Console Exclusives: Are you for or against them & why?

[function]

Paying for platform exclusivity for a series that used to be available on other platforms is incredibly evil, and something that only Microsooo ..... oh.

It's something Sony have always done, since they first got into this business. And MS too. And Nintendo. And Sega would probably have done it too, if they'd ever had the money.

Businesses being businesses. At least we can ditch all the Moral Superiority and Microsoft Slammin', at least for a while. Everyone's shit stinks for the next person coming into the bathroom, but everyone drops dem bombs.

 

[Billy Idol]

ha ha ha function, you really love Microsoft...go get a room you two!! lol

 

[function]

Yep, love them so much I'm saying they're no better or worse than Sony or Nintendo. And I love Xbox One so much I don't even have one despite Halo MCC being out.

It took an impartial PS4 fan like yourself to spot it though! Ha ha ha thnx, great discussion Billy.

 

[DJ12]

Bit of a difference paying for a exclusivity and actively helping in it's development though function even your eyes should see that.

 

[function]

You mean like Microsoft with Titanfall? And Microsoft with Tomb Raider?

Because Capcom couldn't develop a Street Fighter game without Sony's assistance, right?

The double standards are insane.

 

[Tap In]

yea the hypocrisy that it's ok when Sony does it but immoral when MS does it is palpable

 

[Billy Idol]

Yep, love them so much I'm saying they're no better or worse than Sony or Nintendo. And I love Xbox One so much I don't even have one despite Halo MCC being out.

It took an impartial PS4 fan like yourself to spot it though! Ha ha ha thnx, great discussion Billy.

ha ha ha, you are welcome mr function!

Btw, read the first posts in this thread and my opinion about Sony stealing this game from X1 only users ;-)

 

[Scott_Arm]

If it takes a partnership for the game to get made, then I'd rather see it come out as an exclusive then not get made at all.

 

[djskribbles]

Ono said THEY approached Sony, so this was a partnership deal from the beginning. This is perhaps closer to Titanfall than it is Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider was a multi-platform title in the beginning and later changed to a timed exclusive. I was far more upset that Tomb Raider wasn't coming to PS4 than Titanfall.

 

[DrJay24]

yea the hypocrisy that it's ok when Sony does it but immoral when MS does it is palpable

Most of the net has been able to not draw the false equivalency, but I guess there are always a few no matter the forums. Where was the outrage for the Dead Rising 3 deal? That's right, Tomb Raider, as far as anyone knows now, is an unique situation and thus the outrage.

 

[DJ12]

yea the hypocrisy that it's ok when Sony does it but immoral when MS does it is palpable

If the two situations were the same then then I could understand the rectums being in discomfort, but they aren't.

But carry on regardless, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

yea the hypocrisy that it's ok when Sony does it but immoral when MS does it is palpable

I hate these gestalt observations. If an individual complained about MS securing TR and then that same individual is okay with Sony securing DF, than by all means complain about hypocrisy. But if one individual grumbles about MS and then shuts up and says nothing about Sony, and a different individual trumpets Sony's support, then that isn't hypocrisy - it's two different people having different opinions and sharing them at different times.

Regards SF exclusivity, with both titles it's odd and against expectations that any dev would take a popular long-term platform-agnostic and make it platform exclusive. In the case of TR, that seems to be a timed exclusive which is understandable. At this point are probably guessing the same of SF and perhaps the general gamer populace is a little less riled by the move?

Either way, I'd really like some journos to investigate and give a proper report to help people understand and apportion blame as needed where appropriate - is it a fault of "greedy console companies money-hatting exclusives", or are devs needing to turn to exclusivity deals to help with the business of making games because the industry's becoming increasingly difficult?

 

[joker454]

Capcom are in considerable financial trouble, yes. They had a poor 2013 and have released very little this year to turn things around.

Ahhh, well ok that could explain it. I didn't realize they were in such a position. I presume exclusivity will also give Capcom a healthy dose of marketing and exposure as well.

 

[function]

If the two situations were the same then then I could understand the rectums being in discomfort, but they aren't.

But carry on regardless, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Feel free point out these game-changing facts.

EDIT:

Wait, I got one! MS put money into the game in exchange for rival platforms not getting the game for a few months.

Sony, on the other hand, put money into the game in exchange for Microsoft console owners never getting the game.

When you look at it this way, I guess ... err ...

 

[djskribbles]

How about you point to some facts that show that Sony paid for the exclusivity of SFV? Ono said himself at PSX that they approached Sony. Other than that, we have no details of the deal.

And why are you comparing Tomb Raider to SFV when it's not the same at all? Name one time Sony did something similar to MS in regards to the Tomb Raider situation.

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
Either way, I'd really like some journos to investigate and give a proper report to help people understand and apportion blame as needed where appropriate - is it a fault of greedy console companies money-hatting exclusives, or are devs needing to turn to exclusivity deals to help with the business of making games because the industry's becoming increasingly difficult?

Not a big fan of this language: "Greedy console companies money-hatting exclusives"

I hate to break it to you, but all huge international businesses, like Sony and Microsoft are "greedy" as you'd put it, but that's not a bad thing. I don't meant that in the Wall Street, "Greed is good," sense, but they're businesses, and they have to make money to stay afloat, earn money to make more/better products, pay their employees etc. There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying exclusives. If people get upset about it, it's their fault for being naive enough to believe a multi-national corporation is making games for altruistic reasons. Buying an exclusive is not being greedy. It's just running a business.

 

[Scott_Arm]

How about you point to some facts that show that Sony paid for the exclusivity of SFV? Ono said himself at PSX that they approached Sony. Other than that, we have no details of the deal.

And why are you comparing Tomb Raider to SFV when it's not the same at all? Name one time Sony did something similar to MS in regards to Tomb Raider.

This is so stupid. So, if the publisher approaches Sony/Microsoft to make a game exclusive, even if the title has been multiplatform in the past, it's ok, but if the console maker approaches the publisher, it's totally wrong. In the end, both would be a partnership with agreed between the publisher and platform, with benefits going both ways. If you think there's any practical difference between the two situations, I think you're blinded by some kind of personal bias.

 

[djskribbles]

It's not really right either way. But I think less of Sony or MS for approaching third-parties and securing exclusivity deals. Although there are no facts that prove this, I think MS does this far more often than Sony does.

It really pissed me off when Tomb Raider was announced to be a timed exclusive because PS (and PC for that matter) greatly helped launch the Tomb Raider franchise, and has always sold better on PS. To become an XB exclusive made absolute no sense to me.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's not really right either way. But I think less of Sony or MS for approaching third-parties and securing exclusivity deals. Although there are no facts that prove this, I think MS does this far more often than Sony does.

I still don't get it. Do you think it's worth for a platform holder to approach a publisher about exclusivity than the other way around?

 

[MrFox]

Here we go again. Wheeeeeee !!!!!

False equivalence
Playing the victim
Claiming double standard
Claiming hypocrisy
Generalization of an entire group

I see a bit of this scattered in the last few pages, so please anyone feel free to quote me as you see fit to support the above claims, because my opinion didn't change since my first post which can be found here:
Console Exclusives: Are you for or against them & why?

I'm against SF4 timed-exclusivity and it's not clear to me if Sony is to blame, or Capcom, or both. But it was probably part of the SF5 co-production deal (anyone disagree?). It's unimportant because SF4 is just a timed-exclusivity of an old has-been title. In terms of market impact, which is what I care about when exclusivity is involved, I see this as inconsequential. It's as relevant as any DD-only title having some timed exclusivity on either PSN or XB Live, which there are plenty.

The important title here is SF5. Capcom said they went fishing for exclusivity, and I give Sony the same benefit of the doubt as Heavy Rain, Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive. More importantly, Capcom said clearly that they are co-producing the title with Sony, so I don't see how this can be considered money-hatting.

The comparison with TR is wrong. It has merit in the sense that it's a known franchise where the exclusivity is profitable to grab some existing fanbase, but TR was new reboot that created an on-going storyline, while SF have been almost exactly the same for the last 20 years (it's like the 12 different editions of Start Wars). TR is NOT co-produced by MS, they have nothing to do with the title and it's a timed-exclusivity anyway, so once again the double standard claim rely on a false equivalence.

The biggest problem with TR announcement was that both parties involved played the PR bullshit of a car salesman, and it's not happening here. There was also no ambiguity about the timed-exclusivity status for SF4, and they said clearly on stage that SF5 is coming on PC and that it's a co-production with Sony. For them to say it's coming on PC on stage at a Sony-only event means it's nowhere near the crap about "geez I don't know if it's ever coming on other consoles, it's not my job". Here, we don't have the sick impression of hush money and manipulative PR. The statements were clear.

With that said, Capcom is already hated by many playstation fans for their fucking batshit crazy DRM they tried on PS3. They have a steep hill to regain some kind of reputation, as far as I'm concerned. I have a powerful PC and a PS4, and they can go to hell. I'm still grumpy about this, maybe I will have cooled down by the time it comes out, who knows.