VincentMatts
Member
Are you a fan of getting your ass kicked? cause thats whats happening when you dont make marketing deals.
-
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.
Phil Spencer: "Not a fan of marketing deals with exclusive content"
- Thread starter MauroNL
- Start date
I agree that both are bad for gamers but...
I completely disagree with what you said, we can still play and enjoy the full game as the developers has intended even if the add-on contents are locked that's because add-ons are just that, they're to there to enhance the experience and are not the full game.
Blocking users from the other console from buying and playing the full game for months on the other hand is more distasteful in my opinion
VincentMatts
Member
I dont like either. If youre a fan of the franchise, it sucks. But as you said, at one point you can play the full game often with added content, not less content. Like Tomb raider.
With Destiny2, all we know is that sony can renew their deal at the end of the year like they did with D1, and xbox owners wont see the content for even longer than a year. Fuck bungie, activition and sony.
See my edit. I'm talking about the ability to buy the product vs. content delivered at time of purchase. If I buy a game with less content on my platform, despite it costing the same amount of money, I feel like I got a worse deal. Sure, I can wait for the content, but I paid for the game already. If I can buy the same product on my platform, just at a different time, I feel like my purchase isn't a lesser product, because I got the same amount of content at time of purchase.
Not to mention in a multiplayer game like Destiny, locking out content for a platform negatively effects that content when it's released, and can even make it worthless! For example, Destiny: The Rise of Iron content exclusive to PlayStation platforms only becomes available to Xbox later this year, around the time the sequel comes out, which will likely cause the game to be seen as obsolete or lose a significant amount of population.
Again, I don't support the practices either way. I just don't agree that Phil is being insincere here; theirs definitely a difference between the two types of exclusivity, and people are ignoring that.
It's buying a game with less content vs. buying a game later with the same content. In one case you get less for your money. That sucks. In the other, you just have to wait. That also sucks. I just think getting less for your money sucks more.
This guy. Wow.
All I could hear in my head when reading his comment was the word 'exclusive' in announcer voice on repeat.
I can see why he said it -- none of their exclusive shit looks very good so of course he doesn't want some content on multiplats held back-- but my goodness he is bad at his job.
He's supposed to either a) get awesome games on his platform that make you need to buy it, or 2) convince you that there is so much potential that you don't want to miss out. He's doing a crap job of both.
He and that Sony guy (no cross plat, no backward compat) should both be fired. They're supposed to be advocates for their brand and instead they're making people who aren't invested in their ecosystem already not want to.
All I could hear in my head when reading his comment was the word 'exclusive' in announcer voice on repeat.
I can see why he said it -- none of their exclusive shit looks very good so of course he doesn't want some content on multiplats held back-- but my goodness he is bad at his job.
He's supposed to either a) get awesome games on his platform that make you need to buy it, or 2) convince you that there is so much potential that you don't want to miss out. He's doing a crap job of both.
He and that Sony guy (no cross plat, no backward compat) should both be fired. They're supposed to be advocates for their brand and instead they're making people who aren't invested in their ecosystem already not want to.
Melchiah
Member
Exactly. Instead of having to wait for a year to play Tomb Raider, I could have played it on day one. Missing some of its additional content in return wouldn't have been that big of a deal.
VincentMatts
Member
What people forget about Tomb Raider is that when it came to PS4, it was at the same price xbox had but with more content than xbox had at launch.
In Destiny1, when sony renewed their 'partenership' after the first year, xbox owners could still not get access to that exclusive content. That is much worse imo. Youre literally being blocked from content you paid the same price for. Its a shitty practice.
Both suck, but the way Bungie and sony do it is by far a much shitter practice imo. Thats why im not buying it on ps4 this time. Not supporting that practice.
Nobody is ignoring it. Its just that they are not that different.
Melchiah
Member
The XBO version of the base game cost 30 at the time. The entry price for PS4 owners was double that, even with more content.
Dead rising 4, the guy is full of shit. The reality is developers do not want to heavily partner with the company that not the lead.
The end experience is very different, though. It doesn't seem like many people care however, so I'll stop ranting about it.
VincentMatts
Member
Launch prices were the same is the point. Both games were the same price when it first launched on the platform, but ps4 got more content right on the disk.
In destiny 1, im pretty sure the exclusive sony content is still NOT even available to this day on xbox.
For me both are just as bad as each other, paying to keep either some or all content from a platform for a time is just bad. With the one exception being if the dev team is too small to handle multiple platforms.
One means I have to just sit and wait to play on my preferred platform, for the same price (if not more taking in to account sales and price cuts), usually having to go out of my way to avoid being spoil and the other you covered, both are just as shitty as each other.
I don't really blame devs for taking the deals either, it's easy money, though some do take it too far Destiny, Tomb Raider, DR4 and SF5 to name a few.
Toe-Knee
Member
The original content is. Hawkmoon, Montenegro carlo and the dust palace strike.
Is the stuff from after the taken king that isn't.
DarknessTear
Banned
I'm sure many have said it but they did this shit with Call of Duty when they were the dominant platform. It's only natural that Sony got theirs this generation.
VincentMatts
Member
yeah, this to me is by far the worst of the 2 practices. If you give me less, charge me less. Or is that not fun for activision/bungie shareholders? I hate activition.
Hmm...aren't preorder bonuses similar in nature? I bought Injustice 2 on day of release, but because I was 24hrs too late, I didn't get Darkseid as a playabale character, even though I paid the same price. MS themselves have games that had Pre-order bonuses as well.
And as Phil explained, he wasn't in charge back then. He can have an opinion and a stance.
So would Dead Rising 4 even happened if not for Microsoft's involvement? That's not an exclusivity deal (see Bayonetta 2).
Was he in charge during Rise of Tom Raider or Dead Rising 4 or plethora of indie "launch exclusives" they kept calling exclusive. Wait let me guess, it's not okay to keep content but it's okay to keep entire fucking game.
Considering they said it'll be coming to other consoles 12 months later probably.
He was in charge when they made The Division deal, Phil's guilty of it too. Only reason he would have changed his tone is because they are probably a hell of a lot harder for Xbox to get now and Sony have one for pretty much every major game.
Uno Venova
Banned
People bringing up paying less for getting less content in the package are kind of delusional, pre-order bonuses have been giving games different levels of content for like a decade.
If they tried to quantify the actual dollar amount they'd end up paying like 4 cents less. And I know they don't actually care about change that small.
VincentMatts
Member
Exactly. MS helped fund the development of both DR and Tomb Raider. Its in their fucking right to get something back if they so choose if they actually helped the development of the game. Its common fucking sense.
If you help fund development of a game, AKA, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Dead Rising 4, Street Fighter V, Bayonetta 2, etc. etc., it makes total sense for exclusivity on that game and doesn't hold a candle to DLC exclusivity.
We don't know the terms of these deals, but the year long Destiny bullshit is exactly what it is..... exclusivity for 1/2/3 months? Fine.... but Phil is stating how he feels about that and stated they didn't take that action with Assassins Creed or Shadow of War. That doesn't make him a "dumbass".
Reckheim
Member
Tomb Raider and Titanfall would have happen without Microsofts involvement.
Titanfall agreement didn't happen under Phil's watch.
You really think Rise of Tomb Raider, a game that was not announced as exclusive, wasn't going to be made without MS? I have a bridge to sell you.
VincentMatts
Member
"Ifs" "and" and "maybes" dont count here. Fact is, they did help the development of the game and they in turn have to right to have an exclusivity on it. You put money into the development, you have the right to keep it on your platform.
I agree that this shit is unnecessary all around, but Sony is just playing the game that Microsoft started. I played on PS3 last gen, had to wait over a year for The Lost & the Damned & almost a year for The Ballad of Gay Tony. Both of those add-ons were announced as first on Xbox, so clearly money changed hands there. Past that there were other cross platform games last gen where the x360 version had extra weapons or skins or what have you (minor stuff granted), that never came to PS3. It sucks, but Microsoft only has themselves to blame to making this shit a profitable enterprise for greedy pubs like Activision.
Paid exclusivity and paid timed exclusivity for games themselves were always a thing in the console space since the early Nintendo/Sega days, hell even earlier than that with Atari/Coleco/Intellivision. But the paid exclusive content thing? That shit never hapened before until Microsoft started doing it.
Sony could've paid Bungie to make that extra content too, sorta like contracting work.
Maybe it was never meant to be in the game or whatever, we can't fully know without the contract in front of us.
This shit can be spun whichever way.
Yeah both practices suck but timed exclusivity doesn't mean it's all sunshine and rainbows for the losing system.
Think I want to wait a year to play Tacoma and dodge spoilers all the time?Hell no
Toe-Knee
Member
To be fair all the original content sucked other than the hawkmoon.
Nobody came out on top
I have no idea. Nor do I know if Square Enix solicited help from Sony/MS to help fund the game. Can the same be said for Street Fighter V? I have no idea, but that game will never see the light of day on Xbox.
I'm not going to debate the issue of locking a game behind a platform based on a moneyhat. If that was the case with Rise of the Tomb Raider, that was shitty for PS4 gamers (which I am one as well). But clearly the Destiny agreement for Activision with Sony has pissed off a lot of gamers, including myself because the year long thing is stupid. Make it 3 months, fine. Phil is going to use that to his advantage.
But that rings hollow after a year. It's the waiting for the game that sucks, not what you get when you are able to buy it. 99% of PS4 owners would have much rather had ROTTR day 1, than wait a year and get more content.
As for Destiny content, I don't look at it as Xbox owners getting less content. I look at it as PS4 owners getting bonus content. Xbox owners are getting the full game. PS4 owners are getting the full game + some extras due to marketing deals. It's content that otherwise wouldn't have been created, or would have been included with a DLC pack down the road.
This thread is about what Phil said, and if there's anything to laugh at, it's the people defending him.
JONEZZEEonGAF
Member
As a Fifa player on PS4 I have to question this bs. Up until Fifa 18 they locked up legends in a deal which stopped PS4 owners from having a chance of getting them.
Utter tosh from Phil.
Utter tosh from Phil.
VincentMatts
Member
Dont misunderstand, im totally fine with 'first on' deals. Destiny however isnt that simple. Its "first on" for a year and they have the option to extend it as long as they want if they want to. Some content still isnt on xbox for destiny 1. Its been years. Microsofts deals last gen were one month exclusivity on COD dlc and the rest. Then it came out the next month on ps3. If this were the deals now, i have ZERO problems with it. But its not one month, its one year and it can be extended if they want.
I can easily wait a month and be guaranteed to get the dlc. But now i wait a year, and im still not sure that i might get it. Its much worse in every way.
If you waited a year from the original Destiny launch to buy it, you definitely got more for $60 than people who bought it when it was first released. That's true of almost any game, not just Tomb Raider.
The industry is littered with marketing incentives, like pre-order incentives, to help justify development costs and offset marketing costs. I'm not a fan but I do understand why they exist and why they tend to favor the larger retailers and market leading console. So does Phil.
Like I said, will continue to laugh at defense systems.
Reckheim
Member
Microsoft has pissed of a lot of people with the tomb raider bullshit as well. People aren't saying both Sony and Microsoft don't due stupid anti-consumer shit, people are calling out Phil for being a hypocrite.
The irony of all this Destiny talk is that Destiny was originally meant as a 360 timed exclusive and had that happened the Phil Spencer diehards would have been in here saying "but would Destiny have happened without MS".
I don't ever see a situation where getting the game at the same time is worse than getting the game a year late.
I don't ever see a situation where getting the game at the same time is worse than getting the game a year late.
If that's the case, deals like that can fuck right off. Sony does this to sell more software, and MS takes note, and does something even worse in retaliation, and then we have a war. I know Phil is saying he's above it, but we all know that's not true.
Originally, holding back content for a month was bad enough, pioneered by MS with COD when they were the market leader, but it was done to make their platform seem like the best place to play - and it worked. But holding content for a year? Who the fuck does that serve? Most sales will be in the first couple of months, after that, you're just keeping it from the competition to be a douche. (this applies to RotTR as well btw)
VincentMatts
Member
Youre argument doesnt matter. If Sony or MS put money and actually help with the development of any game, like Tomb Raider, like Gears of War, like Dead Rising, they absolutely have the right to get benefits from this partnership like exclusivity. It doesnt matter if the game would have happened either way.
Sony did it with Destiny1. They 'extended' the exclusivity they had on some content for the game. It sucks.
https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/18/12536688/destiny-rise-of-iron-ps4-exclusive-taken-king-fall-2017
Where do you think the money they give for these deals go exactly? Do we not have developer diaries actually stating sony were 'helping' bungie already? We do. But "help" is what exactly? Because the exclusivity deals are all the same, financial mostly.
So basically you don't actually care about exclusive content deals (which are all bullshit), you're just mad about Destiny? SMH
I'd say then someone in the media needs to call Phil out on specifics of those agreements. If MS helped fund RotTR development, then they had pretty much every right for a year long exclusive. If they just moneyhated Square Enix, then that's a different issue.
3rdamention
Member
Was he in charge when they got 10 Fifa Ultimate Team Members exclusively for Fifa Last year or when they got DLC Timed Exclusivity for a month for The Division just last year?
Yes! And those were marketing deals with exclusive content that Phil isn't a fan of, but was touting those deals last year.
And the way he responded to questions about TR you think you will get a straight answer?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked