• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Opinion Analysis Paid Exclusives: Analysis and Discussion

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
In light of the Avenger’s discussion and Final Fantasy rumor I’d like to have a larger discussion around paid exclusives. These are not first party titles like Halo, Uncharted, or Mario nor are they published exclusives from third parties like Ori, Dark Souls, and Bayonetta. These are instances when a platform holder pays a third party publisher for some form of exclusive content.

We have three types of exclusives:

Service/Store Exclusives: Games that are tied to a particular store or service but can still be played on other platforms. These can be service launches such as Destiny or Dragon Quest launching on Game Pass the same day they go up for sale. On the PC side this would include timed and permeant store exclusives, for example, Control which is only available on Epic Game Store. Finally, while we haven’t seen it yet, I do expect that at some point in the future we may see content that is exclusive to PSNow/Game Pass.

Timed Platform Exclusives: Timed exclusive games such as Final Fantasy VII Remake, Ghost Wire Tokyo, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Bioshock. This can also include timed DLC or in game content like the DLC for Control or the PS4 exclusive strikes and weapons in Destiny 1.

Permanent Platform Exclusives: This can include full games like Street Fighter V or in game content, like the Avengers Spiderman DLC. I would also use it to describe first party enhancements to games such as the Zelda sword and clothing items in Skyrim for Switch or the exclusive platform specific characters for Soul Calibur 2.

The short of it is, right or wrong, these deals are effective and have an impact on people’s purchasing habits. If someone was interested in Avengers they are now more likely to buy a PlayStation. This also makes them a potential PS+, PSNow, and MTX customer-Sony has effectively locked in a customer. This customer will likely generate digital revenue-all because of Spider-Man and some skins.

So GAF, what do you think about these deals? Is there a line when it comes to what is and is not appropriate to purchase exclusive rights for? Who has the better strategy? Is Sony too aggressive? Is MSFT too passive?

Please do not turn this into a console war-I want to have a real discussion about this. Look at this through an objective lens. I don’t care which console you like. This is not about you or your plastic box. This should be a discussion on the market as a whole.
 

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
I’ll start with my own thoughts.

Personally I find it frustrating when a particular platform has a more “complete” game from a preservation standpoint. Ideally the best version of Black Ops 3 for preservation is the PC version but it is missing the PS exclusive maps. I also find it frustrating when non-cosmetic items are introduced in a live game setting or in a MP game with cross play. We saw this impact Destiny 2 where the PS4 exclusive strikes, weapons, etc were not present in playlist/loot pools for Xbox and PC which effectively limited the playlists.

My qualms aside, when the competition is securing these deals, there isn’t a “moral high ground”. You compete or you get beat. Sony has shown their cards and they are playing to win. While I do not like the platform exclusive content from a preservation standpoint they are justified in securing these one year deals. This is what competition is. I think Xbox is being too passive.

For Xbox we know there is a huge focus on Game Pass. Game Pass revenue is the gold mine for MSFT. I think deals like Dragon Quest and Destiny launching on Game Pass day 1 are a huge win for that platform. Simultaneously, missing out on a release like Final Fantasy VIIR or XVI is huge. People will skip out on Xbox as result and MSFT will miss potential Game Pass customers and thereby miss out on revenue. It should be noted that there isn’t anything stopping MSFT from countering Sony’s offers and paying publishers to keep games like Final Fantasy XVI or Street Fighter multi-platform. My personal perception is that Xbox’s unwillingness to secure non-Game Pass launch deals and counter Sony’s deals is going to hurt their ability to grow as a platform and thereby grow Game Pass subscriptions.
 
Last edited:

hyperbertha

Member
Nov 24, 2018
2,242
7,293
655
Trouble is when game you expect to release on a platform suddenly gets bought out permantently. If its timed, I'm fine with it.

I'm ok with stuff like exclusive content. Would spiderman even have existed in avengers if not for sony's cashflow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryank75

Great Hair

Banned
Dec 10, 2018
4,499
10,875
800
I think Xbox is being too passive.

I don´t think so at all, just rewind back few years. Also you´re contradicting yourself in your own two post, trying to be impartial.
Stalker 2, Warhammer Darktide among others are XSX console exclusives for at least 1 year.

Both are still in the making, everyone has to wait til 2022 (and PS fans til 2023 most likely). And let´s not forget the one "big grab" done by Phil Spencer on his travel to Japan:
"exclusives are not what gaming is all about! I don´t want people to "rob them" from playing a game, experience ..."

NO PS5 version of Yakuza 7 this year 2020
just XSX, XB1, PS4, PC
a franchise associated with PlayStation since 2005.

 
Last edited:

Kimahri

Member
Jul 27, 2020
1,627
2,573
420
What's the Final Fantasy rumor?

I'm fine with exclusive games.

I think exclusive content is a blight and an insult, and timed exclusives are bullshit.

Console makers are fighting each other by putting their customers in the crossfire.
 

Hawks Eclipse

Member
Nov 15, 2019
1,686
1,351
505
Personally I find it frustrating when a particular platform has a more “complete” game from a preservation standpoint. Ideally the best version of Black Ops 3 for preservation is the PC version but it is missing the PS exclusive maps. I also find it frustrating when non-cosmetic items are introduced in a live game setting or in a MP game with cross play.
I'm reminded of the PS exclusive characters in Street Fighter x Tekken as well as back in the day when Soul Calibur II had an exclusive character for each platform: Link on GC, Heihachi on PS2 and Spawn on Xbox.

SCII HD (PS360) managed to include everyone except for Link.

To address your point, I'm not a fan of gameplay content being exclusive to platforms and I think exclusive cosmetics are probably the best way forward.

Gameplay-related elements should be accessible to every platform equally IMO, especially now that crossplay is gaining traction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evangelion Unit-01

TheSpecialOne

Banned
Jun 8, 2015
1,003
342
570
I'm personally okay with all of it. Services are only as useful as the content they hold. You need solid content to maintain your user base and to be honest, the people who complain about it do so out of entirely selfish motivations. Its always about value and how you can create more value for your user base. Exclusive content whether it be timed exclusives, dlc, or full game exclusives creates the perception of value.

This let's all hold hands and sing kumbayah nonsense is garbage.
 
Last edited:

Bryank75

Banned
Jan 12, 2018
11,267
27,333
995
Ireland
I’ll start with my own thoughts.

Personally I find it frustrating when a particular platform has a more “complete” game from a preservation standpoint. Ideally the best version of Black Ops 3 for preservation is the PC version but it is missing the PS exclusive maps. I also find it frustrating when non-cosmetic items are introduced in a live game setting or in a MP game with cross play. We saw this impact Destiny 2 where the PS4 exclusive strikes, weapons, etc were not present in playlist/loot pools for Xbox and PC which effectively limited the playlists.

My qualms aside, when the competition is securing these deals, there isn’t a “moral high ground”. You compete or you get beat. Sony has shown their cards and they are playing to win. While I do not like the platform exclusive content from a preservation standpoint they are justified in securing these one year deals. This is what competition is. I think Xbox is being too passive.

For Xbox we know there is a huge focus on Game Pass. Game Pass revenue is the gold mine for MSFT. I think deals like Dragon Quest and Destiny launching on Game Pass day 1 are a huge win for that platform. Simultaneously, missing out on a release like Final Fantasy VIIR or XVI is huge. People will skip out on Xbox as result and MSFT will miss potential Game Pass customers and thereby miss out on revenue. It should be noted that there isn’t anything stopping MSFT from countering Sony’s offers and paying publishers to keep games like Final Fantasy XVI or Street Fighter multi-platform. My personal perception is that Xbox’s unwillingness to secure non-Game Pass launch deals and counter Sony’s deals is going to hurt their ability to grow as a platform and thereby grow Game Pass subscriptions.
We were discussing this in another thread... but I don't think GamePass is the big win that people think it is.

Even ignoring the heavy promotions that were there to get to 10 million users, assuming they eventually convert every Xbox console owner (estimate 50 million) to Game Pass, that is 750 million per month gross revenue. (being very generous here)

So multiply that by 3 months for a quarter of revenue.... 2.25 Billion gross vs PlayStations latest quarter (Low season) 5.6 Billion in revenue.

Larger publishers are not happy with the idea of GamePass and what you're going to see is a lot of big games going either full or timed exclusive to PlayStation. Already indications of that with Death Loop and Ghostwire Tokyo and then other deals to make PlayStation the most appealing place to buy such as the exclusive content in Avengers.

I fully expect this to snowball.
 

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
I'm ok with stuff like exclusive content. Would spiderman even have existed in avengers if not for sony's cashflow?
The chicken or the egg question-fair point. I think it is ok to speculate both ways on that. Interesting though-I always assume smaller things like Spidey were in scope before deals like this were inked but if the game had a PSVR mode or something I could see that being something that would not have been in the game if not funded by Sony. Would love to hear some insight from the developers in the future.

I don´t think so at all, just rewind back few years. Also you´re contradicting yourself in your own two post, trying to be impartial.
Point taken on STALKER and Warhammer-those are two paid exclusives that meet my definition. I realized after I posted that I definitely forgot to include PSO2 as well

I'm trying to be impartial in that I want to examine what deals will work in MSFT and SNE's favor independently. From my point of view I think Sony has been better about securing larger exclusives such as the Bethesda SE titles. I think that Xbox's focus on securing deals that are also a part of Game Pass limits the scope of what they are able to purchase and while that does give Game Pass subscribers great games like Dragon Quest and Destiny it might mean that Xbox users who want to play games outside of the Game Pass like Final Fantasy and Ghost Wire might be waiting a year or so to play. I think that might have an impact on Game Pass growth as some users might avoid the platform because they can't play certain games-especially for larger titles. Now let's say someone wants to play FF-if they see it is available on both platforms and Xbox has Game Pass as icing on the cake they might gravitate to the Xbox.

I always buy all three consoles so I can't say that I have too much of a horse in the race. Exclusives played on each obviously. I tend to play more third party titles on Xbox as I feel most confident in their BC vision but if there is exclusive PS content I don't have any issue playing over there.

What's the Final Fantasy rumor?
Current rumor is that FF16 will be exclusive to PS in some way. A year long deal most likely.
To address your point, I'm not a fan of gameplay content being exclusive to platforms and I think exclusive cosmetics are probably the best way forward.

Gameplay-related elements should be accessible to every platform equally IMO, especially now that crossplay is gaining traction.
Agree 100%-that would be my personal preference as well.
 
Last edited:

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,981
11,457
1,560
PS4 is at 112 million while Xbox One is scared to even show their install base number but we can guess it's somewhere close to 50 million , I say that to say this we almost have a PS2 vs Xbox OG situation & Xbox One is pretty much lucky that PS4 Xbox One & PC game development is so close because if it was a task to port games to Xbox One publishers would have jumped ship & started making PS4 exclusives awhile ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueXImpulse

BlueXImpulse

Banned
Jul 10, 2020
2,572
15,225
550
My honest thoughts are if it's being practiced through my platform of choice then I don't care about it. My stomach is full so I don't worry about the other man. You can say the practice as a whole is anticonsumer, but that depends on what side you're sitting on. Not every one can be winners, a lot of people are against these paid exclusive deals because then not everyone can enjoy the same product but that's life. Sony for instance are doing what they can do for their user base. Should they care about any one else's feelings that isn't a PS gamer when those people aren't lining their pockets? This is business.
 

Tripolygon

Member
May 6, 2012
5,070
8,315
1,170
NYC
For me it is simple.

It is not anti-consumer to want to make your product more attractive to prospective buyers by offering exclusive content for your system. That being said i will say it is shitty if you decide to money-hat a multiplatform game already in development away from another platform. I understand why you would do it but it is shitty. Still not anti-consumer though.

Don't claim you hate exclusive content while you're doing it and cheering it on, then act surprised when another company does it.
 

BlueXImpulse

Banned
Jul 10, 2020
2,572
15,225
550
We were discussing this in another thread... but I don't think GamePass is the big win that people think it is.

Even ignoring the heavy promotions that were there to get to 10 million users, assuming they eventually convert every Xbox console owner (estimate 50 million) to Game Pass, that is 750 million per month gross revenue. (being very generous here)

So multiply that by 3 months for a quarter of revenue.... 2.25 Billion gross vs PlayStations latest quarter (Low season) 5.6 Billion in revenue.

Larger publishers are not happy with the idea of GamePass and what you're going to see is a lot of big games going either full or timed exclusive to PlayStation. Already indications of that with Death Loop and Ghostwire Tokyo and then other deals to make PlayStation the most appealing place to buy such as the exclusive content in Avengers.

I fully expect this to snowball.

It really will snowball when Sony will get more bargaining power. Sony can probably get a cut price deal on timed exclusives because the alternative is Xbox which brings much less to the table. Which means Sony saves money and has more money for more exclusive. Etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrS and Bryank75

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
You Thicc too huh
I am here to talk to you about the Thicc initiative. nickfury.jpg

I'm personally okay with all of it. Services are only as useful as the content they hold. You need solid content to maintain your user base and to be honest, the people who complain about it do so out of entirely selfish motivations. Its always about value and how you can create more value for your user base. Exclusive content whether it be timed exclusives, dlc, or full game exclusives creates the perception of value.

This let's all hold hands and sing kumbayah nonsense is garbage.
My honest thoughts are if it's being practiced through my platform of choice then I don't care about it. My stomach is full so I don't worry about the other man. You can say the practice as a whole is anticonsumer, but that depends on what side you're sitting on. Not every one can be winners, a lot of people are against these paid exclusive deals because then not everyone can enjoy the same product but that's life. Sony for instance are doing what they can do for their user base. Should they care about any one else's feelings that isn't a PS gamer when those people aren't lining their pockets? This is business.
I think you are both right on here. Straight forward and honest. It is just business. There are certainly some deals that I am more comfortable with for the reasons state above but at the end of the day its all on the table and up to each platform holder to create a value proposition to entice customers. No "moral high ground" here.
 

MrS

Banned
Apr 6, 2014
10,718
11,707
850
North East, England
I'm not happy and I'm not sad about it. It's part of the industry, I accept it, I don't feel sorry for those missing out because you have the opportunity to buy the game on another console if you choose to in the same way that I don't get sour about missing out on exclusive because the same option exists for me. Platform holders should be doing their best to make sure their platform is more attractive than their competitors.
 
Last edited:

Kerotan

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,147
4,037
515
As a playstation player I'm all for it. It's going to happen primarily with ps5 going forward because Sony got so much clout over xbox. If it's a big deal for people just join the dark side and get a ps5. You'll be happier like me.
 

Gargauth

Member
Mar 7, 2014
109
151
490
I can never respect any sort of exclusives where one party bribed the other party (basically any last-call "oh and btw. this is exclusive" fall into this category). At that point I don't feel like a customer - the party doing the bribing is actual customer at that point.

If a game is exclusive since inception or some company funded development from beginning, I can respect that they had a say on which platforms it should come. That doesn't mean I agree with it, as customer's I want to have a choice.

What Sony is doing with Avengers/Modern Warfare/etc. is despicable. If I was interested in the affected games, I could at least find some solace in knowing that by the time exclusive content comes I would've moved on to other games. I would feel shitty buying the game on other platforms because I would be getting shorter end of the stick, and if I was buying it on the Playstation I would feel even shittier knowing that I am actively supporting these practices.
 

01011001

Gold Member
Dec 4, 2018
8,665
13,524
750
As a playstation player I'm all for it. It's going to happen primarily with ps5 going forward because Sony got so much clout over xbox. If it's a big deal for people just join the dark side and get a ps5. You'll be happier like me.

if you are serious and not trolling. you are literally cancer.

@topic:
-Timed Exclusive Games: Literally any 3rd party game using a 3rd party IP is timed exclusive to a point, so that's that. not great either way tho.

-Timed Exclusive DLC/features: fuck that shit, absolutely horrible strategy. you literally selling a worse product to part of your customers, giving them the middle finger. I'm glad at least Microsoft stopped doing DLC/exclusive feature deals with publishers.

-Permanent exclusive games: well if it was financed or even developed by a 1st party company, that's alright and actually a good thing. these games usually are made to bring people on board, therefore have a big priority to be as good as possible and that's good for the customer buying that game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forsythia

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
4,993
8,977
665
I hate all forms of money-hatting of content where the only purpose is to keep it off other platforms that it would normally have released on.

It's not like the old days where it was legitimately a lot of work releasing a game across different platforms due to the consoles having exotic hardware, they're all built on PC in pretty much hardware agnostic engines.

The only way I'm ok with it is when the game would not have been made without it. Those cases are few and far between.
 

SlicedBread3

Member
Apr 8, 2019
243
516
315
From a consumer perspective it's annoying and inconvenient. But I don't think it can be argued that it's "wrong". At the end of the day Company A has created content and sold distribution rights to that content to Company B. I don't think you could regulate that without drastically affecting how the free market works.

I don't think you could use the "people are paying the same price for the same product and getting less content" argument either because technically what they're doing is selling 3 slightly different products. One that runs on PC, one that runs on Xbox and one that runs on Playstation with Spiderman content. And if the differences are advertised as such, then it's the consumers choice which version they get. If it was a case that 2 people who purchase the same version of the game got different content, then I think you'd have a legal case for it being anti-consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evangelion Unit-01

Patterson

Member
Apr 11, 2020
186
398
280
If Microsoft can buy studios, Sony can buy exclusives. It’s all fair game. Everyone understands why they do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: farmerboy

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
From a consumer perspective it's annoying and inconvenient. But I don't think it can be argued that it's "wrong". At the end of the day Company A has created content and sold distribution rights to that content to Company B. I don't think you could regulate that without drastically affecting how the free market works.
Well put. Sometimes it can be frustrating if you own console A or B but at the end of the day it is business. Product of the free market and we are better for it.
 

Kerotan

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,147
4,037
515
if you are serious and not trolling. you are literally cancer.

@topic:
-Timed Exclusive Games: Literally any 3rd party game using a 3rd party IP is timed exclusive to a point, so that's that. not great either way tho.

-Timed Exclusive DLC/features: fuck that shit, absolutely horrible strategy. you literally selling a worse product to part of your customers, giving them the middle finger. I'm glad at least Microsoft stopped doing DLC/exclusive feature deals with publishers.

-Permanent exclusive games: well if it was financed or even developed by a 1st party company, that's alright and actually a good thing. these games usually are made to bring people on board, therefore have a big priority to be as good as possible and that's good for the customer buying that game.
Did Phil pull the wool over your eyes? MS still to this very day are getting content exclusively in games. Sony are just doing a better job because they are literally dominating xbox sales wise so it's much easier to make these deals.

If roles were reversed you best believe MS would be pulling these off left, right and centre.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,736
7,398
740
Krynn
Exclusive/timed exclusive content doesn't affect me at all. It's all pure marketing.
I have yet to play a game where the exclusive content actually made a difference to the gameplay/story. One extra character/weapon that don't really change the meta or cosmetic stuff don't change my opinion of a game.
I play a game for its main content, not for a small optional side stuff.
The only time I was "annoyed" because of exclusive content was with Destiny 1, and for the opposite reasons. One of the strikes exclusive to Playstation was annoying as hell and everytime it was picked everybody had to back out and relaunch the Playlist and hope it wasn't picked again. I was actually jealous of Xbox users for not having that hassle (Playstation exclusive guns were shit too).
 

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
14,574
29,388
1,530
A lot of posts raging on Sony and pretending Microsoft doesn't do the same, or is "too passive". As predicted when I saw the thread title.
 

turtlepowa

Banned
Mar 27, 2020
2,365
4,007
415
I don't give a shit about skins, maps, weapons, extra missions, characters and so on. But i hate it when they pay money just to make others getting games or dlcs later. Worst case scenario: I can't play with my friends on pc, Xbox, PS or Switch via crossplay and we all have to wait.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,540
36,215
885
40
I really see zero issue with any exclusives.

Being upset that other people may have a “more complete” version of a game is beyond silly. We live in a free country. Just buy that other version you want then.

It’s like a kid screaming at his parents because his older brother got more ice cream than him.

The companies are not charities. Games are luxury entertainment products.

Exclusives are a way for them to sell more games. You do realize a game company wants you to give money to them instead of their competitor? This is how a natural market works, with different competitors offering different products. It’s the same reason the consoles themselves ae different hardware. If you want them to all play nice yeah what a wonderful utopia that would be. But it’s not reality.

If you want to complain it’s not fair then you have no clue how unfair the world is
 
Last edited:

Moonjt9

Member
Oct 2, 2019
484
1,287
360
When the hardware is so similar as it is these days, really what can you do to entice people to choose your platform over the competition’s?

I think moving to more exclusive content is a shrewd business maneuver that is going to end up being a huge win and brilliant tactic by Sony in the next generation.

Combined with their stellar first party games, this is like a one two punch to knockout the opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Arcadia-

Foxbat

Banned
May 30, 2018
703
784
445
I'm going to state a simple fact that cannot be truthfully refuted. It will likely hurt some people's feelings here, but that is not my intent. My intent is merely to point out simple data relevent to the OP's question.


When MS does it, it's evil, a horrid practice, and shameful. MS moneyhats because they don't care about integrity. They only care about being bro gamers.


When Sony does it, it's different. Look, I know how it looks, but let's be honest here... ok, well not honest, but... Well let's just be here. Sony is a business, and as a business they have every right to compete, and that's simply the case here. Sony aren't simply a business though. They're Gods.... Wait.... Um... .... Uh, did I say that out loud? Riight... I did. I meant to say, they're guys that just want to give you the best games to play. As long as those games are single player. The point is, that buying exclusivity is a perfectly acceptable business practice.






** My opinions and expressions are not to be taken seriously. I fully acknowledge and accept Sony and it's PS4 superiority over MS and it's trash Xbox. I accept Sony as our lord and savior.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
9,540
9,269
770
Funding new games or licenses from third parties is fine to me.

Making exclusive, timed or permanent, a new entry in a series that was multi-platform to begin with, is the shittiest move possible and I won't support this. Pretending that the game would have not happened or that they got help for development is a complete joke. Stop believing this stuff. Third parties live and die by their IPs, of course a huge IP like Street Fighter V or Final Fantasy VII/XVI would have existed without any exclusive deal. (I don't believe this FF XVI rumor by the way, probably a false one).

I don't care about DLC and don't buy any, any amount of money thrown at exclusive DLC feels like a waste.
 
Last edited:

levyjl1988

Member
Jan 31, 2010
1,853
2,161
1,170
Canada, Toronto
Microsoft should make Xbox Live free this would force players to look at Sony and wonder why the hell are they paying for PS Plus.
If Sony can make exclusives for their platform from third party games then Microsoft should do something even more striking.
Either way, it benefits the consumers in the long run.
 

Barnabot

Member
Oct 16, 2018
3,450
5,005
680
well yesterday it was EA with porsche licensing and polyphony digital and gran turismo sport with toyota licensing. today is spoderman as a sony's exclusive in an avenger game that anyone barely cared about. tomorrow could be spoderman again as sony's exclusive in a mvc game.

on the other hand if kamala khan was somewhat sony's exclusive to that avengers game instead of spoderman then no one would care about the exclusivity.
 
Last edited:

Aion002

Member
Nov 21, 2019
2,948
6,004
610
SP - BR
I'm going to state a simple fact that cannot be truthfully refuted. It will likely hurt some people's feelings here, but that is not my intent. My intent is merely to point out simple data relevent to the OP's question.


When MS does it, it's evil, a horrid practice, and shameful. MS moneyhats because they don't care about integrity. They only care about being bro gamers.


When Sony does it, it's different. Look, I know how it looks, but let's be honest here... ok, well not honest, but... Well let's just be here. Sony is a business, and as a business they have every right to compete, and that's simply the case here. Sony aren't simply a business though. They're Gods.... Wait.... Um... .... Uh, did I say that out loud? Riight... I did. I meant to say, they're guys that just want to give you the best games to play. As long as those games are single player. The point is, that buying exclusivity is a perfectly acceptable business practice.






** My opinions and expressions are not to be taken seriously. I fully acknowledge and accept Sony and it's PS4 superiority over MS and it's trash Xbox. I accept Sony as our lord and savior.
But what about when Nintendo does?


Honestly, the only difference between Sony and MS on paid exclusivity is that: One pretends to be the nice guy, while the other don't give a shit, they do it and they don't care.


Maybe if Phil stopped with the bs talk about being being against exclusives, people would complain less.... Maybe?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FranXico

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
2,772
4,902
420
It's business, and it's been happening since the first competing console came into existence. The thing is, you'll never have all games on one system, but the closest you can get to that is when a single system dominates the market. So if exclusives accelerate the dominance of one system over another, then it makes selection of a console easier for single-system gamers. The most you miss out on then is first-party games, because any permanent exclusives are more likely to land on the dominant system. So I'm generally in favor of exclusives, as they usually make my decision to go with the market leader a more rewarding choice in the long run.
 

brian0057

Member
Jun 18, 2018
2,595
5,086
630
First party exclusives? Totally Ok with it.
Third party exclusives? Solely exist for the purpose of making the competing paltforms look bad and nothing else. No benefit for the consumer. This is why streaming services are such a clusterfuck these days.
 

Evangelion Unit-01

Master Chief
May 18, 2020
1,963
5,316
830
A lot of posts raging on Sony and pretending Microsoft doesn't do the same, or is "too passive". As predicted when I saw the thread title.
That was not my intended point.

Both do it and I pointed out instances when they have done it. My point was that by limiting their scope to Game Pass Microsoft's deals were less aggressive than Sony's plays on bigger IPs like Avengers and Final Fantasy. Someone might want a console for Final Fantasy-if both have it they might go with Xbox and become a Game Pass sub when they see other games on that service. If only PS has Final Fantasy then they will go with PS5 and never become a sub. Thats my theory-MSFT needs those Game Pass deals, yes, but they also need to make sure that they aren't missing out on key franchises that exist outside of that service. Both consoles are securing exclusive deals but Sony has secured deals with larger franchises.

It's not a statement that MSFT is not making these deals-its a question of whether the deals they are making are ones that truly move the needle. My other question was around whether there a line on what is and is not appropriate or is it all up for grabs in a competitive market.
 

Foxbat

Banned
May 30, 2018
703
784
445
That was not my intended point.

Both do it and I pointed out instances when they have done it. My point was that by limiting their scope to Game Pass Microsoft's deals were less aggressive than Sony's plays on bigger IPs like Avengers and Final Fantasy. Someone might want a console for Final Fantasy-if both have it they might go with Xbox and become a Game Pass sub when they see other games on that service. If only PS has Final Fantasy then they will go with PS5 and never become a sub. Thats my theory-MSFT needs those Game Pass deals, yes, but they also need to make sure that they aren't missing out on key franchises that exist outside of that service. Both consoles are securing exclusive deals but Sony has secured deals with larger franchises.

It's not a statement that MSFT is not making these deals-its a question of whether the deals they are making are ones that truly move the needle. My other question was around whether there a line on what is and is not appropriate or is it all up for grabs in a competitive market.


I can only answer your second question.

The line on what is and is not appropriate is solely determined by what games Sony deems acceptable.

If MS does it more than Sony, it's referred to as moneyhatting. That term is only to be used when referencing MS. It's anti consumer, and is to be condemned.

If MS does it less than Sony, it's then referred to as fair play, and acceptable business tactics in a competitive market.

And that's where the line resides. At precisely where Sony and it's fans place it.