Support NeoGAF

[VincentMatts]

So basically you don't actually care about exclusive content deals (which are all bullshit), you're just mad about Destiny? SMH

I think their ok when they are fair. Destiny isnt fair. Sony arent developing the game in any way, Bungie and Activision are. If they want to do one month exclusivity, fine. One year with possibility of extension? That sucks.

Unless the dev is actually helping build the game, you shouldnt have the right to keep it exclusive for years. MS or Sony. Launch window, one month exclusive, that is a lot more fair game to me cause it means both parties will get the content guaranteed.

The way sony do it, you might never get it and they dont even have a hand in the development of the game. Thats ridiculous.

example:

https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/18/12536688/destiny-rise-of-iron-ps4-exclusive-taken-king-fall-2017

Destiny: The Taken King's PlayStation-only content staying exclusive for another year

 

[Melchiah]

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.

Paying the same a year later feels like a rip-off, when it's available half cheaper on other platforms.

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.

If you give me the game a year later, charge me less. That's exactly why I refused to buy the game until its price was the same as the XBO version's at the time. Luckily, it was discounted to 30€ in the holiday sales last year.

 

[Three]

I think their ok when they are fair. Destiny isnt fair. Sony arent developing the game in any way, Bungie and Activision are. If they want to do one month exclusivity, fine. One year with possibility of extension? That sucks.

Unless the dev is actually helping build the game, you shouldnt have the right to keep it exclusive for years. MS or Sony. Launch window, one month exclusive, that is a lot more fair game to me cause it means both parties will get the content guaranteed.

The way sony do it, you might never get it and they dont even have a hand in the development of the game. Thats ridiculous.

example:

https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/18/12536688/destiny-rise-of-iron-ps4-exclusive-taken-king-fall-2017

Destiny: The Taken King’s PlayStation-only content staying exclusive for another year

Now show me where they actually helped build the game on almost any of these deals. Money exchanged hands and they offered the same technical support available for most games. That's the way it works.

 

[VincentMatts]

Paying the same a year later feels like a rip-off, when it's available half cheaper on other platforms.

I agree


If you give me the game a year later, charge me less. That's exactly why I refused to buy the game until its price was the same as the XBO version's at the time. Luckily, it was discounted to 30€ in the holiday sales last year.

I also agree. But game for game, when they launched on both platforms, they were priced the same but one had more. With destiny2, im not sure ill ever get the content on xbox, which is the whole problem i have.

Now show me where they actually helped build the game on almost any of these deals. Money exchanged hands and they offered the same technical support available for most games. That's the way it works.

Dure, you can google the gears of war, DR and TR development stuff yourself lol hilarious

 

[lentini]

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.

Was he in charge when these deals were signed?

No!

 

[Zen Mu]

I think their ok when they are fair. Destiny isnt fair. Sony arent developing the game in any way, Bungie and Activision are. If they want to do one month exclusivity, fine. One year with possibility of extension? That sucks.

Unless the dev is actually helping build the game, you shouldnt have the right to keep it exclusive for years. MS or Sony. Launch window, one month exclusive, that is a lot more fair game to me cause it means both parties will get the content guaranteed.

The way sony do it, you might never get it and they dont even have a hand in the development of the game. Thats ridiculous.

example:

https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/18/12536688/destiny-rise-of-iron-ps4-exclusive-taken-king-fall-2017

Destiny: The Taken King's PlayStation-only content staying exclusive for another year

And yet this is the only game they have ever done this with, and it's most likely something Activision came up with. But whatever, at the end of the day what I originally said rings true; If you are an Xbox only player mad about this Destiny deal, blame Sony all you want, blame Activision or Bungie all you want, but the real blame lies solely on Microsoft's shoulders for making these bullshit practices industry standard in the first place. They created the monster, now we all have to live with it.

 

[boredandlazy]

Was he in charge when these deals were signed?

No!

I think it's naive to.suggest he had nothing to with any of the decision making process.

 

[VincentMatts]

And yet this is the only game they have ever done this with, and it's most likely something Activision came up with. But whatever, at the end of the day what I originally said rings true; If you are an Xbox only player mad about this Destiny deal, blame Sony all you want, blame Activision or Bungie all you want, but the real blame lies solely on Microsoft's shoulders for making these bullshit practices industry standard in the first place. They created the monster, now we all have to live with it.

I played Destiny1 on playstation4 by the way. The deal still sucks

 

[Yearsoflurking]

I think it's naive to.suggest he had nothing to with any of the decision making process.

why would he have decision making power over 3rd party deals as the head of microsoft 1st party studios? in fact I'm pretty sure in that position you wouldn't even be involved with 3rd parties outside of 2nd party development at all

 

[Floody]

Was he in charge when these deals were signed?

No!

FIFA debatable, Division yeah probably, that or they signed a shit deal.

Microsoft must really suck at making deals then when at the first reveal the developers pretended to play on PS4s.

 

[Night Angel]

So we're ok with full games being "first on" a platform, but we're not ok with additional content (as in, content created specifically because of a marketing deal that was not initially in the base game) being "first on" a platform? Do I have that right?

And dear god don't bring price into this. All of these "first on" timed exclusives are much more expensive on the console they release late on than the price on the initial release console at the time of the late release. If we're comparing content for price, THAT'S the relevant comparison.

People pretending hypocrisy can only be applied to the narrowest circumstances are hilarious. Both practices are so similar that condemning one while performing the other is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Three]

I also agree. But game for game, when they launched on both platforms, they were priced the same but one had more. With destiny2, im not sure ill ever get the content on xbox, which is the whole problem i have.



Dure, you can google the gears of war, DR and TR development stuff yourself lol hilarious

Gears of war?? What? I would hope so considering it's their own studio and IP now. Others debatable nonsense because there is little to no detail other than vague statements. Ive read all the development stuff and they usually come out after the outrage. They exist for Destiny too btw.

 

[Elbereth]

At this juncture, Microsoft really needs to focus on using the word "true" in terms of exclusives. Not hardware, where a good majority of the talking points are becoming arbitrary.

They have improved greatly on the Xbox front, except where it matters most, exclusives, as one member noted earlier.

Imagine if MS double downed on exclusives along with the strides (Game Pass, Digital Refunds, Play Anywhere, OG XBox emulation etc). They would be a massive force to be reckoned with.

They probably need a fresh face, because Phil's words vs. actions are becoming a distraction to the platform.

 

[Caayn]

It's nice to hear him say that. But I highly doubt that he'll pass when given the opportunity.

I trust gaming execs and spokespersons as far as I can throw them. (not that far really )

 

[Tawpgun]

Was Phil responsible for the Tomb Raider stuff or was that still Don Mattrick?

 

[¡HarlequinPanic!]

Was Phil responsible for the Tomb Raider stuff or was that still Don Mattrick?

If he is, he would probably remind you that you can buy tomb raider on PS4 and Steam now.

 

[VincentMatts]

Gears of war?? What? I would hope so considering it's their own studio and IP now. Others debatable nonsense because there is little to no detail other than vague statements. Ive read all the development stuff and they usually come out after the outrage. They exist for Destiny too btw.

It wasnt then. When it launched it was Epics IP and MS made a deal with them and helped develop it. It wasnt owned by MS until 4. Dont act like youve been hiding under a rock.

And yes, they all lied about their statements then cause they knew this day would come when neogaf had a thread about it. God, im done here.

 

[Cramoss]

I think it's naive to.suggest he had nothing to with any of the decision making process.

You're assuming too much

 

[David___]

Was Phil responsible for the Tomb Raider stuff or was that still Don Mattrick?

You can say that he was, yea

When people look at something like Dead Rising and where it is right now, I would say for the franchise it's been a good partnership. Now, maybe somebody on PlayStation would say, well no it hasn't, because I haven't played the game. But if I'm Capcom and I think about what that franchise means now... or even like a Titanfall, and our ability to invest with EA to make that launch great. Tomb Raider is no different.

Now, obviously if I'm going to partner on it, I'm a platform holder, I'm hardly going to invest to go make the PlayStation version of any game. It is a business. So when we go invest with a partner on a big franchise, we're going to come with certain needs we have out of the relationship.

I don't own the IP. So then when certain people start talking to me about, well, what is the future of the Tomb Raider franchise, it's not really something I can talk to. Just like if you were going to ask me what's going on with Dead Rising 6, I don't own that. So, when people want me to say, well can you tell us when or if it's coming to other platforms, it's not my job. My job is not to talk about games I don't own. I have a certain relationship on this version of Tomb Raider, which we announced. And I feel really good about our long term relationship with Crystal and Square.

I think it's a win/win. It's good for us. We've got certain needs out of it. I think it could be good for them. And, frankly - and I know a lot of people won't like this but I'll say it - I think it can be good for the franchise and good for gaming all up, because it's a franchise that's meant something, and we're going to be able to work with them and invest and try to put the marketing and everything else at a level, and we're active in working with them on the development of the game as well, to try to make it one of those franchises that stands out.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...r-makes-case-for-tomb-raider-exclusivity-deal

What a difference 3 years make

 

[DrkSage]

When you gotta call out someone's shit, you call it out.

Phil, that's a load of shit, keep on projecting tho. It's fun seeing the papers switch back and forth.

 

[Bolivar687]

Microsofts Phil Spencer: I'm not a big fan of Xbox One and a half

Phil Spencer still not a fan of console Wars

BREAKING NEWS: Phil Spencer "not a fan" of human trafficking

I'm TIRED of this guy picking unpopular trends, saying how much he's not a fan, and the dying fake games media eating it up (enemy of the people). He sure didn't care about locking down Tomb Raider for a year and butchering the studio and it's sales, or how they would still be doing this with Call of Duty if they still had the credibility to do so.


Now he has the balls to basically expose NDA information he says he's not privy to (anyone else would bee in jail) to make up for handicapped performance on his FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS monstrosity. This after we know developers were intentionally holding PS4 ports back at the beginning of the generation "to avoid all the debates and stuff" (a game which conveniently had Xbox marketinng, coincidentally).

 

[krov87]

Hes also not a fan of console wars, but hes forced to bm the ps4 on interviews or put puns on the scorpio adds.
Poor guy doesn't like anything that MS usually do.
But what is he going to do, talk to the Xbox boss?

 

[Shin-Ra]

So Phil switched back to Mr. Nice Guy on the Giant Bomb stream.

 

[Yjynx]

So Phil switched back to Mr. Nice Guy on the Giant Bomb stream.

He just loves saying what people wants. That's PR all about..