over, Microsoft publishes it and owns the IP.

Gears of War will likely never go to the PS3 because Epic doesn't even own the name....BUT they could call it something else and throw it over there.

Cogs of Battle?

Steel Ingots of Conflict

Cogs are bad.

Sprockets of Battle FTW!

Indeed, we are going into more than 6 months after the game's release and we don't even KNOW what the DLC is. Who really cares when it takes this long to come out? I was done and traded GTAIV long long ago.

based on the demo and a few reviews from critics, Mirrors Edge is looking pretty nice.

whats so bad about it being a new IP?

Not to mention.. wtf would you add to Mirror's Edge? I mean the game is pretty linear lol.

Mirrors Edge was epic. Can't wait to pick it up. Nice to see something that is new and creative out there.

Arnon -

Linear in what respect? You know there are multiple paths don't you? DLC can add new missions, sections or gameplay modes. I haven't heard anything of exclusive PS3 content so I can't comment. However, Mirrors Edge looks to be this years Assassins Creed. It will sell well on both platforms because it is original.

We are also seeing EA leading the way in terms of multiplatform development. They are using the PS3 as lead in all of it's MP titles and in doing so (according to them) it improves the build of both versions.

GH:World Tour shows that the PS3 can do some things the 360 can't.

PS3 is leading platform for EA LOL :)
PR bulshit.

And if Mirros Edge was leading on PS3 - then WHY it has Anty-Aliansing on X360 and none on PS3 - jag-fest.

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/MirrorsEdge/sMirrorsEdge_08_PS3.png

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/MirrorsEdge/sMirrorsEdge_08_360_Darken.png

Not to mention screen tar on PS3?
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1234537&postcount=1553

"Why is everyone commenting on exclusive games when the article and comments were about exclusive DLC?"

Since when do commenters around here actually read the article?

Yeah, agreed, at this point they're essentially the ones that seem to be getting hosed on the DLC on a number of fronts, which makes this douche sound like a douche. Especially since the Joystiq write-up seems to say on his behalf that "Oh sure MS wasted money on DLC, but look at us, instead of that more betterer because we did LBP instead." It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, so douche sounds like a douche.

Also, I'm drooling over the thought of getting Fallout 3, but am resisting until I finish off Fable II. Please don't mention Fallout 3 ever again, and please have them pull those commercials from Sunday football.

But I think a bigger point of consideration is that even hardcore gamers do not usually buy a game for either consoles based off future exclusive DLC. The attention span of most hardcore gamers isn't much longer than a few weeks or a month from each game.

I think where this Sony guy fails is when he tries to throw a jab in there about putting money into R&D instead of timed exclusivity of DLC. That really shows how Sony has shifted it's focus with the PS3 to be more frugal and try and stop some of the bleeding of money. It also gives the implication that Microsoft is not putting money into first party games and is instead buying and securing 3rd party exclusives.

I agree with his sentiment that no DLC is ever really exclusive and there is no need to pay for it. Look at how Take 2 has dropped the ball on the GTA IV "episodic" content. It's to little to late now to have a big impact. I never buy a game based off future exclusive DLC. I pretty much buy all my games for the PS3 and use the 360 & Wii for exclusives because of the hardware problems I have had with the 360.

I remember when GTA IV dropped and lots of people here on Joystiq cited the exclusive DLC as the reason to get the 360 version. Now because the content has still not arrived that $50 Million investment seems like a huge waste of money. I agree that if you (Sony) has not control on the release of the content there is no point in securing it for a period of time. If that content dropped 3-4 weeks after the games release it would have had an impact but now it seems like a huge waste of money.

I don't have a problem with what this guy is saying and I agree with him but I have a problem with him implying MS (or Sony) isn't capable of securing content and putting money into R&D. The honest answer would have been that "we are being selective in the way we allocate our internal development funds. We don't feel that securing timed exclusive DLC is as viable as investing that money into new projects."

Fat Man

There is now to quantify the effect of the DLC because it is still unreleased. The point is they were going to outsell the PS3 regardless because they had a MUCH larger install base. The DLC is and was a waste. The only way it could be good is when it drops it causes a spike in GTA IV sales. Otherwise, there is no way to say what kind of effect - if at all - it had on sales.

1.4 Million x $60 = 84,000,000 total. I think they would have had higher sales regardless of the DLC and while I can't say how much extra they did or didn't make from these numbers it looks like a wash. It's not as if all $84 Mill goes to MS.

@Fat Man

GTA Iv sold more on the 360 because of the much larger install base and the promise of episodic DLC that is still unreleased.

360 roughly 6 million copies sold
PS3 roughly 4.6 million copies sold

I'm not sure what the respective install bases were at the time of release but I would think Sony did better than expected all things considered. Not to mention MS had to pay $50,000,000.00 for the still unreleased DLC.

@007

Thats a pretty big exaggeration. I don't think were talking about years for this type of DLC - in fact, it's probably more like months. My main point is that securing the DLC is a waste of money if it doesn't come out when the game is still fresh to give a sales boost. When people were still playing GTA IV the DLC should have dropped about 3-4 weeks after the release. Besides, were talking about a massive game in GTA IV and it's not as if the episodic content makes the game a more complete experience. Especially considering how much MS will charge to try and recoup that $50 million.

I would say game like Bioshock or if MGS 4 comes to the 360 it might not apply because the sales wont be there. But, if were talking about DLC that most people wont care about because of better and more new games to play its irrelevant unless it drops soon after the release of the game. Otherwise it just seems as if its a big time waste of money because it will probably have a minimal effect.

GTA also released on the original X-Box. My point with the larger install base (roughly an extra 4-8 million give or take - I don't know exactly) they were already going to outsell Sony. How can you say it had no effect on MS when they paid for the content that is still unreleased. I don't think an extra $50 million for only 1.4 million more sales and still no DLC is a good deal for MS. I bet you they don't think it's a good deal either.

I'm sure it had SOME effect on multiplatform owners or maybe new console buyers that new about the exclusive DLC. However, I am seriously skeptical that was the only factor thad led higher sales. All things considered it's probably somewhat of a moral victory for Sony to sell as well as GTA IV did on the PS3. You would think sales would have been much higher on the 360 all factors considered.

Fat Man -

"and you keep on claiming install base, if i do remember this was originally a PS3 exclusive so the fanbase was there."

You are incorrect my friend. Sony had a timed exclusivity deal for GTA IV (not exclusive) and they allowed Take2 out of the timed exclusivity in exchange for a console exclusive new IP. It was rumored to be LA Noire but was never confirmed. In fact, it was all but denied that it was LA Noire. We still don't know what that title is or if it was worth it for Sony to do so. In the end I think they would have rather had a good relationship with Take 2 on future releases rather than force their hand in the short term for a 30 day timed exclusivity of GTA IV.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

"Now your trying to bring up the fact that overall you can say GTAIV didnt live up to its predecessors in terms of sells (or Hype?)you trying to telling me GTAIV only selling 1.4 more on the xbox isn't significant, is false because if you look at the ratio 60:40 you see in what other wise would have probably been a **stale mate**, xbox clearly out sold the PS3."

What I am saying is that the $50 million spent on the exclusive DLC didn't translate into larger sales. Take what they paid minus what they sold and it's nearly a wash.

** Here is where we disagree. You honestly think sales would have been even were it not for the announced DLC? That sounds insane to me. Look at the MUCH larger install base of the 360. Everyone expected the 360 version to outsell the PS3 version. Like I said before, if the DLC drops and MS makes money off of it or if we see a surge in 360 sales of GTA Iv maybe it was worth it. At this point it seems like to little to late and they got nothing extra out of it. **

I hate you. I hate everyone that uses that term.

XBOTS!!

So u hate me now?

I've hated you since the day you were born...