If you’re a little new to gaming then you would have missed out on an era where the PS1 and PS2 had quite a bit of exclusive third-party support. When securing exclusive third-party support you’re making your console something that’s a ‘must-own’ item. Phil Spencer had a chat to Gamespot and told them that Sony is not securing third-party exclusives because of market share, it’s because they’re buying it.
[quote]So, they don’t “gobble” the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it’s somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share.
When you go in to do a deal, with a third party, that third party has its own view of the global market and the value of it. And they should, they should think about their assets and how valuable they are, just like anyone would when they are selling their goods.
So we’re making a conscious decision to focus on our first-party games. It doesn’t make it harder or easier, it’s just a decision. I do think that building up first-party exclusives is creatively more difficult than signing a deal, just by the nature of what it is.
I’ll point out too that Sony has some great first-party franchises. I’m a big fan of Uncharted, I thought that looked great at E3. I really admire the team at Naughty Dog and the team at Polyphony.[/quote]
I guess he forgot for a moment about the Rise of the Tomb Raider deal, though that’s only a timed exclusive. Also, what about a little title called Minecraft? After the Gamescom you’d have to admit that they’re placing most their eggs in the first-party basket. Hopefully this works out for them.