Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

Gearing up for the PlayStation 5's launch, Sony's not fucking around. Hoping to maintain its grip on the console market it reclaimed with the PlayStation 4, Sony is doubling down on exclusive content for both systems. Both with First party games from its Worldwide Studios division, and, perhaps controversially, timed and console exclusivity deals with third party publishers. Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, Kena, Project Athia, and several others have all been confirmed to be console or timed exclusives on PlayStation platforms. Many gamers, understandably, are annoyed by this, some are even going as far as to say it's an anti-consumer practice.

Now, I can see where the people complaining are coming from. Locking up games for upwards of several years for seemingly no reason other than to artificially boost hardware sales does seem scummy from an outsider's perspective. But there's a reason why companies do it. Getting exclusivity means that have the upper hand over their competition, and can associate the game with their platform, thus, making it THE place to play that game. Sony's not the only one, Microsoft does it too. Hell, even Nintendo does it many indie and Japanese games.

That said, I wouldn't go as far as to call it "anti-consumer" in my view, at least not completely. Sure, it's technically anti-consumer in the sense that it is gimping gamers on other platforms from playing it until a certain time, or indefinitely. But if you're a PlayStation fan, or are getting a PS4 or PS5 soon, then I'd argue it's actually Pro-Consumer in that regard. If you think about it from Sony's perspective, they want people to invest in their platform. But more than that, they want to give these potential customers first class treatment in games and features.

So, if you buy PlayStation, then you not only get award-winning first party games, but you also get first dibs on big titles, console exclusivity for smaller ones, and even permeant exclusivity for others. In which case, why wouldn't you buy a PS5? Another benefit for PlayStation gamers is that exclusives have more opportunity to leverage the system's capabilities, notably its Custom SSD, 3D audio, and the DualSense controller. So even if the game makes its way to Xbox eventually, PS5 owners get the definitive version ahead of time.

Now with anything, there's both a right and wrong way to do this. Epic Games has been rightfully scrutinized for perusing exclusive deals, because they get the art exclusive deals all wrong. What Epic does is take games that were originally advertised as coming to Steam, and rip them away for essentially no reason, such as with Shenmue III. But Sony's not doing that, at least as far as we know. Their approach is instead reaching out to developers currently working on games with no particular console in mind initially, and asking if they're interested in having the game first or console exclusive on PlayStation. The benefit for the developer is they get access to exclusive features, can get the game out faster with less multiplatform overhead, and get access to the number one brand in home console gaming. The benefit for PlayStation gamers is that they get games first, they get the best, or at least most unique versions of them, and they get to enjoy them alongside characters like Ratchet, Nathan Drake, Astro Bot, and Kratos. Keep in mind, these same arguments apply to both Nintendo and Microsoft too, so this isn't me being a "Sony Pony" or whatever.

Again, I can definitely understand where people are coming from when they say its anti-consumer. I would want gamers on other platforms to experience these titles as well. But it's important to understand that there's a lot more nuance to exclusive deals like this. Timed exclusivity In my eyes, isn't completely anti-consumer. It can be annoying if you're loyal to another platform, but the company behind that is more than likely going to play hardball as well. In the end, exclusivity deals are just a nature of a platform-based business, and it's not going away anytime soon.

 

[II_JumPeR_I]

What a load of Console Warrior BS... Timed Exclusivity sucks and will always be Anti Consumer.

 

[ACESHIGH]

Timed exclusives suck any way you slice it. Besides I never understood the narrative of "Tomb raider/final fantasy/devil may cry/resident evil/silent hill are PlayStation franchises" those games were multiplats from day one

PS fanboys believe they are entitled to have exclusive rights to all games lol... Otherwise they feel betrayed

I'd love MS to buy exclusive rights to FIFA just to see meltdowns all over Europe and South America. If MS needs to win the "console war" thats all they need to do instead of buying studios and having best HW online and ecosystem.
Though Europeans and South Americans are such level 99 PS fanboys they would rather cope with PES My Club and poor online instead of leaving the brand they got to love by playing pirated games during the ps1 and ps2 days.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Timed exclusives suck any way you slice it. Besides I never understood the narrative of "Tomb raider/final fantasy/devil may cry/resident evil/silent hill are PlayStation franchises" those games were multiplats from day one

In a way, I agree. I'm just making a case for why these companies do it, why it can be done in a good way (or at least, a less annoying way).

 

[Starlight Lotice]

I can still never forget when Sony mentioned getting Exclusive COD content at the tail end of the PS3 era when most people were playing it on the 360.

That must have been the most pointless timed exclusive ever, and I see that as Anti-Consumer and betrayal for the fans who were mainly on Xbox playing that particular game!

It's obvious why both sides do it, and if it didn't happen, we'd never get the famous meme of "Square shot themselves in the foot".

 

[Jubenhimer]

I can still never forget when Sony mentioned getting Exclusive COD content at the tail end of the PS3 era when most people were playing it on the 360.

That must have been the most pointless timed exclusive ever, and I see that as Anti-Consumer and betrayal for the fans who were mainly on Xbox playing that particular game!

That's actually a perfect example of doing it the wrong way. Sony tried getting exclusive content for a series, that was primarily associated with Xbox for most of the 7th generation.

Compare that to something like Final Fantasy VII Remake. It's a remake of a game with a ton of nostalgia, it's heavily associated with PlayStation, and has the potential to move tons of units. It's a no brainer to nab that as an exclusive. And the results showed, as it sold extremely well on one platform alone.

 

[turtlepowa]

Timed exclusives suck

- Complete waste of money. Better make Live / Now cheaper instead
- Nobody buys another console for a few months or even switches for it
- The own customers don't have any advantage from it
- The own customers can even have a disadvantage. Imagine Sony buying a coop/mutliplayer game for 1 year. PS5 owner A wants to crossplay with his XSX friends B and C. He can't.
- Or think of Sony buying one of the few interesting VR titles (RE7). Moves like this can kill VR. There are already not many people using it and then they buy one of the best just for their VR

 

[HushiMushi]

What a load of Console Warrior BS... Timed Exclusivity sucks and will always be Anti Consumer.

/thread. We are done here.

 

[turtlepowa]

Double post, please delete.

 

[Senhua]

Console and timed exclusive not anti consumer but the silence and false advertising about it is anti consumer and that's is what Sony mostly do this gen (and MS/Nintendo to some extend).

Sony Infamous marketing jargon
- Developed EXCLUSIVELY for PS5
- Console Exclusive
- Only on Playstation

Some Sony timed exclusive/region deal disclosed to public
- MHW asia exclusivity
- FF VIIR
- NiOh timed exclusive
- NieR A asia exclusivity
- All RTG studio/ Toshihiro Nagoshi's directed games asia exclusivity
- All Falcom games asia exclusivity
- Persona 5 Royal exclusivity rumour
- and many more

So yes all platform holder do some anti consumer move and for this gen especially Sony do the most as they 100% depend on third party games for diversifying their line up.

 

[Jubenhimer]

- The own customers don't have any advantage from it

I already explained why the consumer on PlayStation would benefit.

- The own customers can even have a disadvantage. Imagine Sony buying a coop/mutliplayer game for 1 year. PS5 owner A wants to crossplay with his XSX friends B and C. He can't.

But he could still crossplay on PC. But otherwise, I actually agree with this. Indies and Single player games are usually better suited to timed exclusivity than multiplayer titles.

 

[Psykodad]

That's actually a perfect example of doing it the wrong way. Sony tried getting exclusive content for a series, that was primarily associated with Xbox for most of the 7th generation.

Compare that to something like Final Fantasy VII Remake. It's a remake of a game with a ton of nostalgia, it's heavily associated with PlayStation, and has the potential to move tons of units. It's a no brainer to nab that as an exclusive. And the results showed, as it sold extremely well on one platform alone.

Don't Sony and Square-Enix also have very good relations from the time Sony bought Square shares to keep them from going out of business?

Anyway, I'm not bothered too much about timed-exclusivity.
It sucks a bit if you're on the waiting-list, but it'll come eventually.
It's not like there aren't other games to play.

And it's already a thing. Nothing to do about it.

 

[ScarletSpider]

.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Don't Sony and Square-Enix also have very good relations from the time Sony boughy Square shares to keep them from going out of business?

Sony Corp. (Read, not SIE) did own some stake in Square years ago that they eventually sold back IIRC. But you are right that Sony and Square Enix are very tight even to this day. Nintendo as well. It's actually Microsoft that Square Enix is the least attached to, at least these days. Their XBO output pales in comparison to their PS4/Switch/3DS output.

 

[cragarmi]

Also if it wasnt for some of these time exclusive deals, a lot of these games would not get made at all, as they need someone to pony up the cash in the first instant.

 

[turtlepowa]

I already explained why the consumer on PlayStation would benefit.


But he could still crossplay on PC. But otherwise, I actually agree with this. Indies and Single player games are usually better suited to timed exclusivity than multiplayer titles.

And i don't agree. What does it help him when his friends only own a XSX? Sony buys not only whole games, but also DLCs or modes and so on. For example they bought the COD horde mode for one year. And what about my VR concerns? This whole strategy just sucks.

 

[Psykodad]

Sony Corp. (Read, not SIE) did own some stake in Square years ago that they eventually sold back IIRC. But you are right that Sony and Square Enix are very tight even to this day. Nintendo as well. It's actually Microsoft that Square Enix is the least attached to, at least these days. Their XBO output pales in comparison to their PS4/Switch/3DS output.

Iirc, Squaresoft almost went bankrupt after the FF: Spirits Within fiasco and Sony bought 40% of it's shares or something.
Playstation benefiting from that to this day seems pretty normal to me.

 

[ACESHIGH]

Re7 VR on PC would have made many folks VR adopters. You don't pull these type of moves on a medium that's still on it's infancy. Grow the pie size, don't try to get all the slices of a small one.

Japanese studios can be so clueless at times...

 

[Jubenhimer]

And i don't agree. What does it help him when his friends only own a XSX? Sony buys not only whole games, but also DLCs or modes and so on. For example they bought the COD horde mode for one year. And what about my VR concerns? This whole strategy just sucks.

I can understand that. But you also have to consider what you feel as well. Does this make your purchase of a PlayStation 5 worth it? Is this convincing you to keep buying games and services for the system? If yes, then these deals are doing their job. Sony could care less about what Xbox gamers think. All that matters is whether or not PlayStation owners are satisfied.

 

[turtlepowa]

I can understand that. But you also have to consider what you feel as well. Does this make your purchase of a PlayStation 5 worth it? Is this convincing you to keep buying games and services for the system? If yes, then these deals are doing their job.

Not at all, i just despise it as most gamers do. They are using lots of money just to handycap non platform owners instead of spending it for their own customers.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Not at all, i just despise it as most gamers do. They are using lots of money just to handycap non platform owners instead of spending it for their own customers.

But they are spending it on their own consumers. They're giving them first dibs on games, exclusive features in games, and games they couldn't get anywhere else.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Exclusivity isn't anti-consumer but there's really no point in having timed exclusives. Timed exclusives that are only coming to PC on the other hand is more respectable in my book.

 

[turtlepowa]

But they are spending it on their own consumers. They're giving them first dibs on games, exclusive features in games, and games they couldn't get anywhere else.

No, they don't. The cusomers would have gotten it at the same time without Sony/MS spending shitloads of money. The customers don't get anything extra, it is just taken away from the non customers. This does not benefit a single gamer.

 

[Jubenhimer]

No, they don't. The cusomers would have gotten it at the same time without Sony/MS spending shitloads of money. The customers don't get anything extra, it is just taken away from the non customers. This does not benefit a single gamer.

It benefits the people who bought or want to buy the console making the deals though. And that's why companies do it, to reward the people who bought into their ecosystem. I agree that it sucks for people on other platforms, but more than likely, those companies will be playing the same game as well.

What I'm saying is that these companies have a very good reason for doing this, and 9 times out of 10, it usually works.

 

[Steve.1981]

We all know why bought timed exclusivity exists. It's pretty straightforward & yes it is both scummy & anti-consumer.

Doesn't matter who is doing it. It's scummy.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

- NiOh timed exclusive

Tell me more. NiOh (NiOh2?) coming to Xbox at some point?

 

[CeeJay]

But they are spending it on their own consumers. They're giving them first dibs on games, exclusive features in games, and games they couldn't get anywhere else.

If you are a customer that feels special because your console manufacturer paid money purely to prevent others enjoying the thing that you are enjoying when they otherwise would have had it you are a childish console warrior, it's as simple as that.

 

[Bonfires Down]

Epic’s approach is much more consumer friendly since nobody has to buy another box to play the games.

 

[NahaNago]

I can still never forget when Sony mentioned getting Exclusive COD content at the tail end of the PS3 era when most people were playing it on the 360.

That must have been the most pointless timed exclusive ever, and I see that as Anti-Consumer and betrayal for the fans who were mainly on Xbox playing that particular game!

It's obvious why both sides do it, and if it didn't happen, we'd never get the famous meme of "Square shot themselves in the foot".

I'm kind of surprised more companies don't do this actually. It's the cheapest form of exclusivity that is easy enough to do like paying Capcom for several characters in the next Street Fighter for only Sony and an easy way for these studios to get funding during the development of the game.

 

[turtlepowa]

It benefits the people who bought or want to buy the console making the deals though. And that's why companies do it, to reward the people who bought into their ecosystem. I agree that it sucks for people on other platforms, but more than likely, those companies will be playing the same game as well.

What I'm saying is that these companies have a very good reason for doing this, and 9 times out of 10, it usually works.

I know why the companies do it. Especially Sony tries to pretend complete exclusivity with "developed exclusively for PS5".

So i should feel special and be grateful, if i get somehting that i would have gotten anyways, just because it was taken away from others?
Sorry, i will never get how this could be a good thing.

 

[Drewpee]

But they are spending it on their own consumers. They're giving them first dibs on games, exclusive features in games, and games they couldn't get anywhere else.

They are not spending the money on their own consumers, they are spending money to keep it away from other consumers. You would have the game on PS5 regardless of it's availability on another platform.

The only Sony fan this might benefit is one who might get a warm feeling knowing that a game is locked down to their platform only.

If Microsoft did this it would be an entirely different story, it WAS an entirely different story. It wasn't ok then and it's not ok now.

 

[theclaw135]

In some instances, exclusivity funding may be the right call for the developer. Multiplatform can get more audience but it also means going through QA testing and certification all over again. As well as a larger marketing budget to reach out to users on other systems.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

We know why moneyhatters (on one side) and devs (on the other side) do this. It's still quite shitty for consumers.

You've bought Box 1 to play video games. A game comes out and it's a timed exclusive to Box 2. There's no technical reason for this because Box 1 could run the game equally if not better, and the game is coming to Box 1 later anyway.

So we should consider this move "pro-consumer" because it makes Box 2 owners happy in getting the game earlier? It's just schadenfreude fuel. A timed exclusive isn't going to make Box 2 better in any way - not now, nor in the future. Getting the timed exclusive on Box 2 isn't going to get owners of Box 2 fidelity services or discounts further down the line. They're not going to get a prize for supporting the timed exclusive. And while I don't have any data to support this, I doubt that many people are buying Box 2 to play a game earlier that's going multiplat in the span of a few months to a year. No, timed exclusives are just a big "fuck you" to owners of Box 1 and a way for owners of Box 2 to feel smug for getting a game earlier that may even not be as good as promised. EGS should know this very well. I supported Shenmue 3 the minute I learned of the Kickstarter, but as a Steam user, I ended up cancelling my pledge and asking for a refund.

Also, a timed exclusive risks getting lukewarm or bad reviews and bombing majestically when it finally comes out on Box 1 and other boxes.

The only scenario where the dev can seriously benefit from a timed exclusive is if it launches in a good window. Remember Rayman Legends? Should have been a timed exclusive for WiiU. At the time of the announced launch, it would have been the perfect game to fill one of WiiU's many release-schedule gaps. But Ubi decided to delay it to launch it on all platforms at the same time, and ended up launching the game against GTAV, sending it to die. But even this is hardly a good example, because we're talking about a game that didn't need moneyhatting, coming from one of the industry's biggest publishers, and also a game that wasn't going to break any new ground anyway.

 

[tryDEATH]

I guess we moved on to the new spin for the PS5 as people are realizing that the launch line up from Sony's 1st party studios are going to be lacking for the first few years.

Literally everything around Sony is turning into a series of Anti-Consumer/Gamer practices these last couple of years to the point that they need to be shamed into getting with the times reluctantly on some of the issues. So I am not surprised to see more and more PS fans trying to justify their questionable practices as it isn't out of character for them at this point anymore.

 

[Ballthyrm]

All that matters in the end is that the game is good.
It doesn't matter when it comes out or where it comes out.

What makes a game better ? usually more money and more time for the developpers.
That what an exclusivity does, give extra money to devs ...

Make of that fact what you will.


<Rant>
The game that ships with an exclisivity is NOT the game that ship without.
You can be cynical and think all you want that all they do is pocket the difference and put the finished game on a shelf somewhere and wait a couple of month. That is tragically mis-understanding how games are made.
</ Rant>

 

[martino]

epic doing it wrong when they are the only ones where it's not locking content because it's only a store and not a platform
you world is upside / down for me.

 

[theclaw135]

There's a huge difference between getting an exclusive deal early in production to make a better quality game, versus signing over an already finished game.

 

[Andodalf]

1st party funding a small game that wouldn’t get made otherwise = good

1st party giving a huge marketing boost to an indie game like Rocketleague = okayish

1st party buying timed exclusives from major publishers for straight cash homey = V bad

 

[BlitzerRadic]

It's not anti-consumer. Gamers love to act like drama queens over widespread practices that are implemented within the gaming sphere.

 

[II_JumPeR_I]

That's actually a perfect example of doing it the wrong way. Sony tried getting exclusive content for a series, that was primarily associated with Xbox for most of the 7th generation.

Compare that to something like Final Fantasy VII Remake. It's a remake of a game with a ton of nostalgia, it's heavily associated with PlayStation, and has the potential to move tons of units. It's a no brainer to nab that as an exclusive. And the results showed, as it sold extremely well on one platform alone.

And could have sold even better without that retarded timed exclusive. Square Enix and Actvision are the wirst offenders.
Square a lot more.
Time and time again buttfucking Xbox Players but then suddenly taking some money from MS to finally release the KH games to xbox. FREAKING Years After they milked the PS fanbase with multiple bundles etc
And dont get me started how Square isnt even promoting this released.

FF franchise is the same shit. Finally releasing the old ports to xbox and then fucking the xbox Players over again with the Remake. And then suddenly shadow dropping the remake april 2021 on xbox.

Some console warriors have to stop living in the 90s when it comes to this excuses for timed exclusivity for some old Franchises.

Project Athia is the same shit. Its getting fucking annoying with the Japan side of Square Enix.

And now we have another company who hasnt had a seller (on all platforms) in years with Bethesda, suddenly goes timed exclusive with two games. Whats the excuse for that nonsense?

Im so freaking tired about this Practice. And no one should be happy about it.
Stupid and biased Media isnt calling out the current deals for whatever reason.

 

[Infamy v1]

This is literally Sony Super-Fanboy: the thread. I could hardly read the entire post without cringing. We have:

• MicrosoftToo
• Nintendo too
• This is actually pro-consumer (lmao)
• PS5 gets the definitive edition anyway (literal lie)
• "iM nOT a SoNy pOnY"
• and more

Then you have you literally trying to sell us PS5s, randomly talking about award-winning exclusives and "why wouldn't you buy a PS5?" The irony of a topic about anti-consummerism when the OP actually spent time out of his day to try to sell us on a PS5 while downplaying factual anti-consumer practices, which is exacerbated by the fact that the OP isn't (most likely) employed by Sony and is doing this out of their own free will. Even shills get paid; this is where the term "sheeple" comes from. Again, ironic.

Moneyhatting developers for the sole purpose of keeping the game OFF the main competition, but available everywhere under the sun elsewhere, is anti-consumer. That's not a case of funding a small indie dev or whatever. Look how many games are timed exclusive but day 1 available on Steam, EGS, even PS4. Moneyhatting AAA big name devs with the sole intention of getting a dev associated with the competition (i.e, Bethesda) more associated with your brand, or hoping to, is anti-consumer. Moneyhatting timed exclusive DLC for a year, and then RENEWING the year contract (so 2 years) so the DLC doesn't release on the competition's system until AFTER the sequel is out, is 100% anti-consumer (Destiny). Being shady about timed exclusivity, and/or length, and literally lying to the public or having developers dodge questions/remain silent is anti-consumer, something Sony does very reguarly.

I can go on and on, but my point is clear.

I wonder what will happen if Microsoft takes an aggressive approach at securing timed exclusives since they seemingly have their 1st party ducks in a row and now time-gated on those studios coming to fruition and actually producing. All these fanboys are going to internally combust at their own hypocrisy and double-standards when its suddenly a bad thing to do again.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Really good write up Jubenhimer

When I think of exclusives, I try to think of it in the context of the arcades. An arcade game had to be profitable enough for the arcade proprietor to want to buy it (big up-front cost) but fun and addictive enough for the players to keep dropping money. One could argue this was "anti consumer" in some respect, but it resulted in many legendary games because the business model forced developers to walk a tightrope of demands.

Yamauchi said a long time ago (apocryphal, because I can't find the quote) "the console is just a box to get to the games". The purpose of a console exclusive is to sell the console. The developer is forced to walk a tightrope of demands, too, to develop a game with hardware limitations (weaker than either PC or arcade at the time) yet sells in such great quantity that customers are incentivized to buy the console.

A bonafide "system seller".

Even though PC and arcade hardware were superior, almost all of the good platformers of the 80s and 90s were on console platforms. The quality was pushed higher by the console exclusives like Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario Bros, and Crash Bandicoot. Those games were the direct result of a market that demanded exclusive system sellers.

The business models change and ebb and flow. It's fine to be critical of things like exclusives and timed exclusives, but it's also helpful to understand why things are going in this direction. The only way PC is going to get AAA games made for PC is by having exclusive storefronts like EGS. There's no reason to make all those assets and make it just for PC unless the money is there. Games like Star Citizen proved the money can be there for one game, so folks like EPIC are intelligently teasing this idea out further.

The market demand for exclusives tends to produce a certain quality level of game. It's a very straightforward proposition, and I think it's true. It doesn't mean that I will personally love all exclusives, and it doesn't mean that exclusives are always the best entries in a particular genre, but on the whole, exclusives tend to be worth checking out. They are literally created to make you pay far above their sticker-price to obtain the game console. That is their whole purpose.

That is to say, Wii Sports was not a free pack-in. Wii Sports was a $250 game that people happily bought in high numbers. New Super Mario Bros Wii was not a $50 game, it was a $250 game that people happily bought in high numbers during the highest console sale month in Nintendo's history, December 2009.

Ultimately, that is how the consumer buys videogames. The hobbyist almost completely ignores the hardware. It's not a factor because "a true gamer owns all the systems hurr hurr" or some sentiment like that, but the avg gamer picks and chooses based on what's available, and exclusives will often play a role in that decision.

All that said, I'm bummed that Sony seems to be pulling away from the PS4 so sharply. Ghost of Tsushima will probably be the system's last big 1st party exclusive. I don't think it's "anti consumer" or anything, I'm just bummed out. Some people need to be satisfied with their disappointment and not let it ruin the entire brand.

 

[Drewpee]

I guess we moved on to the new spin for the PS5 as people are realizing that the launch line up from Sony's 1st party studios are going to be lacking for the first few years.

Literally everything around Sony is turning into a series of Anti-Consumer/Gamer practices these last couple of years to the point that they need to be shamed into getting with the times reluctantly on some of the issues. So I am not surprised to see more and more PS fans trying to justify their questionable practices as it isn't out of character for them at this point anymore.

I am concerned because only Sony fans can really push back against the anti consumer policies but I just dont see it happening. That is bad news for the gaming industry overall.

 

[MoreJRPG]

This thread is garbage. Timed exclusivity is good for no one but the studio that’s getting paid off to lock the game behind a platform for X amount of time and forcing someone to pay an extra $500 to play it on release.

Nothing good has ever come out of it. Unless the platform holder has directly funded the development of the game(Bayonetta 2), it is inexcusable. Rise of the Tomb Raider was a total joke, and now starting this gen we’re going to have boat loads of timed exclusives on either side screwing the consumer.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Assuming that our videogames will remain the same when the business model changes is naive to the extreme. We have a well-documented history of how gaming changes when the business models change. Mainstream gaming has already half-transitioned to the PC model: subscriptions, digital-only, patches, lots of DLC, etc

And then people complain "modern console gaming sucks. Why does everything have lootboxes?"

 

[Vognerful]

What is this shit? it is like someone is saying that allowing thieves to steel money from is pro human rights because you are giving them the "right to steel you"

 

[Redlight]

OP, let me predict the future...

You suspect that the rumours are true about Sony money-hatting a host of games as timed exclusives. You're a Sony fan, so you think this is great.

My prediction...if Microsoft goes on a similar timed/third party exclusive spending spree you will suddenly find that these kinds of deals are evil and anti-consumer.*


*No actual psychic powers required.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Time exclusives suck and as a consumer I benefit zero because tommy next door can't play a game on his preferred toy.

Also Sony should be cautious poking when MS has a much bigger stick.

 

[-Arcadia-]

It’s just a fact of business. I expect Sony and Microsoft to do whatever it takes to make their platform as successful as possible.

So, while I kinda favor Series X, and slightly groaned at the end of the Kena trailer, that’s how it is. In conjunction with a lot of good looking actual exclusives, I’ll probably just buy a PS5 too at launch or very close.

At least PS5 is something I want. I remember when Rise of the Tomb Raider was trapped on Xbox One, and the console literally had nothing else appealing about it, hardware-wise or software-wise. It would have literally been a $400 purchase for just Tomb Raider, so I waited. That sucked.

Timed exclusives on platforms I don’t see value or USPs in, are what’s agony. Something Serious Sam fans are facing down right now with Stadia.

 

[brian0057]

"Of course it's not anti-consumer as long as you buy PlayStation. It"s just that everyone else can go fuck themeselves for daring to consider any other device."

"I'm very smart."