If there's one thing that Xbox chief Phil Spencer likes to do it's chat about the competition – although, to be fair, he was asked on this occasion. In a fairly wide-ranging interview with GameSpot, the ex-Microsoft Game Studios head insinuated that Sony's buying up plenty of third-party exclusives for the PlayStation 4, while his company focuses on first-party. It's got nothing to do with market share, apparently.
"They don't 'gobble' the deals up," he said of the Japanese giant. "They buy them. You know, I read the same things that you do, and I know that some people think that it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share." It was widely believed that Call of Duty, for example, had switched sides because of the PS4's global dominance, but that's not true according to Spencer.
"So we're making a conscious decision to focus on our first-party games," he continued. "It doesn't make it harder or easier, it's just a decision. I do think that building up first-party exclusives is creatively more difficult than signing a deal, just by the nature of what it is. For us, right now Xbox is in a stretch where all of its first-party teams are doing an incredible job. I'm proud of that as the head of Xbox, and as the head of first-party."
Sony has virtually every major third-party release in its camp this year, with major titles such as Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Star Wars Battlefront, and Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain all fighting its corner. However, it's not like it's totally abandoned first-party either – it literally just announced Horizon: Zero Dawn and Dreams at E3 2015, and still has the likes of Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, The Last Guardian, and Tearaway Unfolded on the way.
And it would appear that SCEE president Jim Ryan doesn't entirely agree with Spencer's view of things on the third-party front. "It certainly makes discussions with publishers easier when you have a significant install base, and one that is fast growing, and one that is noticeably further ahead than the competition," he said earlier in the year. "I wouldn't say that we have become the industry's default option, because there are other factors that come into play, such as amounts of cash. But I would say that we're starting to become the first thing a publisher thinks about when they consider partnerships."
From our perspective, we reckon that a good blend of first-party and third-party is absolutely essential. A system that focuses solely on its internal output will struggle commercially, as the Wii U is proving despite its wealth of stellar exclusive offerings. However, first-party titles can establish the ethos of a machine, and that's why we're glad to see Sony putting its money behind out-there projects such as Horizon: Zero Dawn, RIME, and Dreams – after all, you'd never see these types of titles anywhere else.
[source gamespot.com]
Comments 47
Interesting.
I still tend to buy my multiplatform games this generation on Xbox One, for the simple reason that while they run at a lower resolution on average, they have more stable framerates (see Digital Foundry's investigation of The Witcher, Far Cry 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare), which is preferable to me.
Both consoles are killing it with first-party games throughout next year, though. It's an amazing time to be both a multi-platform owner and not a stuck up PC isolationist douche.
cough*tombraider*cough*titanfall*cough*deadrising3*cough
come on Spencer, you was doing so well at being cool for awhile there :/
For me personally, one of my favourite things about PlayStation first-party has always been that they fund some bonkers stuff sometimes. Things like Shadow of the Colossus and Heavy Rain are completely barmy when you look at what's popular in the industry, but you can't really get it anywhere else. These games have flaws, but could you ever imagine any other publisher green lighting something like Dreams? It's got commercial flop written all over it, but I love the experimental aspect.
I think what you're seeing this generation is that Sony — like other publishers — is moving away from that mid-tier boxed game. Stuff like Resistance, Starhawk, and MAG were fine — but they weren't moving the needle commercially, and they weren't doing anything especially original either.
This is bad news for people playing list wars as, while I'd still argue Sony's first-party outfit is more than substantial right now, it's not putting out a game a month like it used to be. However, when you look at some of the stuff it's funding in the PSN space — RIME, WiLD, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, Helldivers — I feel like it's still filling that mid-tier space, it's just doing it with these downloadable curios.
I'm also not sure I believe Spencer when he says install base doesn't make a difference, but he'd know more than me.
I can't possibly take him seriously not for what they've done in the past, but rather what they JUST announced. An Xbone exclusive from Platinum Games? No way in HELL any self-respecting Japanese developer would go Xbone exclusive for free, ergo he's full of crap.
@Stuffgamer1 I think that's a different scenario 'cos Microsoft's publishing the game. Stuff like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Titanfall are better examples, as one would assume they would have launched on PS4 day and date if it weren't for 'incentives'.
I really wish Scalebound was on PS4. However Gears, Halo, Forza and Fable are boring franchises to me. I much prefer the likes of Uncharted. Games like the Last Guardian and Horizon are what make Playstation Unique. Also we get Final Fantasy 7 first.
Man, Phil Spencer just lost his cool factor to me. Scalebound, Recore and Sea of Thieves are literally the only reason I would own an Xbox One, Halo 5 a maybe, so I'm glad I've stuck with Nintendo all these years, and became a Sony fan in 2013 at the launch of PS4. Xbox is just now starting to roll out intriguing exclusives, and they aren't even coming out until next year at the earliest.
For the most part, I use my Wii U and PS4 for console-exclusives (the PS4 being the lesser in terms of first-party content, which will change by next year). I used to be an Xbox guy, but I like Sony more because they're more likely to get more Japanese support (for example, you're not going to get "Persona" games on Microsoft platforms anytime soon...).
For multi-platform games, I'm for PC/Steam (can't beat those sales).
Come on now, Phil, we're all adults here. I'm sure that the Xbox 360's popularity had nothing to do with third party deals either, right?
Sony have said in the past that they don't pay for exclusives.
Maybe that's changed with this new gen, and with the money they're getting from sales and PS+, maybe that's enabled them to start buying stuff.
Either way, to make such a comment when your company has been doing exactly the same thing since they entered the market smacks of sour grapes that the competition has suddenly decided to match you.
But then, historically, Microsoft never have liked a level playing field.
What's funny is Phil has steered the MS in the same direction Sony has been headed for years.
He's realised MS lack first party killer games in the league of Sony so is now focusing on closing that gap.
The latter years of the 360 and early years of X1 have been really lacking in variety of 1st party games, especially when compared to PS.
I think Sony is doing both, there is an equal importance for both, and Sony has done well there, but Xbox traditionally has relied heavier on third party game's, but now there trying to switch gears and do the exact opposite, if they really wanted to close the gap, they like Sony would focus on both. I mean look how well the first party primary thing is doing for Nintendo.
@get2sammyb
Nail on the head there. I know it's only my opinion but the Xbox line up is, and always has been, dull, dull and more dull in comparison.
@get2sammyb Okay, that just means Microsoft went out of their way to publish a game from a category of developers that have little to no business on an American console, ust like their partnership with Mistwalker on the 360. Either way, it's not technically a first-party game because Microsoft doesn't own the developer in question.
So Microsoft is mad that Sony is dominating. When I used to get the X-box Magazine, they spent most of their time busting on their rivals, instead of showing what their system can do (only bought a few issues for demos). Microsoft is going to find themselves in trouble if this article is true, the don't have the big franchises that Nintendo does to keep it going.
All in all, Sony is proving that they are back in control like in the PS2 era, and I hope they continue to make the great first-party titles that they made for their other systems. I really hope a new Hot Shots Golf, Twisted Metal, God Of War, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and more are on the way. I'd even like to see some usage of the camera in games like Sports Champions, Eye Pet or more. I also hope they try their hands at a new Buzz title too...controllers, not cell phones though...was disappointed at Sing Star for using Cell phones instead of microphones.
Hello, Pot: this is Kettle calling to say that you're black.
Phil Spencer, just like execs at Sony and at Nintendo of America, was never cool so I won't pile on with the 'he's not cool anymore' stuff. I do think he's bsing a bit, I can't imagine that install base has nothing to do with these deals, at least in terms of the big games. You can buy a timed-exclusive like Rise of the Tomb Raider, but third parties with big franchises that have been established on multiple brands in the past would be completely idiotic to avoid the larger PS4 userbase. I wouldn't say marketshare is the end all, be all, but to say it has nothing to do with it? I seriously doubt that.
He's insane if he thinks that having 15 million more potential customers on PS4 isn't going to massively influence developers to choose that platform over the Xbone. Especially when the Xbone effectively doesn't exist in Japan, and even in European countries such as Spain is being outsold about 8:1 by the Vita. Yes. the god damn Vita!
But really, the whole first/third party thing is such a weird grey area that hardcore gamers actually seem to just take as gospel. For example, Nintendo do not own Game Freak in anyway, Game Freak are a separate company, yet everyone considers Pokemon to be a first party title. You also get a third party company using a first party IP, like Capcom making Minish Cap or Oracles of Seasons/Ages. Then what about when a company has been its own separate thing for decades but is bought by a company? Like Monolith and Nintendo. Isn't that actually just a worse version of paying for exclusives? Oh, and Microsoft and Rare and Lionhead. You're not just paying Crystal Dynamics to make TR exclusive for a year, you're buying Crystal Dynamics outright and keeping TR off every other platform.
On top of that, if you ask anyone what made PS1 and PS2 great, it's very rare that they'll list stuff like Sly Raccoon. Especially average gamers, not that small percentage of them that browse gaming websites every day like us. What most people remember from the PS1, and what made it a success, was all third party. GTA, MGS, RE, TR, FF, Tekken, Ridge Racer, Soul Blade... Most (all?) of them have appeared on other platforms since, so what we're talking about here are what we'd now call timed exclusives, third party ones at that, yet that's what made the PS1 a massive success, not first party stuff like Crash Bandicoot.
Depending on the context of what he's saying, whether he means Sony have a lot of 3rd party marketing deals in place or 3rd party exclusives either way it's a bit rich coming from him since Microsoft during last gen relied heavily on 3rd party franchises like CoD and FIFA to sell systems.
Eh I have a ps4 for multiplats as it is, and a wiiU for first party exclusives, I don't wanna fight this is just me personally.
@adf86 He's mostly talking about the marketing deals with the exclusive content I think. Obviously stuff like Street Fighter also factors in, though.
Dang @get2sammyb, I feel like I get almost as much Xbox news at Push Square as I do at Pure Xbox (and it isn't because Pure Xbox is lacking updates). It's like you want an Xbox One or something. j/k I know you love your Playstation I did miss the term "Redmond firm" though, I always like to see my hometown area mentioned.
so much sour grape...
You know what I find funny? It seems Sony has adopted the MS strategy they had in the 360 days with their summer of arcade and letting the 3rd parties work for you, where MS is copying the PS3 era mistakes Sony made.
@Boerewors
Dropping Summer of Arcade is one of the dumbest things MS ever did. Granted in its later years the promotion was kind of weak, but when it started there were some killer releases during those summer months. Shadow Complex was a Summer of Arcade title and I believe that first Lara Croft spinoff was also a summer release. They also used to do a spring 'block party' or something that saw some nice launches.
I think the sales for Gold subscribers these days have improved significantly from the 360 era but I miss the seasonal promotions.
@Gamer83
MS is at a point where they HAVE to come up with nice deals, but whatever they do it just seems to please the current owners more than it attracts the attention of the other gamers.
Btw, I see people talking bout Titanfall's exclusivity and that one is pretty interesting, because that underlines the way Xbox went into this gen, supported by major Western publishers. Everyone in the industry has seen the rise of the Xbox and the Western game industry, where Sony had trouble keeping up and the Japanese game industry failing to make the impact they had 10 years earlier. So MS and big publishers like EA were so certain that this generation would seal Xbox' dominance over PS and the Western dominance over the Eastern, that they came up with some elaborate schemes to change gaming, and more importantly the way we "consume" our games, once and for all. MS would build a DRM box with an always online structure that would speed up the process of going digital, where taking out the middle man would make sure there were extra profits for both MS ánd the publisher, and would kill the second hand market single handedly. EA Acces is a revised hub that was actually meant as the "EA Steam" where EA titles could be bought digitally and with a similar subscription model for legacy games. Titanfall is a game that was promised to MS during the negotiations way before the consoles launched and because Xbox would crush Sony and TF would be the biggest hit since CoD, everything was in place to conquer the world.
As we all know by now things went differently and I hope in time we'll get a book about this very period, because what happened behind the scenes is quite interesting. It's not that Sony didn't want DRM and more focus on digital gaming, with their rights to music, movies and games they even have more riding on it, but it seems they knew how conservative the console audience is and waited for MS to make the first move, the rest is history. In the end we still got what we were afraid of, but instead of calling it DRM or always online, the industry rode in the Trojan horse that are 8GB day 1 patches and frequent updates that effectively make games unplayable out of the box without a proper Internet connection. With DLC they found a way to slowly but steadily make sure that selling your games will get harder and I honestly think that in a few years they have a system deployed where we get games that more look like "starter packs" which require lots of updates, patches and paid DLC. But instead of getting the initial benefits MS (and probably Sony too) had planned out to smoothen the transition, it is forced upon us without reduced prices for digital content, family sharing and what not.
@Matroska Umm...Pokemon is a first party franchise despite not owning Game Freak or Creatures, Inc...So those studios can work on any console they want too. Pokemon may only release on Nintendo's own systems or PC/Mobile, it will never come out on PS/Xbox.
Install base definitely makes a difference. I have to agree though xbox one has more first party exclusives on its system then Sony has on the ps4 so far, I always buy multi platform titles for the ps4 mainly because the games usually look slightly better and most of my friends have a ps4
basically because install base matters
@Boerewors Bravo!! I think a lot of people forget that was MS attitude and MO during the 360 days and going into this current gen but that they very quickly learned consumers didnt want that so they all became 'nice guys who just love gaming'. I still remember Larry Hyrbs tweets after the PS4 reveal in NY in Feb 2013. Today he seems like whole new person. Its just marketing.
The more MS squirms for attention, the better it becomes for Xbone owners, although I don't think it will do much to close the gap and attract new owners.
Funny how nobody remembers how utterly hilarious (to our loss) the PS3 launch was. The first couple years of PS3 games were full of groaners, compatibility issues and missed opportunities. I think nobody remembers how bad those times were because of how well they turned the system around--from late 2008 on, the system was a goldmine.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft, which is in basically the same sales and compatibility situation that Sony was in this time last gen, turns it around just as fast. I think we should wait and see if it succeeds, and I think it actually will.
@TeslaChippie
I think most remember how bad those days were. Sony had a few things going for it though. Good first party studios under its belt and the most powerful hardware. Also the fact that the PS brand is relevant world wide. MS has already turned things around a lot from where things could've headed after E3 2013 but it will never capture the minds of Japanese gamers and Europe doesn't seem to be buying in either. On top of that its sticking first parties on already established franchises rather than opening studios to create new IPs, which MS has more than enough money to do but it continues to rely on Halo, Gears and Forza.
@Stuffgamer1
You think that Streetfighter is an exclusive on the PS4 for free?
@Kohaku Yes, and I can tell you why: Capcom wanted cross-platform multiplayer and Microsoft refused to work with them. Don't forget that Street Fighter V is also coming to PC, after all...and PC and PS4 will run on the same servers. Microsoft has a bad history with that; also the same reason FFXIV isn't on Xbox.
@Stuffgamer1
Is there a reason why MS is so against cross-platform multiplayer? If it's something like security reasons, then ok. I guess I can live with that. But if it has to do with money, or controlling the servers, then what the heck MS. what. the. heck.
@Utena-mobile As I understand it, this is mostly a control issue. Microsoft actually granted Square-Enix a special exception for FFXI on Xbox 360; you don't even need Live Gold to play that game online as long as you keep your game subscription up. But they were unwilling to repeat that with FFXIV. Now they're suddenly improving greatly with Xbone/PC cross-platform plans, but of course still nothing to combine it with PS4. That's not too surprising from a business standpoint, even though it sucks for gamers.
As far as Street Fighter V goes, I believe Capcom chose PS4 at least partially due to the larger install base, especially where it concerns their demographic (Japanese company, popular series...Xbone is DEAD in Japan). I don't remember all the details and I'm not going to pretend I do...nor shall I suggest you HAVE to believe me as some of my info comes from a source I can't name in the industry (and is being filtered through my memory as this discussion was a while ago). But I do distinctly remember that Sony didn't actually pay money for SFV. Sadly, some of these business issues will probably never be dealt with to the benefit of gamers because competition gets in the way.
"It was widely believed that Call of Duty, for example, had switched sides because of the PS4's global dominance"
Is there really a single person with just an inkling of how this industry functions that ever said such a thing? Of course it's a money thing, it always has been.
MS has been doing this ever since they got into the business. Just look at the truckloads of money they dumped in Sega's lap when they got out of the hardware business.
And now all of a sudden we should look at Sony differently because they now do this as well?
Spencer please....
@Ryno You don't think this article is relevant? I do.
First party exclusives, third party exclusives, I don't care as long as the games are good and appealing. Yesterday I watched the Scalebound trailer and it only made me care less about the game.
I will keep playing Splatoon while I wait for Uncharted 4 and Horizon. Or all those new first party MS games Spencer teases about but never show.
@Link41x That's my point, though. It's not first party, it's not a company owned by the console maker. If it's first party just because that particular franchise won't appear elsewhere, then Bloodborne is a first party game. For the time being, Rise of the Tomb Raider is a first party Microsoft game.
Game Freak are a third party company free to make games for anyone. So thus Pokemon is actually a third party exclusive. Pokemon branded things, albeit not actual games, appear on iOS as well.
This is why the whole first vs third party thing is so weird. Did any of the millions of people that bought Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy VII on the PS1 care - or even know - that they weren't made by a Sony-owned studio?
You can't compare Pokemon to Rise of the Tomb Raider, one is a first party game, the other is a third party game.
@Matroska Actually Game Freak is a second party company. Although they are allowed to produce for other companies and are separate, they are under contract with Nintendo. Nintendo also owns the majority of Game Freak.
@get2sammyb: I dunno man, it just seems like the way this was presented was to rile up the Sony faithful. The question from the the interviewer was "Microsoft appears to be doubling-down on its first-party titles while Sony is securing a lot of third-party deals. How difficult is it to be successful, in terms of market share, when Sony is gobbling up so many third-party deals now?" It's not just Microsoft who believes this as the interviewer alluded but whatever, maybe that is not all that important on a Sony site.
@Stuffgamer1: I would assume Microsoft's first party focus on Killer Instinct may play a part to on the Street Fighter V console exclusive issue. Why wouldn't it? Of all the IP's Sony has, does it have a fighter? It makes sense for them to create a "business partnership" for the most popular fighter out there especially when Microsoft wouldn't do much with it. Which is a bummer because I would like to play SFV and K.I. on my XB1. Well, if Microsoft does figure how to stream games from PC to XB1 then maybe I will.
@Aromaiden I can't see any source anywhere for Nintendo owning any part of Game Freak at all. And again, as for the trademark owning thing, Sony own the Bloodborne trademark, they own the Demons Souls trademark. They're still not first party or referred to as second party. And again, Capcom made Minish Cap and the Oracles games, they're third party games, yet made with a first party trademark. This is like if Capcom made a God of War game and we said "Another great Sony game!"
It just seems Nintendo has trained its fans, gamers in general really, to more closely associate them with games they have anything to do with at all. We'd call Fire Emblem a Nintendo game even though it's not made in-house, yet we'd call Uncharted a Naughty Dog game, not a Sony game. We wouldn't say "Sony made a great game with Uncharted", yet we would say "Nintendo do it again!" when talking about Fire Emblem or Pokemon.
I think another overall point is that it's odd how we hate Microsoft for buying RotTR for a year yet Nintendo buy Monolith so they can have Xenoblade as an exclusive and we're fine with that. They buy Intelligent Systems to get Fire Emblem as an exclusive and we're fine with that. The creator of Fire Emblem leaves Intelligent Systems to make his own game and is then sued by Nintendo for the game being too similar to FE. But we all love Uncle Nintendo.
@Matroska To be honest, I don't know enough about this topic to really offer you a good discussion on it. I just wanted to point out that Game Freak was considered second party.
This is ridiculous. Microsoft bought everything that wasn't nailed down on 360. Never mind the timed deals with call of duty and ea.
Tap here to load 47 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...