Third Party Software Exclusivity Practices
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
In light of recent developments, it's been rather fun reading the totally balanced and consistent opinions in this thread.
Hopefully this wasn't towards my last statement. My statement was just an 'obvious' fun play on a possible exclusivity.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
I'm seeing a widespread, staggering lack of self awareness.
Not at all. Just a general observation that, depending on the appliance to which they've bound their soul, people have gone from "this is immoral, Spider-Man was multiplatform" to "this is good business" or vice versa.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Give an example.
I stand by what I said too. IMO timed exclusivity for a platform is just part of the game, purchasing studios outright is just plain bad for the future of the industry.
I disagree.
When a company is purchased by a platform holder you will know up front that their games (baring any preexisting contracts) will no longer show up on other platforms.
When you buy something like the avengers and spiderman never comes to other platforms your getting an unfinished game on those platforms. Its the same with a cod . If new maps come out and they are exclusive to a certian console for 3 months or 6 months or a year or more then your not getting the full game for x amount of time.
That to me is scummy as they are purposely holding back parts of the game from customers to make one platform look better than the other
I mean really, both practices are to make one's own platform/ecosystem more attractive than the other and too capture as many consumers dollars as possible. That's business... nothing wrong with these practices IMHO. That's why I don't tie myself to only one platform or have a hissy fit when one platform has something particularly exclusive to it.
I mean. You really aren't missing much by not playing the Avengers game, with or without Spidey, believe me!
The game is super repetitive and just plain boring.
Being able to buy studios usually means that their owner wants/needs to sell them either because they wanna cash in or they don't believe they have the financial resources to keep up with the market itself.
I would prefer they get bought by an owner with money+care for the market than the alternatives.
I had 3 platforms this generation. Xbox one , PC , Switch.
I simply didn't buy avengers or any other game that practiced this
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is patently not the case with Microsoft. Minecraft continued on other platforms and Minecraft Legends was released for other platforms. The statement regarding Elder Scrolls yesterday also makes clear that it's not known if traditional cross-platform games will continue to be cross-platform.
For folks with only a PlayStation and not an Xbox or PC, it would be better simply knowing up front you'll never see another Bethesda game than eternal uncertainty because nobody likes uncertainty. But from Microsoft's perspective, they simply can't provide that clarity, these are decisions that it would be foolish to make now, years and years away from games's release.
I'm generally not fussed when a console manufacturer buys a publisher/developers because all that really means for me is that my choice of which platform I buy it in narrows a bit. But my genuine concern with Microsoft buying Bethesda in particular is Microsoft's focus on selling content as a service and beyond whatever it is Bethesda are deep in development of (Starfield and probably Elder Scrolls VI) that beyond that we'll get more games like Fallout 76 and less single-player RPGs. I assume the Sea of Thieves and Grounded model is working for them.
Easy. Put Game Pass on PS5, and (mostly) everyone's happy.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
*cough* Sony GTA III *cough*.
Evidence? I'm talking (as implied previously) Sony/MS paying to take something away from the other camp for a period of time, like the CoD maps.
Last edited:
