• 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.

Destiny PS4 Timed Exclusives will last until "At least Fall 2015"

See, this where I am getting confused. People say that MS "funding" a project is not moneyhatting, but if Microsoft's funding keeps the title off the Sony/Nintendo platforms, what does it make it then?

Still just "funding"? Sounds weird to me....

Moneyhatting isn't anything. It has no real definition. At the end of the day all of these deals, whether it's funding the development, or co-marketing, or DLC, involve some sort of monetary agreement. Yes, it's not necessarily a hat made out of money being sent from one party to the other, but it's all the same shit. And very few (if any) of us are privy to the actual agreements between them to know what was and wasn't funded directly, or what the nature of the contracts were, so arguing about them to try and make one company look better than the other seems silly.
 

redhot_

Member
Sony finally getting with the times with the big heavy hitters eh lol. I was pissed when Fallout and GTA dlc wasn't on ps3 for a long time. Guess its time for me to enjoy some content first.
 

smurfx

get some go again
Probably just a case of "Microsoft has COD, let's give Sony the option of partnering with us on Destiny". Could you imagine the hate Activision would get if it fucked over Sony fans on both of these big games?
business is business though. i don't think they would have cared if they thought they could make more money. makes me think that maybe microsoft didn't actively pursue destiny because they didn't want to make EA angry at them for advertising another competitors fps game. destiny has been front and center on the ps4 since the beginning.
 

Toxi

Banned
You don't have to care about Sony's stock or bottom line. Saying this doesn't benefit customers is false. It benefits people that buy Sony products, which is the whole point. It doesn't benefit people who don't buy Sony products, but Sony is not concerned about that. They are a business. It's ridiculous to expect them to care about ensuring any sort of parity with their competitors.
Tell me what sort of benefit cutting content for other people gets you.

And please stop with the "it's a business, they're trying to make money" schtick, because none of that matters to me as a customer.
 

Katsa

Banned
...how would that not be funding?

To me true funding would be allowing the game to be released on all platforms, but get a larger cut of the profits (business is business). Funding with exclusion to other platforms, to me that's moneyhatting.
 
Tell me what sort of benefit cutting content for other people gets you.

And please stop with the "it's a business, they're trying to make money" schtick, because none of that matters to anyone who isn't a Sony employee.

Why would it not matter to a Sony consumer, or, more importantly, a potential consumer? If they see that getting the game on a Sony platform means more content? And there's not reason to stop with the "it's a business" schtick because that's exactly what this is. Every decision these guys make is because of business. The reason Bloodborne exists isn't because Sony wants to see the smiles on your faces when you play it, it's because they think they can make money selling it.
 
Ratchet and Clank, Resistance, Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls etc are all Sony first party titles created by third party studios. Same as Sunset Overdrive is a MS first party title created by a third party studio

I thought the whole thing about Sunset Overdrive was that Insomniac wanted to own the IP unlike all the stuff they've done with Sony. Sony declined to fund and let them hold ownership of the IP whereas Microsoft agreed and here we are.
 

KORNdoggy

Member
In terms of content related moneyhats, this seems like a better use of sony money then the BF3 maps you got a week earlier on PS3. Doesn't bother me tbh. Never has. Same for pre-order bonuses spread across retails, meh, who cares.
 

Katsa

Banned
Moneyhatting isn't anything. It has no real definition. At the end of the day all of these deals, whether it's funding the development, or co-marketing, or DLC, involve some sort of monetary agreement. Yes, it's not necessarily a hat made out of money being sent from one party to the other, but it's all the same shit. And very few (if any) of us are privy to the actual agreements between them to know what was and wasn't funded directly, or what the nature of the contracts were, so arguing about them to try and make one company look better than the other seems silly.

Besides first-party titles (MS/Sony-owned studios), I much rather see DLCs, skins, camos, maps, etc. being exclusive, than a title being exclusive to one platform. This is the little gamer boy in me dreaming.

Who holds third-party titles exclusives more often Sony, Nintendo or MS? I never really thought about that.
 

Rurunaki

Member
I thought the whole thing about Sunset Overdrive was that Insomniac wanted to own the IP unlike all the stuff they've done with Sony. Sony declined to fund and let them hold ownership of the IP whereas Microsoft agreed and here we are.

Can't blame Sony for that, after the Crash Bandicoot thing. It hurts not owning your "mascot."
 
In terms of content related moneyhats, this seems like a better use of sony money then the BF3 maps you got a week earlier on PS3. Doesn't bother me tbh. Never has. Same for pre-order bonuses spread across retails, meh, who cares.

Most of the time it's completely unimportant content that nobody really cares about or even notices is missing. Most of this stuff is so inconsequential and very few games come out feeling "incomplete" because of it. If you really think that your copy of Destiny for Xbox One is going to be severely gimped because you are missing one map and one mission, I don't know what to tell you, but I guess you are more than welcome to vote with your wallet, I just don't see that making one iota of difference because for most people these practices are completely harmless. Sony (or MS when they do it) get to have a big third party multiplatform game "associated" with their brand due to exclusive content labels and co-marketing deals, which in turn might sway some consumers, but for the most part when it's all said and done I doubt anyone ends up caring once they get their hands on the game. Most people probably forget or don't even notice what the exclusive content even was.

Besides first-party titles (MS/Sony-owned studios), I much rather see DLCs, skins, camos, maps, etc. being exclusive, than a title being exclusive to one platform. This is the little gamer boy in me dreaming.

Who holds third-party titles exclusives more often Sony, Nintendo or MS? I never really thought about that.

If Sony Nintendo or MS are publishing them they are not third party games. They are first party games. The publishing is all that really matters, whether the developer is someone they own or someone the contract out to. IT doesn't really matter.
 

EGM1966

Member
I've never been a fan of this kind of thing whether it benefits me (as in this case) or not. Pity more fuss wasn't made last gen though to actually discourage it but it seems the console market on general has sent the signal it's ok and in fact worth doing ( I'm talking the majority not the minority).

In this case it is interesting to see the extra frisson it's associated with a Bungie game is creating - definite feeling that some people who never cared about this in the past suddenly are.

For myself I'd like to see an armistice at the 12 month mark from console release - no more times DLC / extra content shit and all this stuff gets released to the opposing platform (including TitanFall which NS did part fund but only originally for timed exclusivity - the full exclusivity was clearly a seperate deal made just before release and should count as a bona fide money hat too)

All gamers should be taking the view to publishers to release any content that is purely contractual and not directly and clearly funded.

Won't happen though - too many are happy to crow about "their side" getting the content first : a state of affairs MS themselves actively encouraged last gen, somewhat ironically.
 

Toxi

Banned
Why would it not matter to a Sony consumer, or, more importantly, a potential consumer? If they see that getting the game on a Sony platform means more content?
So when a company cuts content and sells it on day 1 as DLC, that's totally awesome? I mean, it's "more" content by your logic.

And there's not reason to stop with the "it's a business" schtick because that's exactly what this is. Every decision these guys make is because of business. The reason Bloodborne exists isn't because Sony wants to see the smiles on your faces when you play it, it's because they think they can make money selling it.
It's like stating the sky is blue. EA rushes buggy games with forced online because they're a business. Microsoft tried to test the waters with DRM because they're a business. Well no shit, doesn't mean we have to like it.
 

Rurunaki

Member
To me true funding would be allowing the game to be released on all platforms, but get a larger cut of the profits (business is business). Funding with exclusion to other platforms, to me that's moneyhatting.

What.. You expect MS to fund Titanfall and release it on the playstation? Or for Sony to fund Bloodborne and release it on Xbox One? Why not just join forces and make a singular console and sharr profits.
 
So when a company cuts content and sells it on day 1 as DLC, that's totally awesome? I mean, it's "extra" content!


It's like stating the sky is blue. EA rushes buggy games with forced online because they're a business. Microsoft tried to test the waters with DRM because they're a business. Well no shit, doesn't mean we have to like it.

It doesn't bother me. I base my purchasing decisions on what is in the box that I'm buying. If what's there is worth $60 to me I'll pay. If not I won't. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over what the other consoles that I don't own are getting, or what store has some shitty preorder skin.
 
I guess thats good, I don't mind I'll survive without playing it I'm sure plenty of content is left for us on the XB1. I don't get the mind set for doing something like this this one game having a few exclusives won't be pushing many people to buy a PS4 instead.

Better hraphics will
 
love-300x89.png


I'm unlikely to get Destiny either, but this is just the last straw. My main issue with Destiny is, both as a Halo fan and as an FPS fan in general, I just don't think it looks particularly interesting. While there have been many positive impressions coming from the alpha, I often disagree with others' opinions (it's also worth noting that, with the alpha being exclusive to PS4, many of those impressions are coming from people who have never spent any significant amount of time playing Halo), and there's no way for me to check first hand unless I preorder (as someone with serious doubts, why would I?) or I get lucky with a beta code.

And then there's the Master Chief collection, which I know I'll be spending a lot of time with later this year. One would think that they'd be throwing all they've got into combating that, but no.

As a long time fan, I used to worry about Bungie getting themselves into a potentially dangerous position with Destiny - first with it being such a huge project, and such a long-lasting commitment to Activision, of all publishers; and then with it being so closely tied to a single platform holder - but the further this exclusive charade gets, the less I care. If Destiny fails to meet Bungie's and Activision's expectations, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

That said, I'd love to be proven wrong and swayed into supporting - and enjoying - Destiny.
*Violins*

When's the last time exclusive content on another console affected you? I'm having trouble remembering an instance where I really missed something.
I'm struggling to think of one other than the GTA4, Fallout 3 sets. Only because there was no indication that they were coming to other platforms. As I recall they were both denied until a month before release on other platforms, which seemed especially dirty to me at the time.
 

Jomjom

Banned
This sucks for players just like the CoD content for xbox, but its an equally smart business move just like the CoD content as well.

I'm struggling to think of one other than the GTA4, Fallout 3 sets. Only because there was no indication that they were coming to other platforms. As I recall they were both denied until a month before release on other platforms, which seemed especially dirty to me at the time.

It wasnt so bad. It ended up persuading me not to play the game at launch and I didnt end up picking those games up until the goty versions that came with all the dlc used for like $5.
 

Philippo

Member
Standing at the document leaked ages ago, aren't they supposed to release a "Comet" dlc next year? Guess it'll be timed.
 
Man the sheer outrage on the Bungie forums by the Xbox fans over this DLC exclusivity window.


love-300x89.png


I'm unlikely to get Destiny either, but this is just the last straw. My main issue with Destiny is, both as a Halo fan and as an FPS fan in general, I just don't think it looks particularly interesting. While there have been many positive impressions coming from the alpha, I often disagree with others' opinions (it's also worth noting that, with the alpha being exclusive to PS4, many of those impressions are coming from people who have never spent any significant amount of time playing Halo), and there's no way for me to check first hand unless I preorder (as someone with serious doubts, why would I?) or I get lucky with a beta code.

And then there's the Master Chief collection, which I know I'll be spending a lot of time with later this year. One would think that they'd be throwing all they've got into combating that, but no.

As a long time fan, I used to worry about Bungie getting themselves into a potentially dangerous position with Destiny - first with it being such a huge project, and such a long-lasting commitment to Activision, of all publishers; and then with it being so closely tied to a single platform holder - but the further this exclusive charade gets, the less I care. If Destiny fails to meet Bungie's and Activision's expectations, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

That said, I'd love to be proven wrong and swayed into supporting - and enjoying - Destiny.


xKs5VPs.gif
 

smurfx

get some go again
When's the last time exclusive content on another console affected you? I'm having trouble remembering an instance where I really missed something.
hitbox/hurtbox viewer on the umvc3 vita version that didn't come to the console version. this would have been extremely helpful.
 

BigDug13

Member
MS funded DR3, this is not the same thing.

Ok so how about Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. If you're ok with that being timed exclusive, can you then become upset that this stuff is timed exclusive?

You should either disagree with all of it or agree with all of it.

I used to hate on Sony getting timed exclusive on GTA series back in the day too. It's all BS.
 

Elixist

Member
man i wish both companies would drop this shit. so fucking stupid on top of all the preorder knick knack paddy wack bullcrap.
 

Katsa

Banned
What.. You expect MS to fund Titanfall and release it on the playstation? Or for Sony to fund Bloodborne and release it on Xbox One? Why not just join forces and make a singular console and sharr profits.

Not really, just trying to understand this whole "money hat" concept.

Is Titanfall considered a money hat? What about Bloodborne?
 

krioto

Member
love-300x89.png


I'm unlikely to get Destiny either, but this is just the last straw. My main issue with Destiny is, both as a Halo fan and as an FPS fan in general, I just don't think it looks particularly interesting. While there have been many positive impressions coming from the alpha, I often disagree with others' opinions (it's also worth noting that, with the alpha being exclusive to PS4, many of those impressions are coming from people who have never spent any significant amount of time playing Halo), and there's no way for me to check first hand unless I preorder (as someone with serious doubts, why would I?) or I get lucky with a beta code.

And then there's the Master Chief collection, which I know I'll be spending a lot of time with later this year. One would think that they'd be throwing all they've got into combating that, but no.

As a long time fan, I used to worry about Bungie getting themselves into a potentially dangerous position with Destiny - first with it being such a huge project, and such a long-lasting commitment to Activision, of all publishers; and then with it being so closely tied to a single platform holder - but the further this exclusive charade gets, the less I care. If Destiny fails to meet Bungie's and Activision's expectations, they have nobody but themselves to blame.

That said, I'd love to be proven wrong and swayed into supporting - and enjoying - Destiny.

This is by far the most pathetic thing I've read in this thread
 

Rurunaki

Member
Not really, just trying to understand this whole "money hat" concept.

Is Titanfall considered a money hat? What about Bloodborne?

Technically they're all third-party developed games, but funded by either Sony or MS. Plus, the only time I would consider something "money-hatted" is if a popular and successful third party game i.e. fallout being released exclusively to one platform.
 
This sucks for players just like the CoD content for xbox, but its an equally smart business move just like the CoD content as well.



It wasnt so bad. It ended up persuading me not to play the game at launch and I didnt end up picking those games up until the goty versions that came with all the dlc used for like $5.
Nice. I ended up buying a 360 far sooner than I otherwise would have. I felt a fool when I played GTV4. The crushing disappointment...

man i wish both companies would drop this shit. so fucking stupid on top of all the preorder knick knack paddy wack bullcrap.
As concept it is now so entrenched in the industry that Sony had to step up too. Microsoft did very well from this idea last gen.
 

tuna_love

Banned
Ok so how about Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. If you're ok with that being timed exclusive, can you then become upset that this stuff is timed exclusive?

You should either disagree with all of it or agree with all of it.

I used to hate on Sony getting timed exclusive on GTA series back in the day too. It's all BS.

Who is saying there ok with that and not this? Its all shit.
 

Rurunaki

Member
Getting back to the point. Activision saw potential large revenue on the playstation platform and as exchange for Sony pushing Destiny's marketing, they offered incentives for the Sony platform. Scratch my back, I scratch yours type of thing.
 

viveks86

Member
Not really, just trying to understand this whole "money hat" concept.

Is Titanfall considered a money hat? What about Bloodborne?

Depends on how Titanfall and Bloodborne make you feel. When you are pissed off with a transaction for some arbitrary reason, it's a money hat. If you think it's ok for some arbitrary reason, then it's a partnership. Hope that clears it up
 

BigDug13

Member
Who is saying there ok with that and not this? Its all shit.

That's why I was asking the question. I have this feeling that some people who are claiming that this was the last straw and that they no longer want this game because of this practice wouldn't have had quite the same issue if their platform of choice had the exclusivity. If you're ok with timed exclusive games, you have to also be ok with timed exclusive content.

You either hate on all of it or you accept all of it.
 

tuna_love

Banned
That's why I was asking the question. I have this feeling that some people who are claiming that this was the last straw and that they no longer want this game because of this practice wouldn't have had quite the same issue if their platform of choice had the exclusivity. If you're ok with timed exclusive games, you have to also be ok with timed exclusive content.

You either hate on all of it or you accept all of it.

Agreed.
 

Katsa

Banned
Depends on how Titanfall and Bloodborne make you feel. When you are pissed off with a transaction for some arbitrary reason, it's a money hat. If you think it's ok for some arbitrary reason, then it's a partnership. Hope that clears it up

Haha...I'll take this into consideration.
 

Jomjom

Banned
If people really hate this practice so much quit buying the games at launch. That only shows the devs/pubs that it is a shrewd business move - they get money from both the console holder moneyhat and lose minimal sales from the console that is disadvantaged. It ends up being a win-win situation for them. In these kinds of situations I almost always wait until the game is dirt cheap and get the goty version used (so i get that dlc that was held back for free) so the dev/pub receives no money from me.

If every single person complaining here, reddit, bungie forums, etc. boycotted the xbone version, such that the loss of sales outweighed what Sony gave them for this timed exclusive content, Activision would surely reconsider in the future.
 

Rurunaki

Member
People are overreacting to this. It's not like the game will be crippled if you don't play it on ps4. Address the issue if it goes further than this - like half the content missing or something.
 

Rad-

Member
Smart move by Sony. They're essentially pushing the game as an exclusive without having to pay the moneyhat.

See this is why I like Sony. They actually form partnerships to get DLC instead of money hatting like Microsoft does.

These things happen when you're the market leader and are guaranteed to have the best version of the game.

ibx2v7U5XIruUT.gif
 

Rurunaki

Member
That's why I was asking the question. I have this feeling that some people who are claiming that this was the last straw and that they no longer want this game because of this practice wouldn't have had quite the same issue if their platform of choice had the exclusivity. If you're ok with timed exclusive games, you have to also be ok with timed exclusive content.

You either hate on all of it or you accept all of it.

Stop liking what I don't like !!
 

TechnicPuppet

Nothing! I said nothing!
Ok so how about Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. If you're ok with that being timed exclusive, can you then become upset that this stuff is timed exclusive?

You should either disagree with all of it or agree with all of it.

I used to hate on Sony getting timed exclusive on GTA series back in the day too. It's all BS.

My particular issue with this is that people spending the same money at the same time are not getting the same game. More like the Fifa legends Ultimate team on XB1 situation which is also rubbish.
 
Here's my two-cents, even though I'm a "Junior" member on this site...

While I understand that there is an obvious financial benefit to both SONY (since exclusive content could very well drive software and console sales) and Bungie (plus Activision-Blizzard), I can't help but be slightly nauseous at the idea that this is what the industry has amounted to.

If Destiny were an "exclusive" title, I would understand "exclusive" content and early access... But this is a clear-cut preference, period. Regardless of personal opinion, the fact that Activision-Blizzard decided on Destiny getting early-access on PS4/PS3 over the other platform bothers me, if only because it reeks of backroom deals between First- and Third-Party. And while some would argue that this has been a "thing" for some time, I would argue that this particular form has been rearing its ugly head all-of-a-sudden.

We've gone beyond the Third-Party exclusive... Now we're getting the Third-Party "here's what your platform paid for" more-often than not. And in the case of Destiny, while it is releasing on both PS4 and XBOX One, there is a clear advantage in-terms of content that PS4 users are allowed. Now, I'm a PC player, and this doesn't necessarily affect me in a negative light (since the game doesn't have a PC release planned; I don't think it's hitting PC at all). But why is this ok in the console-focused industry? I mean, I understand that the PS4 is "better" than the XBOX One in terms of specifications... But why even bother with the XBOX One-release, if the PS4-release is technically "better" from both a performance basis, and a content-basis to-boot?

(Except Destiny is 30 fps on both PS4 and XBOX One, which screams two things: That parity is still an important factor, even though the two versions DO NOT INTERACT with each other in any-sense; and that there's obviously a performance issue somewhere, which is not an "artistic" decision; 30 fps in an FPS, regardless of design, makes no sense when Call of Duty, annual franchise crowned, is always striving for, and basically hitting, 60 fps period)

My point is this: Console-Manufacturers and Third-Party Publishers/Developers have a lot to explain in terms of how this industry works...And as a PC gamer, I'm thoroughly confused as to how anyone thinks this is a benefit to users, since all I see is a Third-Party going by console-sales rather than market-potential.
 
Top Bottom