Support NeoGAF

[ArkhamFantasy]

Isn't advertising like close to half of the budget of a game?

For EA, Ubisoft, Activision the marketing costs more than the actual games. They spend over a hundred million dollars on advertising for a single game, sometimes hundreds of millions.

AAA games usually cost around 50-100 million to make.

 

[Chris1]

There is evidence, (2) to suggest the game don't need help with funding and them helping "fund" the game likely relates to Xbox versions/marketing/publishing.

Things can change. 1.5 years is a long time for things to change.

They might not have needed help with funds but they obviously accepted it. Also Phil said flat out they funded development of the game. Which is kinda where this whole discussion started.

As I said before ms isn't perfect but I don't think tr is the best example of that

 

[Malcolm9]

to me sony isnt killing 3rd party until sony themselves get a platinum games title going on playstation

What, like Nier Automata

 

[El-Pistolero]

Meaningless. I'd rather have the most powerful console to play these 3rd parties.

What console have you been playing them on so far? The PS4, I would imagine, no?

 

[gamz]

OT - I'm actually amazed that AAA games are still 60 bucks. I mean it's been that way for what 10 years now?

 

[MilkyJoe]

As long as a game is coming to my platform I don't give a feck who pays for the advertising. Unless of course it's missing substantial content or held back for a year or something. But yeah, doesn't affect me in the slightest.

 

[kpaadet]

How do these deals benefit their customers?

Why do you think Sony makes these deals in the first place? To sell consoles, more consoles sold = more games being made for said platform. That benefits their customers, shitty for others no doubt.

 

[Chris1]

I'm trying to find a source on the timeframe between Titanfall being developed for PS4 and Microsoft being publicly known to be funding it as it seems iffy. Could you provide a link to that information ? Rise of the Tomb Raider is different because it has released on other platforms, Titanfall hasn't even released on Steam. The former was an undisclosed deal for a relatively significant period of time whiles the latter was said outright and exclaimed since reveal. When Phil's going to great lengths to hide the simple fact that it's a timed exclusive deal and that it won't be releasing on other consoles, I have no reason to believe him.

It wasn't known to be coming to ps4 really until like a month before launch when Xbox said it was exclusive for the life of the title ( in other words until that point it was going to ps4) You might remember zampella tweets about it. I think he actually said about a ps4 version specifically too.

The funding details wasn't really made public until after with the final hours of titanfall book I believe (could be wrong) which basically says Ea stopped funding the game so ms stepped in and paid for the game to be finished

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

We lauding monetary hats now? Cool.

 

[gamz]

What console have you been playing them on so far? The PS4, I would imagine, no?

Nah. The difference between the two isn't that big and I'm sticking with one console brand this generation. Unlike last generation.

But, yeah, your point is on point!

Edit: If I had the time for two consoles I'd probably buy the Pro. I think?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

OT - I'm actually amazed that AAA games are still 60 bucks. I mean it's been that way for what 10 years now?

Thats why we have DLC and Microtransactions. They will stay at $60 for a long time.

 

[Caayn]

Marketing deals are fine with me. I honestly don't care about the logo that shows up before or after a trailer.

What annoys me is the (timed) exclusive content that's usually part of these deals. They don't add any value for any consumer no matter the platform, they only serve to block content from consumers on other platforms to lure consumers to the "correct" platform.

This content shouldn't be celebrated, it was shitty during the last generation and it's still shitty in this generation.

 

[Ever]

For EA, Ubisoft, Activision the marketing costs more than the actual games. They spend over a hundred million dollars on advertising for a single game, sometimes hundreds of millions.

AAA games usually cost around 50-100 million to make.

In that case, it makes sense to make these deals. Cutting even a portion of marketing costs can be a huge boon to the profitability of a game.

 

[fvng]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

It's not that they're not supporting it, they just don't have the leverage to strike those deals anymore. Don't forget they pioneered these shady deals in the first place. You make it seem like MS straightened up or something

 

[jeffram]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

Microsoft INVENTED that crap. They paid big dollars to get GTA and COD DLCs first at the beginning of last gen. it set the precedent for publishers expecting this new revenue stream.

The tables turned on them and it's their own damn fault.

 

[gamz]

Thats why we have DLC and Microtransactions. They will stay at $60 for a long time.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

The only reason they're not supporting it is because Sony are getting the deals. As much as Spencer tried to fool people into believing support isn't connected to console sales, it is.

 

[Lifeline]

How do these deals benefit their customers?

It pretty much is if Sony doesn't do it Microsoft will. The years Sony doesn't pick up CoD, Microsoft does. The same will happen with Destiny, RDR2, etc.

People keep blaming Sony for his, but the blame rests with the game publishers by putting the option on the table.

I'm glad Sony is funding the marketing for these, because that means I won't have to wait 30 days for CoD maps or a year for Destiny content.

Only way to solve this is a agreement between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to not support these deals or the game publishers to stop offering them.

Till then, I hope Sony keeps doing it because I don't want to lose out on content.

 

[jroc74]

I don't like this.

Sony should fund new interesting games, not this boring stuff. MS too.

Nintendo is the only one who makes this right, real "for the players".

lol, but they have tho. MS has too somewhat. This is another why not both moment.

Nintendo isnt getting it right, they basically have no choice. Nintendo should hope 3rd parties show up on the Switch with 3rd party exclusives.

 

[oSoLucky]

I've made it a point to never buy any timed DLC anymore, no matter what it is, and I don't buy the majority of the games with it. I know my singular wallet doesn't have a huge impact but it's about all I can do. RotTR is the only significant timed game that I've bought recently, and only because I got it for $20 less than a month after PS4 launch and loved the first game.

 

[Shil Pencer]

I have no issues with 3rd party deals and I also don't mind timed exclusive stuff within a couple months. I do have an issue with what Sony and Activision are currently doing with Destiny. It's absolutely horrible

 

[FZW]

Marketing deals are fine, but they almost always include timed exlusives (DLC/Games) and thats something that should never be celebrated. Neither one of these companies are innocent but Sony has been the greatest offender this gen. I just wish ppl werent so quick to defend Sony on this, its slimey and anti consumer.

 

[gamz]

It pretty much is if Sony doesn't do it Microsoft will. The years Sony doesn't pick up CoD, Microsoft does. The same will happen with Destiny, RDR2, etc.

People keep blaming Sony for his, but the blame rests with the game publishers by putting the option on the table.

I'm glad Sony is funding the marketing for these, because that means I won't have to wait 30 days for CoD maps or a year for Destiny content.

Only way to solve this is a agreement between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to not support these deals or the game publishers to stop offering them.

Till then, I hope Sony keeps doing it because I don't want to lose out on content.

This. It's a business folks. Everyone wants to get paid. That's really about it.

 

[BHK3]

Pre order is terrible, everything else is to be expected. Incentives to buy a game on one console over another, its been like this since the 90s with certain versions having more content than others...I never minded it.

 

[ArtHands]

Good for Sony, bad for gaming industry.

 

[FallenGrace]

I don't like this.

Sony should fund new interesting games, not this boring stuff. MS too.

Nintendo is the only one who makes this right, real "for the players".

So Sony haven't put money towards Gravity Rush, Horizon, Nioh, Bloodborne, Until Dawn etc? Yes they paid for marketing deals to boost their platform but they also invest in other things.

 

[Trup1aya]

Sucks for me, but Sony has been brilliant.

The first few years, their 1st party wasn't very strong, but the had major 3rd party deals. Now they have the deals AND the strong lineups

 

[Kayant]

Things can change. 1.5 years is a long time for things to change.

They might not have needed help with funds but they obviously accepted it. Also Phil said flat out they funded development of the game. Which is kinda where this whole discussion started.

As I said before ms isn't perfect but I don't think tr is the best example of that

Sure but when the game is a listed as a multiplat at E3 then becomes a timed exclusive at Gamescom + the amount of denial from SE/MS/CD that took no less than 2 interviews/3 blog post updates just to say it's timed that doesn't suggest it needed any funding in development it more suggests that talks were happening which is why it was revealed the way it was at E3 and the deal of finalised after E3 and formally revealed at Gamescom.

TF would actually be an example of them helping to fund a game because they initially had 13 months of exclusivity because of that but they went to EA after E3 and got a lifetime exclusive for Xbox/PC. We know this because it lines up with Vince Zampella‏ now famous tweet. Which I see you have pointed out in your other post.

 

[fritolay]

I think it's crap.

It used to be that you promoted your 1st party studios to show exclusives on your system. Now they are paying to limit content on other systems with promotions. They should spend the money on their own 1st party development instead of hindering other gamers.

 

[Sad Affleck]

That's not what anti-consumer means.

If you mean that it's "bad for the consumer", it really isn't. If you think you're not getting your 60 dollar's worth with what's on the disc, then don't buy the game. The consumer doesn't have the right to be able to play everything and anything of their choosing on whichever platform they bought into.

With respect to your opinion, you should be able to understand why paying money to deprive people on other platforms of content is anti-consumer. That money isn't spent on producing new and original content for your customers but on screwing over other customers. It is a textbook definition of an anti-consumer practice.

 

[Hydrargyrus]

Sony has done it so well, that everyone wants to be on their side.
Being associated with MS, on the other hand, decreases the brand's value.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

We hyping money hats these days, what changed?!

But yes, they are to be expected. This is multi million / billion dollar business. But they still suck. It's downright wrong that a multi platform game can be marketed as if it's only available on one platform. Or timed window for content. Just bullshit really.

Imagine if the platform holders didn't spend on these deals. The games would still sell the same and Sony / MS could fund an extra AAA game a year with the savings.

 

[orava]

Well it's great to see sony do something pro-consumer.

edit. read that wrong. I thought they are abandoning this shitty practice.

 

[gamz]

Sony has done it so well, that everyone wants to be on their side.
Being associated with MS, on the other hand, decreases the brand's value.

Come on! That's crap.

 

[Shock32]

How do these deals benefit their customers?

No longer waiting 30 days for map packs, early beta access, all the destiny content. That benefits PS customers tremendously.

 

[HardRojo]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

Were you there for Rise of the Tomb Raider? Or even last gen when MS kept getting the exclusively timed CoD stuff? I don't think they can't support it, it's developers mostly wanting to go with the better selling console of the two. Don't know if things will change with Scorpio, we'll see.
Edit: And yeah I agree the timed exclusive and completely exclusive stuff are the only things that bother me from these deals, if these didn't exist then it'd be fine.

 

[JaffeLion]

Sony has done it so well, that everyone wants to be on their side.
Being associated with MS, on the other hand, decreases the brand's value.

lol are you serious?

 

[takriel]

This is never good for us, the consumers. Such behavior should never be praised.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Good for Sony, bad for gaming industry.

How is bad for the industry? It's certainly not great for MS, but they were doing it to Sony last gen.

Lets look at two different strategies used this gen

MS likely spent tens of millions of dollars on Scalebound, advertised it for years, took it to trade shows, invested years of time, money and resources into it. The game gets cancelled, and even if it worked out and they made a great game of i it, it still would have probably bombed and lost them a bunch of money.

Who was that good for? It was bad for MS, it was bad for Platinum, and it was bad for the fans who were looking forward to the game.

Now look at what Sony did with Destiny, they paid for the marketing rights to the game, MS still gets Destiny, but Sonys PS4 sales DOUBLED during September 2014 NPD when Destiny came out.

So Sony pays Activision so Activision is happy, Sony doubles PS4 sales so they're happy, retailers sell a bunch of PS4s so they're happy, gamers get Destiny so they're happy. Thats a win win win win.

 

[HardRojo]

I don't like this.

Sony should fund new interesting games, not this boring stuff. MS too.

Nintendo is the only one who makes this right, real "for the players".

Except Sony keeps funding new and interesting games, so I don't get this complaint.

You can't be mad with SFV exclusivity just like you can't be mad with Bayonetta 2 exclusivity.

People won't let that one go, despite it being explained ad nauseum in this very forum.

 

[hanspampel]

Sony has done it so well, that everyone wants to be on their side.
Being associated with MS, on the other hand, decreases the brand's value.

nah man.
the opposite is true

being associated with Sony decreased the brand value, because of the toxic fanbase.
this become a Apple type situation now. but even worse because Apple fanboys were just hyped and blindly positive about anything Apple related, while the Sony fanbase blindly hates just everything that is not them or theirs

Spoiler

bait posts for a bait topic - both is wrong of course

 

[Sad Affleck]

No longer waiting 30 days for map packs, early beta access, all the destiny content. That benefits PS customers tremendously.

And why did they have to wait in the past? Because another company engaged in these shitty practices and screwed you over. If gamers keep wasting their time on arguing over which company is the lesser evil instead of rejecting these practices then they will keep playing themselves.

 

[Melchiah]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

Yeah, they didn't do it all last gen. Now it's stupid crap, when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Chris1]

Sure but when the game is a listed as a multiplat at E3 then becomes a timed exclusive at Gamescom + the amount of denial from SE/MS/CD that took no less than 2 interviews/3 blog post updates just to say it's timed that doesn't suggest it needed any funding in development it more suggests that talks were happening which is why it was revealed the way it was at E3 and the deal of finalised after E3 and formally revealed at Gamescom.

TF would actually be an example of them helping to fund a game because they initially had 13 months of exclusivity because of that but they went to EA after E3 and got a lifetime exclusive for Xbox/PC. We know this because it lines up with Vince Zampella‏ now famous tweet. Which I see you have pointed out in your other post.

it was only timed exclusive after ms stepped in to pay development though. Not before. The perm exclusive came even later

Who's to say ms didn't come in and say "well fund the next year if development in return for some exclusivity" for tomb raider ? That's not much different to titanfall imo (well other than ea stopped funding but yeah SE accepted it anyway)

It's not like ms funded the whole of titanfall, ea did a good chunk of it too before giving up on the game and requiring ms funds


Also I think something people forget is ms published tr on xbox. Square Enix wouldn't give up 30% cut for nothing. I think it's obvious ms funded the game, how much? I have no idea.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Yeah, they didn't do it all last gen. Now it's stupid crap, when the shoe is on the other foot.

If you endorse these practices now just because they don't hurt you, you are only making sure that you will get screwed over in the future if the situation changes.

 

[Chronospherics]

It's easy to get these deals when your platform has a considerable lead as the trade-off for the publisher is far less severe.

 

[Poop!]

We lauding monetary hats now? Cool.

Reading forums last gen, I could have sworn folks thought it was a bad thing.

 

[Steveo]

As a multi console owner these types of deals may make me buy one version over the other. But stuff like visual quality, where my friends are, etc... matters more to me.


So it makes me wonder, who are these types of deals for? Are there really people out there buying one system over the other because Sony has a deal for Call of Duty? or because Microsoft as a deal for Battlefield 1?

 

[Theslammer]

This is IMHO the worst thing in this industry, stupid exclusive content. It's just annoying and stupid. We should not support that. Glad, that Microsoft is not supporting this crap.

They did when they were ahead in NA last gen.

My brother primarily games on Xbox and I remember he was talking about how much he hates that the PS4 gets Destiny stuff early, this stuff or that stuff early, etc., and doesn't understand why they would do that. I told him I understand the frustration but then told him, since he wasn't aware, that MS had marketing deals with many of these companies last gen and got exclusive DLC or timed exclusivity on DLC. Quite an eye-opener for him. He obviously and understandably still hates it now, but he's gotten past the, "Why is Sony doing it?" since they're doing it for the same reasons MS did.

 

[Ikuu]

Loving these hated it when MS did it, but now Sony is doing it it's ok posts.