Granted, it sucks when it's a long time established franchise. But I'm hoping it's more like a franchise being revived that otherwise would not exist.
Gamespot rumor: Big third-party Xbox One exclusive at E3
- Thread starter nbnt
- Start date
- Status
Granted, it sucks when it's a long time established franchise. But I'm hoping it's more like a franchise being revived that otherwise would not exist.
shinra-bansho
Member
Again, I'm not really sure from where this immutable reality is derived, wherein the patent office actually cares whether a registered trademark is registered to an entity that makes or doesn't make their own platform. Where some sort of legal definition of "third party exclusive" exists, making the use in the vernacular incorrect. Where a term that is, for all intents and purposes, defined by its usage and context in the commonplace, cannot be considered used correctly as it is commonly. Where the head of Xbox is apparently ignorant to the one true definition of a relatively meaningless term outside of being a video game colloquialism. Where words and terms have an absolute and unchanging meaning, as opposed to just that which is commonly used and/or agreed upon.
In the event that EA starts making a platform, do they need to redefine their intellectual property rights and refile their trademarks?
In the event that Respawn made their own platform somehow, but does not put Titanfall on it, does it then still become a first party game?
Is it currently a first party exclusive to Respawn and a third party game to EA regardless of whether they hold a platform, if holding intellectual property rights is the ultimate delineation?
Your example is odd. One can objectively determine that the Wii U is a separate console, it is a physical entity. It is not reliant on the Wii to operate. The term attachment is reasonably well universally defined as... an attachment to an existing console, encompassing the above within said definition. Were that definition to change to encompass what the Wii U actually is rather than what we commonly define as an attachment, then the use would become accurate.
Metalingus5150
Member
If this is true. I hope it's a good game.
E3 gonna be great this year!
E3 gonna be great this year!
Regret Upon Approval
Member
Probably Capcom.
They aren't as financially sound as they'd like to be.
DR3 wasn't a flop.
Capcom is expanding mobile studios.
Mobile still isn't self-sufficient.
Second party type collaborations will likely continue. It can allow Capcom to avoid financial gambles and provides the publisher with a desirable exclusive as Capcom has a good stable of franchises.
It'll likely continue until Capcom has reliable income streams at which point some more riskier endeavors may occur.
Edit: Deep Down is another such example
They aren't as financially sound as they'd like to be.
DR3 wasn't a flop.
Capcom is expanding mobile studios.
Mobile still isn't self-sufficient.
Second party type collaborations will likely continue. It can allow Capcom to avoid financial gambles and provides the publisher with a desirable exclusive as Capcom has a good stable of franchises.
It'll likely continue until Capcom has reliable income streams at which point some more riskier endeavors may occur.
Edit: Deep Down is another such example
oh i never said a legal definition of anything regarding third party exclusive exists. all i said was there isn't anything as a 2nd party in the real world, just different and nuanced kinds of relationships between first and third parties.
1. no, it would still be theirs, but future games on their platform would be first-party games. if they published their own games on other platforms despite being a developer of their own console, then they would be publishing as a third-party for another first-party.
2. titanfall would be a first-party ip yes, the same way the original donkey kong became a first-party game on the nes despite its prior status as a third-party game on other platforms.
3. no, it's a third-party game, because neither respawn doesn't have their own console. respawn is however who you would expect to answer to for any copyright infringement or use of any trademarked images/logos in an official capacity without their permission, not ea, who merely acted as publisher, or microsoft, the platform holder.
i hope that clears things up.
it's no different than your gears of war comparison earlier. a bunch of people saying something to be true doesn't make it true. want to know how i know gears of war wasn't a first-party franchise for those games epic released on the xbox 360? because microsoft had to buy the rights earlier this year in order to make more with another studio at the helm.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Wasn't that Capcom article some hopelessly bad reporting. It's not going great there but it's not that bad.
It's apparently timed.
Syphon Filter
Member
how you figure?
Blue Ranger
Member
I want great games to play in my console. Is that "good for gamers"? I don't even care
Lmao. The Internet never fails to amuse.
In answer to your question Yes it would be a bad move while they have their own console.
Dragonborn
Member
No one owns an X1?
Source?
Pretty sure if the company owns the IP( And MS owns at least 3 of those titles you listed) it's considered first party.
Getting pretty old going into threads about MS exclusive and seeing the term "moneyhat" thrown around with no real evidence to ever back it up, in fact most games they were accused of money hatting in the past proved not to be the case. Only real moneyhats i have seen from MS were exclusive DLC. Also to the people who keep spewing how third party exclusives are "bad for gamers" tell me, did you own a PS2? Shit ton of third party exclusives all over that machine and yet, no complaints about it being "bad for gamers". Don't give me the "well PS2 was selling well" bull either as it has nothing to do with the opinion that third party exclusives are "bad for gamers".
Third party exclusives have been around for about as long as i have been gaming and they are not bad for gamers, they've never been.
Saying Killer Instinct isn't a first party game because they hired an outside studio to code it is just hilarious. Microsoft owns the IP. It's first party regardless of who does the work on it.
shinra-bansho
Member
You seemed to be implying a "correct" definition, based upon some sort of formalized context, you brought up patent offices and legal agreements etc. I don't think anyone is contesting nuance in relationships.
If they published their owned properties on platforms not owned by them then those would be third party games for another first party? I'm not sure how that's not incongruous with IP ownership defining the status of a title and how that isn't exactly what you seem to be indicating is an incorrect usage.
Many people saying the Wii U is an accessory doesn't make it true, as it's inaccurate under accepted definition of what an accessory is.
Many people saying the earth revolves around the sun doesn't make it true, given the common meaning of that sentence, because of observable phenomenon.
The term isn't commonly used to describe an independent successor system. It's observable that it isn't an "accessory." Should people commonly begin using the latter word to label what the Wii U can observably be described as, then it could become accurate.
We're not even talking about observable phenomenon here. We're talking about very mutable terms and definitions for relatively colloquial concepts.
People saying Gears of War is a first party game/exclusive isn't "truth" given you've already pre-defined what "first party" is and that their usage is incorrect. But it isn't a "lie" under what other people may be using the term to indicate. And in the situation that the term is used commonly in that different manner to your "truth," again, I don't see how your truth is absolute, as we've already established it isn't based on any particularly concrete authority.
Many people using a term to indicate a certain meaning can give such meaning to a term.
Do you think words define usage, or that usage defines words and terms? Is "twerk" a word? Does defecate still mean to clarify? What makes a "watch" a "watch"?
Is Gears of War a first-party game? Yes, Microsoft published it.
Is Gears of War a first-party game? No, Microsoft does not own the intellectual property (or did not at the time).
I don't see why either cannot be taken as accurate.
That's correct. Hopefully it's timed at least.
SchmittyThePirate
Neo Member
Some people really are blinded by fanboyism. Sad.
yes. they often fail to see humour.
I see this 1st vs 3rd party debate has gone off the rails, but I just have to add a few comments.
By Spencers definition, anything published by MS is a 1st party.
If we are to take this exclusive rumor at it's literal meaning, by Spencer's definition this is a game that has not been developed in-house, nor published in house. It implies that MS paid solely to gain exclusivity to the game.
Now, is this a positive light to shed on MS? Many would argue no. Most gamers don't like a game to be exclusive just for the sake of exclusivity.
So, by Spencers very own definition, this game is a "money hatted" exclusive.
In addition, the concept of 1st vs 3rd party has typically been defined by developer relationship.
Does Spencer imply that Capcom is a first party developer because DR3 is a "first party game?" Or SO? Or any of the other games that MS is publishing by a 3RD party developer for that matter? If confronted with this question, I think Spencer would believe it to be a ridiculous proposition.
The legalese of 1st vs 3rd party is completely irrelevant to the gaming public, which is WHY the colloquial "2nd party" term came about. I couldn't care less about what agreements MS has with other developers, but I DO care about whether a game is a timed exclusive or an IP owned by MS because it determines my buying habits in the future. So, why do we continue to claim that "2nd party" is completely irrelevant? It is very relevant to me as a gamer, as it determines whether a game may or may not come to other platforms in the future.
By Spencers definition, anything published by MS is a 1st party.
If we are to take this exclusive rumor at it's literal meaning, by Spencer's definition this is a game that has not been developed in-house, nor published in house. It implies that MS paid solely to gain exclusivity to the game.
Now, is this a positive light to shed on MS? Many would argue no. Most gamers don't like a game to be exclusive just for the sake of exclusivity.
So, by Spencers very own definition, this game is a "money hatted" exclusive.
In addition, the concept of 1st vs 3rd party has typically been defined by developer relationship.
Does Spencer imply that Capcom is a first party developer because DR3 is a "first party game?" Or SO? Or any of the other games that MS is publishing by a 3RD party developer for that matter? If confronted with this question, I think Spencer would believe it to be a ridiculous proposition.
The legalese of 1st vs 3rd party is completely irrelevant to the gaming public, which is WHY the colloquial "2nd party" term came about. I couldn't care less about what agreements MS has with other developers, but I DO care about whether a game is a timed exclusive or an IP owned by MS because it determines my buying habits in the future. So, why do we continue to claim that "2nd party" is completely irrelevant? It is very relevant to me as a gamer, as it determines whether a game may or may not come to other platforms in the future.
Tenchi Ryu
Banned
Ain't really needed IMO. Dice's battlefront will scratch the itch for star wars FPS action. Need something with lightsabers.
- Believe in Bioware
The_R3medy
Banned
I could totally see Deep Down 2 as this exclusive. Other then that, maybe a new full fledged Sonic? Crash Bandicoot through Activision? Or it's just GTA V coming exclusively to the next-gen on Xbone. Maybe an EA Star Wars title? Paying a big amount to bring visceral's Star Wars game to Xbone exclusively would be a massive boon.
Or maybe something like Shenmue 3 making the fucking place go wild. Probably not Shenmue 3 though.
Or maybe something like Shenmue 3 making the fucking place go wild. Probably not Shenmue 3 though.
Who is that and why should we believe him/her? I really don't know which insiders are believable.
GarciaHotspur
Member
If we trust thuway it's not Mass Effect, not Red Dead, not Resident Evil.
I bet Dino Crisis.
I bet Dino Crisis.
- Why would EA still be giving them time exclusives (unless they had a multi title deal)?
- Why would valve to exclusive with MS? They finally got on got terms with Sony, PS4 seems easy to develop for, and they are developing a steam OS to bypass the costs associated with a MS operating system. Plus here valve - money has no bearing on what they do.
- dragons dogma exclusive on Xbox makes no logical sense, but logic is cancelled out by Capcom, so this is the most likely. Maybe they'll go for something silly like a Regional exclusive for DD2, allowing capcom to release on PS4 in Japan only (or US/EU only).
BruceLeeroy is very well respected here on GAF. He's got sources in some places.
He also said that the level of importance for this game is likened to Splinter Cell Conviction. DOn't know what that means.
Timed exclusives are stupid, that money would be better spent on funding 1st party games. Unless it is stupid cheap; which I doubt it is.
What is the point of timed exclusive on a lesser marketshare console?
Should keep the game exclusive to X1 if you are going to do it because the game will either sell bad after everyone reviewed it to death, or the hype will die down and everyone forgot that the game even existed in the first place.
Should keep the game exclusive to X1 if you are going to do it because the game will either sell bad after everyone reviewed it to death, or the hype will die down and everyone forgot that the game even existed in the first place.
Hydrargyrus
Member
The things we know by this time are: 1) It's a game that has been out of the radars for a while; 2) Splinter Cell-like type of exclusive (not a huge game like GTA, RDR, ME...); 3) it's timed.
The list of rumored is huge: Mirror's Edge 2, Dragon's Dogma 2, Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, Prince of Persia...
But remembering what CBOAT said the last E3 that PoP and ME2 would be in MS' conference... those could be my bets.
And seeing how Cacpom is right now, it would't surprise me if we see a Dragon's Dogma 2 exclusive for 6 months and a Dragon's Dogma 2: Darkness Arisen in PS4 too
The list of rumored is huge: Mirror's Edge 2, Dragon's Dogma 2, Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, Prince of Persia...
But remembering what CBOAT said the last E3 that PoP and ME2 would be in MS' conference... those could be my bets.
And seeing how Cacpom is right now, it would't surprise me if we see a Dragon's Dogma 2 exclusive for 6 months and a Dragon's Dogma 2: Darkness Arisen in PS4 too
Cash up front and assisted marketing.
Relax. Its timed.
Hydrargyrus
Member
MS just could have paid for the exclusive... or timed exclusive
BabyFaceKillah
Member
Really? then what is the point?
"...the all-in-one games and entertainment system from Microsoft..."
Ha.
EA must have had strong faith in the Xbox brand going into this gen, with regards to the preferential treatment towards the console.
Yes. They think 13 million sales are too much. They don't have space for all the money.
That's Microsoft's mandated press release name.
Warner said:
Activision said:
Ubisoft said:
---Take-Two said:
They also could have bought every multiplatform game ever. I don't think that's a reasonable starting point.
Troubled Bat
Member
Mortal Kombat x Killer Instinct
gAg CruSh3r
Member
What if it is ...
but a man can only dream
...
TimeSplitters!!!!
but a man can only dream
...- Status