Are timed exclusives anti-consumers?

Rise of the Tomb Raider will come out on PS4 soon. It could have been out on it since Feb but Microsoft decided to be jerks and pay just to stop PS4 owners from being able to play the game. As a former PS4 owner this didn't bother me, I just played it on PC.

Now apparently Destinity will get exclusive content on the PS4 a year ahead of the Xbox One. Again, what it does is only hurt Xbox consumers, doesn't help anyone except Sony.

Funding a game from a third party studio to have it developed for your own platform is one thing. Paying money to the dev so their game doesn't come out elsewhere is another.

Consoles need to justify their increasing irrelevance and the slimy tactics used to do so disgust me. What's the point of being tied down to a single device any more?

ROTTR timed exclusivity was a slimeball move.

The whole game industry is anti-consumer, broseph.

Yep...

Nope. Developers can choose which platform they want their games to be on. It's also their prerogative to manipulate how their games are released.

As consumers, it's our right to approve or disapprove via our wallets.

Publishers are making these decisions, not developers.

Yeah it is.

All exclusives are.

No, it's a part of business. They are in competition with other systems and they need to do anything that they can to get competitive advantages.

Then so are all the exclusivity deals Sony signs. Hypocrite.

Yes, it's anti consumer. Owned exclusives such as Mario, Uncharted and Halo make sense but fragmenting a third party series' fanbase is very anticonsumer. I'll be buying used.

Please name these recent timed exclusives for me. The only one I can think of on Sony's end is Rocket League. When Sony does a deal it is generally permanent. Some may argue that is worse, but I think it is better. Go all in on exclusivity or don't do it at all. Xbox is so desperate to fool people they are even doing 1 month month exclusives with games like Inside that no one is buying a console for.

yes.

the reason some are worse than others is because a game might bexclusive first on one system and then release on the other system later on (like Xbox games always come to PC,). But the game was originally meant to be exclusive.

Now a Game thats a sequel to a franchise that was already multiplat, now goes exclusive simply because a company paid so it wont come out on the other system and the slizzy publisher agreed to it? thats fucked up.

Exclusives should be games that are 1st party or games that wouldnt have been made unless the company (M$, Sony, Nintendo) stepped in to hel make it happen. And I dont have a problem with games being exclusive. It drives competition, it drives consumer to buy more than one system and expand their gaming.

But Time exclusives serve no purpose, because even if you have the system that its coming to first, you arent even getting the better deal cuz you're pay full price for a half bake game cuz next year the better version will come out on the other system.

How was it different than SF5? I already posted a link to proof that MS helped with developing the game when you were all babybutthurt in the RotTR hype thread. So what made it slimy but SF5 legit?

Sony funded SF5 while Microsoft simply paid to delay the PC and PS4 versions of ROTTR. Same thing as Sony did with Bloodborne and now Spider-Man. They fund a publish full games. They don't just bribe companies to delay other releases.

So you have proof the money given to Square wasn't used on the game? Please link us all to it.

And as I said, Spencer was quoted stating they will be helping with the development of the game. Why shouldn't they receive something for that?

"We will clearly spend money on marketing the game, there’s no doubt about that. And we do [that] on games where we have very little to do with development, and with games that we fully develop. And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game - I want to make sure that it’s as great as it can be.”-Phil Spencer

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions

In that case, it's the publisher's perogative.

Its only anti-consumer when certain companies do it....

You're getting that notion from some here as well, huh?

What Square Enix did with the money is irrelevant. Microsoft paid to delay the game on other platforms. Hell I can speculate that they used those funds to pump more money into FFXV and it would be just as plausible.

The fact that Microsoft deliberately used misleading marketing when the deal was announced to trick people into believing it was a permanent exclusive is all I need to know.

Going off on a tangent they did the same thing with Dead Rising 3, Ryse and more importantly Quantum Break. They claimed it would never go to PC and people bought Xbox Ones on the basis of that lie. To push it even they said it would stay Windows 10 exclusive and now it is coming to Steam!! Just face it Xbox division is full of liars.

And Sony paid Capcom to not release SFV on Xbox

But every game Sony does it with isn't? Hahaha dude you seriously need to get over it. It was a business move period and something that happens every single gen.

You can speculate that the Easter Bunny is real, it's still the ramblings of a butthurt poster with no actual proof.

I posted what we the gaming public have on record. You have nothing but admitted hate for MS as a retort. FAIL

His hypocrisy is hilarious. "it's ok for Sony because they're funding it.""it's not ok for MS to fund or market the game because they're paying for it" hahaha THAT my friend is what we call being tormented

Show me link that provides proof of Microsoft doing anything to improve the development of ROTTR. Phil Spencer visiting the studio every couple of weeks to check on his investment does not qualify.

He did, you're just so blinded by your hate for MS that you refuse to see the truth. You're quick to believe a blog though aren't you? Stop being a hypocrite and except the fact that if it's bad for one company to do it then it's bad for all companies to do it.

Let me ask you this: how do any of us know for sure that the money Sony gave Capcom was spent on SF5? This is the info we all have, so unless someone has something to refute this other than hate for Sony, we accept it.

I posted what we, the gaming public have on record. Spencer clearly said in that interview "we will definitely be spending money on developing the game".So the burden of proof that this wasn't the case, as you claim, is on you. You need to prove this isn't what happened.

This is a strawman. I never said it is it not OK for Microsoft to fund games. Have I ever complained about Dead Rising 3, Ryse, Ori, Scalebound, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, etc? Nope because they actually did fund those. There is difference between paying for a game's development and paying to delay it on other platforms. Crystal Dynamics boss at the time(thank god he is gone) straight up said they did not need Microsoft to make that game so that argument is dead. It was bribe to delay plain and simple.

People comparing it SFV must have some sort of cognitive dissonance because MS did the same thing with Dead Rising 3 and no one complained because they funded the entire development. SFV and ROTTR deals are NOTHING alike.

@StrongBlackVine: ITT: doublethink

@kingtito: In ten years here I've debated, argued and conversed with so many people on this forum. His hypocrisy is so illogical and fueled by blind hatred that he'll ignore it. There is no proof of what MS' money to Square or Sony's to Capcom was truthfully spent on. So in lieu of that, we have no choice but to accept the info we have. But he's so ridiculous that only stands for his beloved Sony. LMAO

Considering the massive sales of No Man's Sky Hello Games is in pretty good shape for the future. I don't think they will be making the story for a Korean MMO like Remedy. Hell it probably sold more in the first day than Quantum Break has lifetime.

What on god's green Earth does this have to do with anything, take the Sony D out of your rear dude lol...

Horrible..

P.S. It's a PC game as well.

Only if MS does it.

It has to do with your signature. Don't try to claim you are above trolling because whenever something linked to Sony does poorly in some way it goes in your signature. You trying claim that you are not a Microsoft slave is ridiculous. Tell the truth...are you Mooch?

@StrongBlackVine: This is a strawman. I never said it is it not OK for Microsoft to fund games. Have I ever complained about Dead Rising 3, Ryse, Ori, Scalebound, Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive, etc? Nope because they actually did fund those. There is difference between paying for a game's development and paying to delay it on other platforms. Crystal Dynamics boss at the time(thank god he is gone) straight up said they did not need Microsoft to make that game so that argument is dead. It was bribe to delay plain and simple.

People comparing it SFV must have some sort of cognitive dissonance because MS did the same thing with Dead Rising 3 and no one complained because they funded the entire development. SFV and ROTTR deals are NOTHING alike.

Whether the money was needed or not is irrelevant. They took it and it was publicly stated money is being spent on the development of the game. I bolded that above because you're right there is a difference in those two things. But we have a public statement that you have no actual proof that it is a lie. Your argument is completely derived from your hate for MS, not fact.

I've been going after this game since the first real information started flooding its way into the media, I've stayed consistent, I've said the same things and the issues with the game I've highlighted are the same issues reflected in reviews which are panning the game all over the place.

Also, No Man's Sky has nothing to do with this so stop deflecting with this idiocy.

And you had a legit meltdown when Quantum Break flopped after hyping it to the end of the Earth. You trashed Bloodborne from the start saying it would not sell a million and score in the 70s...I see you.

You really can't stay on topic can you? Are you incapable? When you seem to be getting buried you change the subject..

It has been almost two years so safe to say nothing will ever change my mind about Microsoft bribing Square Enix to delay ROTTR on PS4 and it not being the equatable to the SFV deal.

With this post you absolve yourself. "nothing will ever change my mind". That's ok. It is truly everyone's right to believe what ever they wish to. It is my right to call those beliefs absurd when they have no factual evidence in reality.

You have concluded all by yourself what took place between two companies that you were never witness or had any factual proof of. That's a clear definition of Faith.

That's your problem, like @cainetao11 said, you don't know enough information about either situation to justify one deal as being good vs. the other being bad.

One was to help development of the game, the other was to help fund the game, that's the information which has been made available. They're the same situation with the difference in outcome being that one was console exclusive for a year and the other is 'permanent'. (It's Capcom, we'll see how long that lasts)

You don't know how to disassociate yourself from Sony enough to realize that you're executing a complete doublethink in logic.

What Activision/Bungie is doing with Destiny is the most anti consumer deal I have ever witnessed.

Me too honestly.

It was anti-consumer for Nintendo to get Bayonetta 2 permanently exclusive. It was anti-consumer of Microsoft to get Rise of the Tomb Raider (which cows are STILL complaining about, nevermind that, like RE4, which they shut the hell up about when that game was finally on the PS2). But SOMEHOW, when Sony gets permanent and timed exclusives like Street Fighter V this gen, and in gens past, Final Fantasy and Tekken, that's totally fine.

Or ANYONE who's not Sony.

That is pretty much par for the course with cows. This guy more so than anyone I've ever seen when it comes to ROTR. His hate is unnatural and unhealthy. He really should let go of the hate.

Don't forget GTA timed exclusivity back in 6th gen.

I'm also noticing this.

I never see Nintendo or Microsoft fans complain much when Sony acquires a timed exclusive or permanent exclusive. They may express some disappointment that they won't be able to play the game, but they don't go crazy complaining, calling the companies involved in the deal evil and anti-consumer, and making death threats like I've seen Sony fans do when they miss out on an exclusive.

But then when Sony acquires an exclusive like Street Fighter, the same people that criticize Nintendo and Microsoft for picking up exclusives are excited and call it a smart acquisition by Sony who can do no wrong in their minds.

And Sony fans also get upset when one of their exclusives goes multiplat. Who can forget the ridiculous reaction Sony fans had when previously Playstation exclusives like Devil May Cry or Final Fantasy went multiplat last gen; they were bitching that the developers were traitors, launching petitions, and making threats to boycott the games if they weren't kept as Playstation exclusives. But if exclusives are indeed anti-consumer, shouldn't they have been happy that the developers were being pro-consumer and allowing more people to enjoy these games? It looks like these people only think it's anti-consumer when Sony's competitors acquire exclusives, but it's fine for Sony to acquire exclusives and they will be furious whenever any of Sony's exclusives goes multiplat.

MS does it because of the lack of quality internal studios. Sony does it for the lols.

Exclusive is and always has been anti consumer but fanboys who have no other accomplishments in their life rely on the nonsense to feel good about themselves. That stupidity is the foundation of exclusives sustenance. Gaming needs to grow up and stop limiting content to devices.