Support NeoGAF

[Zeouterlimits]

Not a fan, but willing to accept it, games are risky, up front cash cheque makes sense.

 

[madjoki]

As long as it's exclusive for Sony, it's all good. Other platforms shouldn't be allowed to do this however.

 

[ArtHands]

Jeff Minter also said he has an exclusivity deal with Sony for Polybius VR too

 

[Valonquar]

The companies that sign the deals make millions for the exclusivity, so that's fair to me.

However, it just leads to embarrassing releases down the line. Skyrim being announced for the Switch for example.

"LOOK EVERYONE! We have that game everyone who cared has already played though, uninstalled, reinstalled, modded, played for an hour and uninstalled again FOUR YEARS AGO! COMING SOON PLEASE LOOK FORWARD TO IT!"

 

[Tagyhag]

It's stupid. I know devs have to pay the bills but no consumer should actually be happy it happens.

 

[adamsapple]

It has its ups and downs. For example, because it's coming out 1 year after it's original release .. I know to avoid Dead Rising 4 on PS4 completely.

 

[arturo2666]

As a practice it's inherently anti-consumer so that sucks. Personally, I'm fine with it. If something comes out on Xbox a year before other platforms I'm fine waiting a year and letting opinions stew a little bit. I like getting into things post-zeitgeist as well so as not to be fooled by hype.

 

[soundscream]

Anything more then a month is shitty.

 

[mjc]

It's a trash practice that should be gone by now.

 

[KonradLaw]

It's not ideal, but as long as I can still play that game on PC eventually I don't really care much. To many new titles being released on PC regularly and too huge backlog to worry I will have to wait a longer for couple games.

 

[lyrick]

Paying to make products worse for the customers of your competitors is a shit practice. Agreeing to release an inferior product by withholding features from your software is also a shit practice.

Both are bad for consumers.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

The logical leap that goes from "Game A uploaded on SteamDB a year prior to release" to "Sony paid for an exclusivity deal", is absolutely mind-boggling. You cannot consider the latter to be anything other than speculation.

Of course there's a possibility for it to be true that Sony did make a deal with the publisher in these instances, but the time-stamps in the Steam DB are not sufficient evidence alone of that.

Some of you would make shit lawyers, I tell you.

Im a media law graduate.

And e.g. in FFX/X-2 case its pretty clear there it is a timed exclusive, when the finished game was uploaded during the PS4 release and no SteamDB changes were made and the game releases on PC EXACTLY 1 year after it...
Its no proof, but everyone can see how that might be lead to it that the game was a timed exclusive.

Capcom said that Sony did a deal with them to make the VR portion of RE7 exclusive to RE7 for exactly 1 year. It was not Sony that said that, but Capcom. Chinese Game Room said for marketing purposes, Sony made them a half year exclusivity. Again, it was Chinese Game Room that talked, not Sony. So I dont think its that far fetched that there are pubs who dont disclose it and "evidence" suggests that there is something in place.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

As long as they are upfront about it I have no problem with it whatsoever, its just business.

 

[Forearm Star]

It’s been shit since last gen.

The only annoyance beyond that is people only blaming Sony for these practices. Would have started this gen with only a PS4 but after last gen decided to just get both and be done with it.

 

[Unaha-Closp]

As long as it's clear and not hidden behind corporate speak I am fine with it. If I had a console and wanted people to buy the console and I could do that by offering a game on it that won't be anywhere else for a while - I would do it. Business is Business. It must drive console sales as why else would they do it? Money is King.

Just as long as it's clear. If it's not clear then I tend to mentally write that game off in my head as a game I cannot play so when it does surface amid the confusion I am not hyped at all for it. Clarity is all I ask.

 

[LordBaztion]

I can't really complaint, those usually atend to a marketing or a publishing agreement. Those are the platform holders funding the most expensive part of a game, so it is fair that developers/publishers give something in return.

 

[immortald3ath]

As long as it's exclusive for Sony, it's all good. Other platforms shouldn't be allowed to do this however.

Pretty much this.

On a serious note....I own all consoles so the 1 year exclusives never really bothered me.

But exclusive content, like one console receiving MP maps 2 weeks ahead of the other...now that pisses me off

 

[Drazgul]

They all fear the power of the PC.

 

[Astral Dog]

Dumb

 

[Chairmanchuck]

It's been shit since last gen.

The only annoyance beyond that is people only blaming Sony for these practices. Would have started this gen with only a PS4 but after last gen decided to just get both and be done with it.

Im not. MS is doing the same. Oculus was doing the same. Its always a bad practice.

I am totally okay if its disclosed like the RE7 deal. Instead quite often we now have "Its exclusive. We cant say anything about it."#

I can't really complaint, those usually atend to a marketing or a publishing agreement. Those are the platform holders funding the most expensive part of a game, so it is fair that developers/publishers give something in return.

Sure, but why not just be clear about it like Capcom?
Im totally okay with it.

I just dont get why you have stuff like Nioh, where it seems it was always developed with PC in mind (according to SteamDB), but the producer saying "No clue about a PC version" or FFX-X2, where the game was finished but held back for one year without saying anything.

Have you thought that maybe the Steam database isn't an accurate representation of when the game was worked on or finished? After all, the PC version of X/X-2 has several features that weren't in the PS3 or PS4 versions like cutscene skipping and boosters. Why would those features not be in the PS4 version as well, if they were both finished at the same time?

Thats what you need to ask Square. The game was finished with the cutscene skipping and boosters because nothing was worked on in that year. No new SteamApp was updated during that time.

 

[ShaggsMagoo]

See here's the thing. I really like platform exclusives, it helps form the identity of the console. So I like the one year exclusives because it allows games to become identifiable with a particular console, but then lets everybody have a chance to play.

 

[Wereroku]

To a certain extent their are an enduring part of marketing because they work. However personally I hate the ones that lock out the entire game from a platform. If they have to do it I would prefer they stick to locking out some content. At least that way I can play the game itself.

 

[Ganado]

As long as it's exclusive for Sony, it's all good. Other platforms shouldn't be allowed to do this however.

tbqh

Also afaik the only reasonable moneyhat is Dead Rising 4 since I'm sure they'd never go through with that shit if they didn't get the extra money, and yet they revealed on how long it was exclusive and that it would release on other platforms.

See here's the thing. I really like platform exclusives, it helps form the identity of the console. So I like the one year exclusives because it allows games to become identifiable with a particular console, but then lets everybody have a chance to play.

Don't you think their first-party offerings are enough?

 

[Nephtes]

As long as it's exclusive for Sony, it's all good. Other platforms shouldn't be allowed to do this however.

^ seems to be a more prevalent opinion than it should be, joking or not.

It's a shitty practice.

Unless your console maker walked up to a developer and said, "Here is this IP we want you to make" or the developer goes to the console maker and says "give us $$$ to make this new IP we want", third party exclusives shouldn't be happening at all.

Certainly not in the case of games that previously were multiplatform and the sequel gets locked to one console.

It's completely anti-consumer and a slap in the face to owners of a console ecosystem that enjoyed the first game on one console and now needs to buy a separate console to enjoy the sequel.

This stuff shouldn't affect me since I own all the platforms, but it still pisses me off for friends who are too cheap to buy multiple consoles and won't get to enjoy games they otherwise would one year later or not.

1 year exclusives and 3rd party moneyhats on sequels to multiplatform games need to stop.

 

[Rad-]

I already hated it last gen when MS did it and I hate it this gen when Sony does it (also MS still does it but in a smaller scale). And even though I'm a PS4 only owner I have to admit I have seen this happen:

I think the way it goes on GAF. Sony does it good others do it bad

When Sony gets a timed exclusive it almost always seems to be "It's Sony exclusive just because! No moneyhats happened" but when MS does it it's always "because moneyhats". When in reality both companies very likely use the same deals and tricks.

 

[Akai__]

3rd Party time exclusive games/content is always bad. The devs and publishers are actively withholding content from their fans on one platform, instead of treating everyone the same and giving everyone the same experience. Terrible practice.

 

[Kudo]

Hate it. I've been suckered too many times thinking the game is exclusive and buy subpar version of the game for more money, than I could have got year later.
Makes sense for them as otherwise I would have gotten those games for PC but still, it sucks.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Buying exclusivity (permanent or timed) on a game that's getting developed anyway is always and inherently anti consumer.

By contrast, funding the development of a game that otherwise wouldn't have been made in exchange for exclusivity is almost always a good thing. It leads to a net increase in the overall amount of art in the universe, even if only certain console owners can play it.

By extension, I'd say funding the development of a game (that otherwise wouldn't have been made) in exchange for only timed exclusivity is fantastic. Not only does it bring one more piece of art into the world, but that art will be accessible to a much wider audience after only a year. That's wonderful!

 

[demosthenes]

Dislike them in general.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I like full exclusives. And no exclusives.

The whole middle ground of timed exclusives suck.

 

[GhostTrick]

I wouldn't mind if Publishers were transparent about these.
Sony used to before. Not anymore.

 

[jroc74]

Bad for consumers, may or may not be bad for companies.

Agree with others, be transparent, also go full exclusive.

 

[manhack]

I hated it when Call of Duty expansions were on XBOX before Playstation since it seemed so arbitrary and punished the fans who essentially bought the same exact product on a different platform.

I haven't run into the issue as much, but still think it is bullshit.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Anti-consumer rubbish

 

[DrArchon]

If I was sure that every timed exclusivity deal was used to fund games that wouldn't get made or beef up games that would otherwise have smaller budgets, then I'd be all for it.

As it stands, I have no idea whether or not that's the case or if the money from these deals are just going to fatten up publisher profits. I'm taking the cynical approach unless told otherwise by the people making the game.

 

[Nev]

Any kind of exclusivity deal is cancerigenous, period.

If you fund, develop and publish your own game to help make your platform more attractive, props to you.

If you paid to withhold a game from releasing on other platforms you're trash, as simple as that.

 

[UKUMI0]

While I'm not a fan of timed exclusives I can accept them.

What I can't accept is when a game is diced up with parts withheld from other platforms as part of some marketing ploy. Especially if its for more then a month or so. Destiny DLC comes to mind, but there are many examples such as an entire game mode being made exclusive to PS4 in Arkham Knight, a couple of side missions being made exclusive to PlayStation in Watch Dogs 2 and countless others. The last two examples have never (and most likely will never) make it to Xbox platform. Don't know if the content ever made it PC or not but its still a nasty practice.

I'm sure Microsoft has done something similar at some time or another though I don't have recent examples to pull from. If I pay for a game, I should get the same amount of content as a person who paid the same amount on another platform.

 

[im_dany]

Depends on the deal.

Full exclusivity on a game/dlc? I don't care. I'll wait an year, get the money and buy it.

Exclusivity on content at the same price? F that. Yeah, looking at you, Destiny.

 

[shimon]

They suck. Doesn't matter whether it's Xbox or Sony.

 

[noomi]

Hate it, especially for Destiny 2.

PS4 gets exclusive weapon, strikes, and crucible maps. This will continue with every DLC drop for a one year duration.

I'll be playing on PC, and I won't be able to access it for a year, when I will likely become bored of the game.

Fucking sucks.

 

[Abilidebob]

Have you thought that maybe the Steam database isn't an accurate representation of when the game was worked on or finished? After all, the PC version of X/X-2 has several features that weren't in the PS3 or PS4 versions like cutscene skipping and boosters. Why would those features not be in the PS4 version as well, if they were both finished at the same time?

Spoiler

Unless Valve paid Square to keep the extra features exclusive to the PC version ��

As already said, because they already worked on it.


Also, hey to everyone saying that this doesn't happen, new stuff from today for you:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1450776


Game comes out on PC exactly one year after its release on PS4. Really weird how that duration keeps repeating itself, huh? And it's by Bandai Namco, not Square Enix. How weird of these japanese companies just out of nowhere announce PC ports with release dates one year after PS4 release, is it a cultural thing maybe?!?!

 

[jeffram]

Funding for things to happen that would otherwise not and asking for exclusivity..... OK

Paying to take away things from your competitor that they would otherwise get..... NOT OK

 

[Hero Prinny]

I dont really mind and tbh when this happens on a system
I dont own (basically only the xbone) by the time it does finally come out on a system i own I’ve lost all interest for it (like tomb raider). so i guess 1 yr exclusive is good, saves me money 😭

 

[The_Dama]

When Sony does it: Yayyyyyy
When MS does it: Fuck you MS, worst company in the world

 

[TheLegendaryN]

How much money do publishers earn from those timed-exclusivity deals?

I think it would be a good thing for the dev/pub if a console manufacturer helps a lot with marketing of the game in exchange for 1 year of timed-exclusivity. Free marketing, while still cashing on other platforms a year later. When the release on other platforms, like PC, is there, there will be another moment of buzz for the game (2 instead of 1), which might somehow convince people with a PS4 in this case to buy the game as well.

 

[Veon]

What's funny is that WBros hasn't even put the remaining Batman: Arkham Knight DLC time exclusive DLC into the XB1 version. Two years ongoing.

 

[GhostTrick]

Have you thought that maybe the Steam database isn't an accurate representation of when the game was worked on or finished? After all, the PC version of X/X-2 has several features that weren't in the PS3 or PS4 versions like cutscene skipping and boosters. Why would those features not be in the PS4 version as well, if they were both finished at the same time?

Spoiler

Unless Valve paid Square to keep the extra features exclusive to the PC version ��

It's kinda weird that the port has been sitting there 9 months before launch without a single update... Except the one about the store page appearing. While the port was in developpement still a little bit after PS4 release, it could've released earlier too.

How much money do publishers earn from those timed-exclusivity deals?

I think it would be a good thing for the dev/pub if a console manufacturer helps a lot with marketing of the game in exchange for 1 year of timed-exclusivity. Free marketing, while still cashing on other platforms a year later. When the release on other platforms, like PC, is there, there will be another moment of buzz for the game (2 instead of 1), which might somehow convince people with a PS4 in this case to buy the game as well.

I'm not against the idea. Although I'm against the lack of transparency. People rightfully asked for transparency with MS about Rise of the Tomb Raider and recently PUBG. The same should apply for other manufacturers. I mean, that's litterally false advertising to just go on and claim "said product can only be found here".

 

[Van Bur3n]

It's anti-consumer and any company that does it is a shitty company.

 

[sense]

As already said, because they already worked on it.


Also, hey to everyone saying that this doesn't happen, new stuff from today for you:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1450776


Game comes out on PC exactly one year after its release on PS4. Really weird how that duration keeps repeating itself, huh? And it's by Bandai Namco, not Square Enix. How weird of these japanese companies just out of nowhere announce PC ports with release dates one year after PS4 release, is it a cultural thing maybe?!?!

I would like to hear your thoughts on why Sony would moneyhat that game?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

I would like to hear your thoughts on why Sony would moneyhat that game?

Why would Sony moneyhat the VR part of RE7 or Gone to the Rapture or Polybius? These are confirmed by the devs.

They see it might be a good incentive for people to buy the console. Heck. FFX to a lot of people what FF7 was to my "gamer generation".