Timed Exclusives: Good Business Practice?
Console wars are stupid. Social media is constantly bombarded with pointless conversations about which console is best. Even now, when consoles have either nestled into their niche or achieved near parity with their competitors, the steady drum beat persists. PlayStation and Xbox fans visit their respective rival posts to express their displeasure in various ways. If there is one practice that maintains the ever closing chasm between the two major console producers, it’s exclusive titles.
For first party titles, console exclusivity is a necessity. Many of you reading this would shudder at the thought of playing God of War on an Xbox Series X, or matching up in Halo: Infinite on a PlayStation 5. Some among the Sony faithful even decried the PC launches of games like God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn. The criticism was somewhat odd considering the respective ages of these games at launch.
The water becomes muddier when it comes to third-party titles. Generally, third-party developers launch games on as many platforms as possible. More users equals more revenue, so in this regard, it makes sense. However, there are instances where a developer is incentivized to make a game exclusive on one platform. For starters, a game in development may specifically call to a demographic on one console. Development costs on modern titles are high, so money can also factor into these decisions. Nintendo became the publisher for Bayonetta 2 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 in exchange for an exclusivity agreement. Say what you want about the games themselves, but you can only play them on Nintendo consoles.
Recently, Square announced a few major titles with console exclusivity. Final Fantasy XVI, scheduled for release in summer 2023, will be available solely on the PlayStation 5. The newly announced Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, a sequel to the 2019 Final Fantasy VII Remake, will share this exclusivity the following winter. It is unknown whether or not these agreements are timed, but it’s likely they are, at least with regard to a PC launch.
Some have expressed disapproval with the exclusivity model, saying that Square is cutting off a portion of their customer base and killing potential sales. It is a cogent argument. After all, at this point, this Final Fantasy project is not going to cause a seismic shift in console sales. There are plenty of games on all platforms to keep gamers busy, and if you haven’t made the jump for the initial installment, the sequel is unlikely to change your mind. So, to the extent that gamers that do not own a PS5 will be alienated, this criticism is correct.
On the other hand, the business strategy does have another angle that shouldn’t be overlooked. Launching a game on one specific console and waiting to launch it on competing consoles can prolong the life of a game. From the company perspective, they can continue to enjoy revenue without injecting a massive investment in development. This is a strategy that has been employed by developers on smaller projects to varying degrees of success (see Titanfall, Tomb Raider). Most recently, and as previously mentioned in this article, Sony has breathed some additional energy in their older titles by releasing them on PC.
If nothing else, holding off on and releasing a game on a new platform starts a conversation about that game anew, and opens it up to a new audience. It can be a stall tactic that keeps the franchise on the front page while sequels and spinoffs, which have longer development cycles than ever before, are being finished.
What do you think? Are timed exclusives a terrible practice? Let us know in the comments and follow us on social media to join the discussion.
