I never said I do or don't have a problem with it, just that it was a welcome addition to the Playstation line-up because I was glad it was coming out.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.
Lol they can have it as forever exclusive. 7 year olds will be mad
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.
Was it im not so sureNot necessarily. Death's Door was an Xbox money-hatted timed exclusive that did not launch on Gamepass day one.
Not sure they paid for them reallyNot Rogue Legacy 2, or Death's Door.
Yes anythng that Xbox paid timed exclusive for will be a day 1 gamepass
But did Xbox actually paid for it though i can't find anything to say that they pay for it?Likely. Though one recent exception was Death’s Door. Hit Xbox as a console exclusive, then 2 or 3 months after it was added to Game Pass.
I’m not sure we ever would see that. Most deals between companies have NDAs attached to them. The developers in theory could just want to release on Xbox first, but it is an odd choice in the absence of incentives to pick the lowest install base of the three. We know Death’s Door hit game pass and they would have been paid for that (plus digital devoler the pub has made a lot of them). My suspicion is a “timed exclusivity then Game Pass inclusion” deal. But we wouldn’t know whether timed part was paid for explicitly or implicitly.But did Xbox actually paid for it though i can't find anything to say that they pay for it?
Do we ever see that? Did Sony pay for Sifu's exclusivity? Godfall? Fall's Guy? Genshin Impact? We never do. That's just how timed exclusivity period works.But did Xbox actually paid for it though i can't find anything to say that they pay for it?
it doesn't help anybody
It does help the developers who make the game.
The game doesn't need to be timed exclusive, just adding it to Gamepass is a win for gamers. Microsoft should get away from timed exclusives entirely.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.
Marginally, it's usually pretty comparable to pushing Playstation/Xbox income over the first x months to getting it at the beginning, but that really only helps extremely cash strapped devs who need the funding desperately at the beginning, which really only applies to small indie companies. Ark 2 won't be a better or bigger game because of this, nor will Final Fantasy 16, nor any future Studio Wildcard or Square Enix games. Moneyhatting timed exclusives is worse than acquiring the company (from the consumer perspective), both of which obviously worse than company being fully independent, and both obviously better than the company closing down
This is some crazy ass speculation on your part. Especially considering the fact that they themselves launched Dreams via early access.Sure has nothing to do with it coming to early access / Game preview, a Platform/Concept Sony for whatever reason simply doesnt support.
I have to be honest, The SE/Sony relationship is pretty damn weird to me. FFVIIR/FFXIV/FFXVI pretty much console exclusive, period. Then I think Forspoken is also 6 month to a year or more console exclusive to PS5 also. All of the actual heavy hitters. Then their best AA games always wind up on the switch Octopath/Triangle. Sony might as well put a ring on it, probably cheaper to marry her at this point.Marginally, it's usually pretty comparable to pushing Playstation/Xbox income over the first x months to getting it at the beginning, but that really only helps extremely cash strapped devs who need the funding desperately at the beginning, which really only applies to small indie companies. Ark 2 won't be a better or bigger game because of this, nor will Final Fantasy 16, nor any future Studio Wildcard or Square Enix games. Moneyhatting timed exclusives is worse than acquiring the company (from the consumer perspective), both of which obviously worse than company being fully independent, and both obviously better than the company closing down