[WashingtonPost] Lego approached PlayStation with the idea to create a "Lego Horizon" game
- Thread starter Eternal_Wings
- Start date
I believe you're correct. Lego most likely stipulated a multiplat as that's been their MO from day one. And Sony presumably countered with no Xbox version, which makes sense. Seems like a fair deal for both sides.
I could not find any excuse in business sense to Sony oppose a Switch version of the game.
I mean should Sony oppose for a Switch version and lose money just because they are pity?
It doesn't make sense to me.
I can understand if it was... ohhhh but Switch will harm the overall quality of the graphics of the new game.
But that is a Lego game... it needs to well like Lego with all the square and blocks... there is no way to be a demanding game that Switch can't handle at lower settings.
You guys need to think about this...
Why would LEGO, who were the approaching party, have leverage over SIE, the party being approached, to force a Switch release? That just makes zero sense. SIE would be the ones with the leverage in this situation, so if SIE didn't want a Switch release or PC Day 1 release, then they could've rejected it and LEGO would have had to either walk away or cut those requests out of their deal in order to work with SIE.
That's how business dynamics work between two parties where one is in the power position and the other isn't. The way you guys want to frame it, makes it seem like SIE were in the weaker position even though Horizon is their own IP and LEGO were the ones who approached them for a game. And if that's the case, no wonder Pearl Abyss rejected SIE's deal for Crimson Desert. Who TF is gonna do an exclusivity deal with a beta platform holder going forward?
What type of question is this?
You make things exclusive to draw people to your product. Business 101. Why people act like they don’t know how the industry works makes no sense to me.
Sony should be trying to expand their console and reach kids with games like Lego. You don’t just give up and say “well the Switch has a big kiddy audience so let’s put it there.” You bring that audience to you.
Nintendo would not put a Lego Mario game on other platforms. They would lock that game down tightly. If Lego said no to exclusivity then Nintendo would be more than fine not making any Mario game. They wouldn’t devalue their own console like that by putting their valuable IP everywhere.
It’s not just about making fast money. You have look at long term brand degradation by doing that. Short term money is never a good idea.
The bean counters at SIE did the math and obviously concluded that the revenue to be gained with a multiplatform release for this title outweighs the revenue that would be generated by keeping it exclusive.
Re: Nintendo: they *have* put Mario games on other platforms like iOS, which is a larger platform than PSN. But I digress. Nintendo is different. Mario and Zelda are literally the only things that keep them relevant, so they are going to clutch that IP like a rat clutches a Big Mac in a hurricane. Still, I would not be surprised if further down the road we start to see Mario show up in places other than Nintendo consoles.
Companies like Netflix still understands the importance of exclusive content
1) Because Xbox is an also-ran and a dying console business?
2) I could see Astro Bot (or it's sequel) eventually coming to Switch/Switch 2/PC. That would not surprise me at all.
Ironic, considering that:
1) A lot of "Netflix Exclusives" are movies they buy from other studios
2) Sony has an exclusive licensing deal with Netflix
Because Xbox is the direct platform that competes with PlayStation?
Because Astro Bot games doesn't involved a multi platform IP deal? I'm sure Lego Astro Bot should be on Switch too.
I'm not understanding your comparisons.
I think you are confusing Sony making a game with their IPs with licensing their IPs to make a multiplatform Lego game.
Those same bean counters have caused harm to many corporations in the past. It happens all the time. Executives are not immune to making mistakes.
Making games exclusive has long term positive outcomes than just putting your games on everything and collecting money right now.
That’s some fine reaching about IOS. Mobile game Mario Run or whatever they made is not their main games. Anybody puts things on Mobile. That has no affect on their main IP’s and platform.
Sony’s PlayStation business is even more important than both Mario and Zelda. It’s the segment that’s brings them a crap ton of revenue and profits. They should be more protective of it than Nintendo is with their brand.
Nintendo makes more profits than Sony. That’s with having everything they make exclusive. If PlayStation brand is ever affected negatively, the whole Sony corporation is in trouble. That’s not something Sony should be playing with by giving away their games to Nintendo and PC.
1) LEGO Star Wars was pretty successful on Xbox
2) You should ask yourself why Xbox is a dying console business
So you want PlayStation to die, just like Xbox, got it.
And Steam and Nintendo aren't? Why aren't they porting their games to PlayStation? It's easy money, right?
Xbox is dead right? They are even porting their games to PlayStation, why leave out a bit of extra money on the table?
Oh and it's funny talking about easy money and LEGO dictating terms and conditions, yet PS4 is being skipped....
Sony is simply chasing profits at this point, fuck the brand they've built on "Only On PlayStation". They saw that Lego Games sell well on the Switch and so they made a switch version.
I can't believe people think Lego can tell Sony what to do with their IP
I can't believe people think Lego can tell Sony what to do with their IP
You don't think there was some segment of the population that paid $10 for Mario Run and decided that was good enough vs investing potentially hundreds into a Switch? I do. Now, it might be a small segment of the market...but it definitely exists.
The truth is, we live in a different world now. There is INFINITELY more competition for eyeballs and attention spans than there were in the past. Why do you think Nintendo is doing a big push into mobile and films and television? Why do you think Xbox is trying to be on every single screen? Why do you think Sony is branching out to PC and beyond? Because the days of keeping all your IP locked to your box are long gone. Investors and shareholders are demanding as much growth as possible.
In this new media landscape, for some IPs, it makes sense to make them available to as wide an audience as possible. For others, it makes sense to keep them exclusive. It does not devalue the PlayStation brand to have Lego Horizon Adventures on Switch any more than it devalues Apple's brand to have Apple TV+ app available on a Roku TV.
1) Xbox has been dying since the Xbox One reveal debacle 10+ years ago. They lost every ounce of goodwill they had with consumers in 2013 and have never recovered.
What that has anything with what I explained to you?
Who LEGO Star Wars or Xbox dying have to do with Xbox being the direct competitor to PlayStation and Sony doesn't wanting to support it?
Ohhh you are a Gloomer and Doomer... no wonder.
PlayStation is not dying and not going anywhere.
The opposite it is growing.
I never saw PC or Nintendo as competitors... they are complementary platforms.
Sony doesn't seem to see them as competitors too.
BTW Xbox is dying because they never could put themselves as a complementary platform in the business... they always felt like something you don't need at all because PlayStation did the same and more to their users.
Not sure if serious here...
Xbox is dying as platform yes... is it really dead?
While I believe the Xbox competition to PlayStation is very weak it is still a competitor.
In this forum we end overreacting to the Xbox situation but the truth they still have over 25 millions of users that brought Xbox... you never saw in the history a console dying with over 20 million sales.
It is business... that has nothing to do with easy.
Lego is multiplatform.
Sony opposed to Xbox release and agreed with PC and Switch release because make sense for them.
The deal was done.
Like I said there is no business reason to oppose to a Switch version of Lego game... think a bit about it.
Yeap people here overreact to the Xbox is dying.
It is dying in the sense of to be a weak competitor but it is far from dying at all... it just didn't grow.
No console brand ever died with 20m+ sold.
Dreamcast died with like 9 million units sold.
Gamecube continued with 20 million.
Xbox continued with 20 million.
Wii U continued with 13 million.
These are considered failures? Yes... but I'm still to see a company that sold over 25 million units of a hardware dies like people says here.
Xbox is in the decline... that is 100% fact.
But die.. die in the literal sense? Nope.
I still get a laugh every time somebody says here that PlayStation is dying too
I mean you need to really be out of reality to even think about PlayStation today as a dying business.