Sony: exclusives hold back the industry

By Fred Dutton Published 18 February, 2011

Would rather bag unique in-game content.

Securing unique in-game content is more important than bagging full platform exclusives, so says a Sony exec.

Speaking in an interview with Scrawl FX, MLB 11: The Show brand manager Scott McCarthy explained that a platform exclusive release limits a game's potential.

Clearly, nobody wants to see that happen, so Sony would rather a game ships across multiple platforms but feature unique content on PlayStation systems to give it the edge.

"We work very closely with our third parties publishers, not necessarily to lock down games exclusively, but to lock up exclusive parts of games," he said. "A good example is Batman: Arkham Asylum, where you could only play as the Joker on PlayStation 3.

"When you make a title exclusive, you limit its promotional power; we don't want to do that. We want games to be as big as possible - it's great for the industry.

"However, we want to make sure that you play it on the best system possible, so we like to take parts of games and make them exclusive to the PlayStation system."

A noble sentiment, to be sure, but there are some mixed messages going on here. Only last month the platform holder took the time to remind everyone that over 20 PlayStation 3 exclusives are due out this year.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • richyroo #1 1 year ago

    Yet is seems Sony has the best exclusives this year whereas Microsoft seem to like buying the exclusive DLC content, or at least paying to get first dibbs on it.

  • telboy007 #2 1 year ago

    Damn you, I was about to post the same thing!!!! :)

  • Lunastra78 #3 1 year ago

    Sony and Microsoft should make the next generation console together. Uncharted and Gears of War on the same console. Good online and trusty hardware. Ebony and Ivory.

    Bad for competition you say? Well they'd still be competing with Nintendo that sells as much as the two combined.

  • lambtron #4 1 year ago

    Hehe. I'm sure he's going to put out Xbox360 versions of Uncharted, God of War etc for the greater good ;)

  • oerhoert #5 1 year ago

    Essentially, the three-console model is bad for the industry. It would be far better for game sales if there was one joint venture, one box, and all games came out for that one box.

  • atrimus #6 1 year ago

    "... but there are some mixed messages going on here"

    actually, no there isn't. those PS3 exclusives are pretty much Sony owned or Sony published. here, he's talking about third-parties. i for one agree with him. as a multiconsole owner, nothing sucks more than to buy a third-party 360 exclusive, just to find out that that exclusivity was only timed and a more feature-rich PS3 version is in the pipelines.

  • BabyJesus #7 1 year ago

    Funny that, Sony built the playstation brand on 3rd party exclusives, it's only this gen that has changed.

  • atrimus #8 1 year ago

    @oerhort

    not sure i agree. if there were only one system, there would be no competition, and a manufacturer wouldn't feel the need to make a better system. why should Company A make Box B, when Box A has no competition and is ruling the market all by itself?

  • Badassbab #9 1 year ago

    I agree with the exec. I reckon it would do Sony more good then harm to have their games available accros all platforms but as he said with content excluisve to the PS3 and their approach to locking down exclusive content on third party games is far better than MS and their 1 month timed exclusive rubbish. Personally I hate any kind of timed or content exclusivity. Content should only be exclusive due to the hardware not £.
    Edited by Badassbab at 18/02/11 @ 18:52

  • WinterSnowblind #10 1 year ago

    I'm surprised to see Sony say this, it's something I'd have expected to come from Microsoft, who I really think should be focusing on getting more second party developers to make more exclusive titles, like Sony is doing, rather than getting timed DLC.

    I guess we can expect more exclusive DLC in the future then.. I'm definitely not in favour of that.

  • FuzzyDuck #11 1 year ago

    I thought the Joker Challenge Maps were not a patch on Bats' maps.

  • azix2 #12 1 year ago

    what are u talking about atrimus? What you say sucks is EXACTLY what he wants to happen. Buy a game on one console and find out that you are missing out on some CONTENT that is exclusive to the other console. I would rather the whole game be on one console than to find out I am missing out after buying the game for the same price as the other consoles version.

    Exclusives are what makes a console. Who the hell will have a list of exclusive content to pit one console against another in terms of value?

  • captain_Carl #13 1 year ago

    @oerhört

    That is possibly the worst thing that could happen. With no competition, there would be no incentive to drop price. No incentive to innovate, or increase quality etc.

  • atrimus #14 1 year ago

    @BabyJesus

    well, Sony really had no choice, as they were new to the industry then. yeah, the same can be said about Microsoft, but there's a difference. over the years Sony used it's position to build a firm of in-house studios, something that Microsoft pretty much did the reverse of.

  • The-Bodybuilder #15 1 year ago

    Uncharted for 360 confirmed!

  • KDR_11k #16 1 year ago

    Unique ingame content is even dumber, at least with platform exclusives you can own more systems and still get everything. Exclusive content means you can't get it all in one game. Exclusivity outside of first party games is a forced affair anyway.

  • Murton #17 1 year ago

    I can see the logic behind it, a game that comes out on two platforms will make more money for the publisher so they'll have more to invest and can make more/better games in the future, but depending on what content is being made exclusive it can be a bit of a kick in the nuts for the consumers who aren't getting the best experience they could.

    Exclusive content on multiplatform games is something that publishers should think very, very carefully about as you're effectively saying that you value one group fans over another. Playing as the Joker in Batman AA is reasonably harmless, a couple of challenge maps and no difference in the excellent single player campaign, other games however have story additional storylines added with exclusive DLC or in the absolute worst case of DLC exclusivity I've seen, the ending of a game has been changed leaving some version non-canon, which is a stiff middle finger to fans on that platform.

    I personally think it's wrong for Sony to encourage this practice that they've been quite vocally against in the past and they should continue to play right by gamers as a whole and show their strength through their unmatched first party lineup. Now every publisher is going to be constantly offering exclusivity deals prior to release and gamers will suffer for it,

  • Grayvern #18 1 year ago

    Shipping games with differing content on multiple platforms is just as filthy, and average consumer, confusing as pre-order bonuses.

    Just ship the exact same damn game on multiple platforms.

  • L0cky #19 1 year ago

    I originally downvoted oerhört's comment, but then put it back up again.

    In a sense you could have a single console and still have competition; but it would have to be a platform rather than a physical box from a single manufacturer.

    NVidia designs GPUs and licenses that design to manufacturers; who can sell the cards at wildly differing prices, with essentially the same product.

    Google made Android, but many people make Android devices at varying prices. Hardware fragmentation would be a consideration, but with a licensed platform there would be standards (as there are with the Android Marketplace).

    To be honest, I see an opportunity there for Android, once it's reached a level of maturity; I'm not sure Google would be interested in doing it though.

    So a single platform, rather than a single box may not be such a bad thing.

  • Grayvern #20 1 year ago

    It could work but given apples success I have no hope of anything like this happening, or that traditional PC's or the Internet in it's mostly free state will still exist in 20 years time.

  • Xardan #21 1 year ago

    I think exclusives are starting to cost Sony and they are disappointed with their sales. So maybe Sony is beginning to realise that exclusives arent worth the trouble (unless the game has a proven track record)

  • Monkeyspoon #22 1 year ago

    Sony owns lots of studios so will always have lots of exclusives. Microsoft has hardly any which is why they are losing exclusives all the time. If Sony gets exclusive DLC on multiplat games there will be hardly any reason to buy games on 360.

  • space_ace #23 1 year ago

    Shameless Corp B.S. hold back the industry

  • metalangel #24 1 year ago

    So only certain types of exclusivity are good, namely ones that benefit you.

    I wish all this exclusive limited edition premium VIP preorder content nonsense would just fuck off. Give us a game that is complete and contained entirely on the disc you buy.

  • darth_paul #25 1 year ago

    unless they release God of War 4 & LBP3 on the 360, its the most cynic and pathetic statement sony has ever released

    expect to see Uncharted 3, GOW4 and LBP3 on the 360 ;-)
    Edited by darth_paul at 18/02/11 @ 19:45

  • DozyKipper #26 1 year ago

    I don't get why the comments promoting one console for all are being negged. Look at the faff that Test Drive Unlimited 2 is experiencing because the dev has unique problems on three platforms to iron out. OK, PC will always be separate but certainly MS and Sony at least should come together and make one console between them.

  • Pythonidae #27 1 year ago

    Remember the good old days when you bought a game and it was actually the full game? No need to worry about DLC or about another system getting something exclusive for it etc.

    Nope, just buying a game and that was it, nothing else.

  • Gojiratron #28 1 year ago

    @oerhört

    A single system market wouldn't be a good thing at all as competition drives innovation.

    Would we have Kinect and PS Move right now were it not for the Wii's success?

  • Cappy #29 1 year ago

    I'd rather Sony worked with developers to ensure we don't keep getting technically sub-par ports, then I'd actually buy more games for my PS3 irrespective of knick knacks on the side.

  • hulahoops #30 1 year ago

    "Bad for competition you say? Well they'd still be competing with Nintendo that sells as much as the two combined."

    That''s pretty much like saying peanut butter and vacuum cleaners are competing for the same space nowadays, bizarrely.
    Edited by hulahoops at 18/02/11 @ 20:00

  • Jolly_Armadillo #31 1 year ago

    This guy doesn't know what he is on about...

    Only the exclusives are utilising the power of the cell at it's best. Alot of cross-platform titles are simply a poor effort on ps3, if Sony hadn't the exclusives I wouldn't have got the ps3, simples. If no developers were making games to work with the cell effectively the ps3 would not have the same appeal, as pretty much every game would play better on xbox

  • schnide #32 1 year ago

    Hmm..

    "MLB 11: The Show brand manager Scott McCarthy explained.."

    "Clearly, nobody wants to see that happen, so Sony would rather a game ships across multiple.."

    Is McCarthy speaking on behalf of the entire Sony group here?

  • stevethemeat #33 1 year ago

    Funny how the worm has turned mind, back in the PS2 heyday Sony had no problem with 3rd party exclusives, i guess the Xbox is harder to piss over than the poor old Dreamcast.
    Edited by stevethemeat at 18/02/11 @ 20:29

  • Dan41187 #34 1 year ago

    What's that Sony? You're going to make Little Big Planet, Killzone, God of War, Heavy Rain, Uncharted and proper Metal Gear games available on the 360? And you're also going to let us have the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus HD package? Well that's excellent news. I'll expect my copies within a week.

    :(

  • TravisTouchdown #35 1 year ago

    a) Scott's speaking out of turn and will likely be spoken to. This is not a Sony endorsed message (which doesn't make it a bad thing, just one that someone will take objection to).

    2) All these lots-of-platforms-are-better-than-one folk: DVD players. You get good ones, you get bad ones, but there's no notion of childish competition about the content delivery - but there *is* about the content itself. And that's all that matters.

    D) Unified games platform: cock waggling removed, games come first. Not a great deal to dislike.

  • TravisTouchdown #36 1 year ago

    Actually...

    I like films. I buy a DVD player and a bunch of DVDs.

    I like books. I buy a bunch of books. Or a Kindle, and kill myself.

    I like games. I buy a PS3, a 360, a Wii, a DS, a PSP, a load of new shit I don't even know about and a whole lot of other old ones on eBay. And a bunch of games.

    THIS IS WHY WE'RE NOT AS BIG AS WE THINK WE ARE.

  • callum9999 #37 1 year ago

    There is a VERY big difference between 3rd party exclusives and developing games for your competitor...

  • DrStrangelove #38 1 year ago

    Gran Turismo on PC? Yay!

  • Mister-Wario #39 1 year ago

    This exclusivity thing doesn't always apply. What about Dead Rising? That has 360-only DLC as far as I'm aware. I don't know what the ratio is, though.

  • FireMonkey #40 1 year ago

    @Pythonidae - "Remember the good old days when you bought a game and it was actually the full game? No need to worry about DLC or about another system getting something exclusive for it etc. "

    Actually, no. I remember back in the days of the BBC and Spectrum people were arguing about which versions of games were the best and because of the differences in the platforms the games were quite often different per platform.
    Also, pretty much throughout the lifetime of cross platform fighting games on consoles, there have had platform exclusive characters.

    I also remember games that were quite often simpler and shorter then they are now, but still costing about the same.

  • Stuz359 #41 1 year ago

    Note to all publishers: THIS ANNOYS CUSTOMERS!

  • GamesConnoisseur #42 1 year ago

    Sony... You may be right, but problem is.., this can go another way too innit?!!!!


    Gamers has complained rightly that they disliked that they aren't playing the complete version, as this swings between both platform, and hence everyone a loser at some points.

    With platform exclusives, you knew about this and weighted this in, but damn bastard when I m enjoying Batman but locked out of Joker fun. It's no fun.

  • GamesConnoisseur #43 1 year ago

    Sony... You may be right, but problem is.., this can go another way too innit?!!!!


    Gamers has complained rightly that they disliked that they aren't playing the complete version, as this swings between both platform, and hence everyone a loser at some points.

    With platform exclusives, you knew about this and weighted this in, but damn bastard when I m enjoying Batman but locked out of Joker fun. It's no fun.

  • GamesConnoisseur #44 1 year ago

    Sony... You may be right, but problem is.., this can go another way too innit?!!!!


    Gamers has complained rightly that they disliked that they aren't playing the complete version, as this swings between both platform, and hence everyone a loser at some points.

    With platform exclusives, you knew about this and weighted this in, but damn bastard when I m enjoying Batman but locked out of Joker fun. It's no fun.

  • GamesConnoisseur #45 1 year ago

    Sony... You may be right, but problem is.., this can go another way too innit?!!!!


    Gamers has complained rightly that they disliked that they aren't playing the complete version, as this swings between both platform, and hence everyone a loser at some points.

    With platform exclusives, you knew about this and weighted this in, but damn bastard when I m enjoying Batman but locked out of Joker fun. It's no fun.

  • VandelayIndustries #46 1 year ago

    All depends on how you look at it. Microsoft bagged the timed exclusive GTA Episodes & Fallout 3 + New Vegas DLC and you still had to pay for it. Sony got a couple free games as a bonus to buying the main event. I know which approach I prefer.

  • drumbaby #47 1 year ago

    Sony, while most PS3 1st party exclusives continue to play and look better than the often hobbled 3rd party shite, please PLEASE don't stop making exclusives.

  • trjp #48 1 year ago

    Ratchet and Clank for 360 plz - then I have NO reason to own an PS3 at all...

    Oh, maybe Uncharted too - maybe...

  • coolbritannia #49 1 year ago

    so poor PS3 ports are now 'feature rich'?

  • cyber_nicco #50 1 year ago

    "However, we want to make sure that you play it on the best system possible, so we like to take parts of games and make them exclusive to the PlayStation system."

    Why would making parts of a game exclusive to the PS3 make sure I played it on the 360? I'm confused...

  • Paul_cz #51 1 year ago

    All games should be released for PC only, so what are we talking about here? : )

  • actionfitz #52 1 year ago

    exclusives do indeed suck balls.
    however... they are the only gams i buy for my PS3.
    if a title is multi platform and has decent multiplayer, chances are ill get it for xbox... seeing as only a few of my mates have a ps3.

  • actionfitz #53 1 year ago

    Would be much preferable for games consoles to be like DVD players... ie. one standard that all devs could release games for.
    Just think of how much money is lost each console generation by sony and microsoft selling machines at a loss just to ensure market share.
    It'll probably never happen.
    It's just shit having to fork out £300-£400 per console x 3 each generation, just to be able to play all thats on offer.
    Many folks can only afford one, hence you get fanboys and naysayers.

  • rock27gr #54 1 year ago

    DVD players may have been a unified standard, but look at the VHS-BETAMAX before it, and BLURAY vs HD-DVD after.

    Not to mention all the other video formats in-between, like Laser-disks and VCDs!

    The only difference with gaming is that the technology cycle is faster, 5 years instead of 10-15, and that platform owners are also strong publishers supporting their respective platforms and hence make more than one commercially viable.

  • Grogmonkey #55 1 year ago

    "Ratchet and Clank for 360 plz - then I have NO reason to own an PS3 at all.."

    Well, Insomniac Games are multiplatform now, so I guess it depends on who owns the IP. I suspect it's Sony, but you might at least find something similar released on 360 at some point.

  • geordiek #56 1 year ago

    Surely exclusives are good for the industry and what defines each console. I've owned a 360 since launch but only bought a PS3 just over a year ago, simply because the exclusives appealed to me. 2011 has a great line up of PS3 exclusives, enough i think to tempt wii and 360 only users to get one. More sales for Sony and an inreasing market share would up the ante for MS to aquire more exclusives. This kind of competition can only be a big win for us gamers.

  • Lord_Gremlin #57 1 year ago

    Kinda strange... Literally all the best game in past several years were PS3 exclusives.

    And Microsoft's attitude is kinda strange and pointless... So, on 360 you don't get proper exclusives... But people who play on other platforms get some of content later... How is this supposed to enhance one's experience, unless one's a rabid 360 fanboy? People want new games and content, they don't care what someone else can't play, they care for what THEY can play.

    Unstructured rant finished.

  • Alex_976 #58 1 year ago

    Didn't stop Sony making the Tomb Raider series exclusive back on the PS2.

  • Sunyavadin #59 1 year ago

    Exclusives "hold back the industry".

    Sony have "all the best exclusives".

    Therefore by their own logic, Sony are holding back the industry?

  • SpaceMonkey77 #60 1 year ago

    Contradictory bs. And if they really believe that, why didn't they support From Software further, by getting Demons Souls out of japan. Both From and Sony investors, would have faired better if that game had also reached 360 and possibly PC too. Ironically, FF, which Sony also has an investment in via Square, did get this treatment. Too much playing it safe can be bad too.

    Exclusive characters and content, fragments games if we can't all access it on each format. Its silly, as you should offer consumers the full experience possible, and not miss out on stuff, because you didn't buy from Game or Gamestop.

  • xmifi #61 1 year ago

    B.S. talk for some good free P.R.
    It'a all about the money not what's good for the customer.

  • wanderingkid #62 1 year ago

    "Competition drives innovation ???"
    Absolute rubbish ... so you're saying technology, the most expedient and consistently evolving force in the world will just reach a point and stagnate ? Sure ...
    Edited by wanderingkid at 20/02/11 @ 14:35

  • Daeltaja #63 1 year ago

    I wish to god there was a unified home console,imagine the potential. Not to mention how much extra resources it takes developers to do Multiplatform. I do love Microsoft and Sony but I wish one of them would fuck off or perhaps join forces.

    Sure they could charge whatever they want without competition but the death of the fanboy would be worth every extra pennie.

  • jake-123 #64 1 year ago

    I just hope this opinion doesn't mean Sony stop making exclusives. exclusives are great, end of. I could go into why, but I've just woke up

  • shave_my_donkey #65 1 year ago

    @wanderingkid
    competion IS the main driving force for inovation, look at the cold war for example, the americans make a big plane (like the U2) that can operate above russian SAM sites, the russians then made SAMs that could go higher, so then the americans have to think of another solution. If the games industry is monopolised there will be no need for innovation as there will be no need to make your console stand out from the others.......IMO

  • Lucodeath #66 1 year ago

    @thedriffter

    Yes similar but you won't play R&C on 360 ever.
    Reminds me of sonic never to be on nintendo, Oh I got sonic collection on gamecube.

  • gandhimaster #67 1 year ago

    even with a single format, the companies would strive to make the best games/services as in theory they could still use xbox live and psn etc on the same box, each game using whatever service its created for.

    thats the best of both worlds. having one dvd format etc doesnt stop fantastic movies being made does it.

  • RKOwned #68 1 year ago

    @TheDriffter: Oh no, there last by only 3 million. I guess they suck /S.

    Anyway, this article is weird considering PS3 is the one with all the exclusives this year.

  • RKOwned #69 1 year ago

    Whats funny is people say this is a bad idea, yet 360 has been doing this all gen, and its done great for them.

  • zedzee #70 1 year ago

    When you lose a large number of exclusives that you had coming from your previous console to XBox, this is the only thing that you can say about exclusives.

    What makes him think that allowing consumers to be able to play a character on one console and not the other is actually an improvement over the exclusivity scenario?

  • RKOwned #71 1 year ago

    @Zedzee: you realize that this is all XBOX is doing right now, dont you? also, 360 has lost alot of exclusives this gen that went multiplatform.
    Edited by RKOwned at 21/02/11 @ 00:46

  • alcides #72 1 year ago

    Sony would rather a game shipS

    Kill him! KILL HIM!!! GRAMMAR, SPELLING, THE HUMANITIES!

  • king26 #73 1 year ago

    But Sony exclusives seem to be better than multi-platform games, mainly because of the 360 isn't holding the ps3 capabilities back. So many ps3 exclusives wouldn't be possible on 360

  • Loghorn #74 1 year ago

    @Zedzee: you realize that this is all XBOX is doing right now, dont you? also, 360 has lost alot of exclusives this gen that went multiplatform.

    Let's see: Receiving titles a year or so later after they were out on PC &/or 360 (such as Bioshock, Star Ocean 4, Castle Crashers & Mass Effect 2) Vs. PS3 losing exclusives while games were still in development for PS3 (such as Tekken 6, Assassin's Creed 1, Devil May Cry 4 & Final Fantasy XIII).

    Which is the real bigger news to critics & consumers here?
    Edited by Loghorn at 21/02/11 @ 03:02

  • RKOwned #75 1 year ago

    @loghorn: dosent really matter, lost exclusive franchise is a lost exclusive franchise. that means all future titles in the series of Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Planet, and etc. that 360 lost this gen will also be on PS3, so really its the same thing, its just a matter of how much you look forward ahead. When the next generation of console come out, all those franchises (if they decide to continue them) will more then likely continue to be on both platforms, so really there is no difference from what your talking about then what im talking about. .
    Edited by RKOwned at 21/02/11 @ 03:03

  • Loghorn #76 1 year ago

    @RKOwned: All I'm saying is, is that the "lost exclusives" that you were talking about going to PS3 when most gamers have already played them on 360 &/or PC isn't really big news (except for PS3 fanboys) compared to losing exclusives while they were still in development for the other system.

  • RKOwned #77 1 year ago

    @loghorn: and im saying that the way your thinking about it dosent matter either. I dont care about the headlines, I care about down the road.

  • Darren #78 1 year ago

    Having exclusive content for one format of a multiformat game is just as bad as a true exclusive IMO as both mean you'd miss out on stuff if you own the "wrong" console. Personally, between the two I'd take full exclusives over unique DLC anyday as it justifies owning more than one system. If, say, the PS3 only had exclusive DLC then I'd be less inclined to own one since the best multiformat games technically tend to be (not always admittedly) on the Xbox 360 based on my own experiences of owning both platforms (even if the differences are only slight). Why own two consoles if one has no exclusive games? :?

    Anyway, as far as exclusives go in 2011, it seems like the PS3 is the machine to own as it seems to have a lot more than the Xbox 360 at least in the early part of the year. The Xbox 360 is getting Gears of War 3 and Forza 4 later on in the year but little else whereas the PS3 has already had LittleBigPlanet 2 then there's Killzone 3 this week, Ratchet & Clank: All-4-One, inFamous 2, MLB: The Show 2011, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, ICO/Shadow of the Colossus HD... hell, there's no way I'd part with my PS3 with a line-up like that! The exclusives are the PS3's strong suite IMO.

  • tancredo #79 1 year ago

    Interesting how Sony has been mimicking MS business strategy this generation.
    It seems we always read about Sony, corporate leadership, and perfect business strategy, but after a few months, they always end up copying microsoft in some extent.
    I guess you do not build a financial and software empire on bad ideas.

  • jag10 #80 1 year ago

    The fail in this comments section is unbelievable. read the full interview.