Network now...NEWS
Bethesda Mum on Fallout 3 DLC Exclusivity Deal
By Kris Graft
July 21, 2008
See also:
Related Articles:
"...I think it's a very good possibility that Microsoft and Bethesda were partners in this decision."
At the E3 Media and Business Summit last week, Bethesda Softworks said it would be bringing Fallout 3 downloadable content exclusively to Xbox 360 and Windows, leaving buyers of the PS3 version out of luck as far as extra content is concerned.
Analyst Colin Sebastian with Lazard Capital Markets told us on Monday that Microsoft and Bethesda likely came to some sort of financial agreement to leave PS3 DLC out of the equation.
"...I think it's a very good possibility that Microsoft and Bethesda were partners in this decision. Obviously Microsoft paid up to secure exclusive online content for GTA IV, and online is a cornerstone for Microsoft's digital media strategy."
But Bethesda won't share details of its decision to bring Fallout 3 DLC only to Microsoft platforms.
"...We aren’t going to get into the details of the hows and whys," said Bethesda marketing boss Pete Hines in an e-mail. "[DLC] will be exclusive for PC and 360. [We're] not going to give any other qualifiers or clarifications as it relates to other platforms."
Fallout 3 is slated for release on Xbox 360, PC and PS3 this fall.
WOOOOOW!!! why would bethesda do this totally poop on ps3 users o we arent letting u extend your game ur dirty minorities wht the HELL. I know i'd be willing to pay double for the dlcs so just double cross microsoft and make dlcs for the ps3 too.
I'm sure there's some nice, think, contracts that would prevent that. If anything, blame the "We don't need 3rd party exclusives" attitude Sony seems to have.
http://ozymandias.com/archive/2007/03/22/More-Context-on-Memory-Reservat...
I'm sure MS paid for it, but im betting that the PS3 memory issues had something to do with it.
_______________________
More like all this downloadable content could be fitted on the BR disc and therefore wouldn't need to be download.
The DVD format is old hat now and it's showing!
It may be an old hat, but I'm enjoying Fallout DLC and will enjoy the next two installments when the new-hat BluRay won't be.
http://ozymandias.com/archive/2007/03/22/More-Context-on-Memory-Reservat...
I'm sure MS paid for it, but im betting that the PS3 memory issues had something to do with it.
Same stuff that happened with Oblivion is happening with Fallout 3.
I'm not sure that the memory 'issues' (I use inverted commas because I'm not technical enough to know whether the difference in the implementation can be described as an issue or not) would have had anything to do with it - it's probably just money. I think the expansion packs were available as downloads for the PS3 version of Oblivion, albeit not in Europe - could be wrong about this, though.
Personally I think that the target audience for Fallout 3 is probably more likely to have a 360 than a PS3, so I can't see it making too much of a difference. The game surely isn't big enough outside the core gamer market to have a great impact upon console sales figures?
The hows and whys, Bethseda?
As in the "how much" the company was payed off?
And "why" on earth did you alienate a whole population of gamers?
I sincerely hope it was for some kind of technical difficulty, and not for a check. Youv'e lost your way if the latter is the case. I thought it was all about giving the best gaming experience to gamers.
I'm so sick of hearing the Sony fans complain about exclusivity when they were the ones who got nearly two whole generations of huge exclusives games and we're not talking about small thing like DLC, we're talkin major system selling franchises (GTA, FF, Tekken, MGS, Devil May Cry, etc.). I didn't hear any of you Sony fans complaining that Rock Star, Square, Namco, Konami, and Capcom were alienating gamers, or getting paid off by the truck loads for their exclusives so why are you complaining now? Oh, that's right, the table has turned this gen and the xbox fans of last gen who were complaining are on the other side of the fence now. It does feel quite better over here now that I think about it (maybe that's why I'm not complaining, and probably the same reason why Sony fans didn't compain last gen when they were the ones landing all the huge exclusives).
Just imagine if Fallout didn't come out on the PS3 at all...
If you are referring to Sony’s first and 2nd generation Playstations, your claims of Sony’s paying for exclusives for those formats are baseless. Why should Sony pay developers for exclusives when during those times, their consoles dominated the market so decisively that developers themselves flock to them without being paid to ensure exclusivity. If you were a developer during those days, Playstation 1 and 2 were the obvious consoles to develop for because they guaranteed the biggest market base for your games.
It’s such a pity that for their videogames business, Microsoft is using the same underhanded techniques that they used to dominate the PC Operating System industry. Obviously their goal, even if it means paying out enormous amounts of cash, is to muscle Sony out of the exclusives in order to seriously deplete Sony’s share of the market.
And if you are the luckless gamer, who likes to be free in your decisions in choosing what console to play, there’s no choice for you but to buy Microsoft’s Xbox 360 in order to play these exclusives.
Thanks for your response.
You misinterpreted my comments about Sony's 1st/2nd generation exclusives. I didn't ever say they paid for them, I'm just saying none of the Sony fans were complaining when games were exclusive to their system. Now that it's the other way around they throw their arms up in disgust.
I do agree that most likely the games were exclusive due to Sony's massive installed base lead. I also think that some of the exclusives were just due to loyalty from Sony's partners and less to do with financial reasons (the Xbox 1 although far behind the PS2 in installed base was a profitable console for 3rd parties but were ignored by some 3rd parties while mostly embraced by the rest).
Everyone jumps on MS and just assumes they pay for all their exclusives when maybe Sony's poor 3rd (for the most part) performance or the 360's 7-8 million console lead is never considered a reason for these exclusives.
In all honesty, I think most Sony fans are just pissed that their console is no longer top dog and are taking it out on MS and aren't accepting the possible fact that their console just isn't doing so well this gen (at least when compared to the last two gens).
My real point is that Sony fans are accusing devs of alienating are large portion of gamers but they weren't complaining when devs were "alienating" Xbox owners last gen. They make it sound like they are more concerned about gamers in general missing out when all it really is is jealousy and more proof that the PS3 is limping this gen and I think that's a hard pill to swallow after such domination from Sony for the last 10 years.
"there’s no choice for you but to buy Microsoft’s Xbox 360 in order to play these exclusives."
The very reason I bought a PS1 and PS2 was to play the Tekken series so I'm no stranger to having to buy consoles for exclusive games. Thank god Tekken 6 is no longer exclusive, I wasn't looking forward to having to buy a PS3.
I think the point of argument here is: Sony never paid for exclusives (up to this day) and let the developers themselves choose what format they develop for.
Microsoft's underhanded methods to acquire exclusives for Xbox 360 constitute monopolistic practices and are the of same qualities as the ones they are using in their Windows Operating System business.
This is the main focus of the recent European Commission's Antitrust Complaint and also the 1998 case "United States vs. Microsoft". During the antitrust case it was revealed that Microsoft had threatened PC manufacturers with revoking their license to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the initial desktop. Also during the trial, it was unravelled from Microsoft insiders that Microsoft had CLEAR intentions of smothering, or extinguishing any serious rivals to their business using any necessary means, whatsoever.
This complaints arised not because people are envious of Microsoft's success, but because this kind of business practices has obviously serious repercussions in the industry like: promoting monopoly, suppressing fair competition, thus innovation and quality, and illegally thwarting rivals in order to protect and extend its software dominance.
Ironically, this speaks a lot about the way Americans conduct their business, as compared to the Japanese.
"I think the point of argument here is: Sony never paid for exclusives (up to this day) and let the developers themselves choose what format they develop for."
What was Haze then? UbiSoft was the publisher, and they usually go the multiplatform route as much as they can. If you don't think money up front and marketing $$ weren't involved in making it a PS3 exclusive, that is extremely naive.
The goal of both MS and Sony is to give as many people as possible reasons to buy their hardware and the games for it. Exclusive games and to a lesser extent exclusive post-release content is the prime way for them to differentiate themselves from the competition. This can be done by having first/second party development studios create games, signing first party publishing deals with 3rd party developers or getting 3rd party publishers to release their games exclusively for the one console. All the options have their own advantages and drawbacks and all cost money. Calling "Exclusives" an underhanded tactic is utterly ridiculous, it's just a means to the same end, again with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Comparing 360 exclusives to the past IE anti-trust issues is even more ridiculous. If you understood the complaint, it was due to the fact that Windows is bundled with a huge percentage of new computers and MS leveraged their O/S dominance to try to dominate the Web Browser market by doing some shady stuff like making IE integral to the O/S. It has nothing in common with coming to an arrangement with a 3rd party company to provide a certain product exclusively.
PSU talks with Free Radical's Rob Yescombe and Derek Littlewood. about Haze's Exclusivity
PSU: What was the reason behind dropping development on the Xbox 360 and PC?
Derek Littlewood: From a development point of view, exclusive development is attractive because you can really focus on getting the best out of just one platform, rather than always needing to split your efforts across multiple versions of the game. And this is why exclusive PS3 development has been so useful to us, as the entire team has been able to work very closely with the PS3 hardware.
As for why the PS3 was our platform of choice, the company has a history of getting good results out of PlayStation hardware from our days working on the PS2, but also, out of the three platforms, the PS3 is still the youngest and so represented the best opportunity for us to get a game out into an uncrowded market where it was likely to get the best recognition.
I know what he said was a lot of crap but my $0.02 is:
1) They didn't have enough enough people to do all formats
2) He wanted people to assume that Sony is paying them for exclusivity to over-inflate hype on Haze
3) He actually believed PS3 will win the console war
Anyway, my conclusion is I'm sure Sony saw the game's pre-release rushes. And I'm sure that anyone who saw Haze before the release and saw that it wasn't anything special--will not pay for any exclusivity for it.
I'm not trying to reply for Peter but I think that was just an example he came up with (he gave many examples to how platform holders make deals with developers) and in the end it all really is the same thing. Just because you aren't physically handing money to a publisher doesn't mean there's no financial involvement. You could argue sharing ad costs with a publisher so your console's logo appears after a 3rd party game commercial is paying someone off. Business partners are just that, business. There's always money involved somehow. If Rockstar or (presumably) Bethesda didn't think their DLC would sell well on the 360 I don't think they would have ever agreed to it. And as far as Fallout 3 is concerned, I don't buy (no pun intended) that Bethesda was paid off necessarily. I remember Bethesda said at one point that they were having a hard time getting their Oblivion content available online for the PS3. They went on to say that the online platform for the 360 was much better and that MS was great about working with them to help them get the content available and Sony hadn't at that time.
I just don't think that people can label MS as some kind of monopolizer (is that a word?) in the console space for business tactics that are practiced by everyone. And if they have paid for some content to be exclusive, well I guess they're weighing the cost/benefit ratio of it and decided it's a good business decision for them. Sony believed incorporating unnecessary expensive proprietary movie playback technology into the PS3 for the sole purpose of reaping the benefits of licensing fees from movie studios and passing the additional cost to their loyal console customers was a wise business decision. I mentioned that because I think everyone is involved in potentially shady business deals and practices and I don’ t think it’s fair to label MS’ games division just because of what MS has done in the PC space.
Well put Nick.
And Blu Ray is a good example, and is more analogous to the MS Windows/IE example (although, I would definitely not call the move at all illegal). I'd say one of the top reasons, if not the number one reason that Sony decided to put a Blu Ray drive into the PS3 was to help the company win the HD disc format war. The PS3 definitely served the function of a trojan horse for Blu Ray, and price wise it really hurt sales, esspecially initially.
And just who wouldn't pay for horse armor?
Well, me for one.
With Oblivion, I really enjoyed the game. Unfortunately I couldn't get back into it for Knights of the Nine. This is why extra content later doesn't matter much, unless they hit with something really substantive.
Given the horse armor, though, I doubt it.
Brian
www.brianwoods.com