• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • 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 Why Console and Timed exclusives AREN'T anti-consumer (and also why they are)

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
9,550
22,070
960
Ireland
I expect many more publishers to go PlayStation only at launch due to gamespass for the most part.....
Then the games go to Xbox a year later followed closely by gamespass release. That's just the divergent way the industry is heading.
 
Last edited:

thismeinteil

Member
Jan 6, 2020
376
996
300
The opinion on this changes depending on what console gets the game first. Xbox fans will like it when it's on Xbox and sticking it to Sony. And PS fans will like it when it's yet another reason to own the PS.

Really, there's nothing wrong with timed exclusivity. Well, if it's announced when the game is revealed. What I don't like are games that are announced as multiplat, only for them to later be bought for timed exclusivity. MS doing this for Tomb Raider is really what killed the remake series.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
9,550
22,070
960
Ireland
The opinion on this changes depending on what console gets the game first. Xbox fans will like it when it's on Xbox and sticking it to Sony. And PS fans will like it when it's yet another reason to own the PS.

Really, there's nothing wrong with timed exclusivity. Well, if it's announced when the game is revealed. What I don't like are games that are announced as multiplat, only for them to later be bought for timed exclusivity. MS doing this for Tomb Raider is really what killed the remake series.
Pretty much... when they went exclusive to Xbox, I said I wouldn't buy any TR games and I have not till this day.
Same as when I said I would not buy Star Wars Fallen Order for anything above 35 euro.
I nearly always stick to my guns!
 
Jul 6, 2016
777
803
375
They are anti-consumer.. I like exclusivity but when it arises from investing new ideas, helping small studios, all grow new studios.
 

-Arcadia-

Banned
Aug 20, 2019
9,666
33,478
910
Pretty much... when they went exclusive to Xbox, I said I wouldn't buy any TR games and I have not till this day.
Same as when I said I would not buy Star Wars Fallen Order for anything above 35 euro.
I nearly always stick to my guns!

What did Fallen Order do? Out of the loop.
 

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
"anti-consumer" is usually a meaningless catchphrase that translates into "This is something I do not like. I am a consumer. Hence this is anti-consumer."

With PS paying for Deathloop to not be on Xbox, nothing changes for someone on a Sony system. Nothing changes for a PC player. Xbox is completely locked out, when the game was announced a year ago with no mention of exclusivity. The Devs have already worked on console versions of the game that will now be abandoned for a year.

Some Consumers have no change, others are directly impacted. There is no positive. No player of the game is better off. It is anti consumer 100%
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

Abriael_GN

Member
Feb 26, 2019
2,076
9,664
630
Italy
twinfinite.net
With PS paying for Deathloop to not be on Xbox, nothing changes for someone on a Sony system. Nothing changes for a PC player. Xbox is completely locked out, when the game was announced a year ago with no mention of exclusivity. The Devs have already worked on console versions of the game that will now be abandoned for a year.

Some Consumers have no change, others are directly impacted. There is no positive. No player of the game is better off. It is anti consumer 100%

Translation of the above:

"This is something I do not like. I am a consumer. Hence this is anti-consumer."

Business isn't pro or anti-consumer. Business is pro-business.

Incidentally:

"Some Consumers have no change"

If Sony is paying for the exclusive, it means it's shouldering part of the development costs, which means Bethesda can use that money to improve the game or to finance other projects, which does benefit customers. Contrary to popular belief, third-parties having more money to spend is a positive thing.

Hence, you're wrong, and you simply define anti-consumer what superficially affects you negatively.
 
Last edited:

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
Translation of the above:

"This is something I do not like. I am a consumer. Hence this is anti-consumer."

Business isn't pro or anti-consumer. Business is pro-business.

Incidentally:

"Some Consumers have no change"

If Sony is paying for the exclusive, it means it's shouldering part of the development costs, which means Bethesda can use that money to improve the game or to finance other projects, which does benefit customers.

Hence, you're wrong, and you simply define anti-consumer what superficially affects you negatively.

I seeeeee!!!! The many gamers on Xbox who are glad not to be burned by having more games are benefited, so it’s pro consumer! Thanks for the sage advice, did you remember to go to the anti union rally? I hear Papa Sony will give out one extra food ration this year!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

Abriael_GN

Member
Feb 26, 2019
2,076
9,664
630
Italy
twinfinite.net
I seeeeee!!!! The many gamers on Xbox who are glad not to be burned by having more games are benefited, so it’s pro consumer! Thanks for the sage advice, did you remember to go to the anti union rally? I hear Papa Sony will give out one extra food ration this year!

If a game not being on your platform of choice for a time "burns" you, you need to take a cold, hard look at your priorities.
 
Last edited:

Vawn

Banned
Feb 20, 2018
9,357
19,644
810
I actually miss the days when consoles libraries were almost completely unique. I buy all the consoles anyway, it made each feel special in their own way.

Now, to me, my Xbox feels basically like my PlayStation just with a lot fewer of the really good games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
1,735
3,270
400
It's anti-consumer if it's exclusive to a system you don't have. If it's a system you have, then it's pro-consumer. Why? It gives you a large collection of blockbusters on the system you own. If it helps the system sell better, then it increases the probability of your system getting more blockbusters in the future.

Not everyone has the time or interest in buying multiple systems. I can own all consoles, but I don't. I don't have the time, and gaming isn't a top priority anymore. I want to buy one system that has everything important on it. Buying a second system costs you anywhere from 6-10 games with the asking price. How is that pro-consumer?

Sony getting more games, and possibly dominating another generation makes my selection of consoles easier, and I can still get a lot of Xbox exclusives on my laptop. If you own multiple consoles, you have nothing to worry about. If you own only 1 system, then it's no different than missing out on a killer first party game. You can't have everything, regardless. PS gamers will never get a MS first party game on their system, and vice-versa. We wouldn't say that it's anti-consumer to not make first party games multiplatform, so why should anyone care about third party exclusives? Because we accept first party exclusivity as part of the business, but don't recognize third party exclusivity as also a part of the business? That's a very rosy view of things, but only works with a very prejudicial view of what the business should be.

What's pro- or anti-consumer, with regards to console exclusivity, is not at all objective, but is very subjective, and built upon a series of convenient fallacies shaped by our own wants and needs. I'm fine with that, so long as everyone understands it for what it is, and doesn't try taking an ethical stance on the matter. "Sony buying exclusivity hurts me, because I'm only going to buy an Xbox." Or vice-versa. That's really all it boils down to, IMO.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Jubenhimer

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,262
7,842
800
USA
I applaud Sony for creating value for their consumers and forging partnerships with talented studios.
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
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.*
I have the same opinion on Microsoft as I do with Sony. I didn't really care when Microsoft locked up Dead Rising 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider early in the Xbox One's life, and I don't care if they do it with Series X either. Like I said, it sucks for non-Xbox players, but it's good for those who invested in Xbox. At the end of the day, these are companies fighting for your time and money, and they'll do it however they can.
 

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
I have the same opinion on Microsoft as I do with Sony. I didn't really care when Microsoft locked up Dead Rising 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider early in the Xbox One's life, and I don't care if they do it with Series X either. Like I said, it sucks for non-Xbox players, but it's good for those who invested in Xbox. At the end of the day, these are companies fighting for your time and money, and they'll do it however they can.

How is it good for you? Other people not getting the game doesn’t make it better
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
How is it good for you? Other people not getting the game doesn’t make it better
I do agree that it sucks for the people missing out, but for the people who are getting the game, it shouldn't bother them. Regardless of who does it, exclusive deals exist for a reason, and they're not going away.
 

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Dec 3, 2004
3,894
1,424
1,755
Exclusives are a good thing when the game is made from the ground up, for a specific hardware. Uncharted, TLOU and God of War come to mind.

And it's even better when hardware is made with a game in mind, which is a case with Nintendo hardware/software. I don't see a healthy industry where that does not happen... It'd just be a sterile place.
 
Last edited:

Lionel Richie

Member
Jun 22, 2014
13,534
14,089
930
It's better for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to use the piles upon piles of money they're sitting on top of to fund games and offer financial guarantees so a studio won't go under. That's good money, that's healthy money for the industry regardless of anything any neckbeard has to say. If exclusivity is the price to pay, it's still better than the alternative. PC folks just got used to Gaben hoarding all the Steam cash, Epic is a chinese spy but at least they're investing in actual games. It comes at the price of a malware being installed to your PC to watch you masturbate courtesy of Disney, but like I said, it's better than the alternative.
 
Last edited:

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
I do agree that it sucks for the people missing out, but for the people who are getting the game, it shouldn't bother them. Regardless of who does it, exclusive deals exist for a reason, and they're not going away.

Shouldnt bother them, yes. You said it’s good for those that invest in the platform, but it’s not. It’s the same as if everyone could play it
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
Shouldnt bother them, yes. You said it’s good for those that invest in the platform, but it’s not. It’s the same as if everyone could play it

It benefits the people buying that platform because they get more games, and games that can potentially leverage the system's unique capabilities. Plus, it's a plus for indie studios, as they get an extra layer of financial security when making the game.

But as I said, it sucks for the people not on that platform because they have to wait longer for games, get potentially worse versions, and sometimes the game may not even come at all.

What I'm saying is that its a double edge sword. There's both a good and bad things to it.
 

Bumblebeetuna

Member
Jun 23, 2008
6,725
1,897
1,210
No offense but what a load of crap. For starters in your scenario, PS owners don’t benefit, because the game would come anyway. Did Xbox owners benefit from the Tomb Raider deal? No, the game would have come anyway. All that happened is PC and PS4 owners had to wait. FF7R was no benefit to PS owners because it would have been there day one either way.

You’re looking at it solely from an Xbox/PS/Nintendo customer perspective. It doesn’t really work like that. If I want to buy Deathloop on Xbox then I’m not a Microsoft customer I’m a Bethesda customer and they’ve decided that a check from Sony means I am a second class customer for that game. That’s anti-consumer.

I don’t mind though, it saves me money. What ALWAYS happens with these games is by the time it comes to the other platforms it’s lower in price and has more content, especially in the game of games like Deathloop. In the case of something like FF7R I can just buy used or on clearance like I did for Control because they gave PS4 timed exclusive DLC.
 

MastaKiiLA

Member
Jun 11, 2020
1,735
3,270
400
Shouldnt bother them, yes. You said it’s good for those that invest in the platform, but it’s not. It’s the same as if everyone could play it
This assumes there are no positive ramifications for the platform manufacturer, which there clearly are, or there wouldn't be any benefit to these kinds of financial transactions. If exclusivity improved viability of the platform, then it has greater long-term benefits for the userbase. The conclusion that there is no benefit for anyone seems extremely flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubenhimer

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
It benefits the people buying that platform because they get more games, and games that can potentially leverage the system's unique capabilities. Plus, it's a plus for indie studios, as they get an extra layer of financial security when making the game.

But as I said, it sucks for the people not on that platform because they have to wait longer for games, get potentially worse versions, and sometimes the game may not even come at all.

What I'm saying is that its a double edge sword. There's both a good and bad things to it.

It was generally known Deathloop was going to loop Be mutliplat. Now Xbox players can’t play it. PS has no extra games. It’s the same for them as when it was multiplat. It’s not an extra game.




This assumes there are no positive ramifications for the platform manufacturer, which there clearly are, or there wouldn't be any benefit to these kinds of financial transactions. If exclusivity improved viability of the platform, then it has greater long-term benefits for the userbase. The conclusion that there is no benefit for anyone seems extremely flawed.

Benefit to a platform holder is not benefit to the consumer.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: CatLady

RetroAV

Member
Dec 25, 2019
152
364
410
Never been a fan of 3rd party exclusivity deals. 1st parties should fight their own battles themselves.
 

dr guildo

Member
Dec 2, 2006
2,904
579
1,375
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

All of those things are true...
...until you get on the good boat.
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
It was generally known Deathloop was going to loop Be mutliplat. Now Xbox players can’t play it. PS has no extra games. It’s the same for them as when it was multiplat. It’s not an extra game.
No platforms were mentioned when Deathloop was revealed. It may have been assumed it'd be multiplatform, but the game must've been early enough in development that no actual next gen platforms were decided on just yet. In which case, it'd be a example of doing exclusive deals the right way. Sony caught the devs early enough in development and asked them if they were interested in making the game for PS5 first, and Arkane/Bethesda accepted the offer.

Another example of doing it the right way is with Dead Rising 3. The team was having trouble realizing their vision on last gen hardware, and Microsoft made the offer to have them develop the game on the more powerful Xbox One, in exchange for exclusivity (and mandated Kinect and Smartglass support).
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Member
Jun 12, 2018
4,160
13,561
670
So OP, since Xbox has the marketing for CP2077 and also possibly Elden RIng, is it safe to assume you would cheer for MS being pro-consumer if they used their DEEP pockets to keep those games of PS5 for a year or two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iced Arcade

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
So OP, since Xbox has the marketing for CP2077 and also possibly Elden RIng, is it safe to assume you would cheer for MS being pro-consumer if they used their DEEP pockets to keep those games of PS5 for a year or two?

It depends, if they made those deals early enough in development for the game to make them exclusive from the onset, then it'd be pro-consumer for those who buy Xbox. But in this case, those games already have publicly announced platforms, so it'd be an Epic situation, where Microsoft would be ripping these games away from platforms they were originally announced for no actual reason.

The only way that'd be acceptable is if it was another Dead Rising 3 scenario, where the team was very early in development of the game and couldn't realize their ideas on current gen hardware.
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Member
Jun 12, 2018
4,160
13,561
670
It's better for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to use the piles upon piles of money they're sitting on top of to fund games and offer financial guarantees so a studio won't go under. That's good money, that's healthy money for the industry regardless of anything any neckbeard has to say. If exclusivity is the price to pay, it's still better than the alternative. PC folks just got used to Gaben hoarding all the Steam cash, Epic is a chinese spy but at least they're investing in actual games. It comes at the price of a malware being installed to your PC to watch you masturbate courtesy of Disney, but like I said, it's better than the alternative.

I do agree that this is a case where if exclusivity is the price to keep a studio from going under or game not coming out at all timed exclusivity is better than the alternative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubenhimer

Lionel Richie

Member
Jun 22, 2014
13,534
14,089
930
I do agree that this is a case where if exclusivity is the price to keep a studio from going under or game not coming out at all timed exclusivity is better than the alternative.

Yeah! It's rare for us to have a total blockbuster that isn't exclusive because publishers make "smarter" investments, while platform holders can go berserk and just shell out a crazy amount of money in any project. We don't get something in the scale of God of War, Last of Us 2 and Halo Infinite if those aren't done to sell something else (either a console or a service like Gamepass). Frankly the only non-exclusive studio that can go toe to toe with platform holders is Rockstar and that's for obvious reasons.

There's simply less money involved in making games if we don't have any exclusives. It is what it is.
 

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
Yeah! It's rare for us to have a total blockbuster that isn't exclusive because publishers make "smarter" investments, while platform holders can go berserk and just shell out a crazy amount of money in any project. We don't get something in the scale of God of War, Last of Us 2 and Halo Infinite if those aren't done to sell something else (either a console or a service like Gamepass). Frankly the only non-exclusive studio that can go toe to toe with platform holders is Rockstar and that's for obvious reasons.

There's simply less money involved in making games if we don't have any exclusives. It is what it is.

In terms of money poured into a game, Assassins Creed is pretty dang up their. Massive, massive teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

Lionel Richie

Member
Jun 22, 2014
13,534
14,089
930
In terms of money poured into a game, Assassins Creed is pretty dang up their. Massive, massive teams.

Good point, Ubisoft games in general are expansive. Even the yearly EA cancer like Fifa and Madden have a lot of people working on them. My point still stands though, there's more incentive for the platform holders to inject a lot of cash into the production of games. Exclusivity to a certain device is not ideal, but not getting that exclusive money would be worse.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Sep 4, 2018
18,552
36,228
885
40
I mean the egalitarian dream of a Netflix of Games is an impossibility given the state of copyrights. Even giant Hollywood studios & IP holders seem to be limited in what content they can show on their streaming services. Exclusive and gated content may be an evil but it is something foundational about the entertainment industry itself. Its not even a question of should companies do this but in what way will it be the most profitable for them. At least that’s the reality we have.

That said, they want to have people buy more games, so they try to use it to get that accomplished. Imo it promotes consuming more copies of a game. Since licensing and timed exclusives are a fact of life, they can be used to play a game early in a lesser state before it appears in a remastered or deluxe version.

For a game you really like, it may be worth it. I got Death Stranding when it came out and actually bought a PS4 Pro to play it on release. Now I am looking forward to the PC release, because I enjoyed it so much and have been thinking about playing it again. Now I will have an excuse to do so and also get graphical upgrades and various bells and whistles alongside it. To me as a consumer that is just more options to enjoy what I like. I really don’t see how it punishes anyone, games are a luxury item after all, and purchasing the three main consoles is not that expensive a proposition. In an ideal world every thing would be free and open source and play on every system. You wouldn’t have to spend any resources to port everything would just work. Fantasy land.

I don’t know, I grew up in the 80s, when Ms-DOS and PC compatibility was a big deal. You never knew what graphics you would get (they sold different graphic modes as different physical copies) and the audio could be very different between sound cards. Cross platform compatibility is really more of a recent development. Some of that idealistic socialism creeping in lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Jubenhimer

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
5,594
8,287
885
23
Earth
Good point, Ubisoft games in general are expansive. Even the yearly EA cancer like Fifa and Madden have a lot of people working on them. My point still stands though, there's more incentive for the platform holders to inject a lot of cash into the production of games. Exclusivity to a certain device is not ideal, but not getting that exclusive money would be worse.

Id agree, when 1st parties act as publishers to find games, it’s good, even when it’s technically not a 1st party studio, like with Spider-Man which was before the acquisition. I don’t think anybody really has too much of an issue with that. It’s the bought exclusivity of what are well and truly multi-plat titles to fill out weak 1st/2nd party lineups that sucks
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Lionel Richie

VN1X

Member
Apr 21, 2016
1,706
2,749
770
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.
What? FIFA would be the perfect example of showcasing that people (the masses in any case) aren't fanboys. They'd just buy FIFA on whatever platform it is available on. If Microsoft came out in July saying "we own FIFA now" then the internet would be set ablaze but the broad majority of consumers wouldn't give a fuck.

-"oh FIFA's only on the new XBOX now?"
-"Yeah and the XBOX is even cheaper than the PS5 as well"
-"Word??"
-"Yeah mainnnnnn"
-"Wanna smoke a blunt and play Real Madrid vs Liverpool?"
-"Ayyyyy lmaoooo"
etc etc

^tru fax
 
Last edited:

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,301
2,751
655
Like I said, it sucks for non-Xbox players, but it's good for those who invested in Xbox.
There is zero benefit, the customers of that box get to play the game whether it's exclusive or not.

Unless, of course, that customer gets a sad little thrill in knowing that other gamers won't have access. That would be a tad pathetic though, wouldn't it?
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
Unless, of course, that customer gets a sad little thrill in knowing that other gamers won't have access. That would be a tad pathetic though, wouldn't it?
Like I said, it definitely sucks for those who have to wait for it to come to their system. Timed exclusivity as I said, is a double edged sword. You get to give your consumers first access to a game, but with catch being a more restricted audience.
 

Redlight

Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,301
2,751
655
Like I said, it definitely sucks for those who have to wait for it to come to their system. Timed exclusivity as I said, is a double edged sword. You get to give your consumers first access to a game, but with catch being a more restricted audience.
The game would exist without any intervention and all gamers would have access.
You don't 'give' anything to your customers, you spend money to deny access to other people. There is no benefit to any gamer, only to corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turtlepowa

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
The game would exist without any intervention and all gamers would have access.
You don't 'give' anything to your customers, you spend money to deny access to other people. There is no benefit to any gamer, only to corporations.
Not always. If you're ripping an already completed game away from its announced platforms just to gain an artificial advantage, then yeah that's shitty. However, if you're helping a smaller developer get their game off the ground in exchange for timed exclusivity on console, than that's not so shitty. It all depends on the nature of the deal.

I agree that its anti-consumer in the sense that it prevents other platform owners from playing the game at launch, or if it's a deal like the former I mentioned. But if your game is early in development, and the platform holder asks if your interested if launching first on their console, complete with the opportunity to get the game out faster and leverage the system's capabilities, then it's a different story.
 
Last edited:

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
10,919
2,223
1,660
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
I think OP has some really valid points. Like it or not exclusives timed or even third party give people a reason to purchase a console over the competition and differentiates the platforms from each other.

First party games isn’t always enough especially if you can’t churn them out at a fast rate. If people want exclusives to go away, then why not just have one primary console with no competition? Multiple consoles with a handful of exclusives and very similar architecture would be essentially pointless and even boring imho. Look how well Stadia is doing. Oh wait, you can basically play 95% of the library on other platforms. Besides the streaming capabilities, does it really stand out?

I understand that timed exclusives, stealing an exclusive and exclusives in general can frustrate people, but I feel they do that mostly to persuade consumers to purchase their console over everyone else’s. It also makes companies try harder and from what I’ve seen, motivates them to create better, exclusive experiences and really push hardware capabilities. Why do you think Nintendo is still relevant today with weaker hardware? Software and exclusive experiences.

Lastly, it depends on the nature of the deal. Something like Final Fantasy 16 or Tekken 8 timed exclusive on PlayStation could make sense while something like GTA6 on Switch exclusive or Persona 6 on Xbox wouldn’t make as much sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jubenhimer

DrScissorsMD

Banned
Apr 3, 2020
484
952
405
Lmao JFC, your argument is literally “it’s only anti-consumer if it effects you negatively. Just buy a PS5”.
 

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
8,168
6,771
700
But Sony's not doing that, at least as far as we know.
They are making exclusives (timely or permanent) third partiy series that were multiplatform games to begin with.

Microsoft probably won't resort to this, but sometimes I would like to see them say "fuck it" and throw all their money at all these third party series people enjoy on all consoles to make them permanent Xbox exclusives, and see the world burn.

We already had a few exemples in the past with Bayonetta 2 on Wii U and RotTR on Xbox One. What a shit-show it was. Going trhough the forums to see the mountains of salt was actually more fun than playing the games.
 
Last edited:

theclaw135

Member
Oct 1, 2014
1,462
558
560
Good or bad aside... paid exclusives at the right time, in the right place, can be industry defining. Would GTA 3 have had the same impact it did if multiplatform at launch?
 
Jun 15, 2019
1,785
3,058
435
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.
WHAT!? WHAT THE FUCK!! HOW!?
How exactly is stopping Xbox and PC gamers from playing games for completely arbitrary lengths of time "pro-consumer" for PlayStation fan(boy)s? It's not like delaying the other versions, potentially permanently, is going to get the game into your hands any sooner or cheaper. Get outta here with this 4D retardation.
 

D.Final

Banned
Oct 18, 2018
5,111
2,782
620
Marketing

I think that, into a society perspective, it is one of the most basic moves for easily attract more gamers to one specific console.
But, from the other side of coin, this is the exactly the exact moment when you have to choose if follow your love, or wait for choose others possibile opinions, even just waiting for seeing how the thing they evolve in the coming years.
 
Mar 17, 2020
1,311
4,374
490
Saudi Arabia
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.
What is anti consumer here? Xbox and PC users are not sony's consumers. Thus Sony cannot be anti consumer. Same goes for Microsoft and Nintendo. These companies are making these deal to secure their consumers. It leads to competition and greater variety of games.