Third Party Software Exclusivity Practices
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Well this thread took an unexpected turn all of a sudden. Much better topic of conversation, please do elaborate!
MS started it? LOL.
Dude...During the 80s if you wanted to develop a NES/SNES game, you generally had to agree to make that title exclusive to the NES/SNES for at least two years or Nintendo wouldn't allow your game on their system. Instead of paying for exclusivity they strong-armed devs into it using the popularity of their consoles as leverage.
This generation and next it currently looks like the status quo is going to be maintained.
Personality I don't care if companies go for exclusives, may be because I don't buy or play enough games for me to care. Or I just think its all fair game.
So taking the so called moral highroad in my eyes just means your not doing something that could expand your userbase when others are.
Personality I don't care if companies go for exclusives, may be because I don't buy or play enough games for me to care. Or I just think its all fair game.
So taking the so called moral highroad in my eyes just means your not doing something that could expand your userbase when others are.
Technically it’s the same product.
Sony will get a (free?) Spidey DLC some time in 2021.
Bit of a stretch to call it an inferior product, and why should the X version be any cheaper. It’s a DLC, months after the full game is out.
The fact that one can not play as a highly popular and favorite character except on one platform makes it inferior on all others. It doesn't seem like it's timed exclusive either, so no hope to ever play on any other platform.
I doubt there would be as much flak if the character was someone like Hawkeye, or if it was timed exclusive for say a few months.
I'd rather they keep the entire game as exclusive and than 9 to 12 months later when it releases on PC and XBox they have all characters available.
They also can’t play Spider-Man (the PS4 game). Because Sony has their hands on the character rights. This really isn’t some sort of conspiracy. If Nintendo could put Zelda characters in an imaginary and very weird version of this game, would people be complaining this much?
No. Marvel still owns the rights to the character in video games.
Though I don't doubt there was some pretty extensive contracts setup for console game and the Spider-Man character when they opted for the Spider-Man Miles Morales title.
It's still a shitty move for the fans who have every right to be disappointed.
AND I paid FULL PRICE for Rise of the Tomb Raider, a one year old game that was kept from PS gamers. For one whole year. Still bitter, see??
At least you got to play as Lara Croft! Imagine if you could only play as her assistants or field researchers. That's how large of a character Spider-Man is for some in the Marvel fandom.
AND I obviously won’t be playing Hellblade 2, unless I buy an Xbox. Also bitter about that.
How is this different?
How is this different?
I know you’re joking but that’s not really a correct ANALogy, is it.
The Marvel fandom obsessed with Spider-Man would have a PS4 already to play Spider-Man. If they don’t, they’re not that obsessed, they’re not that bothered about the Avengers game and this outrage is all balls.
See my previous reply earlier in this topic as to what I prefer and how I view things.
I saw it but it feels like some here are picking and choosing what to be fake-outraged about and what to ignore.
None of the previous Marvel Ultimate Alliance games suffered a release without Spider-Man. This time around it's so arbitrary as to what platform gets what characters.
Personally, this latest Marvel Avengers game looks all kinds of horrible anyways.
They need all the positive coverage they can get, so going so early on with the news of artificial limitations seems an odd marketing choice. From a business marketing aspect, they should have waited until after release and then teased the Spider-Man exclusive DLC free on Sony platforms. Then sell it for $10 on all other platforms. Sure it would piss some off, but not nearly as much as never ever being able to play as a foundational marvel super-hero.
I picked my platform 3 generations ago when I could play Spiderman on the original Xbox. When the 360 came out I could still play him. Every Spider-Man console game has been on the Xbox platform until the PS4 exclusive versions. I'm vested in the Xbox platform enough that buying another platform just to play just Spider-Man isn't economically feasible. So I will use my right to speak with my wallet & not play or buy any versions of Spider-Man until it's on my platform of choice.
Tommy McClain
Tommy McClain
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
While there were some games that were more difficult to port, there were plenty that were not. Atari and 8-bit computer games were often developed in weeks-to-a-couple-of-months with the larger games developed by larger publishers (US Gold, Gremlin Graphics, Melbourne House, Epyx etc) having different people do different ports. Take a look at Archer McLean and look at the number of games he developed and the number of platforms with most porting being done by him. Likewise other prolific 1980s devs like Andrew Braybrook, who also documented the development of several of his games in ZZap!64.
Yes, this is about business and profits. I don't want to shock you but everybody in the videogame business is trying to run and business with the goal of making profits.
I don't what you source is for the "purchasing exclusivity now for the sake of profits"? Are you saying licensing the Spider-Man IP cost Sony more than they made in profits from selling the game? I'd love to see data on this or other games. I'm sure it has happened but I can't accept this a universal truth without substantive evidence to support it.Again, I only challenge the "expectation" angle. Gamers should not be expecting all content on all platforms to be the same, especially not with licensed content which carries additional costs because that's not how licensing works. Sony licensing the Spider-Man IP to make their PS4 game is exactly what Atari did with their Spider-Man game for the 2600. I am expecting the Marvel Avengers game Spider-man DLC to be a low-effort thing. I've caught some of the beta impressions of the game and something that comes across is that there are few gameplay differences between the Avengers characters - indeed it sounds similar to the Lego Marvel Avengers/Super Heroes games where everybody has a close attack, ranged attack, dodge/evade and so on. The devs will drop in the PS4 model and skin from Insomniac's Spider-Man game, toss in some low-effort animations, record some voice work in a day and call it a low-key effort job done well.
Not all IP holders will be willing to play ball. This year we saw the MLB adopt the position that they would only extend Sony's MLB licence if Sony developed Switch and Xbox versions from next year so that's what is going to happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
The main character, can't remember her name seems to have a swinging like action also,
So could be the basis there.
It doesn't need to be full franchises, it's the ongoing exclusivity that Sony has been pursuing in general and a lot longer than month early content, with then some thrown in like this spiderman one that people seem to have issues with.
Personally I just think that, if xbox isn't doing it also, blame them at this point. But like I said I rarely(if ever) see a problem in exclusivity.
It's not like these are new entrents or startups trying to get a foot hold in the industry. Even stadia isn't short on money to cut deals.
I know I come across as the most anti consumer person around, but it works, people will not boycott, its not remotely illegal, Sony shows no signs of backing down.
MS is now interested in making full exclusives by investing in their own studios. Nothing wrong with that and is the right thing to do, but there's something to be said about 3P exclusive /content.
Also as I said before, my view is probably very much based on someone who won't be playing any of these games anyway.
