Reeves: Publisher exclusivity probably “a thing of the past”

Tuesday, 26th August 2008 14:42 GMT By Patrick Garratt

David Reeves is the man who keeps on giving. At least he does in this case, because both VG247 and GI had the same interview slot with the SCEE president at Games Convention, all of our questions from which are newsified here.

He did, however, say other things. And the biggest thing he said was that he believed the era of publisher console exclusivity was essentially over.

“I think we have to accept that exclusivity is not a thing of the past, but it is probably with publishers,” he said. “We might do a few things, where we feel that we need a push here or a push there.”

Reeves added: “We have to accept more and more that platform holders themselves cannot have exclusives unless they’re given millions and millions of dollars not to develop a particular game for one particular platform.

“But for developers, and you could take someone like Quantic Dream for example – a great game, it takes a lot of time to develop, they need a little bit of funding, external development. In exchange, it’s exclusive – that works. So exclusivity possibly with developers is more likely that exclusivity with publishers.”

You can read the full transcript of the interview here.



  1. Psychotext

    It’s quite funny to see this… mostly because they’ve been able to hold onto so few third party exclusives whereas MS has been buying as many as they can get their hands on.

    They played the moneyhat game with the PS1 and it worked well. They had it lucky with the PS2 in that they were the given exclusives by default due to market share. This gen is a lot more vicious all round and a far tougher fight.

    #1 6 years ago
  2. patlike

    He was pretty matter of fact about this sort of stuff, to be honest. I liked his little dig about FF being exclusive in Japan. Made me laugh.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. No_PUDding

    It’s a lot easier to buy an multiplatform than to buy an exclusive.

    The situation with FFXIII was unfortunate, and Sony really should have a larger stake in the Square Enix. Or atleast an internal developm ent studio for RPGs.

    Since everyone is moaning.

    I am shocked Microsoft is still using it’s money to buy multiplatforms rather than first parties or IP’s. I think they are bad at handlign first parties, but the IP’s should be fine.

    #3 6 years ago
  4. Psychotext

    It’s risk vs reward No_PUD. You can cherry pick the best third party exclusives but taking on entire dev teams mean you take responsibility for their success and failure. All of it.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. No_PUDding

    Yes which is why I can’t bring myself to compliment Microsoft very often.

    Microsoft do very little to help this industry along, other than pour money from their parent company into it. By all means useful, and surely one of the reasons it’s expanding at such a rate. But the biggest risk Microsoft ever took was to price Braid at 1600 MS points.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Psychotext

    Every business is in this to make money. Some take more risks than others. Braid was 1200 points btw… and some might say a bigger risk is pricing Banjo Kazooie and Viva Pinata at $39.99.

    Great for us, but it might not work out so well for them.

    #6 6 years ago
  7. No_PUDding

    To me it just shows they budget titles, using some well known names.

    Sorry about the Braid mistake, I actually have no clue about MS points, I thought it was 1600 or 1800. I was just referring to the whole debacle lightly.

    It’s true every business is in it to make money, but some businesses can be passionate about it too. People seem to think every business is in it for the money solely. For a developer, passion comes first and business comes later when it becomes imperative to continue making money.

    #7 6 years ago
  8. Psychotext

    That’s the thing… neither are budget titles, which is exactly where the risk comes from. They’re trying to attract casual gamers with that plus the new $199 arcade machine, which is a pretty significant risk.

    #8 6 years ago
  9. No_PUDding

    Well neither you or I can prove they are or aren’t budget titles.

    My assumption came from the amount of titles they are developing as a team. In conjunction with the short amount of time they have been developed in.

    But neither are risks that are helping the industry, and the recent change in tides, where Sony has become less of a joke (becuase they really were) this generation is kind of forcing them to do this.

    #9 6 years ago
  10. Psychotext

    Well… for Banjo I can because I know how long it’s been in development for and how big the team is.

    Also, you seem to have Sony up on a pedestal here. Do you really think that they’re taking risks to further the industry? Same for Nintendo. You think they made the DS because they wanted to further gaming or gave the Wii waggle because of some sort of passion?

    They are ALL in it to make money, nothing else. Games developers, yeah… they can have a passion. But the decision makers at Sony, MS and Nintendo are bean counters. What they say goes… and benefiting the industry doesn’t even enter their minds when the bottom line has to be taken care of.

    #10 6 years ago
  11. No_PUDding

    I know it’s been in development sub 2 years, and I know their development team is not blockbuster size by any means. That all points to being budget – certainly Viva Pinata.

    For SCEI passion isn’t an element I agree, but they know nurturing their first party so there’s passion IS an element. That’s my point. Nintendo were forced to go the direction they did with the Wii, but the DS truly has furthered the handheld market. I don’t have Sony on a pedestal, but I do have Microsoft down in a hole somewhat. I said that already.

    And yes I think they all want to further the industry, so there is more of a market to sell to. Xbox introduced the online element, and that was one of the great things I will compliment Microsoft for. Without them I would have bet the PS3 wouldn’t have adequate online capabilities.

    #11 6 years ago
  12. Psychotext

    No_PUDding: Banjo has been in development for longer than 2 years. Unless you meant Viva Pinata 2 (which obviously hasn’t).

    #12 6 years ago
  13. No_PUDding

    How long has Banjo been in development then? I assume it can’t be long over 2 yeasr, it was only announced 2 years ago.

    #13 6 years ago
  14. Psychotext

    3-4 years (I can’t find the quote I’m looking for which says exactly how long). They first started teasing in April 2005 so before that for sure.

    #14 6 years ago
  15. No_PUDding

    You sure it wasn’t X06 – That being nigh on 2 years ago?

    #15 6 years ago
  16. Psychotext

    That was the teaser trailer. There was talk of it long before that. With the website being set up and hints being dropped all over the place.

    I’ve been following this one for a while. :)

    #16 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.