GreatnessRD
Member
Who?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Insider Matt from Reeee on Sony Bought Exclusivity Deals
- Thread starter REE Machine
- Start date
jimbojim
Banned
Every time Sony announce another exclusive, Sony vs xbox fanboys:
Lovely.
Varnish La PS
Member
One of them must be Halo Infinite after Microsoft made f2p and threw it to the trash.
Self High Five
Member
I don't get the big deal if it's temporary. PS & Xbox share the vast majority of third party games. There is so much content to begin with. Play something else in the meantime.
Last edited:
jimbojim
Banned
But MS wasn't blasted for their 22 timed exclusives
How is it Anti Consumerism when they are giving devs a platform that they can focus on next gen software?
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
Yuck. Nasty Sony is back. They should spend that money on internal development and providing something of value to their customers rather than taking something away from others.https://www.resetera.com/threads/im...nown-multiplatform-games.263403/post-41934720
https://www.resetera.com/threads/im...nown-multiplatform-games.263403/post-41935788
If true, good job sony for going to bat for consumer of your products, I approve.
MrTroubleMaker
Member
Who and what is the list of games.
This is nothing but scummy asshole behaviour regardless of who does it. It was bullshit when Microsoft did it with Tomb Raider, and it will be bullshit if these are true.
Fuck Sony, this only hurts the xbox gamers who have been playing cod or whatever on their platform of choice for years.
The only exclusives I'm okay with are first party exclusives and games that wouldn't even exist unless funded by first party.
Fuck Sony, this only hurts the xbox gamers who have been playing cod or whatever on their platform of choice for years.
The only exclusives I'm okay with are first party exclusives and games that wouldn't even exist unless funded by first party.
AceofJakes
Member
I mean...
Spiderman MM
GT7
Ratchet and clank
Destruction all-stars
Demon souls
Horizon zero dawn
Returnal
Sack boy
Astro bot
They've already provided value, not even mentioned the last of us 2 or Ghost over the last 2 months.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
It's anti consumerism to take away games from other platforms. They were focusing on Playstation already, Sony just pays them for not focusing on others but only theirs.
If you can't see that as anti consumerism, then you are a fanboy.
digoutyoursoul
Member
If I was in attendance, I would of held in a fart long enough for the moment Don Matttrick said Call of Duty map packs will continue to have timed DLC on Xbox back in 2013.
jimbojim
Banned
Regarding these 3rd party deals, i've found one really level headed post on ERA ( where Matt posted that rumor ). Worth reading.
www.resetera.com
Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games" News
I'm simply pointing out that what you said is a load of nonsense, and that based on prior behaviour, I'm not surprised. I'm not sure why you think I'm upset. So no, I think I'll happily keep you off my ignore list, just like everyone else is, and if I see you post a load of BS again, I'll...
www.resetera.com
Last edited:
kretos
Banned
they are already doing that, they just released Ghost of Tsushima and Last of Us 2 when they could've easily made them a PS5 games when MS has abandonded Xbox1 years ago, they are doubling down on 1st party and 3rd party
admit it, this is how xbox fans look at PS exclusives otherwise there won't be all this freakout and meltdowns
REE Machine
Banned
Personally i would but sadly dont know how if u can tell me thatd be great
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Is that part of Trump's grab them by the pussy quote?
REE Machine
Banned
Sony? Have you seen the last few years of sony games lol whats MS had again?
BlueXImpulse
Banned
I'm sorry but PC is collateral in this war.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Thats different, Tomb Raider was known as a PlayStation franchise*!!
* - due to Sony money hatting multiple Tomb Raider games years before MS money hatted one
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I don't see what the fuss is about. Both sides are going to have paid 3rd party exclusives. It's always been this way.
Dabaus
Banned
Yes. Grab em by the third party exclusive deal.
HotPocket69
Banned
We do not give Ree a platform here. The thread will be locked while we review reports.
93xfan
Banned
While Sony does have some nice exclusives, I do not care about a timed exclusive. I can wait, especially with there likely being visual improvements on the XSX version.
93xfan
Banned
Less money invested in making games and more money invested in withholding finished games from your competitor.
HotPocket69
Banned
In Sony’s name I will pray...
While it does indeed cost either Sony or Ms a lot of money to obtain timed exclusive titles for their respective consoles, I think a lot of people forget that this also benefits development and makes it much easier for the devs to meet their deadlines since they only have to focus on one console/platform.
Some people might like to think that 'moneyhatting' is some big publisher going around with a sack of infinite money to pay away the competition, but it also has practical implications to the development cycle so devs sometimes seek out these opportunities just as well.
Last edited:
Polygonal_Sprite
Gold Member
I couldn’t care less about console exclusivity as long as they leave PC out of it 
Full exclusivity is also fine if the publisher is partially or fully funding the project. We wouldn’t have Bayonetta 2 without deals like that.
Full exclusivity is also fine if the publisher is partially or fully funding the project. We wouldn’t have Bayonetta 2 without deals like that.
Fbh
Member
Meh, hopefully it's not true.
I mean good for Sony, and GTA in particular would be big for them.
But for me as a consumer, I'd rather have them use all that money on cool new games I'll only get to play on Playstation instead of getting the privilege of playing the $60 (or possibly $70) beta.
I just hope they don't use this stuff as an excuse to slow down their game releases:
"Hey guys no big first party games this year.... but GTA is exclusive for a year!!!"
I mean good for Sony, and GTA in particular would be big for them.
But for me as a consumer, I'd rather have them use all that money on cool new games I'll only get to play on Playstation instead of getting the privilege of playing the $60 (or possibly $70) beta.
I just hope they don't use this stuff as an excuse to slow down their game releases:
"Hey guys no big first party games this year.... but GTA is exclusive for a year!!!"
Last edited:
massivekettle
Member
Didn’t MS actually help fund the development of the game?
itsjustJEFF
Member
One of the most rational and realistic posts from that thread.
Edit: it's not a great practice, but it's been a part of the industry for years and years now. Just a lot of crying cause it's going the other way, when it happens the other way again, cause it will, there will be crying again. And people will say "Yea, well... you guys started it" It just goes in a circle.
PleaseDontHurtMe said:
Skimming through this thread again and man, people are kinda taking this a bit too hard here. Sure, I get how this can be annoying for non-PS players, the fact they get less for not having the right plastic box is pretty dumb. But some people take a lot of umbrage from a company trying to influence them into buying their product. Walled gardens can be too detrimental for the consumer, such as the case of Apple prohibiting Microsoft from bringing Game Pass to iOS. However, walled gardens could also be a net positive for consumers that actually buy the product and invest in the ecosystem. Microsoft, as open as they claim to be, is still a walled garden, but they're more subtle with it. There's a reason Game Pass isn't on PlayStation and Switch and probably will never be on those platforms for a long time. To leverage the benefits of Microsoft's Game Pass, you actually have to pay the subscription and invest in that ecosystem. Microsoft is a lot more accessible than PlayStation, but they're no more pro-consumer than Sony is. If a platform is beneficial for the consumer and gives them a lot of value and content, then how is that platform anti-consumer? Netflix will never have their original titles on competing platforms because they want people to subscribe specifically to them. Both Netflix and Microsoft sign checks to make sure certain content is only on their platform, be it for a limited time or for eternity. Sony is doing the same thing as Microsoft, except they're a lot more aggressive with it because they know the PS5 is a much larger financial hurdle for consumers to jump through. They want consumers to feel the PS5 is worth spending hundreds of dollars for. They're incentivizing consumers, not "holding them hostage". Consumers have the choice to opt out of the PlayStation ecosystem and go elsewhere. Sony doesn't have the power to strip that choice away from them. Instead, they have to make sure consumers don't *want* to leave PlayStation and to do that, these third-party deals are crucial in keeping them on board. It's a selling point Sony is offering consumers. If they're being anti-competitive (such as prohibiting Microsoft from selling the Xbox Series X in certain storefronts because they signed an agreement with a retailer chain), then they're also being anti-consumer. That's what Apple is doing with Game Pass, so that would make them anti-consumer. They refuse to allow a competing service to be sold on their ecosystem, despite them having a massive market share.
So, yes, these third-party deals aren't exactly fun or exciting, but they are designed to influence you. Making dramatized arguments about how Sony is "forcing" the helpless gamers into buying their console won't get us anywhere and thus creates an infantile thread that never ends. I personally hope Sony pursues a more accessible strategy like Microsoft is doing, but that's not how the industry is at the moment. In the meantime, let's try not to paint Sony as some kind of imperialist empire that pillages the industry just because they make aggressive third-party deals so people would want to buy their product. Because that practice is fair game and always has been. it's not monopolistic, it's just aggressive, and that's a perfectly legal business practice for Sony to pursue. Albeit, it's not my favorite one, but it is what it is.
Edit: it's not a great practice, but it's been a part of the industry for years and years now. Just a lot of crying cause it's going the other way, when it happens the other way again, cause it will, there will be crying again. And people will say "Yea, well... you guys started it" It just goes in a circle.
PleaseDontHurtMe said:
Skimming through this thread again and man, people are kinda taking this a bit too hard here. Sure, I get how this can be annoying for non-PS players, the fact they get less for not having the right plastic box is pretty dumb. But some people take a lot of umbrage from a company trying to influence them into buying their product. Walled gardens can be too detrimental for the consumer, such as the case of Apple prohibiting Microsoft from bringing Game Pass to iOS. However, walled gardens could also be a net positive for consumers that actually buy the product and invest in the ecosystem. Microsoft, as open as they claim to be, is still a walled garden, but they're more subtle with it. There's a reason Game Pass isn't on PlayStation and Switch and probably will never be on those platforms for a long time. To leverage the benefits of Microsoft's Game Pass, you actually have to pay the subscription and invest in that ecosystem. Microsoft is a lot more accessible than PlayStation, but they're no more pro-consumer than Sony is. If a platform is beneficial for the consumer and gives them a lot of value and content, then how is that platform anti-consumer? Netflix will never have their original titles on competing platforms because they want people to subscribe specifically to them. Both Netflix and Microsoft sign checks to make sure certain content is only on their platform, be it for a limited time or for eternity. Sony is doing the same thing as Microsoft, except they're a lot more aggressive with it because they know the PS5 is a much larger financial hurdle for consumers to jump through. They want consumers to feel the PS5 is worth spending hundreds of dollars for. They're incentivizing consumers, not "holding them hostage". Consumers have the choice to opt out of the PlayStation ecosystem and go elsewhere. Sony doesn't have the power to strip that choice away from them. Instead, they have to make sure consumers don't *want* to leave PlayStation and to do that, these third-party deals are crucial in keeping them on board. It's a selling point Sony is offering consumers. If they're being anti-competitive (such as prohibiting Microsoft from selling the Xbox Series X in certain storefronts because they signed an agreement with a retailer chain), then they're also being anti-consumer. That's what Apple is doing with Game Pass, so that would make them anti-consumer. They refuse to allow a competing service to be sold on their ecosystem, despite them having a massive market share.
So, yes, these third-party deals aren't exactly fun or exciting, but they are designed to influence you. Making dramatized arguments about how Sony is "forcing" the helpless gamers into buying their console won't get us anywhere and thus creates an infantile thread that never ends. I personally hope Sony pursues a more accessible strategy like Microsoft is doing, but that's not how the industry is at the moment. In the meantime, let's try not to paint Sony as some kind of imperialist empire that pillages the industry just because they make aggressive third-party deals so people would want to buy their product. Because that practice is fair game and always has been. it's not monopolistic, it's just aggressive, and that's a perfectly legal business practice for Sony to pursue. Albeit, it's not my favorite one, but it is what it is.
Last edited:
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Its no different. It's either looked down on as a practice as a whole or don't complain when the competition does the same thing. Simple as that.
Edit:. Just occurred to me that there was some sarcasm in your post, lol.
Last edited:
Trust me big 3rd party devs are not happy with Microsoft approach it's good for the smaller teams who wasn't going to push pass the limits of Xbox One & PS4 but for the bigger teams that want to move on they see PS5 as the place they can focus on next gen 1st.
Xbox Series X will probably get more games that take advantage of it's hardware because of these deals
Flintty
Member
The double standard here is hilarious. If it was the other way around all you fuckers would be crying into your chocolate milk
Last edited:
majestix1988
Member
Sony : With speedy SSD comes great exclusivity
Last edited:
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
It's a statement on the double standard. Like xbox gold being bad but ps plus being ok, gamepass being unsustainable but psnow being a wise model, ads on the dashboard, ect, ect... The practice is either bad or acceptable regardless who does it.
TheCrimsnFuckr
Member
The thing is Sony are already making games.
If they are making them then why do they need to waste money on these deals? As a Playstation player, I get no bonuses to FF7 being a PS4 timed exclusive over it launching on everything day one. They could spend the money actually improving their eco-system and services as well as make more games and everyone would be happy
JonnyMP3
Member
You jest but that's actually what we call Roblox in our household... So you've now given me the horrible fear of, if Roblox comes to PS5, I'm never gonna be able to play on the PS ever again!
Similar threads
- x2