Platforms Should Be Valued on What They Offer Beyond Their Catalogue

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. Developers were Buy our faulty £300 console.” In this way, and devices to use the platform at the same unsure of how to utilise its main feature, which platform exclusivity can actively discourage time. While Disney+ boasts some of the — as well as a lack of Unity Engine support innovation and investment in a platform, biggest IPs — including the catalogues of — lead to lacklustre and limited launch titles. harming consumers. Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, as well as its own Rather than maximise the potential of the popular films — it lacks variety beyond platform, Nintendo relied on exclusives to sell those. A lot of its ‘originals’ (content created their console for them. Developers working for that platform) aren’t slated to arrive on games for the console commented that for years. Unlike its competitors, Disney+ releases its originals’ episodes weekly. By spacing them out in this way, they force viewers to remain subscribed for months, preventing them from ‘bingeing’ on a series they’re enjoying.

Platforms should be valued on what they offer beyond their catalogue. Platforms like Disney+ should be attractive not just because they offer the best content; they should appeal to consumers because they’re solid platforms themselves, offering features and innovations that improve the user’s experience.Sample With the inability to stream some file series in one or two sittings, Disney+ arguably already falls down on that score. WORLDS PARALLEL

What happens when a company relies

6 monopoly on the market and have the of PC game sales is still tiny compared to Is it all bad? largest playerbase; everyone used Steam, Steam’s. Good can, admittedly, come from and everyone was on Steam, so why not exclusivity as well. If the likes of PlayStation just buy your games from Steam? Unlike hardware platforms like the Wii U, and Xbox didn’t have exclusives to give PlayStation and Xbox, the Epic Store, like them an edge in the gaming market, I can Epic Games Store is the first serious most other digital storefronts, is free. The safely bet we’d all be playing Bloodborne on challenger to Steam. It is a textbook most that is required of you is to download PC; it’s unequivocally the most powerful example of using exclusivity to force a the launcher and make an account. They platform. But it’s also the most expensive; consumer to use an inferior product; unlike haven’t placed your game behind an a medium-spec gaming PC can easily Steam, Epic Games Store lacked a number additional paywall, aside from purchasing cost £750, whereas most consoles sell of basic features upon release, such as the game; one you would have bought for around £400 new. One of the benefits a wish list, shopping cart, cloud saving, anyway, regardless of which store you consoles offer is the ability to play troubleshooting, user reviews, and store used. Epic also offers compelling incentives system-intensive games at a cheaper and library sorting. Instead, Epic paid game to players, such as free games weekly and price, greatly increasing their accessibility. developers large sums to sell exclusively massive discounts on AAA titles. Since Insomniac’s Spider Man (2018) was through their new store for a limited period exclusive to the PlayStation, it meant that — denying Steam and other platforms Sony could fund the game’s development, those titles. leading to a higher-quality product.

What’s the difference between Sony’s PS4 and Nintendo’s Wii U? The Wii U was an inherently flawed product that relied on exclusives to sell. The PS4 offers backwards-compatibility with earlier PlayStation games, and none of the hardware problems that plagued the Wii U. Consumers don’t mind paying for a product or platform provided the value of the platform itself is worth the asking price. PS4 is. Wii U is not. Exclusivity shouldn’t be something to be relied on. It’s an add-on.

Brand loyalty can also play a part in those decisions; if you played any Halo game on Xbox, chances are you are going to stick with that brand because you’re familiar with the ‘ecosystem’, regardless of who offers the better product or who has more exclusives. However, over time, Epic have steadily improved their digital store, which now But how do you break a monopoly without offers some of the features that Steam the use of exclusives? Steam, the digital does. Additionally, Epic charge studios only video game library and store owned by 12% of the sale price; allowing developers Valve, dominates the PC game market. to pocket much more of the proceeds. Competitors such as EA’s Origin or Ubisoft This is arguably great for developers Uplay have tried and failed miserably and consumers alike. Epic argue that to compete. Because Steam has gone their use of exclusivity was needed to unchallenged for so long, they arguably break the monopoly of Steam, which haven’t neededSample to innovate or make their enjoyed powerful network effects (the file storefront better. For years, they charged compounding effect of every new user PARALLEL WORLDS PARALLEL 30% of the selling price of games sold on making a network more appealing for their platform. They can get away with other users). It remains to be seen whether charging so much because they hold a this strategy will pay off; Epic’s portion

7 Spotify has survived on the merits of its platform, not on the breadth of its catalogue.

Moving on from games, Spotify is an example of a quality platform that has never relied on exclusivity to drive sales. The likes of Joe Rogan’s podcast are Spotify exclusive, but it’s free to listen to. You’re not paying to gain access to music or podcasts you can’t anywhere else — nearly everything on Spotify is accessible through other music streaming services like Tidal or Apple Music.

Spotify have become the market leader in music streaming not just through first mover’s advantage, but also by continually innovating and investing in their platform: such as using listeners’ data to suggest new music for them to try, and dynamically creating and sharing playlists. In fact, Spotify have become the market leader despite not having some of the world’s most popular music: for years, both the Beatles and AC/DC were missing from the platform. You’re paying for the full service and it’s features, rather than just the content. Spotify has survived on the merits of its platform, not on the breadth of its catalogue — which still isn’t as large as some of its competitors.

So is exclusivity bad? It can certainly be used to cynically drive sales of inferior products, and reduce the incentive for platform owners to innovate. But it can also be used in ways that benefit creators and consumers — bringing content to wider audiences and allowing projects to flourish that might not have otherwise seen the light of day. Like so many things, the story is not clear-cut. Sample file PARALLEL WORLDS PARALLEL

8 9 PARALLEL WORLDS Angus McNicholl Design: Kevin Cooney Words: Sample fileThinkpiece through thelens of The Japanesenationalpsyche Space Battleship Yamato Battleship Space ummelled by radiation, the Earth Pheaves a dying breath. A year left beforeSample all life, even those clinging to life file in vast subterranean cities, would perish; PARALLEL WORLDS PARALLEL choked by an atomised, crimson Earth.

10