Sony Computer Entertainment is "always open" to third-party exclusives, European boss Andrew House has told CVG.
Speaking to our E3 team in Los Angeles last week, House pointed to new PS3 exclusive Dust 514 as "a great example of having an approach from a developer".
Asked if Sony's in the market for more deals like Dust, the SCEE boss replied: "Absolutely. I think there are clearly opportunities where developers or publishers want to focus their resources on a single platform - usually the one they think delivers the best experience for their vision around the game. That was the case with Dust and the guys from CCP.
"So yes, we're always open to those sorts of approaches," he added. "I think you're right... we're not going to see as much exclusive focus because the increased cost of development does preclude that to a degree. But clearly there are opportunities out there and we'd love to explore them.
"I think you've got a few opportunities in the year when you want to attract some attention and make some news. E3 is one of those. Hopefully we've got some more interesting things up our sleeves for later on this year."
Two high profile PS3 exclusives notable in their E3 absence were Sony's Last Guardian and Rockstar's elusive Agent.
On the latter, House said he's "not brave enough to talk about Sam [Houser]'s creations on his behalf", while he blamed Last Guardian's no-show on the team being "hard at work". See his full answer in video form above.
In the same interview, House said £229 retailer listings for Vita are "where I would have predicted" and that Sony feels the price point needs to be "aggressive" in order to build momentum for the impressive portable.
Comments
24 comments so far...
gobbybobby on 13 Jun '11 said:
Dust looks great
gonna be a vita version as well.
ensabahnur on 13 Jun '11 said:
I think thats due to the fact that there is no console right out in front now and there's just too much to be made from going multi-plat.
The only exclusives will be from internal developers, anyone not associated with either Sony, MS or Nintendo will look at the field of play and decide that there's just too much money to be made from supplying to all 3 or just the 2.
MGS HD collection and MGS:Rising is proof that previously exclusive franchises are loosing that tag.
_Marty_ on 13 Jun '11 said:
From a developer/publisher perspective, I really question the point of bringing out an exclusive game. Why limit your audience size, when there's no real technical reason why it couldn't go to either.
I'm for one am glad 'exclusives' are waning.
Rise_ofthe_Mike on 13 Jun '11 said:
MGS has never been exclusive...MGS:Rising isn't even being done by Kojima. MGS has been on a lot of different consoles over the years including two Nintendo consoles, Sony's consoles, Microsoft's original x-box, and even the turbo. So yeah, MGS is not a good game to point to in that regard. Also, if you look at every game to come to a system other than Sony, since the PS1...none of them have been from Kojima. Remakes, Rising, etc...all done by other people on his team. Hell, if you look back..every game that is considered to suck in his MGS franchise..was done by his team and not the man himself. Something to think about.
ensabahnur on 13 Jun '11 said:
No it wasn't the greatest choice but i couldn't think of anything else and tbh all the original games were released as exclusives. On original release the MGS series was PS exclusive for a time being, it was near 6 years before Twin Snakes was released, a year for MGS2: Substance on xbox and MGS3 was completely exclusive as was Peace Walker.
Whereas the collected edition and Rising will be same day releases on both systems, a first for the series.
gmcb007 on 13 Jun '11 said:
Theres only 2 types of people who really benefit from exclusives: Fanboys and the Console's company.
I understand games coming from the studios owned by the console's company but third party devs should stay multiplat. They risk losing a big slice of profits by excluding a platform.
All exclusives do is segregate the gaming community. I know people say it keeps the competiton healthy and we get the benefits but how is it a benefit if we have to shell out on another console just to play certain games?
Exclusives are the biggest competiton between the big 2 at the moment because its the only real thing to get the upper hand( lets be honest, theres not much difference in specs between the PS3 & Xbox 360). If they were not used then they would have to focus more on offering the cheapest price and better specs and that would benefit us all.
Communism in gaming! Every gamer is equal!
Reality Check on 13 Jun '11 said:
I prefer PS3 Exclusives. The more the better. Nearly all the games that where PS2 Exclusives then went to the Xbox 360 + PS3 this gen have mainly been rubbish i.e GTA + FF etc etc
PS3Tard on 13 Jun '11 said:
Exclusives only tend to be worthwhile if they are actually any good... there were plenty of PS3 fanboys raving about "Haze" until it was released and turned out to be as playable as a freshly laid turd.
PS3Tard on 13 Jun '11 said:
Last gens GTA's were only timed exclusives which were better on the Xbox, more detail, custom soundtrack, better graphics etc... and there hasn't been a truly great FF since VII back on the PS1... the best FF games were all pre-PlayStation on the old Nintendo machines.
HeavenlyGamer on 13 Jun '11 said:
I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with the amount of money they get payed to do so. As they'll be guaranteed to receive money for their game, apposed to hoping a multi platform game will do well when it's released (and risking the chance of losing money when the game doesn't doesn't deliver them more than the whole R&D process has cost them).
MrPirtniw on 13 Jun '11 said:
I was going to type something incredibly witty and clever then I saw HeavenlyGamers avatar... and I'm... a bit... hypno...
...
Sorry, what?
julioaragon on 13 Jun '11 said:
i agree on your comments both the 360 and the ps3 have equal amount of great exclusives..so this whole rubbish about one console having more than the other is pointless...
TheLastDodo on 13 Jun '11 said:
When he says "3rd party exclusives", is he slyly saying 360 exclusives?
KippDynamite on 13 Jun '11 said:
Exclusives set platforms apart from each other. If it wasn't for Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Metroid, etc., I would never buy Nintendo consoles.
PS3UberTool on 13 Jun '11 said:
This is probably the first generation where it's not necessary to buy all the machines, so many of the big titles are multi-format that we're talking a handful of games on each machine that are exclusive and even then there's generally a similar alternative on the other machine.
At the same time both machines have sold enough for developers to justify working on both machines, it's not one machine dominated the market as the PS2 did.
PS3UberTool on 13 Jun '11 said:
That's not enough to make me buy one... maybe 4 or 5 games a generation is not enough to warrant a purchase, when they do shell out for a 3rd party game, like Madworld, it's invariably met with apathy from the console owners and sells so little that it's not worth them repeating the process.
Fr33Kye on 13 Jun '11 said:
They dont have an equal amount.
Exclusives allow for a shorter development time, which mean lower costs, and probably a more polished game. Its just a matter of whether its worth missing out on an audience. Exclusives declined because no console is a runaway leader. If the ps4 or next xbox outsell the competition by 100 million, companies may be less inclined to spend the the money to reach a smaller audience. Simple really, for example: heavenly sword actually sold better than enslaved did initially, which means exclusives can still do pretty well.. Enslaved had frustrating glitches and unpolished gameplay. I cannot help but wonder what the game would be like if it were exclusive or had a longer dev time. Also dust is exclusive because they weighed the pros and cons of developing for the 360, they came to the conclusion that devoloping solely for the ps3 atm would be better in the long run than dealing with microsoft's policies. If a game i truly like goes multipltat then good more people get to play. If mgs4 came out on 360 i would spend a week trying to get people to buy it.
KMakawa on 13 Jun '11 said:
Purely because of financial gains that either of the two companys have to offer. Microsoft for example could offer millions for an exclusive third-party game, which probably would be the opposite consoles price and then some. So they could easily make up for loss of sales.
But effectively it is down to finance and resource the other company provides.
I do feel the time for exclusives is ticking away, fast however. Which is only a good thing!
Tom tom tom on 13 Jun '11 said:
The only exclusives who will really really benefit from being exclusive to a console is halo and gears. Microsoft offer lots of perks for these two. Especially halo, advertising, dedicated servers, money, trueskill ranking. They probably get just as much out of staying exclusive to if they went multiplatform. As for games like mass effect or uncharted, I really doubt they get much out of being exclusive. Mass effect hardly sold well on ps3, I think it was a mistake to jump over on the second game. If it would have been exclusive from the off it would have had more sales but releasing it when all your decisions impact the rest of the trilogy with the second game was idiotic. Most of the sales will go to the 360 and PC because those decisions from the first game will be there.
Games like uncharted or killzone are shooting themselves in the foot with being exclusive. They hardly sell well at all and Sony don't really advertise their games well. "halo killer" killzone 2 sold 1 million by the time odst was coming out. Halo odst sold a million in a day.
KippDynamite on 13 Jun '11 said:
I agree with you entirely. I haven't bought a Wii game in more than 2 years, and to be honest i'm a little embarassed to admit that I own a Wii. Drives me nuts how rarely Nintendo focus on their key franchises.
And I disagree with people who are saying that exclusives aren't a big deal or that there aren't very many. Just looking at my shelf for PS3 exlusives . . . I have LittleBig Planet, 3D Dot Game Heroes, God of War I and II, Demon's Souls, Infamous, Modnation Racers, Heavy Rain, Killzone 2, Ratchet and Clank ToD & CiT, Uncharted 1 & 2, Resistance 1 & 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Katamari Forever. I'd be sad if I missed out on all of these.
Barca Azul on 13 Jun '11 said:
I guess for some smaller Devs, they can't afford to program for more than one, if it does well, maybe they port the game.
Ellscore on 13 Jun '11 said:
My favourite games tend to be cross platform titles but these might have been better if built for a certain console (as to what extent nobody can say). Gears of war and unchartered are exclusives therefore we need more exclusives alongside more cross platform. Lets not just have cross platform coz that is a bit rubbish.
If you are poor and cannot buy both consoles then try begging. Beg4U.com offers free advice on setting up as a self employed beggar.
Imaduck on 14 Jun '11 said:
Doesn't the PSN downtime technically count as a third party exclusive? And no I'm not trolling, just think about it
jtthegame on 14 Jun '11 said:
Third parties shouldn't side with anyone. If they make a game for just one system then they clearly don't one reconision for that game because when a third party make a game a ps exclusive idoits tend to think it is sonys game when it is nothing to do with them oh and petitions get signed when it does finally go to another console to boycotte the developer