PS5 Timed Exclusives Range From 'A Few Months To A Couple Of Years' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 January 2021 / 4,115 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment on Thursday held their big blowout event for the PlayStation 5, with showcasing dozens of games and unveiled the look of the PS5 hardware. It has been confirmed some of the third-party games shown during the event will be timed-exclusive to the PS5.
PlayStation’s Head of Global Marketing and Consumer Experience Eric Lempel speaking to the official PlayStation Blog said Sony showcased 13 titles that will be launching exclusively on the PS5. The timed-exclusives will range anywhere from a few months and up to two years.
"Similar to what we did with PS4, our teams spoke with developers well in advance of releasing the product," said Lempel. "And we talked to developers about what they wanted in a next-generation console…. and a lot of their feedback went into the design of the PlayStation 5 architecture.
"And with that, we found that along the way, they were creating some great games that matched up so well to the platform and the ambition we’re trying to achieve. So we’re really fortunate because there are a ton of great titles, as you saw today, and a lot of them are exclusive.
"All in, we showed about 13 titles that are launching exclusively on PlayStation 5. And those exclusive arrangements range from a few months to a couple of years. You saw some great titles: Godfall from Gearbox, Death Loop from Bethesda, Project Athia from Square Enix.
"What I’m really happy about is that, this time around, there are a large number of independent developers who are also going to be with us around the launch timeframe. So you saw some of those titles today: The Pathless from Annapurna, Bugsnax from Young Horses.
"And then a franchise that goes back to the first PlayStation, with Oddworld. We have Oddworld Soulstorm from Oddworld Inhabitants… it’s great to see how far that franchise has come, and how it will be introduced to a whole new generation on PS5."
The PlayStation 5 will launch in Holiday 2020. An exact release date and launch price have yet to be announced.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
What a nice consumer friendly company. Now I understand why they get praised all the time on the Internet. It's "for the players" and "play has no limits" is definitely true. There is really no limit anymore to force people to buy your system to play games which could be everywhere else as well.
Companies aren't people. They're out there to make money. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo aren't your friends.
You mean that in alternative to MS that on their May reveal all that there was 3rd party and most of them as timed exclusives? Which Sony didn`t even bother to cry "hey it is also on our system"
Just a reminder that Microsoft started the practice of paid online. They eventually got the other two major players in the console industry to follow suit with paid online. They aren't a consumer friendly company either. Just posturing as one.
BTW, I agree that moneyhatting 3rd party games is cringe.
Come on, don't they know nowadays gamers hate this practice?
You mean a vocal minority? Most won`t even know it happens.
99% of gamers don't think about this practice. They just see where the games are.
Wow very hypocritical of people here I own the ps4 pro and xbox one x but when ms does these things you complain but when sony does it its ok
I can't understand why they show games with a 2022 release window, which will be probably delayed to 2023 or even 2024. We saw that with FF VII Remake and other games. Just don't do that. Show games which will be released within one year (after launch).
How does a game taking long to release takes away from you buying the games releasing now? It is just a matter of keeping expectations in check.
If Sony were so confident with the PS5 and their own software, than why do they need to preform these practices?
?!?!?! What does confidence have to do with business? If they didn't do deals like this, then MS would for the same exact reasons. Business... A lot of people would call them arrogant again if they thought just their 1st and 2nd party games along with the usual multiplat would suffice. All 3 of them do this.
Because MS still keep doing and Sony haven`t stopped the practice as well.
@Bandorr So its okay when Sony brought SF5 and FF7R exclusivity but let's hate on MS for doing the deal with TR. Also Hellblade is now owned by MS, completely different to a IP not owned by the brand.
All companies buy timed exclusives etc but lets not forgive one brand for doing it and bash the other.
@Bonzinga SFV was a completely different situation. More akin to the Bayonetta scenario with Nintendo. Only that if Capcom would have waited a few more years it probably would have been multiplat. However, Sony stepped in funded the game mostly. FF7R is a timed exclusive. Not a full on exclusive.
SF V Sony paid for the whole development of the game, while on TR the game was already ready and MS paid to hold the version. FF7R Sony either paid for part of the development or even more likely was the result of FF XIII going to Xbox and Versus XIII that was the payback becoming XV and also being multiplat plus KH also going MP.
Phill had sweared he hated the practice and they would stop it though, Sony never entered in the cry wolf technique to complain the competitor is doing something they do when they are on the receiving end, MS is doing it to this day.
You guys are missing the point here. TR was a paid time exclusives, we agree with that but that doesnt mean its okay for companies to step in to completely remove a franchise from a platform. SF5 is even worse because Sony stepped in and paid for the game to be FULL exclusive.
How would you feel if MS stepped in with Bandai Namco and paid the development for Dark Souls 4 as a full exclusive? It would be worse than waiting 1 year. We know Capcon will make a SF5 just like we know Bandai Namco will make a Dark Souls 4.
Why your point being wrong means we miss it?
@Don So my point is wrong is it?
Well let me prove you all wrong right now. Tomb Raider was also funded by MS which helped the development of the game yet it was only 1 year exclusive. Sony do the same with SF5 and worse as they kept it to a life time exclusive. Dont believe me? Look up Gamereactor "MS helps fund Tomb Raider, similar to the Dead Rising 3 deal".
We should not have double standards
https://www.gamereactor.eu/amp/microsoft-helps-fund-rise-of-the-tomb-raider/
Tomb Raider was almost finished (and it had the funding going on) with a PS4 version. You trying to distort fact just show your point was wrong all along.
Use your vgc account during the time of the TR discussion and enter the threads. It was exposed that there was already a PS4 version almost finished and it was held.
Don it doesn't matter if it was suppose to be releasing for PS4 or not, the same rules apply. SF5 was suppose to arrive on other platforms too until Sony inserted themselves. MS spent money to help promote and develop the game so its why they made it only 1 year exclusive, at least it wasn't a full exclusive. I honestly think its really odd that a 1 year timed exclusive is worse than a full paid money hat.
Either way Don, unless you can actually link me some info claiming what you say is true, I cannot take your word for granted. I linked you an actual article saying MS invested money into the marketing and development of the TR game, much the same as to what Sony did with SF5. I am not sticking up for MS here, I am simply stating that Sony has done it too and probably even worse. Saying its okay because they were helping Capcom is not a believable story. What is a believable story is Sony money hatted SF5 because they needed an exclusive fighter to compete with Killer Instinct and the upcoming Smash brothers.
You’re wasting your time. The bitching about Tomb Raider was especially funny because literally every person who complained about Microsoft buying a former multiplat Tomb Raider has zero problem with the fact that Sony themselves moneyhatted the same franchise years earlier. Some even tried to say it wasn’t a money deal when Sony did it. Similar to how some are trying to defend FF7Rpart1 right now.
Regarding Street Fighter, it takes sizable gullibility to believe that after the massive sales of SFIV, that Capcom would be struggling to find a sequel. I think that’s BS, just like it’s BS that Microsoft funded Tomb Raider. But surprise you post proof that MS funded Tomb Raider and does that make it ok like SFV? Nah it’s still wrong for reasons lol. Like I said, a waste of time.
Timed exclusives don't worry me much, it's not like there isn't a million other games to play. How's your backlog looking everyone?
It's horrible. I'm working through Xenoblade Chronicles 1. Next is the sequel + Torna, the entire Uncharted series, Octopath Traveler, God of War, FFVII. TLOU 2 is around to corner so I have to stop everything to play that. Then there's the entire Halo Series. Cyberpunk is a future game, but September will be here before we know it.
Suffice to say I won't be playing any next-gen games for a while.
You have to play god of war!
Shenmue 3, nier autonama, judgement, ace combat 7, persona 5, medieval, kh,3, control , ff7 remake on chapter 8... ,last of us2 next week. Forget about next gen.
Well if Shadow of the TR deal wasn't bad enough, we get this vague "maybe soon, maybe longer" interview...
If it ain't shat on, then I guess the TR deal was fair too?.
That was Rise of the tomb raider and was made by Microsoft for a full year exclusive.
At the end, the PS4 version sold more than Xbone version.
Problem on TR was MS being desingenuous in the verbiage and refusing to clarify. And still a lot of their games on the May show were moneyhat timed exclusive that Phill sweared wouldn`t do anymore.
So Sony paid them $$$ for it to be time exclusive? Or there seems to be a deal where if they give it as a time exclusive on PS5 they will get plenty of advertisements?
For the Indies it is most likely for the marketing and 6 months exclusivity. For the AAA that is probably paid.
Paid, of course. No other reason for a publisher to limit their sales unless they’re getting revenue from another source to make up for it.
I have no problem with exclusives but timed exclusives just seem really petty and pointless.
Wow very hypocritical of people here I own the ps4 pro and xbox one x but when ms does these things you complain but when sony does it its ok
Well Im only interested with the Deamons Soul and Gran Turismo 7
Nope. a lot of people are interested in them.
A couple of years is a LONG time which is probably why I will end up purchasing a PS5. As much as I dislike this practice, it does sell consoles.
If Sony doesn't do it, you can bet MS will. This is how business is. Don't hate the player, hate the game (pun intended?)
Good guy Sony.
Wow I never thought Sony would even need to do this again, fair enough I understand last gen as it was neck n neck with Microsoft coming into that generation but why money hat now when you hands down pretty much own the market so far. Why not just use that money to help lower the cost of the actually console (unless the console is gonna be cheaper than the competition)
Because their competitor is doing the same.
"Few months" is pretty vague but hard to see how 2-3 month exclusivities really help console maker in long run.
Because any low info consumers would tend to "learn" that exclusivity doesn't last very long and for other games
they might just assume any exclusivity would only be very short, even when they may actually have longer period.
Although the counter is very low info consumers lack even that awareness and are purely governed by immediacy.
Seems like "marketing exclusivity" would give them 80% of the same results (at less cost), and timed exclusivity
would be reinforced as something of a serious duration like 1 year or more.
Because are full awareness that being marketed with X platform doesnt mean its only on it. The minute you go online or in a store you'd be confronted with multiplatform additions. There's no denying the benefit times exclusives... just not a fan of the practice outside of Indies who actually need the cash injection.
Because consumers are fully aware*
Multiplatform stable like COD and Fifa are often marketing to one platform, so consumers are aware of practice. Timed exclusivity of Bioshock and Mass Effect convinced me to get an 360 in 2007 instead of a PS3.
You seem to be responding to the mention of marketing exclusivity while ignoring the majority of my post which dealt with duration of exclusivity. Do you think it impacts buying pattern equally if a consumer assumes the exclusivity will be over in a month, or if they assume it will last more than a year? I just feel that consistency in whatever length of time is seen as optimal is important, otherwise longer duration exclusivity may be assumed to be shorter than it actually is, on the experience of games that had shorter exclusivity. I'm not sure what the optimal time is, but 1-2 months seems too short.
Particularly with launch I think it does help set the tone, down the line though I'm not sure. It depends on whether the length of exclusivity is known before hand. It does somewhat erase the value of concept
Could be this isn't an ongoing practice but just something for launch, with games whose owners weren't interested in significant time limited exclusivity, but Sony got them to do a mini-time lock for launch PR aura. Still kind of weird IMHO, but hey... It is a great lineup of games, and I'd love a bundle with some of these "indies".
I don't mind short-term timed exclusives. A month or two is fine, maybe three or four in some case. That's reasonable marketing. But, two years is ridiculous. I don't really see the point either, other than to mess with the owners of the console that doesn't get the game for two years. If the game is going to drive significant console sales, it would do it within a couple of months. If the game doesn't get a player to buy PS5 within 2 months, the game clearly isn't important enough to the player to prompt a console purchase.
Exclusives suck (if company funded development then they have every right), but they are a part of the industry and i dont think this will ever change
As generic as possible. Helped a lot.
