• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Millie A's sources seem to suggest Xbox has secured a "BIG" Third Party Title (both as an Exclusive and for Game Pass)

Markio128

Markio128

Member
GIF by britbox
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Member
I dunno why a third party would be delighted and ecstatic about their game now being restricted to one console platform other than a massive moneyhat that comes along with it.

Curious what it could be, since nothing big really comes to mind that seems realistic.
 
01011001

01011001

Banned
Kacho said:
Isn’t the medium on PlayStation now?
Click to expand...

I always have to bring this up whenever the topic of exclusives comes up... but here we go again:

EVERY 3RD PARTY EXCLUSIVE GAME IS A TIMED EXCLUSIVE

It's always only a question of how long the timed exclusivity runs and if the company wants to port the game to anything else after the timeframe runs out.
This is true across the board for every game out there.

So a game can stay permanently exclusive if the game bombs so hard that noone wants to finance a port, or if the devs simply don't see a market on any other platform. but in terms of the contracts, they are ALWAYS timed.
 
01011001

01011001

Banned
Kacho said:
So not exclusive then.
Click to expand...

timed exclusive. there is almost no such thing as a 3rd party exclusive that is not timed by contract. First party IPs/Productions are the only ones that are truly exklusive. That's alswas how it was.

Just think back, GTA 3 and Vice City? a few years later they were on Xbox. Resident Evil 4... came to PS2 real fast (and then to 1000 other systems of course). The only times this doesn't happen is when the publisher simply thinks there is no money in porting a game to another system.
 
Kacho

Kacho

Member
01011001 said:
timed exclusive. there is almost no such thing as a 3rd party exclusive that is not timed by contract. First party IPs/Productions are the only ones that are truly exklusive. That's alswas how it was.

Just think back, GTA 3 and Vice City? a few years later they were on Xbox. Resident Evil 4... came to PS2 real fast (and then to 1000 other systems of course). The only times this doesn't happen is when the publisher simply thinks there is no money in porting a game to another system.
Click to expand...
No I get you. I just took the rumor differently.

Anyway, Microsoft has been doing timed exclusives for forever. But they haven’t done a big AAA exclusive since Rise of the Tomb Raider so kind of a big deal in a way. Still timed though so whatever.
 
01011001

01011001

Banned
Kacho said:
No I get you. I just took the rumor differently.

Anyway, Microsoft has been doing timed exclusives for forever. But they haven’t done a big AAA exclusive since Rise of the Tomb Raider so kind of a big deal in a way. Still timed though so whatever.
Click to expand...

that Tomb Raider move was weird from the start lol. also the Xbox One version was so bad that even back then I actually recommended people I know to buy the PC or Xbox 360 version instead lol
 
Jaybe

Jaybe

Member
i think you sink your IP if you aren’t on PS5. ROTTR seemed to sell poorly vs it’s predecessor and Shadow didn’t light charts on fire other.

I can’t think of a 3rd party title that sold much better on Xbox vs PlayStation that could eat the impact of missing the platform. Perhaps it’s something PC centric, and MS locked in console exclusivity?
 
Iced Arcade

Iced Arcade

Member
Splinter Cell would be amazing.

- 1 game was already an Xbox exclusive.
- Ubisoft hasnt done sweet fuck all with the franchise for over a generation now.
- was just recent news a splinter cell game got the green light.

I personally don't care if it's released on everything including Samsung fridge, just give me a new splinter cell.
 
Last edited:
Wizz-Art

Wizz-Art

Member
GHG said:
Yes, a service that you'd end up spending upwards of $700 across the duration of a generation and ultimately end up owning nothing is very pro-consumer.
Click to expand...
That's really not the point, at the end of the generation I simply don't care if I own games I finished already or not because I got bored of them. What I care about is if those games provided me entertainment and fun.

Pay $10 a month for an enormous amount of games, play those games, try games, finish games, you can even buy games with a discount if you really really need to. Pay about $700 over the course of a whole generation and play hundreds of games, if you like games it will bring you lot's of enjoyment which is the essence of gaming and why we play games in the first place for our entertainment, what more do you want?

Or;

Pay $700 over the course of a generation and buy 10 new full price games. Finish them or not, but if you are done with them they will be collecting dust and at the end of a generation you will ultimately have been collecting a lot of dust? It's something I guess...but you played a lot less for the same price.

The thing is, as Game Pass will continue to run people like me will keep their sub – just a no brainer really – so even if the generation ends we still have the option of playing hundreds of games and at that time there will be a new exclusive release every other month or so, meaning that you get great value continuously. One offers a relative cheap entry for only $10 a month, but you can still buy games outright, nobody is stopping you for doing just that. That sounds as pro consumer as it gets, no?

The competition doesn't offer such options, it's $70 or nothing at all.
 
jakinov

jakinov

Member
James Sawyer Ford said:
I dunno why a third party would be delighted and ecstatic about their game now being restricted to one console platform other than a massive moneyhat that comes along with it.

Curious what it could be, since nothing big really comes to mind that seems realistic.
Click to expand...
Depends on the deal. The game could not even have existed otherwise. Ideally all big game studios/publishers want to get bigger and bigger. More studios or more teams. But there's a lot of risk in building out new teams and studios. If Microsoft goes to them and says we'll fund this game if you make it, they can build out a new team for that project and take away a lot of the risk of creating a new team. Or maybe it's an ambitious revamp of a franchise and to risky right now for them. Or because "big third party title" is a little ambiguous, and it could just be a big budget project from a third-party studio that usually has to get funding from a publisher (like Ninja Theory, Insomniac, Obsidian, etc. use to) in order to create games.
 
THE DUCK

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
I'm betting on bioshock or tomb raider.
But more likely bioshock as the franchise is big with value but not to the same level as tomb raider, would take less money hats to break loose.
 
B

bushwookie

Banned
If... and that's a big "if" this rumor is true.

Then Splinter Cell would be my guess. Seeing as word just got out that a new one was entering production, the timing could make sense. Ubisoft has sat on the series for so long, perhaps MS offered some development funds upfront to actually get them to get off their butts, as well as for some type of exclusivity.

It's just a rumor though, so at best it's a 50/50 chance of it being based in truth. What game it entails is anyone's guess at this point.
 
PuffyCan

PuffyCan

Member
The only possibility I can see would be bungie making an exclusive for MS, but this is more likely than not tales from someone's ass
 
Brofist

Brofist

Member
James Sawyer Ford said:
I dunno why a third party would be delighted and ecstatic about their game now being restricted to one console platform other than a massive moneyhat that comes along with it.

Curious what it could be, since nothing big really comes to mind that seems realistic.
Click to expand...
Uhh I think it would be money. Doubt it would be out of kindness.
 
GHG

GHG

Member
Wizz-Art said:
That's really not the point, at the end of the generation I simply don't care if I own games I finished already or not because I got bored of them. What I care about is if those games provided me entertainment and fun.

Pay $10 a month for an enormous amount of games, play those games, try games, finish games, you can even buy games with a discount if you really really need to. Pay about $700 over the course of a whole generation and play hundreds of games, if you like games it will bring you lot's of enjoyment which is the essence of gaming and why we play games in the first place for our entertainment, what more do you want?

Or;

Pay $700 over the course of a generation and buy 10 new full price games. Finish them or not, but if you are done with them they will be collecting dust and at the end of a generation you will ultimately have been collecting a lot of dust? It's something I guess...but you played a lot less for the same price.

The thing is, as Game Pass will continue to run people like me will keep their sub – just a no brainer really – so even if the generation ends we still have the option of playing hundreds of games and at that time there will be a new exclusive release every other month or so, meaning that you get great value continuously. One offers a relative cheap entry for only $10 a month, but you can still buy games outright, nobody is stopping you for doing just that. That sounds as pro consumer as it gets, no?

The competition doesn't offer such options, it's $70 or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one sat here saying one way or the other is the "right" way. You don't want to pay for your games anymore because you see everything as fully disposable, that's your choice. That kind of service has always existed and will always exist, it's called renting. Personally I couldn't give a shit though, I already have a purchased library of well over over 1500 games, the vast majority of which I've made a conscious decision to purchase at some point.

No matter how much the evangelists scream, the reality is that the sales figures are showing us for every person that is deciding to subscribe to one of these services there are still more people who are willing to pay full price for new games and/or discounted prices for games that go on sale (yes, you don't have to only buy games at full price, something that is always conveniently left out of these arguments, it's not $70 or nothing at all). If only being given the option to purchase certain games was so evil while services such as gamepass are so "pro-consumer" then why are people even buying games at all anymore?

But the bottom line is this - let's not act like subscription services are being created and heavily marketed to us with our best interests at heart when the end goal is to keep everyone infinitely subscribed while owning diddly-squat. If you want to enjoy it then enjoy (you should considering the relative low prices at the moment) but don't act like the people who want to hand pick and purchase the games they want are wrong. They will still have stuff to play and something to show for the money they've spent if the service were to ever end (or if their sub lapses), you won't.
 
Last edited:
Gobjuduck

Gobjuduck

Banned
Tomb Raider would make the most sense. Crystal dynamics and Eidos Montréal have great communication and work on similar games. If xbox got crystal dynamics to work on perfect dark, it is very possible they also got a Tomb Raider deal by Eidos Montréal.

Other guesses could be the New Bioshock, or a New Dues Ex
 
ParaSeoul

ParaSeoul

Member
IntentionalPun said:
As far as I can tell a total nobody who mostly posts vague rumors that mean nothing or who re-tweets legit sources as if she was in on the same rumor.

GAF loves to discuss her/his random tweets as fact while spamming every Grubb thread with negativity lol
Click to expand...
She was somehow right about the PS event date,the Wolverine game and the MGS3 remake being handled by an Asian developer. She hasn't been around long enough to see if any of her recent claims pan out but compared to a lot of the absolute shit rumor flingers we're subjected to by some thread posters,she seems pretty competent.
 
Chukhopops

Chukhopops

Member
My guess is a) a genre that is not represented well on Xbox at the moment and b) something that has MTX because that way it makes sense for the publisher to allow 20+ million people to try it and then spend money.

So my guess is: a fighting game, either Western (NRS) or Eastern (Bandai Namco or Capcom).

And I want an insider tag if Im right !
 
ANIMAL1975

ANIMAL1975

Member
fallingdove said:
Would this be pro or anti-consumer? I have lost track. Lol.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion, their former strategy of only securing timed exclusivity of big multi-platform games like tomb rider, mass effect, ninja Gaiden, etc., is a lot less anti-consumer than the new one of buying an intire publisher, and their library of big and established 3rd party multi-platform games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Rumor: Third Party consoles that can run Xbox games to be eventually released
Rumor 2
57
4K
CeeJay replied
Semantic: Doesn't "Game pass on every screen" makes the xbox brand itself "Third party"?
2
55
3K
yurinka replied
How Xbox Is Changing the Nature of Exclusivity - IGN
Business 2 3 4 5
203
13K
jwaxeman replied
  • Locked
Fable’, ‘Avowed’ and ‘Hellblade 2’ pages remove Xbox Game Pass mentions
29
2K
Goliath77 replied
Visions of Mana maybe coming to Xbox Game Pass Day One
Rumor
36
2K
tmlDan replied
Top Bottom