VincentMatts
Member
Are you a fan of getting your ass kicked? cause thats whats happening when you dont make marketing deals.
There's a difference between not being able to buy a game for a period of time and buying a game with content locked out on your platform, despite paying the same amount for the product. The latter feels more scummy to me.
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
Most marketing exclusive content is timed too, just wait and download them for probably free when they release on the other platforms.
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
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
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.
Nobody is ignoring it. Its just that they are not that different.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.
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.
I'm struggling to remember any Msoft exclusive content deals since Phil took over. I also remember that Rise of the Tomb Raider, which kind of goes against this sentiment?
People change I guess. I have to imagine they would have no trouble getting exclusive content deals if they want them.
Nobody is ignoring it. Its just that they are not that different.
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.
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.
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.
The original content is. Hawkmoon, Montenegro carlo and the dust palace strike.
Is the stuff from after the taken king that isn't.
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.
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.
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.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).
And as Phil explained, he wasn't in charge back then. He can have an opinion and a stance.
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.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.
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.
So would Dead Rising 4 even happened if not for Microsoft's involvement? That's not an exclusivity deal (see Bayonetta 2).
Tomb Raider and Titanfall would have happen without Microsofts involvement.
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.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".
Tomb Raider and Titanfall would have happen without Microsofts involvement.
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.
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.
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
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.
"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play.
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.
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.
lmao at Sony defense systems. Watch the gamespot interview with Phil.
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.
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.
This thread is about what Phil said, and if there's anything to laugh at, it's the people defending him.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
And as Phil explained, he wasn't in charge back then. He can have an opinion and a stance.
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.