Because Microsoft is a PC company so its naturally expected to come to PC? I was pretty pissed that I couldn't play most of their stuff on my computers and they would have instead pushed me into spending twice the american price + 2/3x the cost for a single game compared to the PC version.
But they already had games for PC like Flight Simulator and Age of Empires. It's one thing they bring all their games to PC..it's another that they do so Day 1. PC has various other advantages over console (no paid online, full mod support/ability, can fully customize the hardware, be a hub for gaming/productivity/business/media, KB & M support by default, etc.) so I'm surprised Microsoft never considered the fuller damaging implications of doing Day 1 for all their games to PC.
OTOH, I
do understand that decision WRT securing PC and Windows as a viable home for PC gamers, since all of these PC ports are specific to Windows and not, say, Linux. And MS just happen to own the Windows OS, which is way more valuable to them than Xbox consoles. It's one of many reasons I feel Xbox's business model would be much better if they just made them PC-like gaming devices and operated on a PC hardware business model.
Instead it still feels like MS want to have their cake and eat it too, trying to put big focus to Windows PC gaming and Xbox console gaming but don't have the ability to do both at their optimal level simultaneously. That's why Phil Spencer's doing interviews acknowledging a growing feeling of Xbox owners who feel like second-class citizens in their own ecosystem. He wouldn't have to say these things if Xbox were delivering in terms of consistent 1P AAA content, or even still had a few actual Xbox exclusives that didn't go to PC Day 1 and were actually good (Crossfire X and Space Jam ain't it).
Plus I dunno where you assumed whose people in favour opinions are on other stuff, because i'm the opposite of that, unless you're talking about that other place where everyone of all platforms shares the last line of view.
It doesn't matter if you're on Xbox or PlayStation, or Switch or PC. This idea that exclusives are inherently bad is stupid, point blank. Whether they're 1P or 3P, permanent or timed, exclusives have a lot of advantages in platform ecosystems for both the platform and the games themselves.
However there is a weird flex these days that companies shouldn't get exclusives if they don't own the content; a lot of the same people saying that just so happen to support big acquisitions, particularly if Microsoft is doing them. That isn't a coincidence, because they're actually saying that exclusives are okay but ONLY through a strategy the company they prefer is best suited to exploit. It's basically bias on their parts.
I'm not saying you fall in that definition, I don't even know what your preferred platform(s) are but IMO that doesn't matter when speaking against the idea that 3P exclusives are suddenly a bad thing that should be stopped.
Hot take.
MGS 2/3 Remastered by Virtuous studio's
Time Exclusive.
MGS Remake by Bluepoint Studio's
Exclusive
I could see that happening, but I'm curious if Bluepoint is instead working on something Castlevania-related.
Say if they're doing a SOTN remake in 3D, that would get insane reactions and massive interest right out of the gate. Would eclipse Sony's E3 2016 in fact with that reveal alone, let alone anything else.
Why.
