Support NeoGAF

Grumplestiltskin · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff Freecss said:
I am bit confused. So are we going to have a bitching party every time a console maker make a deal with third party? Or are we just doing that because Sony fans here can't play the game early or exclusively for once?

This thread is literally about how the wording around the exclusivity is purposefully deceptive. The issue is not the exclusivity its the way the Xbox team tries to be as misleading as they can possibly be about that exclusivity. and no before you say it the fact other companies use deceptive marketing too doesn't mean it isnt worth calling it out when we see it. These sorts of deceptive practices should be called out and rebuked whenever they happen no matter who is the one doing them. Nobody should be ok with themselves or anyone being lied to or misled for corporate gain.

Bumblebeetuna said:
Some people seem angry about the wording, idk why. It makes no sense to sign any kind of deal and then tell potential customers exactly how long they need to wait to play it on another platform. Seems especially weird given how chill people are in crossplay threads and how "well it just makes business sense for Sony!"

I mean, the wording seems obvious. If it were a real exclusive then MS would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Please point to the people saying Xbox should reveal the timeframe of their exclusivity deal? That's ludicrous and I don't see anyone making those demands. What I do see is people upset that the Xbox team is doing everything they can to try to misled people about the nature of their deal with PUBG. People are upset about the wording because it is specifically intended to be misleading. If they wanted to be clear and direct about what sort of deal they had made they would use any number of other appropriate descriptors that they themselves already established like "timed exclusive" or "Launch Exclusive" but instead they used wording that is vague and implies something that isn't true to people who might not know any better. I don't understand why people seem to be totally ok with something like that happening. Just because you know enough to see through it doesn't mean we should dismiss the fact that many don't and won't. Since when do we not care that corporations are seeking to misled and deceive people. Simply because we are not one of the people being deceived doesnt make it any less wrong.

Usobuko · Aug 21, 2017

It's never going to be full exclusive.

This is a big get and you would expect them to thump their chest loudly to everyone if it's full exclusive. Plus the PS install base is like more than 2x the Xbox One, the monetary cost to exclude PS is just not a good business move.

border · Aug 21, 2017

It's kinda weird how the press and the gaming public selectively choose to hammer certain games/developers over these exclusivity issues.

Like, nobody is demanding to know if or when Tacoma or We Happy Few is going to be put on Playstation 4. Nobody is browbeating Square Enix about when an Xbox One version of Final Fantasy VII Remake will get announced or released. CliffyB isn't being grilled about the possibility of bringing Lawbreakers to Xbox One.

But for some reason there's just randomly selected games where people decide to have all kinds of angst about how "confusing" the timing of a port is. When does Tomb Raider come to PS4? How long is PUBG going to be exclusive? Is Crash Bandicoot coming to PC or Xbox? Why won't you tell us now?

StillEdge · Aug 21, 2017

That tweet everyone keeps posting he clearly says marketing deals. In the presentation they said Xbox is over there working on the game with them teaming up. it seems pretty different to me, but I can see why people would be upset it's a huge game everyone wants. I don't see it actually being an exclusive to Xbox way to much money to be had on PS4.

Nightengale · Aug 21, 2017

border said:
It's kinda weird how the press and the gaming public selectively choose to hammer certain games/developers over these exclusivity issues.

Because they're games that take up the collective imagination of the gaming press and public at that point of time in many ways, and that the platform holders utilize their platform to put it that way.

Take Tomb Raider for example. There was a very concerted and clear effort from MS to hide the fact that it was timed-exclusive. The "exclusivity" factor of the game was amplified by the platform owner's desire to make it a bigger deal than the truth of the matter.

And from the media/fan perspective, a big third-party AAA exclusive is always something that has the potential to "rock the boat" in terms of list wars, perception and "us vs them", especially since TR is often compared to Uncharted.

PUBG is, in some ways, similar to how Titanfall was. It's right now, the "hot game" in the moment, and MS is ensuring that PUBG's exclusivity and position is made clear that this holiday's tentpole and Xbox darling is PUBG. They're rallying the company and the fans behind this game.

Nyoro SF · Aug 21, 2017

It's funny as these marketing deals usually stipulate that you cannot even mention certain words or phrases or topics in regards to platforms. We're just seeing that gag order in real time right now lol

Grumplestiltskin · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff Freecss said:
The sales of Rise of the Tomb Raider is pretty fine last time I remember.

This is absolutely unequivocally false. ROTTR sold poorly not only on Xbox but then went on to sell substantially less than its predecessor on other platforms s well due to the exclusivity arrangement.

Plus the paycheck from Microsoft, I bet that's why Crystal Dynamics is still making games and not fired like IO Interactive.

Theories based on nothing but conjecture about whether or not a cash infusion from a first party publisher managed to salvage a studio have no bearing on the status of the sales of that studio's software or the marketing practices of said first party publisher and their impact on said sales nor do they in any way excuse said first party from their marketing tactics.

I think it's not Microsoft Publishing's place to say whether a non-exclusive game is coming to PS4 or Switch or not. "Exclusively this year" is the only statement that is guaranteed to be true in the scenario. No body can be sure whether the dev will port the game to other platform or not. Anything can happen. As for the dev, "focusing on the current platform" comment is also the only statement that is guaranteed to be true. If for some reason PUBG bombed on Xbox One, it's possible the dev will give up console port once and for all. Plus, it was the game preview program that get it's Xbox One release in the first place. The game may stay in preview program for a long long time, I don't think the dev would like to undercut the sale performance for another port that might not be happening soon.

They themselves have used very specific terminology to describe such deals in the past. Terminology that is widely understood and accepted. Terminology that they themselves used to describe other deals in both their previous conference (E3) and their Gamescom conference but for some reason they decided to deviate from that accepted terminology for this particular title just like they did for RoTTR previously. So why? Why would they deviate form their own accepted clearly understood terminology? Because their intent with the marketing behind this title is to misled and muddy the waters so that people don't understand the nature of the deal behind it. That is what people find upsetting. I can't see how anyone can not understand how people find that objectionable.

Liliana Eileen · Aug 21, 2017

Bumblebeetuna said:
Some people seem angry about the wording, idk why. It makes no sense to sign any kind of deal and then tell potential customers exactly how long they need to wait to play it on another platform. Seems especially weird given how chill people are in crossplay threads and how "well it just makes business sense for Sony!"

This post right here. NeoGAF in a nutshell. People literally bending backwards taking bullets for Sony as a business and defending what's right for the corporation over consumers, en masse, but here with the concern posts and pitchforks attacking Microsoft, playing the entitled consumer card for a competitors platform.

border said:
It's kinda weird how the press and the gaming public selectively choose to hammer certain games/developers over these exclusivity issues.

Like, nobody is demanding to know if or when Tacoma or We Happy Few is going to be put on Playstation 4. Nobody is browbeating Square Enix about when an Xbox One version of Final Fantasy VII Remake will get announced or released.

But for some reason there's just randomly selected games where people decide to have all kinds of angst about how "confusing" the timing of a port is. When does Tomb Raider come to PS4? How long is PUBG going to be exclusive? Why won't you tell us now?

It's because Tomb Raider has a long history on PlayStation (Sony pretty much bought full exclusivity and shitted on Sega fans with TR2 back in the day, and since then it's been associated with PlayStation; imagine the backlash this would have received back then if internet was like it is now). PUBG? Huge, successful game right now, releasing only on Xbox as far as consoles real soon. These deals right here enrage Playstation only fans like no tomorrow, and they are a vocal majority. See Titanfall for example. Tacoma and WHF are much, much smaller games, thus no backlash.

Schnauzer · Aug 21, 2017

UraMallas said:
To me, the highlighted reads as confirmation of console exclusivity. Insofar as it isn't being developed for any other console - the focus is on bringing it to PC and Xbox One - that is what the second part of the statement means. The person then replies that it isn't clarifying (even though it is a definitive yes statement followed by reasoning) to which they reply that they got nothing for us besides that.

It'll have a different publisher if and when it comes to another system. Just think about it like Minecraft or Tomb Raider.

He was very deliberate in his phrasing. They would avoid any talk about support for other consoles, but they will say it will only be published by Microsoft on Xbox One and PC. Job well done.

Mercador · Aug 21, 2017

Seeing how it runs a recent computer, not sure how it will do on consoles tbh. More like beta testing than exclusivity, whichever the console brand.

Liliana Eileen · Aug 21, 2017

Grumplestiltskin said:
This is absolutely unequivocally false. ROTTR sold poorly not only on Xbox but then went on to sell substantially less than its predecessor on other platforms s well due to the exclusivity arrangement.

You keep spouting that ROTTR false equivalence, but I'd wager a ban bet with you that PUBG is going to sell astronomicaly much more on Xbox then ROTTR. It's one of the biggest games streamed on XBL Mixer, and the audience is perfect for it. As far as your repeat posts in this thread: why are you so concerned with Microsoft's wordplay and not Sonys eerily similar wordplay on games they do this same exact thing for? Just curious, because you're putting a ton of effort in talking about their goodwill like anything negative will happen from not talking about a competitors possible version for a game they're about to publish.

Inuhanyou · Aug 21, 2017

Ninja Scooter said:
You didn't say "securing IPs". you said "exclusives" and your only existing example was minecraft, which is nonsense.

You and others are getting too bent out of shape, i am merely saying that despite people saying MS are somehow failing their userbase, they seem to really be investing on the lucrative content that makes the money and satisfies a lot of users.

There should be nothing controversial about me saying that

Grumplestiltskin · Aug 21, 2017

Liliana Eileen said:
You keep spouting that ROTTR false equivalence, but I'd wager a ban bet with you that PUBG is going to sell astronomicaly much more on Xbox then ROTTR. It's one of the biggest games streamed on XBL Mixer, and the audience is perfect for it. As far as your repeat posts in this thread: why are you so concerned with Microsoft's wordplay and not Sonys eerily similar wordplay on games they do this same exact thing for? Just curious, because you're putting a ton of effort in talking about their goodwill like anything negative will happen from not talking about a competitors possible version for a game they're about to publish.

No I haven't? Keep sputing? I've mentioned Tomb Raider's sales twice in this thread and neither time was in the context you are claiming. I'm not attempting to equivocate sales of Tomb Raider and PUBG I was using the sales of Tomb Raider to address the claims of another poster about these marketing tactics and the outrage/backlash they generate not extending to the general public. The sales of Tomb Raider show that these reactions are not limited to enthusiasts forums like GAF. I've no doubt the sales figures between the two titles will be vastly different but that doesn't change the fact that people are getting sick of being misled.

Jeff Freecss · Aug 21, 2017

Nightengale said:
I'm too lazy to look up all the threads, but considering that different communities within GAF have bitched significantly for the following, but not limited to:

- Destiny 1/2 DLC timed-exclusivity
- Titanfall timed/lifetime exclusivity
- ROTR's unclear/timed/is it 6 months or 1 year exclusivity status
- No Man's Sky exclusivity status
- Dead Rising 4's timed exclusivity ( just a little bit )
- Is Crash exclusive? Will it be exclusive? Think of Sony's involvement? It won't be, Acti still owns it! etc etc.

Among other games...

Yes, we are going to basically have a bitching party every time.

-The thing with Destiny is that people payed the same price yet don't get the same content. And that content is quite time sensitive. I think the bitching is quite warranted.

-Titanfall, ROTR is Microsoft's doing. The usual Neogaf bitching suspect.
-I don't see Dead Rising 4 port begging bitching thread. It's more like people complaining why it isn't a full exclusive.
-"Is Crash exclusive?" is totally different than "Microsoft is deceiving people!!!!!!"

And if you want the example of Sony doing the same yet nobody is complaining, I can give you just that:

-Countless localization exclusives: Sony is buying all huge IP's translation rights in east Asia. Naruto, Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, has Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions for PS4 but not Xbox One or PC. Nobody is whining here.
-People led to believe that Abzu, Hellblade, Crash and What Remains of Edith Finch, etc. are console exclusives feel perfectly fine for the great marketing.
-Street Fighter V console exclusive. Remember that Neogaf uproar? Yeah, Me either.
-People loved that "smart business decision" of Sony that it acquire the marketing right of Star Wars Battlefront and COD.

The think the evidence of double standard here is pretty strong.

bengraven · Aug 21, 2017

Kind of disappointing because I'd like to play game similar to this on the PS4.

But then again not bad enough that I can't just wait. Lol

2blackcats · Aug 21, 2017

I always thought this was a natural exclusive due to xbox's preview programme.

I don't think the wording is that bad. We at least, as relatively informed consumers know what's going on.

RobertM · Aug 21, 2017

The game is unoptimized mess, I wonder how much improvement the console version will have. This a first game of this kind to come to the consoles in the first place.

Lee Chaolan · Aug 21, 2017

Sarobi said:
They thought about it, and they like them again.

:jnc

Croatoan · Aug 21, 2017

I really dislike Greene for selling out like he did. What a greedy tool.

Grumplestiltskin · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff Freecss said:
-The thing with Destiny is that people payed the same price yet don't get the same content. And that content is quite time sensitive. I think the bitching is quite warranted.

-Titanfall, ROTR is Microsoft's doing. The usual Neogaf bitching suspect.
-I don't see Dead Rising 4 port begging bitching thread. It's more like people complaining why it isn't a full exclusive.
-"Is Crash exclusive?" is totally different than "Microsoft is deceiving people!!!!!!"

And if you want the example of Sony doing the same yet nobody is complaining, I can give you just that:

-Countless localization exclusives: Sony is buying all huge IP's translation rights in east Asia. Naruto, Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, has Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions for PS4 but not Xbox One or PC. Nobody is whining here.
-People led to believe that Abzu, Hellblade, Crash and What Remains of Edith Finch, etc. are console exclusives feel perfectly fine for the great marketing.
-Street Fighter V console exclusive. Remember that Neogaf uproar? Yeah, Me either.
-People loved that "smart business decision" of Sony that it acquire the marketing right of Star Wars Battlefront and COD.

The think the evidence of double standard here is pretty strong.

Even if your claims of "bias" are true (which frankly you are seeing what you want to see IMO) what the hell does this have to do with the topic of discussion? Are you copacetic with a company conducting an advertising campaign that uses deceptive wording to imply that the product they are selling has or does something that it doesnt? Because that is what is happening here. So either you are ok with a corporation repeatedly engaging in deceitful and misleading marketing that targets everyone but the most informed consumers of their product or you are not. Which is it? Because that's what we are actually discussing here not the persecution complex you perceive exists for that brand you like. Either you are ok with people being purposefully misled by this specific corporate marketing campaign or you aren't.

unknownstranger · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff Freecss said:
-Countless localization exclusives: Sony is buying all huge IP's translation rights in east Asia. Naruto, Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, has Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions for PS4 but not Xbox One or PC. Nobody is whining here.

You seriously think Sony is paying developers to not release games on Xbox One in Japan?

Nightengale · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff, you've raised valid points, but some contention I have:

Jeff Freecss said:
-Countless localization exclusives: Sony is buying all huge IP's translation rights in east Asia. Naruto, Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, has Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions for PS4 but not Xbox One or PC. Nobody is whining here.

There's like less than 20 people here who plays Japanese/Chinese/Korean versions of the games you mentioned, and chances are every single one of them own a PS4 or PC.

Jeff Freecss said:
People led to believe that Abzu, Hellblade, Crash and What Remains of Edith Finch, etc. are console exclusives feel perfectly fine for the great marketing.

With the exception of Crash, all of the above fall in the same bucket of "nobody raises uproar over We Happy Few, etc" because they're small indie games, and not tentpole console roarers.

Jeff Freecss said:
Street Fighter V console exclusive. Remember that Neogaf uproar? Yeah, Me either.

I remember. Only like 1/100th of the uproar for ROTR though. =P

Jeff Freecss said:
People loved that "smart business decision" of Sony that it acquire the marketing right of Star Wars Battlefront and COD.

Neither are timed exclusives.

VanCityGamer · Aug 21, 2017

border said:
Like, nobody is demanding to know if or when Tacoma or We Happy Few is going to be put on Playstation 4.

We Happy Few is launching on PS4 alongside Xbox One and PC in April 2018

plufim · Aug 21, 2017

"Exclusive to Xbox One
in 2017"

So out on PS4 in 2018 then.

travisbickle · Aug 21, 2017

Jeff Freecss said:
-Countless localization exclusives: Sony is buying all huge IP's translation rights in east Asia. Naruto, Batman: Arkham Knight, for example, has Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions for PS4 but not Xbox One or PC. Nobody is whining here.

This is the most rediculous thing I've ever read. It's not like Sony we're in some bidding war for the rights. It will be a money-losing venture for Sony, an act of good will to the fans.

border · Aug 21, 2017

Nightengale said:
Take Tomb Raider for example. There was a very concerted and clear effort from MS to hide the fact that it was timed-exclusive. The "exclusivity" factor of the game was amplified by the platform owner's desire to make it a bigger deal than the truth of the matter.

Liliana Eileen said:
These deals right here enrage Playstation only fans like no tomorrow, and they are a vocal majority. See Titanfall for example. Tacoma and WHF are much, much smaller games, thus no backlash.

Final Fantasy VII commands about as much or more mindshare and cultural relevance than Tomb Raider, but there's not as many people demanding that they announce or give details an Xbox One version of FFVII Remake.

It's incredibly easy to read between the lines on these deals, and at times it seems like people willfully refuse to do so just because they want to make a stink about it.

statham · Aug 21, 2017

Its going to be a yr exclusive, you guy know it, its not confusing, they had a 4 man/women porting it to xbox, now, supposedly a Xbox team is porting it. It'll be a good port. Its a great get for MS

therealbigrich · Aug 21, 2017

plufim said:
"Exclusive to Xbox One
in 2017"

So out on PS4 in 2018 then.

Most likely. I am curious why I keep seeing Xbox is being devious but haven't seen much blame for devs that could say exclusive or not

Hoo-doo · Aug 21, 2017

This discussion is kinda premature. I'm betting neither the Xbox nor PS4 version of PUBG is launching this year. Not with the Base XB1 requiring a relatively stable port.

border · Aug 21, 2017

Mercador said:
Seeing how it runs a recent computer, not sure how it will do on consoles tbh. More like beta testing than exclusivity, whichever the console brand.

RobertM said:
The game is unoptimized mess, I wonder how much improvement the console version will have. This a first game of this kind to come to the consoles in the first place.

The fact that the game is an unoptimized mess on PC is maybe a reason to be glad that Microsoft is taking a really hands-on approach with it.

I hope this doesn't turn into an Ark situation where it's just "This game runs terrible on PC.....and even more terrible on consoles!"

Floody · Aug 21, 2017

statham said:
Its going to be a yr exclusive, you guy know it, its not confusing, they had a 4 man/women porting it to xbox, now, supposedly a Xbox team is porting it. It'll be a good port. Its a great get for MS

Had no idea the team was that small, probably would have been awful had that stayed the same.
Still hope this vague exclusive crap would just fuck off though, make pretty much every discussion about the game shit, as it'll always get derailed until they actually say it's timed exclusive.

Orca · Aug 21, 2017

Grumplestiltskin said:
This is absolutely unequivocally false. ROTTR sold poorly not only on Xbox but then went on to sell substantially less than its predecessor on other platforms s well due to the exclusivity arrangement.

Talk about "theories based on nothing but conjecture..."

Nightengale · Aug 21, 2017

border said:
Final Fantasy VII commands about as much or more mindshare and cultural relevance than Tomb Raider, but there's not as many people demanding that they announce or give details an Xbox One version of FFVII Remake.

I'll admit that I am somewhat surprised that Square has not been pressed for more details about what the heck does "First on PS4" for FFVII-R imply, but hey.

border said:
It's incredibly easy to read between the lines on these deals, and at times it seems like people willfully refuse to do so just because they want to make a stink about it.

Not everyone wants to read between the lines, either by virtue of fanboyism, lack of historical context ( forgot how old exclusivity deal drama ultimately play out ) or wilful ignorance, but I'll say this. Neither side is helpful in this situation. Tomb Raider is, and will be my favourite example this gen of willful manipulation from a publisher to obfuscate exclusivity status.

SJurgenson · Aug 21, 2017

As someone who owns all the consoles (and cannot remember the last time he turned on his Xbox One) -- I really wish Microsoft would invest its money in actually helping to create software instead of locking down software.

All these 'third party exclusive' deals do is make otherwise multiplatform games not multiplatform. As a consumer, how does that make my life better? It doesn't -- it just helps Microsoft.

With Sony and SFV -- it was clear they bankrolled (or not, har har) the development of that game -- it was not coming out except with their financial support. ROTTR and PUBG are only 'Xbox One (limited time console) Exclusives' because Microsoft shelled out to lock them down.

It's an amazingly gross anti-consumer practice, and I am not shocked that Microsoft was the one to come up with it.

jmizzal · Aug 21, 2017

Hoo-doo said:
This discussion is kinda premature. I'm betting neither the Xbox nor PS4 version of PUBG is launching this year. Not with the Base XB1 requiring a relatively stable port.

Its coming this year, its gonna be in the preview program, so people will know its not a fully finished game. Heck the current game is full of bugs and crazy stuff, I was playing Conan Game preview free trial on Xbox one, and the game just cut off in the middle of my game I never even got to save the game. So there are not gonna care how finished the game is they will put it out this year MS has too.

I bet they announce later this year it's coming Nov 7th Xbox one X launch date, and hope that get more people in line and preorders

Lothars · Aug 21, 2017

border said:
Final Fantasy VII commands about as much or more mindshare and cultural relevance than Tomb Raider, but there's not as many people demanding that they announce or give details an Xbox One version of FFVII Remake.

It's incredibly easy to read between the lines on these deals, and at times it seems like people willfully refuse to do so just because they want to make a stink about it.

It's easy to tell why, One is a japenese release where historically those games have not sold well on Xbox, So maybe it will release maybe it won't nobody knows and even less people care.

Games like Tomb Raider are games that are not exclusive to one platform and will come to every platform. Which is why it's a big issue especially with how sleazy the announcement and exclusivity was announced.

Stuff like PUBG is a big game that Microsoft initally said Xbox One Launch Exclusive, So it looks like it will be like Ark where in a years time after release it will be out on PS4.

The Marketing around the two games is exactly why it is being called out when they are misleading with what type of exclusive it is.

statham · Aug 21, 2017

SJurgenson said:
As someone who owns all the consoles (and cannot remember the last time he turned on his Xbox One) -- I really wish Microsoft would invest its money in actually helping to create software instead of locking down software.

All these 'third party exclusive' deals do is make otherwise multiplatform games not multiplatform. As a consumer, how does that make my life better? It doesn't -- it just helps Microsoft.

With Sony and SFV -- it was clear they bankrolled (or not, har har) the development of that game -- it was not coming out except with their financial support. ROTTR and PUBG are only 'Xbox One (limited time console) Exclusives' because Microsoft shelled out to lock them down.

It's an amazingly gross anti-consumer practice, and I am not shocked that Microsoft was the one to come up with it -- they were the ones pushing always online DRM and telling service members they didn't want their business at the Xbox One launch...

you should do more research about PUBG, they are 100 invested into PC, MS made a small deal where 4, peeps started porting it to Xbox, since then MS reinvested and we have a bigger team. Someone correct me If I'm wrong.

Liliana Eileen · Aug 21, 2017

SJurgenson said:
With Sony and SFV -- it was clear they bankrolled (or not, har har) the development of that game -- it was not coming out except with their financial support. ROTTR and PUBG are only 'Xbox One (limited time console) Exclusives' because Microsoft shelled out to lock them down.

It's an amazingly gross practice, and I am not shocked that Microsoft was the one to come up with it.

Firstly, Sony did NOT bankroll SFV. It was going to come out either way.

Secondly, PUBG is first on Xbox because of their early access program, as stated by the devs. Now for how long the exclusivity, who knows. MS also has a team helping them with the port.

Lastly, Microsoft did not start the practice, Sony did. Tomb Raider 2 became PS exclusive to the dismay of Sega fans and thus did the following games. Sony did this way back and have done similar things in the CD era.

TwoDurans · Aug 21, 2017

Sounds like MS is paying to pub this game for X1x, someone else will need to pub the game for PS4 at a later date. Tomb Raider was released a year later published by SE.

Hoo-doo · Aug 21, 2017

jmizzal said:
Its coming this year, its gonna be in the preview program, so people will know its not a fully finished game. Heck the current game is full of bugs and crazy stuff, I was playing Conan Game preview free trial on Xbox one, and the game just cut off in the middle of my game I never even got to save the game. So there are not gonna care how finished the game is they will put it out this year MS has too.

I bet they announce later this year it's coming Nov 7th Xbox one X launch date, and hope that get more people in line and preorders

I'll take that bet.

SJurgenson · Aug 21, 2017

Liliana Eileen said:
Firstly, Sony did NOT bankroll SFV. It was going to come out either way.

That is entirely untrue. All the reporting is that Sony (at least partially) funded SFV from the beginning -- they did not hop in with $$$ at the last minute to lock down the platforms. Even a Capcom producer said they weren't going to invest in SFV -- before Sony hopped in.

Liliana Eileen said:
Secondly, PUBG is first on Xbox because of their early access program, as stated by the devs. Now for how long the exclusivity, who knows. MS also has a team helping them with the port.

Xbox having a properly defined 'Early Access' program, and Sony not sure hasn't stopped Lawbreakers coming out on PS4 with a giant 'Early Access' warning at boot. I somehow doubt Sony would say 'no' to PUBG coming out on it before a full release.

MS has a team helping them with the port? Bluehole is racking in the money, they don't need MS's help. They could buy an entire porting company if they wanted at this point.

Liliana Eileen said:
Lastly, Microsoft did not start the practice, Sony did. Tomb Raider 2 became PS exclusive to the dismay of Sega fans and thus did the following games. Sony did this way back and have done similar things in the CD era.

I'm not even going to make a joke here about how ridiculously far you have to reach for a comparable situation.

SJurgenson · Aug 21, 2017

statham said:
you should do more research about PUBG, they are 100 invested into PC, MS made a small deal where 4, peeps started porting it to Xbox, since then MS reinvested and we have a bigger team. Someone correct me If I'm wrong.

Bluehole has already made millions off PUBG. I'm pretty sure they could afford to hire as many people as needed to start porting the game without outside financial/technical help.

Megatron · Aug 21, 2017

Grumplestiltskin said:
This thread is literally about how the wording around the exclusivity is purposefully deceptive. The issue is not the exclusivity its the way the Xbox team tries to be as misleading as they can possibly be about that exclusivity. and no before you say it the fact other companies use deceptive marketing too doesn't mean it isnt worth calling it out when we see it. These sorts of deceptive practices should be called out and rebuked whenever they happen no matter who is the one doing them. Nobody should be ok with themselves or anyone being lied to or misled for corporate gain.

Except there are no threads about how the 'exclusivity' of the crash collection is confusing, and that's even more so than this. So yeah, he has a point.

chronic_archaic · Aug 21, 2017

Liliana Eileen said:
This post right here. NeoGAF in a nutshell. People literally bending backwards taking bullets for Sony as a business and defending what's right for the corporation over consumers, en masse, but here with the concern posts and pitchforks attacking Microsoft, playing the entitled consumer card for a competitors platform.

It's because Tomb Raider has a long history on PlayStation (Sony pretty much bought full exclusivity and shitted on Sega fans with TR2 back in the day, and since then it's been associated with PlayStation; imagine the backlash this would have received back then if internet was like it is now). PUBG? Huge, successful game right now, releasing only on Xbox as far as consoles real soon. These deals right here enrage Playstation only fans like no tomorrow, and they are a vocal majority. See Titanfall for example. Tacoma and WHF are much, much smaller games, thus no backlash.

So it's okay if it's a "vocal majority" but if I complain Nier isn't on Xbox One I'm told "go buy a PS4"

Titanfall wouldn't be a thing if MS didn't fund it, and the scale of the game doesn't matter. Corporate circlejerking is the dumbest thing ever and I can't believe how many people here still do it.

Floody · Aug 21, 2017

Megatron said:
Except there are no threads about how the 'exclusivity' of the crash collection is confusing, and that's even more so than this. So yeah, he has a point.

Someone gave you 4 links earlier. What do you think they were about?

shintoki · Aug 21, 2017

SJurgenson said:
Xbox having a properly defined 'Early Access' program, and Sony not sure hasn't stopped Lawbreakers coming out on PS4 with a giant 'Early Access' warning at boot. I somehow doubt Sony would say 'no' to PUBG coming out on it before a full release.

MS has a team helping them with the port? Bluehole is racking in the money, they don't need MS's help. They could buy an entire porting company if they wanted at this point.

So where are you getting this from? Any insider knowledge you wish to share? It's pretty common for even big teams to received outside help or finance a 3rd party for a port. Rather than take on an entire company.

If MS is volunteering to work on it... why wouldn't a company take their help.

quest · Aug 21, 2017

SJurgenson said:
Bluehole has already made millions off PUBG. I'm pretty sure they could afford to hire as many people as needed to start porting the game without outside financial/technical help.

Looking at the pc version they need all the technical help they can get. It's a win win for everyone honestly. MS gets big win for ea program. Gamers get a better running version of the game.

border · Aug 21, 2017

Lothars said:
It's easy to tell why, One is a japenese release where historically those games have not sold well on Xbox, So maybe it will release maybe it won't nobody knows and even less people care.

Nobody cares about getting Final Fantasy VII Remake on Xbox One?

Liliana Eileen · Aug 21, 2017

SJurgenson said:
That is entirely untrue. All the reporting is that Sony (at least partially) funded SFV from the beginning -- they did not hop in with $$$ at the last minute to lock down the platforms. Even a Capcom producer said they weren't going to invest in SFV -- before Sony hopped in.

https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2014...-and-playstation-4-some-point-no-plans-wii-u/

There's a link to something Ono said the year before SFV was announced PS4 exclusive. Notice when asked about XB1 and PS4, he said there is plans, and explicitly said there aren't plans only for the Wii U. Sony did nothing to help this game except moneyhat exclusivity and even then the game launched rushed and with bad reception compared to previous entries.

SJurgenson said:
Xbox having a properly defined 'Early Access' program, and Sony not sure hasn't stopped Lawbreakers coming out on PS4 with a giant 'Early Access' warning at boot. I somehow doubt Sony would say 'no' to PUBG coming out on it before a full release.

MS has a team helping them with the port? Bluehole is racking in the money, they don't need MS's help. They could buy an entire porting company if they wanted at this point.

They have a deal with Sony. You're going to compare a couple of games to the dozen(s) of early access Xbox titles? Devs have literally stated the benefits of the Xbox program. And yes, they have a team helping. They don't need MS' help, why, because a disgruntled fanboy on the internet says so? Do you have proof or a link that shows this? You literally have NO idea how porting teams even work.

SJurgenson said:
I'm not even going to make a joke here about how ridiculously far you have to reach for a comparable situation.

So let me get this straight. You lie, say Microsoft started this. I show you that in fact, this isn't true, this started way back when and give an example everyone knows of, and you feign ignorance and talk about reaching? Just stop.

SJurgenson said:
Bluehole has already made millions off PUBG. I'm pretty sure they could afford to hire as many people as needed to start porting the game without outside financial/technical help.

But Capcom, infinitely more rich than 4 PUBG devs, need Sonys help to fund SFV, a game that's predessesor sold incredibly well on Xbox 360? Okay.gif

Megatron said:
Except there are no threads about how the 'exclusivity' of the crash collection is confusing, and that's even more so than this. So yeah, he has a point.

That's the crazy part, especially with all the back and forth. It's incredibly obvious Crash is a timed exclusive but lo and behold, no outrage.

chronic_archaic said:
So it's okay if it's a "vocal majority" but if I complain Nier isn't on Xbox One I'm told "go buy a PS4"

Titanfall wouldn't be a thing if MS didn't fund it, and the scale of the game doesn't matter. Corporate circlejerking is the dumbest thing ever and I can't believe how many people here still do it.

No, you misunderstood my post, friend. It isn't okay; I was just saying what it is. That's exactly what I'm talking about though. Game not on PS4? Faux outrage and concern and devs spammed to death. Ask for a game on Xbox/Switch that should be coming (Nier, in the eyes of fans who played the first on X360, although it won't come because of Japanese support understandably) and you're either port begging or told to buy a PS4, as you say.

shintoki said:
So where are you getting this from? Any insider knowledge you wish to share? It's pretty common for even big teams to received outside help or finance a 3rd party for a port. Rather than take on an entire company.

If MS is volunteering to work on it... why wouldn't a company take their help.

Tales from his ass, obviously. 🤣

Grumplestiltskin · Aug 21, 2017

Orca said:
Talk about "theories based on nothing but conjecture..."

So you are telling me you think the exclusivity deal had no bearing on the decline in sales ROTTR saw compared to the previous entry on other platforms? Even though we have historical data showing that delayed releases impact sales negatively to varying degrees on the later platforms? Why exactly?

I suppose I could have added "in part" to be clearer but just for the sake of clarification I was not implying it was the sole reason for the sales only that it was a major factor among many contributing ones.

Megatron said:
Except there are no threads about how the 'exclusivity' of the crash collection is confusing, and that's even more so than this. So yeah, he has a point.

Well for one, there are. As somebody has already pointed out to you in this thread.

xxracerxx said:
You know there is a search feature right?

Any way, here are some:

Speculation: Crash Bandicoot N-Sane Trilogy is 1yr Console Exclusive (PS4) - 473 replies
UI artist of Crash Bandicoot Trilogy posts video with Xbox prompts - mildshock.gif - 411 replies
[Rumor] Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy releasing December 8th on XB1? - 316 replies
crash bandicoot trilogy pretty much confirmed on pc ? - 260 replies.

And for another I'm just going to reiterate what I already said about this line of questioning:

Grumplestiltskin said:
Even if your claims of "bias" are true (which frankly you are seeing what you want to see IMO) what the hell does this have to do with the topic of discussion? Are you copacetic with a company conducting an advertising campaign that uses deceptive wording to imply that the product they are selling has or does something that it doesnt? Because that is what is happening here. So either you are ok with a corporation repeatedly engaging in deceitful and misleading marketing that targets everyone but the most informed consumers of their product or you are not. Which is it? Because that's what we are actually discussing here not the persecution complex you perceive exists for that brand you like. Either you are ok with people being purposefully misled by this specific corporate marketing campaign or you aren't.

So, no, as far as I see it this line of questioning has no point given the topic of discussion. But its clear that since some are incapable of defending their favorite brand from what are blatantly deceitful marketing tactics they instead deflect to this tired old argument in hopes of side tracking discussion and devolving it into an endless back and forth of trying to prove whether or not persecution exists instead of condemning the corporation for purposefully misleading people. I find it appalling that so many seem to find this preferable to acknowledging the issue and admonishing their preferred brand in order to discourage them from doing the same thing again in the future.

Support NeoGAF

PUBG's Xbox "exclusivity" is just as confusing as it was for ROTTB.

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

They/Them A-10 Warthog

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

sparkle this bitch

Not Banned from OT

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads