MGS Rising levels third-party playing field, Microsoft's Kim declares

by James Ransom-Wiley { Jun 17th 2009 at 11:45AM }

Someday, we'll talk about third-party exclusives like the way we talk about car phones, Laserdiscs and troll dolls -- a thing of the past. That someday could be sooner than you think, if Microsoft exec Shane Kim is to be believed. "[Microsoft has] said for a long time that a key part of our strategy with Xbox 360 was a level third-party playing field," Kim tells Gamasutra in a recent interview. "Now we've effectively done that with Metal Gear Solid [Rising] coming to the Xbox 360."

Short of a blank check from Microsoft or Sony -- like, what was the asking price for Agent exclusivity, you know? -- there's little incentive for a third-party publisher to release a big-budget game for only Xbox 360 or PS3. It's possible that third-party exclusives will flourish as small, downloadable games and DLC (though those GTA IV add-ons weren't cheap for Microsoft), but it's more likely that they'll diminish as cheap carnival games -- geddit? Of course, with Microsoft and Sony designing their own waggleware apparatuses, such low-grade third-party exclusives won't necessarily continue to be exclusive, either.

Still, Kim argues that "exclusive content is really important." And so, it's up to the first-party publishers to essentially unlevel the playing field with their own IPs. "[It's] really not about relying on third parties, because I don't think that that is sustainable, as we've proven," Kim concludes. "And it's up to each of us to differentiate on our own."

Tags: exclusivity, metal-gear-solid-rising, mgs-rising, mgsr, microsoft, shane-kim, third-party

Related From Joystiq

Upcoming Xbox 360 update locking out 'unauthorized' Memory Units
25 days ago
Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg touts holiday exclusives, 360 sales growth in down economy
26 days ago
Pachter: Project Natal will cost $50, 'Sphere' will be over $100
27 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Maulok @ Jun 17th 2009 11:48AM

I'm 100% in support of a level playing field with third parties. Can't we all just get along?

Jtenma @ Jun 17th 2009 11:51AM

I agree with you.

However, I do not believe this one game levels the playing field.

And one question...does this mean that Shane Kim is admitting Sony had better exclusives?

fwacce @ Jun 17th 2009 11:57AM

Of all the gaming companies out there to rail against exclusives, the last company I thought would do it is MICROSOFT. If they want a 'level playing field', then how about they stop paying for exclusives for their system. Or do they just mean that they don't want the OTHER systems to have exclusives?

Hey Microsoft, if you don't comprehend how you're the worst offender in this category, let me help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_exclusives

Duke @ Jun 17th 2009 12:02PM

Of course they know they are one of the worst offenders and of course they don't care. By level the field they mean to bring more to their system, not make it actually level and equal. Business depends largely on offering things your competitor doesn't, otherwise what would draw people to your product? Nada.

protofunc @ Jun 17th 2009 12:04PM

@Maulok

No. There can only be one.

A console must be forged out of the fires doom. One console to rule them all.

Mr Khan @ Jun 17th 2009 12:12PM

Exclusives have always bred creativity, though. At least in the past, the better games were the exclusive ones

That PS360 exclusives are no longer viable is a sign of something wrong

NaeemTHM @ Jun 17th 2009 12:22PM

*holds Dreamcast*

THE PRECIOUS!

K1LLER HORNET @ Jun 17th 2009 12:23PM

@ fwacce

the PS3 is pretty close.

160 vs 171

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3_exclusives

so i guess Microsoft have a few more to steal :P

korwyn @ Jun 17th 2009 1:00PM

@protofunc

no there cannot be only one. there should not be only one. 2-3 keep them compete each others. they have to come up with better games than other systems. they can't set the price too high. that can only benefit us all. think about it. if there's only one console maybe "WiiStationBox". they can name to console price on their console all they want. it could be a grand if not worse. we might end up buying a $200 game. and the quality might not be that high either. it's either you pay for the games or you don't get to play the games.

just look how much renting DVDs has changed since netflix came around. we don't get to pay $5 a movie any more, do we?

Alex @ Jun 17th 2009 1:01PM

Jtenma:
He may think so, but the Xbox has more exclusives that I AM INTERESTED IN. That's the problem with these silly exclusives. They need them to cover all bases and genres of games. The Wii, too childish. The Xbox, to FPS-ey, the PS3, no set genre, but I am not interested in any of them bar Heavy Rain and possibly MGS4. Not enough in my eyes to warrant spending £300 on a console.

protofunc @ Jun 17th 2009 1:51PM

@korwyn

Ha, korwyn, i wasn't being serious.

I'm perfectly aware of the circumstances/risks surrounding any particular console monopolizing the market. In the end, yes, it could possibily spell out disaster for the consumer.

Roto13 @ Jun 17th 2009 2:42PM

Reducing the number of exclusive franchises on the platform that already has fewer exclusive franchises doesn't level the playing field. What a stupid concept. >_>

fwacce @ Jun 17th 2009 3:12PM

@ K1LLER HORNET

"the PS3 is pretty close.

160 vs 171"

I'm sure that's true, but Sony isn't the one who made an idiotic statement about how they don't like third party exclusives today. If you, as a company, want to pay for exclusives then that's up to you. But don't try and act like you're doing the gaming community a favor when you get an exclusive from another console without giving your exclusives up first.

XGM @ Jun 17th 2009 3:17PM

Only if the experience remains intact while going crossplatform. Many Console games that go to PC are so bad that the whole experience gets watered down.

Antonio @ Jun 17th 2009 3:22PM

3rd party games lose quality compared to exclusives.

Teph @ Jun 17th 2009 3:37PM

"And one question...does this mean that Shane Kim is admitting Sony had better exclusives?"

Well, of course! When you're late to the party, and you have NO third party exclusives, they have to come from somewhere.

Listen, Microsoft was late to the console party, and therefore had to establish themselves as a console company and dev friendly platform. Everyone needs to stop making this all out to be more than it is.
They want to show 3rd party devs there's a reason to come to their side of the fence, either exclusively or at least in equal share. Welcome to running a business people.

Why is this such big deal?

Alistair Azimuth PSN: johnnynumber5 @ Jun 17th 2009 6:03PM

@Teph

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

I'll have my Mass Effect 2, SC Conviction, Lost Odyssey, Last Remnant, Star Ocean IV & Gears Of War 3 on PS3 now plz. kthnxbai.

In all seriousness I think most people don't like being patronized. Just spare everyone the warm and fuzzies about how the platform is now complete. It's standard executive hyperbole. As if they somehow had an incomplete platform before this game was announced and everything is so different all of a sudden. I think they want to portray this as big of a coup as FF 13 but it just isn't the same at all. This game hadn't been announced as an exclusive and it's a spin off with a completely different gameplay mechanic. Now, does this mean MGS5 will be multiplatform? Who the hell knows. I'm sure thats what MS is hoping for and want to happen and it could mean thats the case.

I think Sony kind of realizes they can't play the bidding war game with MS and all they can really do is develop internally so that they own the rights to those franchises as to not have a repeat of this generation again. It's the Nintendo model in a manner of speaking that Sony is just starting to adhere to itself. Own the content and it's guaranteed to be exclusive to your platform. Otherwise, you don't have any control over the product.

I'm good with exclusives whether they be first, second, third, fourth or fifth party. But, what irritates the piss out of me is the console exclusive DLC. Whether it be timed or otherwise it just seems that the only ones who lose in the end are gamers (which only furthers console fanboy resentment) who miss out on content.

DrFreeman @ Jun 17th 2009 6:20PM

@Alex: Really? I'm more interested in the exclusives PS3 has to offer. I was convinced to purchase one after E3 this year, and then I realized that I've got too many great games to play in the space of a few months. I guess games like Halo and Gears of War are more your type, and of course you have your opinion. Just wanted to let you know that you're polar opposite is here ;) hehe.

NaeemTHM @ Jun 17th 2009 11:50AM

Oh lawd....this will not end well.

I predict a 150 comment war! Anyone taking bets!

Cosmo @ Jun 17th 2009 11:59AM

250, easy.

protofunc @ Jun 17th 2009 12:06PM

Behold, it has begun.

John Z @ Jun 17th 2009 12:13PM

I predict lots of derpderp in this post.

(If you want to filter out the whining, I wrote a user script to let you do just that: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/51770 Please excuse the spam, I want people to know about this and use it to make Joystiq a better place.)

Sly [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 17th 2009 12:44PM

john z, you are a genius. too bad sprinkles' comments amuse me, and i don't feel like blocking many other people. that, and firefox is too slow for me. google chrome FTW.

Jack Tretton @ Jun 17th 2009 1:42PM

At least Joystiq's headline was professional, unlike the full-on flame-bait bullshit of Kotaku's.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 17th 2009 11:50AM

They can level the playing field with third parties all they want, but if they don't start stepping up with exclusives they're going to keep getting their asses handed to them in that area by Sony and even Nintendo.

Anthology @ Jun 17th 2009 11:55AM

Oh you fanboys are just so silly.

I'll just be over here with my consoles, actually enjoying my games for what they are...

Games.

Troy Powers (PSN: TroyPowers) @ Jun 17th 2009 12:04PM

He's got a point. Sony's 1st party exclusives are fucking awesome.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 17th 2009 12:10PM

I love my 360, but let's be honest here Microsoft is horrible with first party exclusives.

They only have like 4 exclusives for this year (that I can think of) and 2 of them are halo games, and 1 was a third party exclusive that they bought.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 17th 2009 12:14PM

Damn, I didn't realize Anthology is Sprinkles Jr. I apologize for taking you seriously sir.

DBuck_Eye @ Jun 17th 2009 12:30PM

Yeah, Sony's first party exclusives are way better than Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, etc.

Not. If it comes to the first parties, I think Nintendo currently has the upper hand.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 17th 2009 12:36PM

That's not the point I was trying to make, but I'll bite for this one time.

I don't think they have the upper hand, because they lack depth. Where's the story? Where's the voice acting, etc etc. All nintendo games have is gameplay, which was fine 20 years ago in the NES and SNES era, but games nowadays have evolved to include much much more than just gameplay.

I only put them ahead of MS because of sheer numbers. MS hardly puts any exclusives out anymore, they're just relying on the fact that multiplatform games sell a bit better on 360 than ps3.

Sly [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 17th 2009 12:52PM

yeah, i'll agree with that statement, putting my fanboy side aside. sony has the best first party exclusives when you count the entire experience of the game. god of war, killzone, wipeout, jak and daxter, uncharted, sly cooper, ratchet and clank, motorstorm, etc.

those are the ones i could think of off the top of my head, and there are more. MS has some decent ones, but there's less variety, and nintendo hasn't been using their properties as well as they could (mario calculator for example...)

Threens @ Jun 17th 2009 1:22PM

This is the best comment thread ever. Three people with an obvious preference agreeing with each other. Compelling stuff.

That sounded meaner than it was meant to be. Oh well...

SSJPabs @ Jun 17th 2009 5:29PM

The incentive is because Microsoft is evil. I am fully in support of first party exclusives as long as they are for Sony.

So, fanboy, nay fanBOI even. What can I say? A world dominated by Microsoft's gaming offerings makes me shiver.

Levi @ Jun 17th 2009 11:52AM

"[Microsoft has] said for a long time that a key part of our strategy with Xbox 360 was a level third-party playing field,"

Then why do they keep paying for exclusives...? I'm actually all for multiplatform titles, more games for everyone!

Wiizer @ Jun 17th 2009 11:54AM

Oh, that is all kinds of hypocrisy, isn't it?

NaeemTHM @ Jun 17th 2009 11:57AM

I guess because people need incentives. I mean we buy the Wii for motion controls, we buy the PS3 for Blu-Ray...but what edge does the 360 really have? Being cheaper than the PS3?

We could once argue that the 360 had the better online experiance, but PSN is on par with Live now...and it's FREE!

Anthology @ Jun 17th 2009 11:58AM

"We could once argue that the 360 had the better online experiance, but PSN is on par with Live now...and it's FREE!"

Lol, no.

Wiizer @ Jun 17th 2009 12:01PM

Anthology,

Based on your history of commenting, I doubt you even have a PS3 to compare the two.

SO STFU.

Anthology @ Jun 17th 2009 12:03PM

"Comment History - It's like really knowing everything about you!"

Badboy1979 @ Jun 17th 2009 12:13PM

I have both PSN and XBL and while both are great services, in my opinion, feature-wise PSN still has a ways to go simply because XBL had such a head start (beginning with the original xbox) and the fact that it's core features were keep in mind from the get go with the 360.

With the NXE, we're starting to see how it's sort of like a "Web OS" based system allowing things like Facebook connect, Twitter, Netflix, Party Chat, and Last.fm to intermingle all the while having the basic things like Cross game chat and invites and friends list working across the entire system no matter what you're doing.

Online gaming wise, PSN and Live seems to be neck and neck which is a great thing if you're just in for playing games online with friends (although Live sometimes has the "default" advantage of being out a year ahead so you sometimes have the case where people will choose Live instead because more people are online in multiplayer games including their friends).

NaeemTHM @ Jun 17th 2009 12:14PM

Soon 360 will have the ability to be MINORITY REPORT! That will be some serious incentive.

OnToGloryReturns @ Jun 17th 2009 12:21PM

@NaeemTHM

Not at all really. I've been spending some time on my PS3 recently (playing Uncharted again and some LBP) and while the psn has definitely improved it really isn't anywhere near Live.

Trying to find media (game trailers in this case) is an exercise in frustration for example. They have a lot of current stuff but I was looking for something older and could not find it for the life of me. On Live it's as simple as can be.

The update for LBP - which I hadn't played in a while - took forever. Title updates on the 360 are literally a ten second process, and it puts you right back into a party if you were in one (something else the psn doesn't have). I was trying to look at a friends profile/trophies and it was really bare bones too.

Like I stated, psn is much improved from its' launch template but has a looong way to go. Still looking forward to the Uncharted beta (have a code but haven't gone on yet).