Is Fighting game companies stupid? Making your game exclusive doesn’t hurt me cause I just won’t buy and keep playing Ki. I feel since fighters already appeal to a small demographic why make it smaller by making it exclusive. Look SF4 was biggest on xbox360 so why make sf5 exclusive. Yeah SF is big enough but what about guilty gear which is console exclusive, and the broke SNK is now making Kof14 time exclusive. I feel some of these companies don’t like money or growing their scene
I’ll just leave that there.
The reason that multiplat games go exclusive usually has to do with an offer of a lot of cash or assets of another kind. Yeah they might get less payout once the game is on shelves, but developers need money before then. It may be anti-consumer, but people got mouths to feed.
It also costs less to develop and test on less hardware. Especially when it comes to developing for PC. There are thousands of different hardware configurations out there.
That said I feel your pain, I’m a PC gamer for the most part but I own the other consoles because of the exclusives and wish I didn’t need to own a wii u for smash, or an x1 for halo, etc.
In this case, Killer Instinct isn’t a third party game (Street Fighter) being developed by a third party developer/publisher (Capcom) and only being sold on one system. In the instance of Street Fighter V and Guilty Gear the developers can make those games for other consoles, but have been offered some compensation to otherwise maintain an exclusivity of some sort.
In the instance of Killer Instinct, the picture changes. Iron Galaxy doesn’t own the Intellectual Property, they are merely contracted out to develop content for the game. Microsoft is the actual holder of the IP, making Killer Instinct a first party game. To put Killer Instinct on the PS4 would be offering a competing console a game from your own library. MS does all the work, but Sony would most likely profit from it far more. It’s not a smart business move.
It’s one thing when a company owns a game, and can choose the console to sell it on. It’s another when the console maker itself also owns the game. Capcom basically chose a side and then made a game for that platform. MS bought Killer Instinct, so why put their property on another console who stands to gain nothing but profit from a competitor’s work?
I think the PC port is merely a basic neutral ground catering to a larger audience without directly giving competitors any kind of profit for work they did. Also, MS seems to be trying to bring PC and console gamers into a more unified network of games, encouraging cross platform sales and gameplay.
I was saying wouldn’t it sell better and reach a wider audience on everything I know what your saying though.
Look at KI and MK: US games on a US machine.
Look at SF, KOF, GG: Japanese games on a Japanese machine.
For me, this is a cultural competition.
SF5 is an exclusive to playstation, because Sony purchased Capcom.
That would be sound logic, if it weren’t for the fact that MK is on the PS4 as well, and the only exclusive fighter for Xbox is KI.
I see this as less of a culture war, and more console war kinda stuff. KI is owned by MS and so they wanna keep it exclusive. Sony is trying to keep this very niche market to itself basically, and is buying up exclusivity rights. It’s kind of a return fire for MS having an exclusive fighter, at least in my eyes, kind of a “two can play at this game.”
Of course, culture still has its place in this argument. Being a Japanese console, they have good business connections with companies in that region to secure exclusive rights to these games. It would be fish in a barrel. WB Games and Netherrealm had the marketing sense to believe MK and Injustice would do better if not made console exclusive, so that sort of rules against the culture argument for me.
Yeah but Microsoft owns Killer Instinct so they could make,it and should be exclusive. I just wonder why do you want fighting games their not that big. As the companies that making them I would like to make the most Money and sell to a larger demographic. I don’t understand USF4 wasn’t dead nore was it dying, and the company that,guilty gear I assume isn’t broke. I just feel to make the Fgc to grow we have to stick together instead being desperate because of it being exclusive. Killer Instinct and Smash brothers have an excuse but the others I feel its detrimental
1 Like
And I can agree with you on that point. I don’t really know why Capcom made their bet with Sony as a console exclusive title in Street Fighter V, but so far, I don’t think the gambit has actually worked out well for them. One reason (and the most likely one) is that Capcom is in financial trouble, and in order to develop SFV, they needed extra capital to which Sony was willing to provide if they made the game exclusive, or at least not release it for their direct competition on the Xbox.
As for Guilty Gear and KoF14, I don’t really think MS cares that much at all, and isn’t going to go to war over those as console exclusives. Phil Spencer’s had a lot of good ideas over the past few years, and has really turned around the Xbox One this generation. One of the things he’s not really crazy about is timed exclusives or third party exclusives. The first party exclusives are something that brings people to want that console above others, but Phil also understands the PC demographic is important too, and he’s been working to create a unified environment between the PC player base and the console base by creating more games for both of those and mutually compliment one another. So he’s not really fighting all that hard for many third party exclusives, especially when those games have relatively niche markets anyway.
It’s why xbox broke tradition with having new Call of Duty content first, and passed that up to Sony. I don’t really think it’s boosted the games appeal any, and with the CoD fatigue setting in on long time players and the constant churning out of a new title every year, the promise of console exclusive content seems empty, unappealing, and without any real advantage.
So yeah, there’s a loss of logic in these kinds of instances, especially when it’s third party developers taking sides. It benefits no one really, despite the logic on paper that it should produce extra profit. Ultimately, I think that’s why Xbox has now abandoned this practice, and the current Tomb Raider will most likely be the last time in the Xbox history we see this practice ever again, at least as long as Phil Spencer is head of the Xbox division.
I don’t like any game to be exclusive.
I get it though, Sony funds SFV and KI is a Microsoft owned game, so it makes sense they are exclusive titles. I get it… doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I like it! To keep it short, it is a means of competition. What that means is that both companies compete to be the better of the two. So that mean they get more attention and be as great as they can be. Sure it’s muddy but it works nonetheless.
no they didnt.
1 Like
If that was true sf5 wouldn’t be what it is. (Not talking about gameplay but the game overall)
Explain what you mean…
The lack of everything except gameplay. When it first came out people complained about the online. The shop that was supposed to be done isn’t and starting with ibuki they broke there promise with a character a month. Everyone else might be moving forward but street fighter surely isn’t.
Also I’m not hating on the game but I’m saying it could of been way better.
A fighting game shouldn’t be coming out with 16 character and have a option for you to buy the other characters that should be their. Kof14 has more than 30 and its not out, smash bros has like 50, and Mix has 3 variations for every character
Fair enough, but hasn’t this always been the norm of Capcom? I mean we saw it in Street Fighter 4, followed by Super Street Fight 4 then Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition, and then like Ultra Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition.
In that sense, it is a practice that Capcom has since followed but the ideal of competition still stands. We can look at how competition has force opposing companies to strive for better, like Uncharted and Gears of War doing their best to make a compelling story. PS releases The Order and MS sends out Quantum Break. My examples aren’t the best due to a lack of research on exactly what competing titles were nominated. Nonetheless, they were nominated as the face of better design and whatnot. Had MK been solely on PS, then surely MS would’ve either funded IG more for a more refined version of KI or made a new fighting game all together.
Let me use a great example of competition and how it drives the company to only succeed in the eyes of the fans. Take WWE for instance, back then known as WWF their was WCW, ECW, etc. So much that WWF pushed for crazier stunts and explosive events just to make a statement, while the others did the same. Now that those companies were bought out no one opposes WWE. Isn’t it more than a coincidence that the scripts are now muddy and makes absolutely no sense? I mean, they seem so careless and brain-dead in terms of what it used to be.
Point is, competition is a win/win for the fans because both companies dish out their best. If there were no competition then they can do whatever since no one opposes them.
Doesn’t make it acceptable.