Support NeoGAF

[kraspkibble]

don't care honestly.

for example, Destiny 2 has exclusivity on a strike for PS4. cool...i'll just play it in a year when it comes to PC. there are plenty more strikes to do.

the rise of the tomb raider exclusivity sucked but so what...still got to play it on PS4.

it's better than being a full exclusive.

 

[emb]

I generally like it. If it's exclusive to something, limited time or not, that at least associates it with one set of hardware or the other. That makes it that tiny bit more interesting, and decides which platform I'll eventually buy it for.

At large, does more bad than good though. I like it from my perspective, but there are plenty out there that don't like buying multiple systems or collecting for them. Still, there's so many games out there, seems like it wouldn't be a huge issue; plenty of other options until the game lands on your platform.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

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...)

My post wasn't meant to insinuate whether or not it's "shitty". You think it is, I don't. It was simply pointing out that this practice wasn't started by MS or Sony.

And I'm not sure how it's not an exact comparison. Nintendo cut a deal with Capcom to keep SF2 off Genesis, so to get around that a year later, Capcom cut a deal with Sega to put SF2 Special Championship Edition (not the same game!) on Genesis. Nintendo in turn cut a new deal for SF2 Turbo (another new game!) exclusivity around the same time, which pissed Sega off and caused them to add extra content to the Genesis game.

 

[Rumblebones]

They absolutely suck.

Unless the game is literally funded from scratch, I abhor all kinds of third party exclusivity deals. Fuck all that.

 

[Schnauzer]

My take on it is. They hurt sales significantly.

When the Tomb Raider fiasco happened. The face full exclusive. It just made me not by Tomb Raider. Then I said, I will wait for it to reduce in price. By the time that happened. I forgot about Tomb Raider, and will never purchase it. I have a back log to full now of current games I'd rather play.

A one year exclusive in my eyes is a full exclusive. I like when companies are upfront about the time. I hate when they try to make it something it isn't.

 

[Dynomutt]

I understand the concern but in reality it doesn't bother as much as it should. My plate is full of "worry" already. As I get older specifically entertainment including games is the one place where my motto is becoming "fuck you got mines". Rarely do I think about exclusive deals like that. Still got ROTR on PS4 for like $20 and still haven't played it yet.

 

[family_guy]

I'm fine with it. The people who have to wait usually end up getting a better product since everyone else has been beta testing it for a year.

 

[sense]

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.

If you seriously think Sony paid for a secret timed exclusivity on sword art online, I don’t know what to say. I can understand for something like final fantasy x/x2.

 

[Ally of Justice]

I've had the luck that no game with timed exclusive is one that I'm interested in or that is released first in other consoles (I only have a PS4), but it is way, way better than having that game never appear on my platform of choice.

I guess it must be frustrating, but I guess I would view it as a game that has been announced but hasn't been released yet.

 

[Hideki Kamiya]

It's fucking stupid.

Either get full exclusivity or don't. People will wait for the game to hit their platform if they have to wait a year.

 

[firelogic]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's a way to differentiate your platform from the others. It sucks if it's a game you wanted to play and you don't own the platform it's on, but such is life. Platform holders think maybe enough of those situations crop up and you'll decide to buy their hardware so you won't have to wait a year or more.

It's not a good deal for consumers but it's business and it's not going to stop because they want any edge they can get.

For me, I just wait. If the other platform wasn't appealing enough for me to buy it, a few timed exclusives aren't going to push me over the edge.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

It's fucking stupid.

Either get full exclusivity or don't. People will wait for the game to hit their platform if they have to wait a year.

If it didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. Every E3, every press conference, every lineup discussion with regards to these consoles always comes back to "exclusives". All everyone wants to talk about is "What are the exclusives?!?" Platform holders are paying to feed into that. It's marketing. They are paying for the right to say "Exclusive" during an E3 presser, or in press releases, or in interviews, the same way they would pay for a commercial, because it works and gets people hyped up. I know some people hate it, but they are largely giving the gaming community exactly what they want.

 

[CaptainDreads]

If the funding from the timed exclusivity is used to make the game significantly better then I'm not bothered.

I'd rather wait a year for a good game than have a mediocre one now.

If it's just for the published to make some extra cash that would irk me.

Obviously we have no way to know for sure which it is, but of course my cynicism suggests it's probably the latter

 

[joecanada]

My take on it is. They hurt sales significantly.

When the Tomb Raider fiasco happened. The face full exclusive. It just made me not by Tomb Raider. Then I said, I will wait for it to reduce in price. By the time that happened. I forgot about Tomb Raider, and will never purchase it. I have a back log to full now of current games I'd rather play.

A one year exclusive in my eyes is a full exclusive. I like when companies are upfront about the time. I hate when they try to make it something it isn't.

agreed I was thinking about tomb raider as well but completely forgot it even existed by the time it released then I was like meh whatever. I think it released at full price too lol that was a huge no go. I could have just bought it on pc at that point but wanted it on ps4.

 

[Ricky_R]

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

Lol.

I don't mind either way. That's the nature of competitiveness.

 

[Nephtes]

My post wasn't meant to insinuate whether or not it's "shitty". You think it is, I don't. It was simply pointing out that this practice wasn't started by MS or Sony.

And I'm not sure how it's not an exact comparison. Nintendo cut a deal with Capcom to keep SF2 off Genesis, so to get around that a year later, Capcom cut a deal with Sega to put SF2 Special Championship Edition (not the same game!) on Genesis. Nintendo in turn cut a new deal for SF2 Turbo (another new game!) exclusivity around the same time, which pissed Sega off and caused them to add extra content to the Genesis game.

That's why it's not a direct comparison.
When Dead Rising 4 launches on PS4 with new content, the Xbox version is getting all the new content for no additional cost to the consumer.
In the olden days, getting the new content meant buying completely new versions of games you basically already owned.

Anyway, I don't care who started it... Microsoft and Sony need to finish it.
This isn't the early 90s, we have more avenues to vent our distaste for anti-consumer practices now...and better ways of mobilizing boycotts or at the very least, hashtag campaigns.

Microsoft completely reversed course on their DRM scheme over public outcry and a hashtag campaign. It can work again...

We just need to learn how to hashtag in Japanese... Since bad guy Sony still hasn't given in to #PS4CrossPlay...

 

[Deleted member 20920]

Not every delay release is due to exclusitivity deals though... In general I don't really care since I tend to buy most consoles.

 

[MoogleMan]

Full exclusivity costs the publishers too much money.

Often it pays off though.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

That's why it's not a direct comparison.
When Dead Rising 4 launches on PS4 with new content, the Xbox version is getting all the new content for no additional cost to the consumer.
In the olden days, getting the new content meant buying completely new versions of games you basically already owned.

Anyway, I don't care who started it... Microsoft and Sony need to finish it.
This isn't the 90s, we have more avenues to vent our distaste for anti-consumer practices now...and better ways of mobilizing boycotts or at the very least, hashtag campaigns.

Microsoft completely reversed course on their DRM scheme over public outcry and a hashtag campaign. It can work again...

We just need to learn how to hashtag in Japanese... Since bad guy Sony still hasn't given in to #PS4CrossPlay...

It'll be finished when it stops being effective. Until then you can put it in the pile with DLC and Season Passes as things that enthusiasts hate while a vast majority of the audience are at best totally indifferent to.

The issue with Tomb Raider was one of messaging. Had they planned their deal better, come out as the game was announced, given some bullshit lip service about how MS was helping with development it would have been taken completely differently. Who knows how much better it would have sold but the perception would have changed.

 

[Aters]

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

Who doean't need extra money? LMAO.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Who doean't need extra money? LMAO.

and more importantly, how would we ever know? These aren't political contributions.

 

[BodiesWithoutOrgans]

I had to wait a year to play tomb raider PS4 did Microsoft really think I’d buy a console just to play 1 game lol

 

[Magwik]

Just tell us the ports exist instead of pretending like they don't then just announcing them a month before release

 

[MTC100]

It sucks in my opinion. No one is gaining anything and I think that the publisher might even lose money by releasing the game a year later on a popular platform(we don't know how much they get payed for time exclusivity but I am certain that such a move hurts sales/revenue a lot) . No one in their clear mind would buy a console for a 1 year exclusivity anyway so who is there to gain anything?

It just pisses people off and the publisher has to release a GOTY edition for cheap if they want to sell their 1 year old game on the before excluded platform.

 

[Gravy Boat]

It sucks in my opinion. No one is gaining anything and I think that the publisher might even lose money by releasing the game a year later on a popular platform. No one in their clear mind would buy a console for a 1 year exclusivity anyway so who is there to gain anything?

It just pisses people off and the publisher has to release a GOTY edition for cheap if they want to sell their 1 year old game on the before excluded platform.

If the publishers weren’t gaining anything they would do it. These companies are hugely successful for a reason, they know what they’re doing.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

It sucks in my opinion. No one is gaining anything and I think that the publisher might even lose money by releasing the game a year later on a popular platform. No one in their clear mind would buy a console for a 1 year exclusivity anyway so who is there to gain anything?

It just pisses people off and the publisher has to release a GOTY edition for cheap if they want to sell their 1 year old game on the before excluded platform.

It's not about getting people to buy a console for one game, it's about strengthening their lineups. By that logic why should MS or Sony fund games like Cuphead, or Gravity Rush, since it's unlikely very many people will buy a console just for that one game. That's not the point. It's the same principle. They are trying to overwhelm consumers with a variety of games, be it internally developed, published, third party games with exclusive content, or third party games with timed exclusivity deals.

 

[Biscotti]

don't care honestly.

for example, Destiny 2 has exclusivity on a strike for PS4. cool...i'll just play it in a year when it comes to PC. there are plenty more strikes to do.

the rise of the tomb raider exclusivity sucked but so what...still got to play it on PS4.

it's better than being a full exclusive.

I mean there really isn't very many strikes and you are paying the same as ps4 users but getting less content, thats bullshit.

 

[Van Bur3n]

don't care honestly.

for example, Destiny 2 has exclusivity on a strike for PS4. cool...i'll just play it in a year when it comes to PC. there are plenty more strikes to do.

the rise of the tomb raider exclusivity sucked but so what...still got to play it on PS4.

it's better than being a full exclusive.

Suuuuuuuure.

 

[bman94]

Pretty fucking pointless. If people really want to play the game they'd have no problem waiting a year for it. No way are they gonna buy a Xbox One/PS4 for one game that will come to their console of choir eventually anyway.

 

[Vlade]

I think exclusivity can be a very good thing. Consoles should not be a commodity, there should not be only one. They should be able to try new hardware and devs design software for it that gives unique experiences.

TIMED exclusivity is crap. it keeps in place all the constraints of being multiplatform while shrinking the audience. It is a use of marketing dollars that does not benefit the gaming industry as a whole.

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

so persecution!

 

[brainslug]

All timed exclusivity deals are shit. No exceptions.

 

[FinalAres]

Yeah FFX/X-2 wasn't an exclusivity thing. The team that released the FF HD ports on PC did so almost exactly 6 months apart each time. It wasn't exclusivity, it was bandwidth.

 

[Sweet Bellic]

Better than permanent exclusivity.

 

[DalikSkywing]

Yeah FFX/X-2 wasn't an exclusivity thing. The team that released the FF HD ports on PC did so almost exactly 6 months apart each time. It wasn't exclusivity, it was bandwidth.

?
Your entire post is incorrect.

 

[SlavetodaBOX]

Its Business. It sucks for players who dont own the prioritized system at a time...but it wont change anytime soon.

That's all that needs to be said. It's business.

 

[DocSeuss]

I don't really like them, but I think they're better than the alternative, which is platform-exclusive DLC, which really pissed me off about Sony games (especially Assassin's Creed) last gen.

But Microsoft loves it too. Dead rising 4 and Rise of Tomb raider.
Don't forget PUGB and Console Launch Exclusive stuff. You ok with them?
Personally I don't like it.

mmm yeaaah, the whataboutism is strong

 

[c0de]

Hate it. Hated it since the 360 days.

It's one company using limited gaming division budgets to pay to prevent other gamers from having content that the gamers on the payor companies' hardware otherwise would have had anyways.

Unless you enjoy a game more knowing other people can play it, it just seems like the money could be better spent elsewhere. In Sony's case, maybe on better PSN Plus "free" games.

I hate it since PS1 days.

 

[Jeronimo Jones]

I didn't ask for this, and don't like the idea. If it benefits me, I will manage. If it doesn't, I will manage.

 

[copelandmaster]

Exclusive online content for one version that doesn't come to other platforms until way later when nobody gives a fuck anymore and is not playing. Later versions can also have content cut because of licensing deals that have expired (see: FFXIII-2 and LR's cut costumes/Garbs).

Exclusive features like a music customizer and VR support being cut from other versions... for reasons...

Garbage.

 

[Durante]

It's money being spent on making sure some people don't have access to a game, that could instead go into making games, or making games better.

It's total shit.

 

[SporeCrawler]

its meaningless imho. true exclusives are made around a console. timed exclusives are just multiplat games with a marketing deal.

i am okay that there are no more exclusives (except first party games) as the hardware of consoles are so similar now

 

[PartTimeWarrior]

Shitty practice but I've seen gaffors say it's alright as long as Sony does it

 

[KillLaCam]

They're more annoying than actual exclusives to me.

 

[Hektor]

Imagine if Sony invested that money into the PSN, refund-systems or your PSPlus content instead of wasting it to withhold games from other platforms you don't own or care about

 

[Tmac]

Much like any other capitalist business practice, it's deplorable and decadent shit.

Great. Without those evil capitalist business pratice you whouldnt even have games to complaim about.

WTF

 

[ButteryPie]

Bad

Spoiler

until [Sony/Microsoft] does it.

In all seriousness, I don't particularly mind it. It sucks for consumers perhaps, but I do think there's a conversation to be had about conflating consumer entitlement to anti-consumerism, like with paid mods for example.

It might be unfortunate for some but its fair game in the industry. Arguably it helps developers a tad as well.

The Rise of The Tomb Raider reactions were flat out embarrassing.

EDIT: It beats exclusive non-ip based content and dlc by a country mile. Having, say, Link in Soul Caliber or Kratos in MK9 is fine, if silly, but the Destiny 1 content is beyond irritating, even as someone who no longer has investment in the franchise.

 

[Parsnip]

Though Lynch is actually answering a question about product placement, it was the perfect gif for how I feel about these exclusivity deals.

 

[Dead Man Typing]

Multiplatform development puts a large strain on your development team that people don't seem to acknowledge.
Being able to focus on one platform, finish the game and ship it - then work on getting it running another platform will usually result in a better game for everyone.

If Resident Evil had came out on both the Saturn and PSone at the same time - the Saturn version would have been a lot worse than it turned out.
So while exclusivity is almost always a business decision these days, I do think it results in a better game for the people who own the exclusive console and for the other platforms when the game gets ported later.

Exclusive levels, characters DLC... etc.... is BS though. You've already got the engine running, you're just withholding content from one audience for extra money.
I much prefer a Rise of the Tomb Raider scenario vs the early access to maps or other DLC.

 

[cakely]

It stinks, full stop. It's money that should be spent on first-party titles or actual third-party exclusives. Instead it's just "hey, here's a money hat, we'd like this game first".

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

I'm not going to lie, but yes, there has been several instances of this double standard thing on GAF. It's fine when Sony does it, but wrong when Microsoft does it.

Shitty practice but I've seen gaffors say it's alright as long as Sony does it

I am sick to death of posts like these. If you don't like GAF, there's the door. Please stop whining about a bias that you perceive but doesn't actually exist.

 

[groansey]

Pretty pointless. Nobody buys a console for the timed exclusives. They only really serve as playground bragging rights and to inconvenience your future audience/market.