In the end it's a tricky scenario for consumers to be in, I get that, because I feel that every time Sony do this, it urges Microsoft to make a similar deal. And when Microsoft do it, when the platform with a lower install base signs exclusivity deals, that really hurts a lot more people as more folks get locked away from a particular franchise or game.
A big problem is though, that when Microsoft do it it just backfires, like
Walken wrote, people just see them as taking their games away. These deals don't really work from the perspective of the minority hardware share, because it damages both brands (both the game, and the manufacturer of the hardware), and the deal that the hardware manufacturer with the minority share has to pay a lot to make it happen. So it doesn't really foster healthy competition, and just ends up hurting developers and consumers, without all that much benefit to Microsoft.
It reminds me of the Mixer fiasco with Ninja and Shroud recently. Microsoft bought the exclusive rights to their streams, so they would only stream on mixer. Okay great... but people felt like mixer were stealing those streamers away, and mixer became a bit of a joke. Meanwhile, if Twitch paid for exclusive streaming rights (which they don't need to), no one would bat an eye lid.
It's a problem, because it effectively makes it very difficult to compete. The brand with the larger mindshare can just buy their way to success with no consequence, and even if their competitors have the cash (like Microsoft do), making the same moves would see much lower returns. Ultimately, complaining constantly isn't going to help because there's a financial incentive for both parties to secure exclusives. Folks buy hardware for games so securing games exclusively to your platform is beneficial, especially for Sony who can secure exclusives for less, and receive a bigger return on each investment.
For the lay consumer, the presence or absence of a particular game they're interested in is the most pertinent value proposition. People talk about the ongoing value of gamepass, but that's not how consumers typically make decisions to buy hardware. They see a game that they like and they buy hardware as a means in which to access those experiences. Heck sometimes it doesn't even need to be exclusive, they just see a brand associated with the game they want to play, like FIFA with an XBOX add on TV, and that's it, they're going to buy an XBOX.
Folks on here overanalyse everything gaming related, but for the lay consumer it's not that deep, they want to play x game and they'll most likely buy whichever device they feel is associated with it. Price point starts to matter when there's a huge void, causing consumers to stop and think... but it's unlikely we're going to see anyone mess up the price of their system so severely as Sony did with the PS3.
And Sony really know what they're doing with their deals at the moment. Marvel is one of the most popular IP in the world right now and they've positioned their platform as the best place to play Marvel Avengers, and the home of Spiderman. Their hardware is the best place to experience Marvel, and that's just a first step in Sony's efforts to bolster their mindshare. Heck, half the folks on this forum seem to think that Sony own Spiderman, who is, in and of himself, one of the largest intellectual properties in the world.
We're going to see other exclusive deals like Final Fantasy (pure speculation), and Street Fighter 6 (again, pure speculation), because Sony want to maintain that mindshare for the forseeable future, and what we've seen in the past is that making these investments now, leaves people attached to your brand for many, many years to come. Heck, folks bought the PS3, which released a year late, with next to no decent exclusives or iconic titles, and at an extortionate price, that's what mindshare does to people.
It's kind of unfortunate, as obviously it would be better if there were no exclusives and we could all play whatever, anywhere... but that doesn't make sense with the way this market works. Sony have an incentive to secure as many big intellectual properties as they can, because they have both the most to lose, and the most to benefit. The only way out of this cycle is if Sony really messed up with their hardware or there were some external regulation (which I don't see happening).
With all of that said, I think the right move for a company in Microsoft's position is internal investment in new IP and properties, and focusing on using those to drive long-term growth. I think they're doing that but we're not going to see the fruits of that labour for perhaps 10 years. Microsoft just need to use things like gamepass to ensure continuous profitability of their XBOX division, despite a smaller market share, and honestly, they'd do better paying less attention to the third party exclusivity race. I want the best for both hardware at the end of the day but for Microsoft that's got to start with their internal studios.
I got a bit carried away with my thoughts and wrote a bit too much here. Oh well.
