Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Most studios struggle with financing. And with ballooning costs, the risks have also become higher. That leads studios to explore two possible options:
While timed-exclusivity may appear anti-consumer and bad, they do provide the financial cushion some studios need at the time. Tango may have been struggling, but PlayStation's deal enabled them to survive and work on multiple games simultaneously (Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush). And both PS and Xbox players eventually got access to Ghostwire Tokyo. Ironically, it was the acquisition that killed them -- which was supposed to bring them financial stability and security.
Looking back at this whole timeline, has your stance softened regarding exclusivity deals? Do you think more studios should first explore timed-exclusivity deals, instead of being acquired?
Or do you prefer studios being sold over timed-exclusivity deals?
- Full- or timed-exclusivity deals (so another publisher/platform holder bears most of the expenses and risks)
- Selling the studio to a larger company or platform holder
While timed-exclusivity may appear anti-consumer and bad, they do provide the financial cushion some studios need at the time. Tango may have been struggling, but PlayStation's deal enabled them to survive and work on multiple games simultaneously (Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush). And both PS and Xbox players eventually got access to Ghostwire Tokyo. Ironically, it was the acquisition that killed them -- which was supposed to bring them financial stability and security.
Looking back at this whole timeline, has your stance softened regarding exclusivity deals? Do you think more studios should first explore timed-exclusivity deals, instead of being acquired?
Or do you prefer studios being sold over timed-exclusivity deals?