Spiderman Exclusivity lack-of-fallout thread *spawn

[Shortbread]

No-one's saying it should be freebies for a social cause.The complainers are saying it's stupid to add signficant additional cost of entry when that's completely unnecessary.

Ok, it's stupid - then what? Complain more-and-more until Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, UBI, Activision, etc... stop purchasing exclusive IPs or development houses on securing these exclusives!? These organizations are doing what's natural within the business culture on defining their products/services of making them more attractive to current and future customers.

When they break antitrust laws - I'm all for complaining and waging a good fight. However, as of now, securing exclusive games isn't one of them.

I've pointed out it's bad for the environment.

Yes. Like everthing else that produces heat, waste, consumes, takes up space, etc...

I'm all for saving and protecting our environment... I spent (donated) personally thousands of dollars on doing so. Even having our organization, along with others, on growing more green-rooftops all across parts of the city.

I've pointed out that no other hobbies require you to buy two sets of hardware to do the same thing based on when/where you play.

I don't necessarily agree with this. There are plenty of hobbies that require cross-purchases of the same product (depending on the level of the hobby and/or what you consider to be a hobby). Golfing for one, is one of those hobbies that requires a lot of cross-purchases... I should know. I can't complain my favorite set of golf-clubs (Cleveland's in this case ) doesn't have a certain alloy, material, tempering, etc... on driving balls further or more accurately. So, I must purchase from other companies (product lines) on meeting my needs.

I've pointed out that even if you can comfortably afford a second console, that's still $300 you could have spent elsewhere that you technically needn't have spent, and other software mediums gravitate towards open standards without expensive hardware entry costs.

We'll have to agree to disagree on how people should or shouldn't do with their money. Personally, having the option of multiple systems keeps things fresh, and covers my bases on the exclusive titles across them all.

But the counterargument is always, "that's just the way it is. Stop complaining!" without a single objective argument or opposing counterpoint to the above!

It's not so much the complaining that erks me... it's the complainers who hide behind brand-loyalty (one platform), that create the most noise of unfairness. And for those who aren't brand-loyalist, but think it's unfair, then don't support the industry at all. Because whatever game console that you're gaming on - they're doing the same thing that you loathe.

Make your money speak towards the things you support...

 

[Scott_Arm]

No-one's saying it should be freebies for a social cause. The complainers are saying it's stupid to add signficant additional cost of entry when that's completely unnecessary. I've pointed out it's bad for the environment. I've pointed out that no other hobbies require you to buy two sets of hardware to do the same thing based on when/where you play. I've pointed out that even if you can comfortably afford a second console, that's still $300 you could have spent elsewhere that you technically needn't have spent, and other software mediums gravitate towards open standards without expensive hardware entry costs.

But the counterargument is always, "that's just the way it is. Stop complaining!" without a single objective argument or opposing counterpoint to the above!

If you don't want to support exclusives, then stop buying platform exclusives and showing great interest in them online. That's all you can do. Sure, exclusives suck, because you end up having to get your hands on more than one system. Gamers love exclusives, so the platforms will keep making them. Hell, looking at the dummies who are upset that Xbox will no longer have exclusives because they'll be available on PC. They're not losing anything. They're just upset more people are going to be able to play the games, I guess.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are plenty of hobbies that require cross-purchases of the same product (depending on the level of the hobby and/or what you consider to be a hobby). Golfing for one, is one of those hobbies that requires a lot of cross-purchases.

Are there any courses that refuse entry if you aren't using a certain brand of golf club. Do/would people be okay with that if so? How about Amazon buying up the best golf courses in your area and forcing you to buy Amazon Whacksticks before you can play - you'd just buy them without any criticism?

If you don't want to support exclusives, then stop buying platform exclusives and showing great interest in them online. That's all you can do.

Why shouldn't we voice complaint as well? Talking about it could perhaps make others aware and start a movement of change. Saying nothing will change nothing. Heck, even having this conversation we get the point raised, "don't buy exclusives" which perhaps someone wouldn't have thought about if this conversation, spawned from complaint, hadn't gone ahead.

I don't understand the calls to stop open discussion. I don't see any benefit what-so-ever. If it's a discussion that irks one, walk away.

edit: In fact, I throw your guys arguments back at you. "Companies buy exclusives. That's the way it is. Stop complaining." Well, "people complain. That's the way it is. Stop complaining about complaining."

 

[Shortbread]

Why on earth should we work harder and make things more complicated needlessly instead of making life simpler and comfortable?

Why on earth should we go to College and endure more complicated work, than sitting on our asses making life simpler and comfortable? Because life and society requires work (most of the time hard work) on achieving a certain lifestyle, income level, and especially covering our needs and wants. As Scott_Arm, and I have stated, gaming is a luxury, that requires a certain income level to begin with.

I dont care how most services and products work. MOST doesnt define "right". In many cases MOST can define whats actually wrong on planet Earth

Then support your cause correctly. Don't spend your money on products/services that you feel are wrong.

I can't complain about child endangerment, rights violations, poor wages of China, Taiwan, Brazil, etc... then turnaround and purchase Apple, Sony, Microsoft, or whoever else, products and services, knowing their business practices.

Life isn't always practical or fair... sometimes you have to roll with the punches and make do with the options that are given.

 

[Shortbread]

Are there any courses that refuse entry if you aren't using a certain brand of golf club.

I haven't ran into any personally... but that's not to say, there aren't any. For the most part, you pay, you play.

Do/would people be okay with that if so? How about Amazon buying up the best golf courses in your area and forcing you to buy Amazon Whacksticks before you can play - you'd just buy them without any criticism?

Then I wouldn't support something that I don't agree with... as simple as that. If I was an Amazon loyalists - then I wouldn't care either way. But since I'm not a brand-loyalists, I'll make do with other choices.

 

[Scott_Arm]

...
Why shouldn't we voice complaint as well? Talking about it could perhaps make others aware and start a movement of change. Saying nothing will change nothing. Heck, even having this conversation we get the point raised, "don't buy exclusives" which perhaps someone wouldn't have thought about if this conversation, spawned from complaint, hadn't gone ahead.

I don't understand the calls to stop open discussion. I don't see any benefit what-so-ever. If it's a discussion that irks one, walk away.

edit: In fact, I throw your guys arguments back at you. "Companies buy exclusives. That's the way it is. Stop complaining." Well, "people complain. That's the way it is. Stop complaining about complaining."

I think the people who were acting like they'd be wronged by the Tomb Raider situation were acting like children. I have no problem with people saying, "Hey, I wish companies would stop making exclusives, so I'm not going to buy them anymore." That's great, if that's what you want to do. But the emotional outbursts from people upset about Tomb Raider, or whatever game, I just don't think it has any merit. As for complaining about exclusives, I don't know if it'll do much good. Most people, myself included, buy them. Most gamers celebrate them. They watch E3 to see what Microsoft and Sony are going to show. The same people upset about situations like Tomb Raider will publicly masturbate over the exclusives on their favourite platform, whether it's Halo or Uncharted. Exclusivity is only a problem for them when they don't get to play the game they want to play, otherwise it's ideal because they get to fly the flag. Anyone that actually wants to try to change the industry and get rid of exclusives all together. Good on them. Just don't act like an entitled child while doing so. Gaming is a luxury for the wealthy, so I don't feel much sympathy for anyone who has to miss out on a few games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree with almost everything you've said except the latter. Gaming is a luxury accessible to the poor* IMO. The only cheaper pasttimes are loitering and TV (in UK at least where there's no cable cost). Pretty much everything else costs considerably more per hour, especially if you are frugal with your software purchasing.

* lacking dispoable income, whether young or living in a high-cost area or low income area, etc.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I will qualify my statement about gaming being an activity for the wealthy by saying that if you can afford an HD tv, a console and games while putting a roof over your head and food on your table, then you may not be considered wealthy in many developed countries, but relative to the world you are. For context, the global median household income is something like $10K USD, and there are are something like 7.5 billion people in the world. That's not to say I think we should all go around just accepting everything as is, because other people are worse off, but I do think a little perspective is in order when people get really upset about video games.

 

[bunge]

I always knew the only reason there was an outcry was because Microsoft were doing it. That if Sony had done it, there would be almost no complaints. And this just proves it.

Wasn't Rise of the Tomb Raider already announced and expected on multiple platforms when it went 'exclusive'?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I will qualify my statement about gaming being an activity for the wealthy by saying that if you can afford an HD tv, a console and games while putting a roof over your head and food on your table, then you may not be considered wealthy in many developed countries, but relative to the world you are.

I think it fairly obvious that when talking about 'poor' in relation to gaming and software, we're talking about folk in the markets where these devices are sold en masse. I was born and raised in an affluent part of an affluent country. My dad earned well over the median world income of the time, but we had no money to do anything and gaming on computer and later console, one of the few possessions bought new and played on donated TVs while wearing donated clothes sa ton donated furniture, was how we passed our time.

Uncharted 4 has ~20 hours gamplay excluding online. For a £50 game, that's £2.50 per hour.
Witcher 3 is 100 hours. At £50, that's £0.50 per hour.
Tomb Raider is 20 hours. £2.50 per hour, unless you have to buy a £300 console just for that game...

Even though price per hour is so relatively low, people still look at game length for economy reasons.

And regardless of relative wealth, I don't know many folk for whom money isn't so plentiful that they're happy with the idea of spending an additional £300 to gain nothing when they could buy so many other things with that money. That's the key point - you spend money to gain no benefit when a game can run on your existing hardware. If you buy a platform for its special features like Kinect, you gain unique value from it. But when it's a bit of software that could run on your console but doesn't, buying a new console nets you nothing.

This isn't even a complaint against exclusives, as companies funding exclusives that wouldn't otherwise get made bring value to their platform without depriving the other. It's just buying up content that was going to be multiplat that is super-sucky and IMO uncalled for. Compete in other areas.

 

[Phil]

I really don't know how you jumped to that conclusion. You have a choice to either purchase "A" or "B" console or work a little bit harder on owning both. If this concept is unacceptable... then I'm living on the wrong planet. Because the planet that I live on, planet Earth, most services and products work that way. Why is this concept so hard to understand with some gamers?

You completely missed the crucial bit about all this exclusivity talk. There are two sides to it. One is the emotional side that you seem to be arguing against, but there's also the other argument, that being from a business perspective. Reality is, the market is not made up of people willing to buy multiple consoles. Some gamers do, but the large majority doesn't. Some don't due to financial reasons, but I suspect the much bigger reason for not buying multiple consoles is much simpler: it's not convenient. You don't buy multiple smartphones either (or rarely, and if you do, you wouldn't be carry them around at the same time), at least not those that actually use the phone for its intended purpose. Some might prefer an iPhone, some an Android. Both have undoubtedly pros and cons, but people still usually choose one that offers the better compromise in their view. It's the same with consoles too. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose to go for one over the other. Both have exclusives, but why buy two devices for when 90% of the software run on both and not everyone cares for the 10% that doesn't? And then to get the 'other console' because that 1 game, that 0.001% runs on only one console? Thanks, but no thanks.

And no, neither the latest Tomb Raider nor the new Spiderman game will justify that in my opinion, but everyone has to judge that for themselves. Shifty covered pretty well what the issue was with the Tomb Raider game. Yes, there were a lot of emotions surrounding that exclusivity deal (more because it wasn't communicated properly), but beyond that, it also to many marked an extremely bad deal for the publisher who did that deal (on the other side, it was a brilliant move by MS, although one could argue that many fans for mad about it which can turn against you too). Even so, it was a good and interesting situation to discuss the possible impact.

My view has always been that the deal was good for Microsoft, but bad for the franchise. If you cater to a market that has a userbase of 50 million potential buyers with game number 1, but then bring out game number 2 for a console with a very limited market of very few potential buyers, you are simply limiting your fanbase. And even if you simply bring out your game later to that other userbase where most of your fans were... well, there's no guarantee everyone will still go out and buy it. Consumers in general are fickle. We will see how well the new Tomb Raider will sell once it hits the PS4 and then will we know if this deal Square-Enix did a year ago hurt the Tomb Raider name in any way.

As for the Spiderman deal - looks to me like Marvel decided to bring exciting new Spiderman games to the PS4 under the hood of Insomniac. There's no doubt in my mind that these games will be exclusive to the PS4, just as exclusive as the Ratchet & Clank games were and are. Will that mean there will not be another Spiderman game on other platforms ever? That's virtually guaranteed to be impossible. Marvel wouldn't be stupid enough to sell a life-time exclusivity on an IP as strong as Spiderman. This is, if it is, timed (the IP if it is, not the games themselves by Insomniac which are pretty sure exclusive to Sony). If Microsoft has a enough money and wants fund their own Spiderman game in the future by their own dev, I'm sure they can get in contact with Marvel. And if they say yes pretty much depends if Sony has some kind of time exclusivity on the IP itself.

And even if they do - who cares that much about Spiderman? I certainly don't. I do care about Insomniac though, regardless if their game has Spidey, Wolverine or any other character on the cover.

 

[bgroovy]

Marvel has said quite explicitly that the future of Spider-man games is this exclusive PS4 franchise. Obviously that may not be in perpetuity, but they very clearly do not want to dilute the brand by having multiple takes from multiple devs. There will be no Activision tie-in games. There will be no competing Microsoft game.

 

[Nesh]

Why on earth should we go to College and endure more complicated work, than sitting on our asses making life simpler and comfortable? Because life and society requires work (most of the time hard work) on achieving a certain lifestyle, income level, and especially covering our needs and wants. As Scott_Arm, and I have stated, gaming is a luxury, that requires a certain income level to begin with.

Making life unnecessary complicated (such as being nothing more than a mindless materialistic hard working consumer) and doing things for personal development and growth are two different things if not opposite.
Being lazy and keeping things simple are also not the same.

Then support your cause correctly. Don't spend your money on products/services that you feel are wrong.

I can't complain about child endangerment, rights violations, poor wages of China, Taiwan, Brazil, etc... then turnaround and purchase Apple, Sony, Microsoft, or whoever else, products and services, knowing their business practices.

Life isn't always practical or fair... sometimes you have to roll with the punches and make do with the options that are given.

I have no idea what is your point. That societies shouldnt or cant improve beyond the current status quo?

 

[rabidrabbit]

I find it interesting that there isn't the same backlash for Sony doing this as there was for Rise of the Tomb Raider where the exact same things were said. I'm not surprised, of course, double standards and all. But it's certainly quite interesting. Especially when none of the parties involved with the Spiderman game are in such a state that they require outside help in order to finish a Spiderman game.

Yup. Amusing. I always knew the only reason there was an outcry was because Microsoft were doing it. That if Sony had done it, there would be almost no complaints. And this just proves it.

For a franchise that has even more multi-platform history than Tomb Raider. Yup.

Regards,
SB

Was there really that much backlash about RotTR xb exclusivity? I don't remember there being noticeably more complaints at last in these forums than for any other exclusive deal, regardless of the platform.
I recall the reaction to the RotTR was mostly indifferent. Not that many seemed to care as the game was still based on a cross gen title, not a true next gen game that most were hoping to play on their new consoles. Besides, the PS4 fans had Uncharted 4 to look forward to, that was a better than good enough substitute for RotTR
Maybe someone's memory is just being selective.

 

[Nesh]

Was there really that much backlash about RotTR xb exclusivity? I don't remember there being noticeably more complaints at last in these forums than for any other exclusive deal, regardless of the platform.
I recall the reaction to the RotTR was mostly indifferent. Not that many seemed to care as the game was still based on a cross gen title, not a true next gen game that most were hoping to play on their new consoles. Besides, the PS4 fans had Uncharted 4 to look forward to, that was a better than good enough substitute for RotTR
Maybe someone's memory is just being selective.

There was a backlash at the beginning cause MS was intentionally ambiguous. They didnt outright say "time exclusive". But once people were realizing the nature of its exclusivity they started to calm down. But at the beginning? People were really pissed off even if what they understood was based on a misinterpretation. I remember people asking on twiter multiple times about Tomb Raider and MS was still ambiguous with their replies
RotTR wouldnt have been tolerated as a 100% exclusive game on XBOX as much as Spiderman.

 

[orangpelupa]

maybe PC and Xbox players is more tolerant to exclusivity?
so when Spiderman goes to PS4 exclusive, most are fine.

because its been years that PS family (and Nintendo) have huge amount of exlcusive. While PC and Xbox accustomed to multiplatform games.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I don't quite get the meaning of this threads existence. The original poster, instead of complaining that the Spiderman is PS4 exclusive, he/she complains that there isn't enough complaints by Playstation fans for Spiderman being PS4 exclusive compared to complaints for RotTR being xbox exclusive

 

[bunge]

I don't quite get the meaning of this threads existence. The original poster, instead of complaining that the Spiderman is PS4 exclusive, he/she complains that there isn't enough complaints by Playstation fans for Spiderman being PS4 exclusive compared to complaints for RotTR being xbox exclusive

I believe it's called "trolling".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's a fair discussion. Given an apparently similar situation, why is the reaction different? Hopefully there's been enough explanation that SB appreciates it's not due to blind fanboyism.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't quite get the meaning of this threads existence. The original poster, instead of complaining that the Spiderman is PS4 exclusive, he/she complains that there isn't enough complaints by Playstation fans for Spiderman being PS4 exclusive compared to complaints for RotTR being xbox exclusive

Surely the complaints would be by Xbox owners without a PlayStation? As I said back in the Rise exclusivity fallout thread, exclusives have been a feature of games for a long time. Gamers just don't seem to learn. Rather, they hope the world will change