What happened to the $50 1st party statement from MS?
- Thread starter Sarang01
- Start date
akilshohen
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (67%)
I did forget all about that. At least they are worth the premium though.
Michaellvortega
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
Alot of companies say alot of things that arent true, take for example almost anything SCEA says
GOW is not a first party game. It is a second party game with Epic getting a piece of the action on sales. Likewise for Bioware on 'Mass Effect.' In the Forza case I don't recall if it's a Microsoft owned studio. Second party doesn't always mean a higher price but it can eat up the difference that allows Microsoft to charge less than third party titles. Specifically, that Microsoft isn't paying production royalties. If a similar amount is going to Epic or Bioware, then the price will be the same as a third party title.
Regardless, Microsoft never made any kind of binding statement that games they published would always be a particular price. If a game has some particular expense tied to it that isn't easily made up in sales volume, those who want the game will make up the difference in price.
Regardless, Microsoft never made any kind of binding statement that games they published would always be a particular price. If a game has some particular expense tied to it that isn't easily made up in sales volume, those who want the game will make up the difference in price.
[quote name='epobirs']GOW is not a first party game. It is a second party game with Epic getting a piece of the action on sales. [/QUOTE]
Still, in the case of GOW I recall reading a quote from CliffyB himself saying it would not be $60 and something about $60 games being too much. I'm pretty sure I read it in an issue of either Gameinformer or EGM, I'll try to find it.
Still, in the case of GOW I recall reading a quote from CliffyB himself saying it would not be $60 and something about $60 games being too much. I'm pretty sure I read it in an issue of either Gameinformer or EGM, I'll try to find it.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
Gears of War is NOT first party. Does Microsoft own Epic? No. Viva Pinata was $50, and MS owns Rare, therefore, it's first party. Settle down.
terribledeli
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
So we've only had one MGS published title not release at the $50 price point and we're already prepping the pitch forks? (PDZ, PGR3, Kameo, N3, Viva Pinata all released at $50)
How about we wait till Forza 2 actually releases before we charge the windwill?
And the only evidence is a posting on Ebgames's website? Maybe we can hold off provoking the villagers till we get an official word.
How about we wait till Forza 2 actually releases before we charge the windwill?
And the only evidence is a posting on Ebgames's website? Maybe we can hold off provoking the villagers till we get an official word.
[quote name='M1C13']Since Microsoft owns Bungie does that mean that Halo 3 will be only $50... I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
Didn't they announce the pricing scructure for Halo 3 already? I don't remember what the other prices were, I just remember the $99.99 price tag for the one with the Helmet.
Didn't they announce the pricing scructure for Halo 3 already? I don't remember what the other prices were, I just remember the $99.99 price tag for the one with the Helmet.
digital kanji
CAG Veteran
Yeah, Forza definately should be a first party developed game, which means it should be $50. Someone should bring this to Microsoft's attention, and they should reclarify their pricing policy.
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Gears of War is NOT first party. Does Microsoft own Epic? No. Viva Pinata was $50, and MS owns Rare, therefore, it's first party. Settle down.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.
Actually it is
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.
Michaellvortega
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
[quote name='Zoglog']Actually it is
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/QUOTE]
MS does not own the IP of Gears of war. So yes it could go to PS3 or Wii or whatever. MS was also going to Publish Unreal Championship 2 that wasn't going to make MS the Owner of the unreal franchise.
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/QUOTE]
MS does not own the IP of Gears of war. So yes it could go to PS3 or Wii or whatever. MS was also going to Publish Unreal Championship 2 that wasn't going to make MS the Owner of the unreal franchise.
[quote name='Zoglog']Actually it is
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/quote]
No, it's a second party game then. First party games are made my a division of the parent company.
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/quote]
No, it's a second party game then. First party games are made my a division of the parent company.
ArthurDigbySellers
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
Metroid Prime craptacular? Wha?
A Happy Panda
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 61 (100%)
[quote name='lebowsky']Metroid Prime craptacular? Wha?[/QUOTE]
No no. He's right. Craptacular.
No no. He's right. Craptacular.
[quote name='daroga']No, it's a second party game then. First party games are made my a division of the parent company.[/QUOTE]
Nope, you're wrong there again. MS put a signifigant investment into publishing Gears of War. Just because Epic may own the IP (which is not even certain unless you can bring proof) does not mean Gears of War game itself is not a first party game.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.
Nope, you're wrong there again. MS put a signifigant investment into publishing Gears of War. Just because Epic may own the IP (which is not even certain unless you can bring proof) does not mean Gears of War game itself is not a first party game.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I wouldn't call any game "first party" unless the publisher OWNS the developer. Microsoft does not own Epic.
However, Sony owns Insomniac (As far as I know), just like Microsoft owns Rare and Bungie.
I agree that it's most correct to call GOW a second party game. Microsoft does not own Epic, but I am relatively sure that Microsoft paid Epic off (i.e. paid for development costs) enough to insure Epic can't make GOW for any other console.
However, Sony owns Insomniac (As far as I know), just like Microsoft owns Rare and Bungie.
I agree that it's most correct to call GOW a second party game. Microsoft does not own Epic, but I am relatively sure that Microsoft paid Epic off (i.e. paid for development costs) enough to insure Epic can't make GOW for any other console.
[quote name='Zoglog']Nope, you're wrong there again. MS put a signifigant investment into publishing Gears of War. Just because Epic may own the IP (which is not even certain unless you can bring proof) does not mean Gears of War game itself is not a first party game.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.[/quote]Those would still be 2nd party games. The developer (Capcom, in this case) may not develop for Nintendo consoles alone, so they're not 2nd party developers, but under contract (and using first party IPs) the games would technically be 2nd party games. The Mario DDR game for the cube would be another example of that happening. A lot of the Mario Sports games work this way too.
Gears is a 2nd party game if MS owns the IP, 3rd if Epic is free to put GoW out on other platforms (either now or after some sort of "exclusive" deal expires).
2nd party is sort of the "gray area" in all of this, as a lot can fall into it. A general rule of thumb, though, is if a console manufacturer publishes a game, but didn't develop it internally, it's 2nd party, regardless of the investment they might have made in the developing company.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.[/quote]Those would still be 2nd party games. The developer (Capcom, in this case) may not develop for Nintendo consoles alone, so they're not 2nd party developers, but under contract (and using first party IPs) the games would technically be 2nd party games. The Mario DDR game for the cube would be another example of that happening. A lot of the Mario Sports games work this way too.
Gears is a 2nd party game if MS owns the IP, 3rd if Epic is free to put GoW out on other platforms (either now or after some sort of "exclusive" deal expires).
2nd party is sort of the "gray area" in all of this, as a lot can fall into it. A general rule of thumb, though, is if a console manufacturer publishes a game, but didn't develop it internally, it's 2nd party, regardless of the investment they might have made in the developing company.
shaunLEGEND
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I think we can place a little bit of blame on Sony as well. Once Sony announced their first party and self-published titles would be $60, that pretty much screwed 360 owners, as it allows Microsoft free reign to charge $60 as they are not more expensive then their main competitor.
$50 is definitely gonna be the pricepoint for things like Viva Pinata because c'mon they're not stupid.
It will be interesting to see what they charge for PGR4. But who knows, maybe they will keep their promise (yeah right).
$50 is definitely gonna be the pricepoint for things like Viva Pinata because c'mon they're not stupid.
It will be interesting to see what they charge for PGR4. But who knows, maybe they will keep their promise (yeah right).
[quote name='Zoglog']Actually it is
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. Metroid Prime is based on an existing Nintendo franchise. Nintendo retains all rights. They can produce versions for any platofrm they like without consulting Retro. Simlarly, Donkey Kong games by Rare are based on existing Nintendo IP and Nintendo has retained the rights. A more complicated case is the original Star Fox. This started life as essentially Starglider III, a series Argonaut had produced for the Atari ST, Amiga, and PC that was published by Mirrorsoft. Nintendo decided they didn't want a major title premiering as an existing series on their platform (unless it was from an earlier Nintendo platform) and they wanted to bring in the cute factor as opposed to the more hard-edge SF setting of the Starglider titles. So Miyamoto was assigned to add a lot of creative input on the characters and other elements on top of the gameplay Argonaut already had in place. This level of original creative input from Nintendo made the game first party in the contractual negotiations. Argonaut was more concerned with the expected lucrative royalties on the FX chip used by the game. The economics for that chip didn't work out well, especially after the SNES-CD, that would have included the chip and made it accesible without added cost to third parties, was canceled.
But the story changes when the IP originates with the outside developer. Rare has retained the IP rights to Perfect Dark, Blast Corps, Jet Force Gemini, Banjo Kazooie, Conker, etc. and is free to produce new versions of those game for any platform and new entries to the respective franchises. Nintendo has no ongoing input on the issue unless a Nintendo platform like the GameBoy is involved. It was no problem for Rare to sign over all ownership of a game like Donkey Kong Country because it would be impossible to make further use of the IP independently of Nintendo.
Microsoft published GOW but the IP is entirely Epic's. In all likelihood the only continuing control Microsoft has over the franchise is right of first refusal for any sequels. That would suppose Microsoft had a suitable platform to invoke that right. If Epic decided a handheld spinoff of the game was the next project, Microsoft would be in no position to object that it would be going to a non-Microsoft handheld. Longterm, Microsoft cannot even be assured the game will not appear on the PS3. Epic is extremely unlikely to have sold off the exclusive rights permanently. At most their contract probably only locks the game to the Xbox 360 for two years, after which it hardly matters any more. (Nintendo used that same period of time to very effectively deny Sega and NEC access to third party titles in the US market.) Permanent exclusivity is very expensive because no sane company is going to let their creation go cheap. Sony would have little interest in having GOW on the PS3 when all of the consumer interest has shifted to GOW II.
Getting that lengthy period of exclusivity on contingent on Microsof tpicking up the tab for much of the development budget, manufacturing, and marketing of the game. Sony has gotten much shorter periods of exclusivity mainly by kicking in a lot of co-op advertising money. Thus you have GTA titles receiving imporved Xbox ports in less than a year of the PS2 release, while the game is still a very strong seller. It's long enough to make those who are impatient decide they had to have a PS2. Even if the game is a turkey, as with some later Tomb Raider titles for which Sony bought a six month exclusivity period, it's still worthwhile because anticipation brings in the rush of early sales before word gets out to just that platform.
Microsoft could decide to immediately get out of the game business tomorrow but a PS3 port of GOW would still be damaged goods to Sony since the title is so inextricably tied by marketing to the Xbox 360. Unless the game could dependably produce similar sales for Sony after the time needed to get the port done, it would be preferable for them to not have it rather than be perceived to be picking up another company's scraps.
The terms 'first party' and 'second party' exist for a reason. That reason being that just because a property is published and marketed by one company does grant that company outright ownership. Go to a used bookstore and look at varying editions of a novel that has remained in print for decades but not in the public domain. The author may change publishers several times and take his backlist with him. In fact, one of the ways a publisher can entice an author to join them is offer new printings of that back list if the current publisher has allowed it to remain out of print after the contractual period has pased.
Just because development is outsourced does not make a game not first party. As long as it is published by Microsoft Game Studios.
Other examples are the craptacular Metroid prime developed by Retro Studios or Blue Dragon Developed by Mistwalker, or 99 nights produced by Q and phantagram.... anyway you get the point. Just because the Company does not Own the Developer they still provide a great deal of support and it is still considered a first party game. hence no Gears of war on any other company's console EVER... unless MS stops making consoles.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. Metroid Prime is based on an existing Nintendo franchise. Nintendo retains all rights. They can produce versions for any platofrm they like without consulting Retro. Simlarly, Donkey Kong games by Rare are based on existing Nintendo IP and Nintendo has retained the rights. A more complicated case is the original Star Fox. This started life as essentially Starglider III, a series Argonaut had produced for the Atari ST, Amiga, and PC that was published by Mirrorsoft. Nintendo decided they didn't want a major title premiering as an existing series on their platform (unless it was from an earlier Nintendo platform) and they wanted to bring in the cute factor as opposed to the more hard-edge SF setting of the Starglider titles. So Miyamoto was assigned to add a lot of creative input on the characters and other elements on top of the gameplay Argonaut already had in place. This level of original creative input from Nintendo made the game first party in the contractual negotiations. Argonaut was more concerned with the expected lucrative royalties on the FX chip used by the game. The economics for that chip didn't work out well, especially after the SNES-CD, that would have included the chip and made it accesible without added cost to third parties, was canceled.
But the story changes when the IP originates with the outside developer. Rare has retained the IP rights to Perfect Dark, Blast Corps, Jet Force Gemini, Banjo Kazooie, Conker, etc. and is free to produce new versions of those game for any platform and new entries to the respective franchises. Nintendo has no ongoing input on the issue unless a Nintendo platform like the GameBoy is involved. It was no problem for Rare to sign over all ownership of a game like Donkey Kong Country because it would be impossible to make further use of the IP independently of Nintendo.
Microsoft published GOW but the IP is entirely Epic's. In all likelihood the only continuing control Microsoft has over the franchise is right of first refusal for any sequels. That would suppose Microsoft had a suitable platform to invoke that right. If Epic decided a handheld spinoff of the game was the next project, Microsoft would be in no position to object that it would be going to a non-Microsoft handheld. Longterm, Microsoft cannot even be assured the game will not appear on the PS3. Epic is extremely unlikely to have sold off the exclusive rights permanently. At most their contract probably only locks the game to the Xbox 360 for two years, after which it hardly matters any more. (Nintendo used that same period of time to very effectively deny Sega and NEC access to third party titles in the US market.) Permanent exclusivity is very expensive because no sane company is going to let their creation go cheap. Sony would have little interest in having GOW on the PS3 when all of the consumer interest has shifted to GOW II.
Getting that lengthy period of exclusivity on contingent on Microsof tpicking up the tab for much of the development budget, manufacturing, and marketing of the game. Sony has gotten much shorter periods of exclusivity mainly by kicking in a lot of co-op advertising money. Thus you have GTA titles receiving imporved Xbox ports in less than a year of the PS2 release, while the game is still a very strong seller. It's long enough to make those who are impatient decide they had to have a PS2. Even if the game is a turkey, as with some later Tomb Raider titles for which Sony bought a six month exclusivity period, it's still worthwhile because anticipation brings in the rush of early sales before word gets out to just that platform.
Microsoft could decide to immediately get out of the game business tomorrow but a PS3 port of GOW would still be damaged goods to Sony since the title is so inextricably tied by marketing to the Xbox 360. Unless the game could dependably produce similar sales for Sony after the time needed to get the port done, it would be preferable for them to not have it rather than be perceived to be picking up another company's scraps.
The terms 'first party' and 'second party' exist for a reason. That reason being that just because a property is published and marketed by one company does grant that company outright ownership. Go to a used bookstore and look at varying editions of a novel that has remained in print for decades but not in the public domain. The author may change publishers several times and take his backlist with him. In fact, one of the ways a publisher can entice an author to join them is offer new printings of that back list if the current publisher has allowed it to remain out of print after the contractual period has pased.
[quote name='Zoglog']Nope, you're wrong there again. MS put a signifigant investment into publishing Gears of War. Just because Epic may own the IP (which is not even certain unless you can bring proof) does not mean Gears of War game itself is not a first party game.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.[/QUOTE]
No. You're mixing situations. Resistance is an entirely new IP. Zelda was an existing Nintendo IP. Insomniac is very happy with what sony has done for them on the PS2 in terms of platform strength. But that doesn't mean they couldn't find themselves unhappy with the PS3 market and decide to take their IP elsewhere once the contractual period concludes.
Consider Naughty Dog. When Jak & Daxter started development, it was as a second party game. Like Crash Bandicoot the franchise could have eventually have gone to competing platforms. Sony was sufficiently impressed with Naughty Dog's track record and early builds of J&D that they bought Naughty Dog to gain ownership of the J&D IP, which led to a later Daxter game owned by Sony despite being developed by an outside group.
Note that Sony did not get ownership of Crash Bandicoot when they bought Naughty Dog, despite having published the games and marketing them heavily, to the point of making Crash the PS1 mascot for a long time. Naughty Dog had a contractual obligation to produce more Crash games for Universal. To get out of that contract and cash in by selling out to Sony, they sold the rights to Crash Bandicoot to Universal. Gaving and Rubin made a bet that they were more valuable to Sony than the Crash Bandicoot IP and they were proven right. The Jak series trails the PS1 Crash games for sales but still have been very successful while Universal has had only mild success trying to continue the Crash Bandicoot franchise.
It's first party, just like resistance which was developed by Insomniac, and just like how the Zelda on the GBA was developed by Capcom.[/QUOTE]
No. You're mixing situations. Resistance is an entirely new IP. Zelda was an existing Nintendo IP. Insomniac is very happy with what sony has done for them on the PS2 in terms of platform strength. But that doesn't mean they couldn't find themselves unhappy with the PS3 market and decide to take their IP elsewhere once the contractual period concludes.
Consider Naughty Dog. When Jak & Daxter started development, it was as a second party game. Like Crash Bandicoot the franchise could have eventually have gone to competing platforms. Sony was sufficiently impressed with Naughty Dog's track record and early builds of J&D that they bought Naughty Dog to gain ownership of the J&D IP, which led to a later Daxter game owned by Sony despite being developed by an outside group.
Note that Sony did not get ownership of Crash Bandicoot when they bought Naughty Dog, despite having published the games and marketing them heavily, to the point of making Crash the PS1 mascot for a long time. Naughty Dog had a contractual obligation to produce more Crash games for Universal. To get out of that contract and cash in by selling out to Sony, they sold the rights to Crash Bandicoot to Universal. Gaving and Rubin made a bet that they were more valuable to Sony than the Crash Bandicoot IP and they were proven right. The Jak series trails the PS1 Crash games for sales but still have been very successful while Universal has had only mild success trying to continue the Crash Bandicoot franchise.
jeffreyjrose
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Wow, we could really use a clear definition for first-party development, couldn't we???
Forbes MAgazine asks, "Why Does 'Gears of War' Cost $60?"
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html
The first, second, and third party issues aren't examined but it gives a newcomer an idea of how the costs break down.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html
The first, second, and third party issues aren't examined but it gives a newcomer an idea of how the costs break down.
[quote name='epobirs']Forbes MAgazine asks, "Why Does 'Gears of War' Cost $60?"
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html
The first, second, and third party issues aren't examined but it gives a newcomer an idea of how the costs break down.[/quote]
Excellent Article, Thanks
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html
The first, second, and third party issues aren't examined but it gives a newcomer an idea of how the costs break down.[/quote]
Excellent Article, Thanks
Wow it amazes me how people try to justify this bullshit and that article especially.
Answer me tnis, what about games like "F.E.A.R." that run $60 and from what I've heard it's a straight port with no graphical additions. In other words the cost of development has already been spent and now it's a matter of the cost of porting iit which is definitely less than building the game up exclusively for the 360 or other next gen. consoles in general.
Answer me tnis, what about games like "F.E.A.R." that run $60 and from what I've heard it's a straight port with no graphical additions. In other words the cost of development has already been spent and now it's a matter of the cost of porting iit which is definitely less than building the game up exclusively for the 360 or other next gen. consoles in general.
bread's done