Pretty much... when they went exclusive to Xbox, I said I wouldn't buy any TR games and I have not till this day.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!
"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%
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!
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Not true. Increased viability of a platform directly benefits the user of said platform. Just ask 3DO, Jaguar, Dreamcast and 32X users.Benefit to a platform holder is not benefit to the consumer.
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
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.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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.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.
There is zero benefit, the customers of that box get to play the game whether it's exclusive or not.Like I said, it sucks for non-Xbox players, but it's good for those who invested in Xbox.
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.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?
The game would exist without any intervention and all gamers would have access.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.
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.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.
They are making exclusives (timely or permanent) third partiy series that were multiplatform games to begin with.But Sony's not doing that, at least as far as we know.
WHAT!? WHAT THE FUCK!! HOW!?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 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.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.