Platforms Should Be Valued on What They Offer Beyond Their Catalogue
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Platforms should be valued on what they offer beyond their catalogue. o you remember your separate service that charged an annual first Pokémon game? fee to convert pokémon from older games D to newer ones. However, the GTS allows Mine was Pokémon Gold on users to request which pokémon they want the Gameboy Colour as part to trade for, leading to many requests for legendary and rare pokémon. If you don’t of a multi-game cartridge. have a friend to trade with, or they don’t Along with other games, it have the mirrored game, you’re out of luck. came with its counterpart, I have a friend who has bought both Pokémon Silver. Being five versions because they have nobody to years old, I didn’t really trade with. Regardless of Nintendo’s intention, it certainly looks predatory when understand the significance consumers are paying twice for 99% the of this; I was happy just same content. Mainline Pokémon games to battle my way through aren’t cheap, and almost never see a reduction in price until the next game in the gyms and become the franchise is released two or three years the Pokémon champion (I later. I bring this up to highlight one facet of always picked Cyndaquil.) that word: exclusive. You could only catch certain pokémon on Companies rush to get the exclusive rights each version of the games, and everything to products, games, shows, films, you name about the games was nearly identical it; vying for control of an audience and aside from that. Some pokémon were impoverishing their competitors by doing exclusive to each version, with their own so. Exclusivity is a tactic companies use to ‘legendaries’ to incentivise purchase; you help sell platforms, and isn’t necessarily could get Ho-oh in Gold or Lugia in Silver. bad. However, it is dangerous. Companies Trading was a social feature whereby you can rely on having exclusive products to sell could exchange exclusive pokémon with inferior platforms, rather than investing in friends who had the version you didn’t. It their platforms — making consumers lose was impossible to obtain certain pokémon out. I am going to argue just how damaging without trading, even if you owned both exclusivity can be to innovation when not versions. In the Gameboy era this was handled correctly. Sampledone via the Gameboy Link Cable, which file was later updated with the Global Trading System (GTS) and Pokémon Bank, a WORLDS PARALLEL 4 Platform exclusivity is arguably most Get it here only acceptable when it’s tied to hardware. Exclusivity in this sense is offering a There is no good reason The Legend of Zelda: The creation of Disney+ product through one platform that you Breath of the Wild couldn’t be ported to PC; might make sense for can’t get anywhere else. This can be the sales would almost certainly justify it. anything from music to video games, films But consumers accept that they need the Disney’s boardroom, but and TV. Platform exclusivity is one product Nintendo Switch or Wii U to play it (despite (the content) shackled to another (the those platforms’ inferior hardware). it makes little sense for platform), requiring consumers to pay for Consumers seem happier to accept buying the platform to get the content. Platforms a new platform to access exclusive content consumers. can be hardware or software; they can be when the platform is hardware, but less video game library programs like Steam happy to pay for additional software or Uplay, music streaming services like platforms to access exclusive content. The franchise’s most recent releases, Pokémon Tidal or Spotify; TV streaming services Sword and Shield, are platform exclusives. like Netflix or Disney+, traditional TV cable It’s important to establish that this differs Previously, the modern Pokémon games channels like HBO, or games consoles like from a company simply making use of were platform exclusive only to the 3DS. The the Nintendo Switch or PlayStation 4 (PS4). intellectual property (IP). IP exists to give release of Sword and Shield on the Nintendo Some are free and some cost money, and value to ideas and the intangible, and helps Switch offered the opportunity for better some are better than others — in terms of ensure that only an idea’s owner can earn performance and graphics, beyond the features and ease of use — regardless of money from it; it allows the owner to grant limitations of the 3DS. It’s an upgrade. As the content available on them. licenses to other parties to distribute the discussed, consumers are generally happier to idea, such as Disney allowing TV channels accept platform exclusivity when the platform or streaming services to show their films. is hardware; games can be optimised to IP doesn’t mean platform exclusivity, and make use of that hardware. However, on the platform exclusivity isn’t the only way release of Sword and Shield, they were met IP holders can profit from their property. with controversy. Nintendo had previously Nintendo has the right to publish Pokémon said that there would be a limited number games and profit from them. IP protects of new pokémon because they were busily that franchise and stops people copying the updating the models and animations for the idea. pokémon that had appeared in earlier games. This turned out to be untrue: models and animations were reused from previous games. Not only that, but the Wild Area was filled with frequent lag, performance issues, and was unbearable online — and many of the games’ flagship features were tied to online access. Consumers were expected to buy the new hardware to get the new game, despite the game not making use of the new hardware. Enough about Nintendo. Let’s talk software exclusivity: take Disney+. Until February 2019, Netflix held the license for the Marvel franchise, meaning not only could they stream the Marvel shows and films to viewers but they could also use the IP in creating their own Netflix originals, such as Daredevil, which proved very successful and likely brought more people over to Netflix (it Sampledid for me, atfile least). Disney has since pulled those licences from Netflix and created PARALLEL WORLDS PARALLEL their own streaming service. In return, Netflix prevented Disney from making use of their characters from the Netflix Marvel 5 originals for two years — so fans who solely on the exclusivity in the form of the hardware wasn’t on par with the offerings had enjoyed Daredevil were deprived of it, having to pay for a new platform to use from Microsoft and Sony at the time. Why even if they followed the Marvel content its product and doesn’t innovate? As innovate when the content sells the platform? and switched from Netflix to Disney+. mentioned, Nintendo is no stranger to Fed wolves bare no claws. This instance of platform exclusivity has relying on exclusivity to drive sales, and resulted in each platform impoverishing the this extends beyond their own games. Nintendo’s tendency to ignore deficiencies other — at the expense of consumers. Nintendo signed an exclusivity deal with in their consoles extend to their most Platinum Game Studios, developers of the recent, the Nintendo Switch, as well. It’s not like Disney weren’t making money Bayonetta franchise, in return for funding ‘Joycon drift’ is a blemish on an otherwise from Marvel and other franchises they the second and third games. The first game amazing console. It’s an issue where the own before creating Disney+. They were: was released on consoles universally, but controller’s analog stick ‘drifts’, moving other platforms were paying them for the Nintendo insisted upon its sequel from characters without input. It’s bad enough privilege of using and showing their IP. This being sold on their own console, the Wii that Nintendo refused to acknowledge allowed consumers to watch what they U, and the upcoming third game on the the issue and offer refunds or fixes until wanted using the platform they wanted, Switch. Like Disney+, a license that was recently, but they had the option to address platform owners to show their customers previously available for everyone was it when creating the Switch Lite, a line what they wanted to watch, and IP owners restricted to their platform. If you were a extension that was essentially the same to earn money from their property. The fan of the first game and wanted to play console but without the ability to be used creation of Disney+ might make sense for the sequel, you’d have to buy the new with a TV. It was soon discovered, upon the Disney’s boardroom, but it makes little console to play it. They tied a £60 game to Lite’s release, that the issue persisted in sense for consumers. a £300 console. the newer console; but now you couldn’t simply remove the controller and get a What might draw you in to purchase Disney+ The reception of the Wii U was very quickly replacement, as you could with the original are its features. It offers a lower price in dismissed as a failure. Myriad hardware issues Switch. Rather than fix the issue and return for a smaller library and no free trial meant that using the console’s main feature, make a better product and build customer scheme, as offered by its main competitor, the handheld screen, led to poor performance loyalty, Nintendo seem content to say: “you Netflix. Disney+ offers unlimited downloads, and diminished graphics. It had a short range want to play Pokémon, Zelda or Mario? unlike Netflix, and allows for more users from the main console.