• 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.

Ark 2 Reportedly A Timed Xbox Exclusive and Will Come To PlayStation & Switch

CamHostage

Member
Fast And Furious Family GIF by The Fast Saga
Fast And Furious Family GIF by The Fast Saga

 

Hezekiah

Banned
Except when they are on Game Pass day one. Other than that i agree, they suck and i think they are a waste of money.
Even if it's on GamePass day one, that is outweighed by the fact it's been taken away from those who don't have access to GP which is tons of people.
 

Iced Arcade

Member
Tweet of a random YouTube video of a screenshot lol.



Anyway any and all 3rd party exclusive deals are disgusting. Consumer doesn't benefit because little Johnny across the street can't play.
 

wolffy71

Member
Hopefully its crossplay. The more people that play, the better. Need people to raid but new players onto old servers might not be ideal. So thats an indication that its probably not cross play sadly.
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
First party Microsoft exclusive is coming to Playstation confirmed.

Btw, Switch? LOL
 
Last edited:

Aenima

Member
Tried Ark 1 recently as it was ofered with PS+, and i spent more time installing the game than playing it. Game did not aged well. What I really wanted was a new Conan Exiles.
 

Katajx

Member
Am I mistaken or did the first one launch as an Early Access type of title on the X1?

Speaking of consoles specifically. I’m sure it came to Steam first.
 
Last edited:

Belthazar

Member
Except when they are on Game Pass day one. Other than that i agree, they suck and i think they are a waste of money.

A game can be on game pass day one and not be a timed exclusive. Those things aren't necessarily related
 

Wohc

Banned
Even if it's on GamePass day one, that is outweighed by the fact it's been taken away from those who don't have access to GP which is tons of people.
I agree, it sucks and shouldn't exist. But at least some gamers can profit this way so it's not 100% useless like this shit used to be.
A game can be on game pass day one and not be a timed exclusive. Those things aren't necessarily related
I know, Two Point Campus or Sniper Elite 5 for example. I never said they are related.
 
Ah look, everyone’s here to show their support. Yes, of course this has to be moneyhatted. Sure has nothing to do with it coming to early access / Game preview, a Platform/Concept Sony for whatever reason simply doesnt support. You guys seriously expect this developer to ship a 1.0 version day one? Lmao take your fanboy glasses off people.
 

MrA

Member
Tweet of a random YouTube video of a screenshot lol.



Anyway any and all 3rd party exclusive deals are disgusting. Consumer doesn't benefit because little Johnny across the street can't play.
even the ones that cause games that would other wise not get produced to happen?
if sony is funding the new silent hill and keep it exclusive, good, (though until it is physically in my hands, I'll assume all silent hill stuff is fake), Nintendo bank rolling Bayonetta 2 and 3, never would have haloened without them, 3rd party exclusive deals are awesome if it brings something that otherwise wouldn't have happened
i never seen anyone talking about Ark, and isnt the first one suckass? and it runs like ass?
50k players on steam, constantly pimped on game pass, mind bogglingly frequently on switch top sellers digitally , performance wise, unstable 30 sub hd on xbone and ps4, I can live withbthat, switch port is something else, like doom 3 hacked to run on a voodoo 2 type bad
 

Kimahri

Gold Member
The only tim I don't think timed exclusives are shit is when their entire existence is due to the financing provided by said exclusivity.

That said, no idea if that's the case here, so I'm gonna go with timed exclusives suck.
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
So now your fine with timed exclusives once I pointed out you had no problem with ff7r being exclusive?

Edit: also Microsoft published mass effect until ea bought BioWare.
And he'll answer that you are fine with whole publisher being bought and the circle will be closed.Can't you guys just agree that timed exclusive a shitty no matter who does it except if otherwise the game wouldn't have been made ?
And that 3rd party exclusives depending on how they're done can be shitty or good?And finally that this is not a x == good and y == bad it is a business and those are financial decisions, we are not arguing aout whose friend is right.
 

Corndog

Member
And he'll answer that you are fine with whole publisher being bought and the circle will be closed.Can't you guys just agree that timed exclusive a shitty no matter who does it except if otherwise the game wouldn't have been made ?
And that 3rd party exclusives depending on how they're done can be shitty or good?And finally that this is not a x == good and y == bad it is a business and those are financial decisions, we are not arguing aout whose friend is right.
I suggest you actually read the entire conversation including the link I posted.

I’m calling him out for being hypocritical. I’m not taking sides in whether timed exclusives are good or bad.
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
I suggest you actually read the entire conversation including the link I posted.

I’m calling him out for being hypocritical. I’m not taking sides in whether timed exclusives are good or bad.
That was not about you but more about how it's the same discussions and arguments over and over, break the cycle with a goofy gif and move on...
 

arvfab

Member
Sure has nothing to do with it coming to early access / Game preview, a Platform/Concept Sony for whatever reason simply doesnt support

 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Banned
So now your fine with timed exclusives once I pointed out you had no problem with ff7r being exclusive?

Edit: also Microsoft published mass effect until ea bought BioWare.
*You're

No, I simply said FF7 was a welcome addition to the Playstation line-up. Which it is.

Forgot Alan Wake too, that was another I got on PC. Stalker 2 and Warhammer Darktide likely the same.
 

Corndog

Member
*You're

No, I simply said FF7 was a welcome addition to the Playstation line-up. Which it is.

Forgot Alan Wake too, that was another I got on PC. Stalker 2 and Warhammer Darktide likely the same.
Exactly. You had no problem with a timed exclusive until you did. Just happened to be for Xbox instead of Sony. I’m not arguing whether the practice is right or wrong.
 

That's interesting, thank you. I actually thought that was the reason why Arma: Reforger isn't on PS4/PS5 yet, too. MS sure as hell didn't pay for that one.
Not Rogue Legacy 2, or Death's Door.

I don't know about Death's Door, but MS didn't pay for Rogue Legacy. Sometimes the answer is quite simple:

 
I would gladly play Ark over any final fantasy. But that is just me.

I am quite looking forward to Ark 2

No, I think that's a lot of people. Ark is a bigger franchise than Final Fantasy at this point. The casuals still living in 1998 shant' be taken seriously.

I'm a little disappointed to see it's coming to Switch though.
 
It's only fair, PS folks get FFXVI while Xbox gets Ark 2.

That's interesting, thank you. I actually thought that was the reason why Arma: Reforger isn't on PS4/PS5 yet, too. MS sure as hell didn't pay for that one.


I don't know about Death's Door, but MS didn't pay for Rogue Legacy. Sometimes the answer is quite simple:

What am I missing here? It doesn't say they didn't accept some deal.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with you, weren't you among those cheering for MS buying Bethesda.

How is that better?
Well imo buying a studio and bringing them into the fold, paying for development, paying the employees salaries, health benefits etc is much different than just sending a lump sum of money to a third party to keep the game off of another platform. If Sony made bungie exclusive I'd get it. Your paying for everything. Vs if they went to EA to make Apex 2 exclusive to keep it off other consoles.
 
Well imo buying a studio and bringing them into the fold, paying for development, paying the employees salaries, health benefits etc is much different than just sending a lump sum of money to a third party to keep the game off of another platform. If Sony made bungie exclusive I'd get it. Your paying for everything. Vs if they went to EA to make Apex 2 exclusive to keep it off other consoles.

Whether it's MS paying the bills for Bethesda's studios to keep the lights on or not is irrelevant.

In both cases, the only benefit is to the first party. Xbox gamers would have played Bethesda games anyway. So MS paid to keep the games off the other platform.

You claim a difference, but functionally it's the same thing.

If anything, timed exclusivity is better for the gamers on the non-exclusive platform since the game's exclusivity window is time-limited.

Your logical inconsistency is pretty apparent here.
 
Whether it's MS paying the bills for Bethesda's studios to keep the lights on or not is irrelevant.

In both cases, the only benefit is to the first party. Xbox gamers would have played Bethesda games anyway. So MS paid to keep the games off the other platform.

You claim a difference, but functionally it's the same thing.

If anything, timed exclusivity is better for the gamers on the non-exclusive platform since the game's exclusivity window is time-limited.

Your logical inconsistency is pretty apparent here.
No, because being acquired (often) gives a level of safety that being independent doesn't. Theres a big difference from trying to keep the lights on with each game you make vs soely focusing on game development only and letting the executives at your new firm worry about the details. I get what you saying if you looking at both in a vaccum. Games on one console. But in actuality both are achieved through very different means. One requires more risk than the other if you buy the studio outright.
 
Top Bottom