• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

1 year exclusivity deals - Your take on that?

C

Chairmanchuck

Member
What is your take on timed exclusivity deals?

It seems Sony loves them:

FFX/X-2 comes out exactly 1 year after the PS4 release on PC.
RE7 VR functionality is exclusive for 1 year.
Niohs SteamApp ID was uploaded over a year ago, so it seems it was developed for PC at the same time as the console versions.
Now SAO comes out, and while I dont think Sony would pay for the exclusivity for such a game, its strange that the PC release is exactly 1 year after release.
Besides that there are still rumours about Crash being a timed exclusive.

What do you think about that? I personally think, if they say it is exclusive for 1 year like they did with the RE7 VR situation, I am fine with it.
 
Renna Hazel

Renna Hazel

Member
Seems like consumers gain nothing from deals that simply keep games and content off other consoles. Not a fan of the practice at all. Use that money to fund games.
 
oldsnakebro

oldsnakebro

Member
But Microsoft loves it too. Dead rising 4 and Rise of Tomb raider.
Don't forget PUGB and Console Launch Exclusive stuff. You ok with them?
Personally I don't like it.
 
S

Stygr

Banned
This is bullshit.
I hate moneyhatting, and no one has excuses.
Not talking about half funded games.

The worst thing is when they stay silent about it.
 
G

Ganado

Member
They suck. I like that Microsoft have been pressured to disclose the length of the exclusivity, shame that Sony isnt held to the same standard.
 
N

Not Drake

Member
graybot said:
I think the way it goes on GAF. Sony does it good others do it bad
Click to expand...

Tell us how you really feel.

I like when there's atleast clear information up front about it. Tell what you want about the whole "Console Launch Exclusive" from Microsoft, but it gives people an idea what they can expect.
 
T

The Cretan

Member
I prefer to be able to play everything on day 1 (I exclude really exclusive games of course), but it's their product, so it's their rules.
 
T

texhnolyze

Banned
Nioh is not exactly 1 year, but it's still a deal according to steamdb. Dragon Quest Builders Steam was anticipated as well, but now it has passed its October 7th release date so I guess it's not coming afterall. The next case would be FF XII Zodiac Age, and I'm holding out on the PS4 version due to this.
 
S

shaneo632

Member
Not really a fan of anything that withholds a game from a huge portion of gamers.

If it results in the game getting a bigger budget then I guess it can work out OK, but otherwise nah.
 
W

WhatNXt

Member
A year is too long a window. If a game comes out on a platform that I don't own and then comes out a year later at full price on one I do, I'm unable to rationalise purchasing it. They basically excluded me for a year, deprived me of an opportunity to play something while it was part of the gaming zeitgeist, when I could have avoided learning things about the game, and now they expect me to pay for it like it's new when it's not.

3-6 months would be an acceptable exclusivity window IMO.

These deals are obviously one of the methods teams help finance their project. I'm not sure its always worth the gamble. Case in point being PUBG. I think the Xbox deal is going to be a horrible mistake.
 
W

watdaeff4

Member
Things like this is why I own all consoles.

I don't have to worry personally. At the end of the day, this is a business so it's not surprising it happens.
 
E

EVOL 100%

Member
It's annoying but not something I really care about.

There's plenty of shit to do in the meanwhile. I'd rather not deal with it at all, and it's anti-customer as fuck, but I can't muster the energy to feel actively bothered by it.

At least it's better than full on exclusivity deals
 
H

Hentailover

Member
As a consumer, I have nothing to gain from them. They benefit platform holders and only them. But it is a fair tactic. 1 year exclusive beats full time exclusive, as, at least more gamers get it eventually.
 
C

CaviarMeths

Member
Sucks for consumers, but it's possible that some of these games only get the budget or marketing they do because of these deals.
 
W

WhatNXt

Member
Oemenia said:
But don't you know it was MS who invented the practise, Sony never did it even in their dominant PS2 days!
Click to expand...

A platform holder who is dominant doesn't need exclusivity deals. They're dominant and getting games purely on account of how large their userbase is.
 
H

Hoo-doo

Banned
It's shit to just pay your way to keep games off a competing platform, regardless of who does it.

And don't kid yourself, both Sony and Microsoft are exactly the same in this regard, only Sony probably has deals come before them a lot easier being the market leader.
 
C

cw_sasuke

If all DLC came tied to $13 figurines, I'd consider all DLC to be free
Blaming Sony for it doesnt make any sense...no one forces Capcom, SE and co. to go ahead with exclusivity if they dont want to. Clearly getting the extra Sony marketing seems to be more important for them than making sure to provide their fans on every system with the content from Day 1.

Its Business. It sucks for players who dont own the prioritized system at a time...but it wont change anytime soon.
 
C

Croash

Member
Behind the scenes, this is very fine for funding purposes.

I'd rather have a wonderful product for all targeted platforms even if it has delay between each of them than a simultaneous release with an non-fully realized ambition.

However, with the way its done, it's mostly confusion about communication that doesn't outright state "will be released on other platforms later next year" or something, as OBVIOUSLY that wouldn't urge someone to purchase a particular game on a particular platform but encourage "I'll wait when it comes to my platform of choice". Eh. That sucks :/
 
G

graybot

Member
One thing to point out, yes its bad from MS and Sony. But the publishers of the games also IMO are to blame

Obviously they are offered a sizable sum. But it would be nice if they took a stand and at least insisted on more transparancy in regards to release dates on other platforms
 
B

Black Pewter

Member
Sony gets away with it on GAF for the simple reason that because no one on GAF is really affected by it as most of us own PS4s as primary consoles. Also, MS only really had a huge backlash for it with Tomb Raider, which is understandable considering the brand is so historically aligned with PlayStation, similar to the situation with RE4 back then.
Renna Hazel said:
Seems like consumers gain nothing from deals that simply keep games and content off other consoles. Not a fan of the practice at all. Use that money to fund games.
Click to expand...
What do you think these companies use the money from these deals for?
other than lining execs pockets
 
M

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I don't think it's ever justified. I know this is a simplified take on the situation, but instead of paying to keep a game off of another platform, I would rather they use that money to fund another game instead.
 
S

Stygr

Banned
WhatNXt said:
A year is too long a window. If a game comes out on a platform that I don't own and then comes out a year later at full price on one I do, I'm unable to rationalise purchasing it. They basically excluded me for a year, deprived me of an opportunity to play something while it was part of the gaming zeitgeist, when I could have avoided learning things about the game, and now they expect me to pay for it like it's new when it's not.

3-6 months would be an acceptable exclusivity window IMO.

These deals are obviously one of the methods teams help finance their project. I'm not sure its always worth the gamble. Case in point being PUBG. I think the Xbox deal is going to be a horrible mistake.
Click to expand...

Horrible mistake? They already made millions of dollars from the PC version. The ONE version is fully made by a Microsift team and partially funded + marketing.
Come one, even Cuphead for some people was a "horribile deal".

Bluehole is 100% focusing on the PC version.
If Sony wants the game on PS4 they have to contact them and start the negotiations.
 
A

Apathy

Member
I'm against full year gaps with releasing the game on a different system regardless of who does it.

It's also just bad for the game/Dev. It does affect game sales as was too many people want to go console warrior and "punish" a game for coming out later or by the time it comes out there is so much more new things on the console that it gets forgotten.
 
N

nel e nel

Member
If it means I get a definitive or complete edition with all the dlc included (like Rise of the Tomb Raider anniversary) then I'm totally in favor of it. Otherwise I'm pretty apathetic about it. I got enough in my pile that I can't be up in arms about not being able to play every single game at release.
 
A

Auraela

Banned
Not Drake said:
Tell us how you really feel.

I like when there's atleast clear information up front about it. Tell what you want about the whole "Console Launch Exclusive" from Microsoft, but it gives people an idea what they can expect.
Click to expand...

Nioh says hi

Crash probs says hi soon too
 
R

rochellepaws

Member
It's preferable to permanent exclusives, I didn't really mind playing Rise of the Tomb Raider a year later but it was a real pain that I had to buy an Xbox 360 for no other reason than to play Tales of Vesperia.
 
G

GoldenCrow

Member
Don't mind it at all. Much better than permanent exclusives and if it has helped towards dev costs then I think it is great because unlike in years gone by that would normally have a generation exclusive. I don't need things now so if I get it in October 2017 or October 2018 doesn't really matter especially as I wlll often wait for the price to drop.
 
C

cw_sasuke

If all DLC came tied to $13 figurines, I'd consider all DLC to be free
Markitron said:
I don't think it's ever justified. I know this is a simplified take on the situation, but instead of paying to keep a game off of another platform, I would rather they use that money to fund another game instead.
Click to expand...

You really think Sony "paid" to keep SOA off Steam ?

At the end of the day they make their money from software purchases and having the game only on PS3 means more money for Sony...which also results in Sony being to able to do more for the specific software in terms of marketing/publishing etc.

Blame the publisher or developer of said title - but not Sony/MS/Nintendo for doing what everyone else would do in their situation. Its common sense.
 
S

seady

Member
I rather they keep it exclusive forever.

Exclusive game is what makes a console unique. Releasing the game a year later won’t matter much to that other system anymore, but only to remove the uniqueness to the original console it was on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
A look at the history of Sony PS exclusives coming to PC vs. PS5 Published + What do you think will be the next Sony Exclusive to be announced for PC?
Poll 2
89
5K
TrebleShot replied
IGN: A Year Since Its Release, Sony Seems to Have Abandoned PlayStation VR2
4 5 6 7 8
355
17K
CamHostage replied
What's the best deal on a PS5 right now?
9
2K
StereoVsn replied
The demise of the Xbox shows the true important of quality, exclusive SINGLE PLAYER GAMES on your platform
2 3 4
198
12K
digoutyoursoul replied
Forever Skies to launch as PS5 ‘console debut exclusive’ | Due out alongside PC version in 2024
News Trailer
3
713
March Climber replied
Top Bottom