Support NeoGAF

[GhostTrick]

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

Personnally, I have huge doubts Sony moneyhatted Sword Art Online and I believe this might be more about the result of a late decision after the performance of other titles (like God Eater) and the DLC release schedule.

As for other exemples though, I have litterally little doubts about it. Timing and relationship with said publishers seems to point at that.

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

Also Megaton Rainfall (although for a month).
http://wccftech.com/megaton-rainfall-interview-real-sized-earth-save/

On PC, are you going to support both Oculus Rift and HTC Vive (Steam VR)?
I can't answer that question due to the contract with Sony. But I can say that I'd love to support both.

There's also Rez VR, but at least Sony was upfront about it. Except for the length.

 

[TheLegendaryN]

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".

Yeah, although I can understand that it weakens the marketing impact if they say 'oh btw, it's only exclusive for a year'. I didn't have much of a problem with it with RotTR. PUBG is a mess tho, and I think it's because Microsoft wants to extend the exclusivity period behind the scenes. Wouldn't it be worse if they said right now 'it's for a year', and then in January or so 'oh, it's for two years', and then in April 'it's forever'?

 

[GhostTrick]

Yeah, although I can understand that it weakens the marketing impact if they say 'oh btw, it's only exclusive for a year'. I didn't have much of a problem with it with RotTR. PUBG is a mess tho, and I think it's because Microsoft wants to extend the exclusivity period behind the scenes. Wouldn't it be worse if they said right now 'it's for a year', and then in January or so 'oh, it's for two years', and then in April 'it's forever'?

Well, telling the truth about your product weakens the marketing sometimes.

 

[Lothars]

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

These hot takes are hilarous because it's the same shitty posts remade over and over. Really wish you guys would get some material that actually was true.

1 year exclusivity is a shitty thing, It's shitty when any company does it and it doesn't seem like it will anytime soon.

 

[TheLegendaryN]

Well, telling the truth about your product weakens the marketing sometimes.

Which is why they don't say anything.

 

[ironmang]

I don't really mind it. Can't hate on some company looking for that guaranteed money instead of hoping it reviews and sells well.

 

[GhostTrick]

Which is why they don't say anything.

Yeah, but straigth up lying is rather illegal. So while it weakens the marketing it still has an important impact for their base. Hence the "First on" stuff we're seeing these days.

 

[Trago]

It's a bullshit practice for consumers who are on different platforms, and I wish all the console makers would stop it.

It would have been nice to play Nioh on PC day one, but fuckin Sony kept it exclusive for a while.

Same with Microsoft and Tomb Raider.

 

[Stallion Dan]

If a company wants to make me wait a year for their game because of a handout my attitude is "Fuck you I'm buying it used, if ever".

Shitty practice I will not support.

 

[Battlechili]

Timed exclusivity only benefits corporations at the cost of consumers, so its naturally terrible.

Regarding the Zodiac Age, a PS2 exclusive gets a PS4 remaster and everybody is salty? I mean it was a PS2 exclusive, besides the possibility of a PC release down the line, did nobody think it wouldn't stay exclusive to playstation?

There's not really any good reason for it to stay exclusive to Playstation.
Plus FF games are largely multiplat titles nowadays.

 

[The Futurist]

If a company helps pay any sort of development costs, sure.

If they are just paying for exclusivity. That's business.

The only people who bitch and moan about these things are console warriors who would rather die than give money to the other guy.

Battlegrounds is the perfect example. Whether it be straight business or MIcrosoft actually helping develop a console version of the game, they made the right call either way. It's the fastest growing thing in gaming right now and if you don't have a gaming PC and really want to play it, you put your brand loyalty aside and buy an Xbox.

I can understand if someone can't afford multiple consoles. That's perfectly fair.

For everyone else that can't put out a few hundred dollars because you know this shit is going to happen again and again, you're just being a child. Then next time some timed exclusive comes to the console you refuse to buy, instead of bitching about money hatting, you can instead just the play the game.

 

[Trago]

I'm curious if this practice benefits third party publishers financially vs a day and date release on all platforms.

 

[GhostTrick]

If a company helps pay any sort of development costs, sure.

If they are just paying for exclusivity. That's business.

The only people who bitch and moan about these things are console warriors who would rather die than give money to the other guy.

Battlegrounds is the perfect example. Whether it be straight business or MIcrosoft actually helping develop a console version of the game, they made the right call either way. It's the fastest growing thing in gaming right now and if you don't have a gaming PC and really want to play it, you put your brand loyalty aside and buy an Xbox.

I can understand if someone can't afford multiple consoles. That's perfectly fair.

For everyone else that can't put out a few hundred dollars because you know this shit is going to happen again and again, you're just being a child. Then next time some timed exclusive comes to the console you refuse to buy, instead of bitching about money hatting, you can instead just the play the game.

It's not only business. It's also advertising. False advertising.

 

[MoogleMan]

Full exclusivity is fine. Timed exclusivity is bullshit.

 

[Infernostew]

It sucks but as long as I can get the game a year later (with all DLC) then it's not too bad. I can wait.

 

[jmga]

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

Attrition strategy. Paying for a secret timed exclusivity for many games, even if they are small or niche titles, end up giving the appearance that your platform is constantly receiving a bunch of exclusives.

Later, when these games appear on other platforms, other games will be in the same situation, and so on.

Let's be honest, if you remove all current and announced third party exclusives, the PS4 catalog becomes much less attractive.

 

[TheLegendaryN]

Full exclusivity is fine. Timed exclusivity is bullshit.

Full exclusivity costs the publishers too much money.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

.
Again, please give me one, just ONE explanation that makes sense for it.

The publisher decided to delay the release for some other business reason that wasn't related to Sony.

I'm not saying an exclusivity agreement isn't possible, I'm not even saying it's not likely, I'm saying that the existence of a possibility combined with an inability to consider other possibilities does not prove something as fact.

Otherwise, your definition of fact is faulty.

A decent lawyer considers precedents, sony payed for exactly 1 year exclusivity with Capcom. Maybe a shit lawyer like you didn't even think about it, uh?

Resorting to personal insults... classy.

Precedent alone doesn't prove the possibility of something as fact.

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.

Being possible or even likely doesn't render it factual in the absence of any conclusive evidence.

The evidence provided only proves that the games on steam were delayed for a year. It doesn't prove why. And precedents of earlier disclosed agreements would only serve as circumstantial evidence at best.

 

[Roland1979]

Depends on if that game actually needed that extra money or not.

This is how I feel. If this was the only way to make it, then something is better than nothing. But in many cases, it's just a marketing thing.

 

[Blue Lou]

I have no problem with it if it goes the Tomb Raider 2 route where all DLC is available and included on day 1.

 

[jmga]

The publisher decided to delay the release for some other business reason that wasn't related to Sony.

I'm not saying an exclusivity agreement isn't possible, I'm not even saying it's not likely, I'm saying that the existence of a possibility combined with an inability to consider other possibilities does not prove something as fact.

The publisher was Sony.

And, as I appointed before, the game director kept saying it was only planned for PS4 even 5 months after it appaered on Steam.

http://wccftech.com/niohs-game-dire...on-average-no-plans-for-pc-release-currently/

 

[GOOCHY]

They can make the deals if it makes sense to them from a business perspective, I suppose, but I'm not going to support them.

For example, the most recent Tomb Raider had a one year exclusive deal with Microsoft then came out for PS4 at full price over a year later. No way. I waited for the price to drop and then bought it used so that Square/Enix wasn't seeing any of my money for it.

 

[Compbros]

I don't mind exclusivity deal if the person giving the money helped development along in troubled times or even kickstarted the game, I can't stand it when it's a game that's coming along well or has no major problems and it's paid to just not release on other platforms for a while.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

The publisher was Sony.

And, as I appointed before, the game director kept saying it was only planned for PS4 even 5 months after it appaered on Steam.

http://wccftech.com/niohs-game-dire...on-average-no-plans-for-pc-release-currently/

If Sony was the publisher, then did they make an exclusivity deal with themselves?

I must be missing something here.

 

[wenis]

shrug, not a big deal. but i also own all the consoles and have a good PC so nothing is really exclusive from me. if you didn't own one of the consoles or a nice pc then i could see why that would ruffle your feathers.

 

[Kneefoil]

Ideally games would come out on all systems a the same time, of course, but I prefer it over total exclusivity. I also don't feel the need to play everything day 1, so I have no trouble waiting a year or two longer.

 

[katsais]

What about Cuphead? Does MS have timed exclusivity on that?

They are bad. Both Sony and MS are guilty of it. Content, I get. A whole game? MS seems to have done quite a few of them for Xbox One.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I don't like when the timed exclusivity deals are made public (we've made a deal with x and you can't play on your platform until y months have passed). My rebel side sometimes take over and I simply don't buy such games when they finally launch on my preferred platform. That's one of the reasons why I still haven't touched Rise of the Tomb Raider.

 

[Mifec]

What about Cuphead? Does MS have timed exclusivity on that?

They are bad. Both Sony and MS are guilty of it. Content, I get. A whole game? MS seems to have done quite a few of them for Xbox One.

Full console exclusivity.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Better than a full exclusive

 

[Ninja Scooter]

It doesn't really bother me. I'll buy games I want when they are out, there is too many good games out and coming out for me to laser focus on a single title so much.

From a business perspective, I totally get why companies do it. They wouldn't if it didn't work. People (including and probably especially enthusiasts like us) put a huge premium on "exclusivity" and then get angry or confused when these companies go out get exclusive content. Sure, you could say "Well as long as they pay for development..." as if it matters, but at the point all you are saying is you want these companies to get better at lying to you.

 

[benjammin]

Great for companies that can get them, pretty shitty for consumers. But if a game is good enough then they won't stop me from buying it on my preferred console.

 

[Beegeous]

It’s bollocks when they end up being secretly 2 year exclusive deals (ala the Taken King exclusives in Destiny).

 

[NekoFever]

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.

Tomb Raider? The PS2 GTAs? Sony was absolutely dominant back then, far more than now, and it did deals for exclusivity on both of those franchises.

 

[maxmars]

I don't like it one bit. Even when a game comes out on a platform I have, eg the PS4, I still think it sucks for people who only have one console and may have been interested in the game.

OTOH, you can probably get the game cheaper when it comes out, but if you factor in the fact you have waited to get it, at that same time the game probably would have been discounted anyway so all you get is being deprived of the possibility to play the game while it's hot. For some games (e.g. multiplayer heavy games) this is important.

 

[Skronk]

It's anti-consumer but seeing how ridiculous game budgets are getting I can see why they try and sell anything they can to Sony and MS.

 

[wol93]

Steam

FFX/X-2 is already available on steam.

 

[farisr]

Timed exclusivity for games and DLC sucks regardless of who's doing it.

Only exception is if the game absolutely would not have been made without the platform holder's involvement (which most of them aren't).

 

[a Master Ninja]

Content, I get.

I think console exclusive content bothers me more somehow. I know an incomplete game should be preferable to no game at all, but just knowing they did the work to get the game on the platform and then removed content from it because a console manufacturer paid them to really grinds my gears.

 

[Stevey]

It's dumb and everyone should boycott games that do it but that will never happen so we're stuck with it.

 

[LukasTaves]

But don't you know it was MS who invented the practise, Sony never did it even in their dominant PS2 days!

In case this is not sarcasm:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2002-sony-gets-grand-theft-auto-exclusive/1100-2866884/

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Sega and Nintendo paid for SF2 exclusivity way back in the SNES and Genesis days. This is nothing new.

 

[Greedings]

I think it's dumb, but I don't really care, it's just not a big deal. If it helps more games get made, thanks to subsidies from the timed exclusivity, then it's probably a net positive.

 

[Gator86]

If you're paying money to a company that makes video games to prevent some people from playing those games, you are bad and I hope your endeavors fail in miserable fashion. It's always a bad look.

 

[Nephtes]

Sega and Nintendo paid for SF2 exclusivity way back in the SNES and Genesis days. This is nothing new.

It was shitty back then, it's shitty now.
Just because it's nothing new doesn't mean it's okay.

(Genesis did eventually get a much improved version of SF2 in Championship edition... SNES couldn't exactly get Championship Edition DLC requiring a complete new purchase of SF2 Hyper or something if you wanted to use bosses on SNES... So it isn't an exact comparison.... Boy did that really benefit Capcom, I bet they still wish they could do that...)

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

I'm categorically against it. Money spent simply to deprive a group of people of something.

 

[ghibli99]

It's all perspective. It's good if you happen to have the platform those are on, bad if not. In general, I don't like them, but they're nothing new; companies need things like this to differentiate themselves, stand out, and ensure people are using their products to run said software.

 

[ZugZug123]

Depends on the game. A single player one is just as good a year later, no big deal. For an online it's a deal breaker, a lot of online games have short life spans and getting content a year later is useless as the community has moved on. Seeing that thread of XBox folks getting Destiny 1 PS 4 timed content after Destiny 2 was released was pure BS and turned me off even further from D2 as it seems they are repeating the deal once again.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Anti-consumer bullshit

.

 

[Flame Lord]

It's better than a game never coming to your platform of choice at all. Though I do have a more negative feeling about it when it's keeping a game from PC, cause that just seems silly to me.