Not really apples to apples though...
Buying a startup, in order not to disrupt the market you are invested in because you can, is a lot different than paying someone to make your chairs with flashier cushions than the competition.
Not the same as to what is being discussed.
A better cushion wasn't made. Money was paid to
deny that cushion for their competitors to receive. They were supposed to receive it, but they cannot.
I see this as a way to differentiate products.
It is not good, it is not bad, it is what it is.
And even if I were to perceive this as a somehow atrocious practice, the blame should be shared with all parties involved.
So it would be equally atrocious for a developer to accept money from a publisher for such a practice, as it would be for said publisher to offer the money in the first place.
But honestly, it makes no sense to debate this still.
Every console manufacturer has done this in one form or the other for as long as they existed...
Gated Exclusivity is basically a simple practice of if I receive X dollars, will it make up for the downfall of lost sales on the other platforms. If the answer is overwhelmingly in favour of taking the money, then the money will be taken.
This has nothing to do with making the product better, that product that was built is being paid for to deny the rights of
The reason why there is so much 'damage control' around the practice is because in this day of age, outrage tends go from 0-100 very quickly and people can mobilize quickly very rapidly throwing your original calculations of exclusivity money vs loss sales out the door. This is why everyone does damage control around it. This is why studios do damage control, because they can lose way more sales than they expected.
If I'm being asked if I realize what is happening, the answer is of course yes. Exclusivity is a simple concept that has been employed everywhere. Gated Exclusivity, or denial of an equal product to your competitors, is pretty shitty practice that has also been employed.
Could you imagine the outrage if MS could pay a studio to ensure to deny the PS4 Pro version be only 1080p instead of 4K because MS wants to pay for 4K exclusivity? It would spark an outrageous amount of backlash.
It's stupid gating, and it shouldn't exist. But it's all too common in capitalism for this type of thing to happen. Competition is supposed to breed innovation, lower prices etc. This is neither. It's just paying to deny.
I think sometimes this practice is more bearable than others because you haven't been hit with a product you care about. I don't care about spiderman, so this exclusivity never bothered me. But the Destiny exclusivity was bothersome. And I'm absolutely sure that the Call of Duty 360 timed exclusivity was equally very bothersome for PS3 owners. Because there was so little content in the game anyway as it is, having that one more strike, map, item etc, can amount to a significant amount of difference.
No one cares about exclusivity over titles people had no interest in. They care about exclusivity in things that they actually care about.
