Nah, I'd wait for Xbox and to be honest, I'd probably wait for a used copy. Too many games to play to justify the purchase.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
- Status
So this is probably true, given the recent "PlayStation Advantage" branding, huh? More similar trailers incoming soon?
CrossfireX is being published on console by Microsoft. Literally half of the 22 games in the show are published by XGS. Stalker is independently developed and published. And yes being Indie does make a difference. Indie games commonly launch on limited platforms at launch to focus development efforts and then port to other platforms at a later date. Indies also seek out deals to help fund the development of their game that may result in timed exclusivity such as Game pass deals.
Must a new to gaming to make this your mole hill to complain about 3rd party exclusive content. Had gamers who have been complaining about this practice for so long had any damn conviction than we wouldn't be here. It's a cutthroat market either compete or complain.
I'm confused, all you've posted is a bunch of semantics. It's still ultimately Microsoft opening up their wallets to secure exclusives for their platforms instead of competitors. That's it. It's the same thing as what Sony is doing with numerous titles, however you want to try and dress it up with mental gymnastics.
The end result is the same in that it means certain games may come to another platform later, but they are quite literally two different business practices with different implications.
I wouldn't really count the first two, those are indie developed games IIRC and they could just be doing what is easiest for their development budget, I never really expect those types of games to come day and date, it's a bit of a miracle if they do. This is why there was so much blow back for MS and the supposed 'parity clause' the beginning of this generation, it's just not realistic to say an indie dev needs to hit all platforms day and date.
Those other two are from a stupid rich publisher with AAA level development studios working on them, that's high profile IMO.
Also I would add:
Project Athia
Lot of platform whataboutism in here. Can't we all just agree, as gamers, that it's better when these platforms are investing to build things rather than tear down?
They have to compete. It's a business. I get it. Consumers still have influence. Regardless of what they think is the right business decision, we should push them to be better. That goes across the board. If they're investing to build up studios, that helps the industry and keeps more small businesses healthy. If they're investing to lock down games that were already in development from healthy large companies, that is destructive and nobody wins outside of them and some toxic plastic warriors on Twitter.
If you're consistent on the principals of the matter, you don't have to try these mental gymnastics to defend the platform who's flag you're flying.
They have to compete. It's a business. I get it. Consumers still have influence. Regardless of what they think is the right business decision, we should push them to be better. That goes across the board. If they're investing to build up studios, that helps the industry and keeps more small businesses healthy. If they're investing to lock down games that were already in development from healthy large companies, that is destructive and nobody wins outside of them and some toxic plastic warriors on Twitter.
If you're consistent on the principals of the matter, you don't have to try these mental gymnastics to defend the platform who's flag you're flying.
It's really weird lol but it goes both ways
I would say it was wrong when MS bought Rise of Tomb Raider timed exclusivity and Titanfall lifetime exclusivity, and it is wrong today. I dont think it benefits anyone. I was upset about it back when Tomb Raider happened, and I am not going to pretend everything is fine just because my preferred console is getting an exclusive.
The only time when timed exclusives are ok is when sony or MS jump in to save a game that was going to be cancelled. Like Titanfall which went overbudget and MS stepped in and got themselves a timed exclusive. If FF16 was in a similar position then fine. I dont think CoD or GTA publishers need money, and i dont think they are cancelling the next cod or GTA unlike say Project Athia which was in development hell and SE likely needed Sony or MS to bail them out. Though its always surprising to me why Sony is able to get these bailout deals and not MS who have deeper pockets.
I'm a PC gamer and I went with a PS4 Slim last gen because the Mattrickbox seemed like a bad deal. I have never had a problem waiting for ports to get better visuals (and generally the PC sku markdown + free online). Thinking of going with a Lockhart at the beginning of the gen for a cheap entrypoint into new games, followed down the line by getting a PS5 revision and/or a cheaper comp upgrade.
If it's just down to XSX vs PS5 (Lockhart not releasing for whatever reason), I might go XSX for legacy compatibility and game pass (and I like Xbox's long term vision in general), but Sony's prospective FOMO strategy is starting to work me over there (and I have a nice PS4 digital library anyway). I have to admit I'd probably be more open to getting a PS5 if the prevailing attitude on this forum wasn't such a turnoff. The reverse would probably be true if I hung around timdog circles.
Last edited:
Sorry, how are they two different business practices exactly? They're exactly the same thing. Offering financial or other incentives to ensure said platform has exclusive content/games that the main competitor does not.
Mental gymnastics to defend one or the other can be applied to literally anything if you really want.
Eg....
As Sony supposedly have the licensing rights to Spider-Man in games, if they hadn't money hatted the Avengers Spider-Man DLC, we likely would have never gotten Spider-Man in Avengers, so in a way they did gamers a favour.
As PlayStation already accounts for 79% of all multiplatform Final Fantasy sales, rather than SE waste development time and resources on a version that will be played by so many fewer people, it's good Sony money hatted exclusivity, so SE can focus more time and resources on the game, content creation and polish, instead of on porting.
Now obviously both the above are reaches, but they're just examples of how the same sort of mental gymnastics can be applied to some of Sony's money hats too. The indie excuse directly transfers too. Defending one over the other, or trying to make one side look better than the other, honestly comes off as disingenuous and jaded.
Well if you follow the logic of most people supporting this move by Sony you will see that there is no such thing as a disproportionate response as it is all just business.
6 month might get me to hold, but 12 months I probably would ensure I have a PS5 nearby. I don't personally have much of a backlog and routinely go weeks without playing a real title despite having gamepass. I've had that for 12 months now and have only played 3 games from it. Xbox's mantra of "play the games you want to play, with the friends you want, where you want" misses out on the critical "when _I_ want".
Sony and MS will continue to do this IMO. That's their claim that's really gonna set them apart from folks not just wanting to stay PC exclusive
Why wouldn't we? All that money for Cyberpunk marketing I hope for MS that they have exclusive content.
Is it? The ad says PC, PS5 and XSX will get exclusive content. Nothing about timed exclusivity yet iirc.
No timed exclusivity yeah, but PS5 players can claim GTA Online for free for 3 months upon release.
Yeah I wouldn't be shocked if they have some exclusive content and timed DLC
Also a million dollars a month in online until launch
They already grabbed Yakuza 7 last week. It's obvious they will be going back and forth with this.
Exclusive DLC seems like a given for games they have marketing deal with like Cyberpunk 2077. Probably not anything that can compare to what we'll see from Sony though when it comes to exclusivity on full games. The only point in history where they had as much leverage as it takes to make deals like this possible for a reasonable cost was in the Xbox 360 era when PlayStation was at a visible market disadvantage, and at the turn of last generation when they secured Titanfall from EA before things turned against their favour. The likely alternative is them partnering with renowned independent studios to deliver new IPs like Alan Wake and Sunset Overdrive.
They kinda have to at some point. Sony seems to be willing to throw money at whoever will take it. If MS doesn't do something it kinda feels like half the major 3rd party releases will launch 6 months to a year later on Xbox
This is where I'm mostly at. My PS4 was mostly a Bloodborne/GoW box this gen. Everything else I played on Xbox, despite not caring about MS' first-party efforts. I generally agree with Phil's long-term vision, and I greatly prefer the Xbox controller and ecosystem to Sony's offerings. My One X made my PS4 Pro feel like child's toy by comparison, and I truly do loathe Sony's walled-off approach.
That being said, my gaming time is increasingly limited, and I am only going to invest in one next-gen console for the foreseeable future.
My kid loves Spider-Man. His friends all play on PS4. He's nearing the point where playing Lego games with dad isn't enough; he'll want to play online with his buddies (especially since he can't actually be with them) and he's already expressed interest in the Avengers game. He even mentioned he hopes he gets to play as Spider-Man, and the kid has zero concept of exclusivity deals-- he just wants to play as one of his favorite heroes.
Personally, I don't care about COD or GTA, but the timed exclusivity of FF7R sucked, and I suspect there are other SE games that are going to be moneyhatted away (temporarily or permanently). It feels crappy. But for this parent who has more disposable income than free time, this strategy is also starting to work.
I actually don't think we will. It doesn't really suit Microsoft to spend money making games exclusive. They're going in a different direction. They'll pick up these games a year later probably on Gamepass to take the sting out of it. Gamepass subscribers will expect any big third party exclusive to be on Gamepass from the get go, and that would no doubt be prohibitively expensive for MS.
I'm afraid if there's any mental gymnastics going on it's coming from you. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm defending anything. The fact is that paying to keep a peice of content from another platform, for example like Xbox did with Rise of the Tomb Raider, and paying towards the development of a game from an early stage like they did with Cuphead are two very different business deals with very different implications. In the case of Cuphead, from the developer perspective it allowed them to change the scope of the game and grow their team. In both cases it results in the game being exclusive to a certain platform for a period of time, but the trade-offs are worth considering in the Cuphead example from the consumer point of view. Mainly that the game ends up better.
The second example is a deal that is incredibly common with Independent games for obvious reasons like limited funds, and the exposure that's given to their game for being associated with a big platform.
Don't think so, CD Project Red is against that:
"CD Projekt Red cofounder says, "We are treating all gamers equally."(regarding Witcher 3)
Half of the major 3rd party releases seems like a stretch. Which major 3rd party games outside ff7 re are confirmed?
Not really a response per se, but if I were a betting man, it would be for them to acquire more developers, and try to grow them, while providing economic certainty.
Cd Project Red have a policy against exclusive digital content.
You're moving goal posts..
I quoted you saying that you weren't buying x game cause you're waiting for it to release on Game Pass and I said that is THE reason behind Sony going after the deals in the first place. Why? To avoid.. let's say Final Fantasy being $60 on PS and Free on Xbox situation.
You're saying they're only making deals because they can and they can afford it or it's cheaper for them to do so now. That's not true. It's cheaper for them to keep their 50 million dollars and let nature take its course where most copies would be sold on PlayStation anyways.
Game Pass consists of two platforms and soon to be more where games are going to be essentially free to play and cost money on PS5. To counter this, you would naturally seek deals of your own. And lucky for them they have the power to grab some big titles.
This is the phenomenon we are seeing now.
...and I didn't attack you, sorry if you felt that way.
The console manufacture making their own shit is what serves their player base. Otherwise, they're just sharing other people's stuff.
Hypothetically, what if the XSX devkit/OS is 'way behind' schedule (as suggested by the lack of demos at the Halo conference)? If that was the case then I think 3rd party publishers would find themselves in an awful pickle:
- ship just the XB1/X version with an [XSX coming soon] sticker. [that obviously wouldn't be popular with fans, and may violate agreements with MS]
- rush an XSX version, possibly shipping something that is either buggy or doesn't take full advantage of the hardware. [this would again upset everyone]
- mysteriously delay the XB1/XSX versions for no apparent reason. [ditto]
In that situation, I could imagine any publisher seeking a deal with Sony?
Although I wouldn't be surprised if Sony had just money-hatted these timed exclusives either /shrug.
- ship just the XB1/X version with an [XSX coming soon] sticker. [that obviously wouldn't be popular with fans, and may violate agreements with MS]
- rush an XSX version, possibly shipping something that is either buggy or doesn't take full advantage of the hardware. [this would again upset everyone]
- mysteriously delay the XB1/XSX versions for no apparent reason. [ditto]
In that situation, I could imagine any publisher seeking a deal with Sony?
Although I wouldn't be surprised if Sony had just money-hatted these timed exclusives either /shrug.
ive been gaming my whole life, i made a stink about it when microsoft had call of duty and gta dlc exclusivity, i complained when rise of the tomb raiders exclusivity was announced. to all the people defending this exclusive content? Are you okay with it because its what you want? Do you want microsoft to have the next Gen version of yakuza exclusively at launch? Do you want playstation to be the only platform that spider man is on? Is this what you guys prefer? It sure seems like it.
The run up to this next gen is just got me to the point of not even caring really any more. there is so many good games coming out, let Sony do what they want. They will be succesful, the fans will be happy. As long as I can play the games at some point. I get it's just business.
If they announce some stuff and it rubs me the wrong way, i will try my absolute best to support with my wallet. I know It wont makea dent and that's fine.
I'm actually not bothered about next gen really, and that got me down for a while but I actually feel better now. I can pick up a slim PS5 when its redesigned and on a cheap deal, I'll get the disk drive version and just buy second hand copies of the exclusives IF sonys deals feel too much to me.
I actually have no problem with waiting.
My biggest concern about it all, really is...will this will stop cross play...if Sony secure exclusive content. We were set to finally make it on that front, and I feel this could really hold us back.
If they announce some stuff and it rubs me the wrong way, i will try my absolute best to support with my wallet. I know It wont makea dent and that's fine.
I'm actually not bothered about next gen really, and that got me down for a while but I actually feel better now. I can pick up a slim PS5 when its redesigned and on a cheap deal, I'll get the disk drive version and just buy second hand copies of the exclusives IF sonys deals feel too much to me.
I actually have no problem with waiting.
My biggest concern about it all, really is...will this will stop cross play...if Sony secure exclusive content. We were set to finally make it on that front, and I feel this could really hold us back.
Personally I just dont care....like at all. Theres so many games to play on every single platform out there missing a character here or a map there just doesn't weigh very heavy to me. I'll either play whats there or play something else. We are NEVER at a shortage of content to play in this hobby.
In the very rare scenario where a game i just HAVE to play goes exclusively to MS ill probably shell out the money for their console just like i did for Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, and Tales of Vesperia on the 360. Tis the game.
Although i agree with you, The poster points still stands.
Both approach still ends up accomplishing the same objective as the poster mentioned:
We aren't privy to the underlying business deals that happens beneath all this so mental gymnastics by various posters can come into play
Man, You are way off key if you think 2 teraflops lead to exclusive deals.
Take care.
yes there is nuance and not everything can be compared like for like.
But - how much of each individual deal are the armchair analysts of Era actually privy to? Barely anything is probably the answer, and this kind of info mostly comes out in hindsight with retrospectives etc a few years later.
Right now for the current batch this just feels like idle speculation from many, what they consider 'good' or 'bad' exclusivity as they don't know the background of most of these deals.
I agree there is a sliding scale of 'acceptability' pretty much in line with yours
Good - Games that simply wouldn't exist and a developer is hired to develop with MS/Sony/Nintendo publishing - like Spiderman or Sunset Overdrive
Fine - games that are at risk of being cancelled, or shipping part completed where a platform holder comes in to support financially
OK - Timed exclusive added content (assuming this is paid for additional work, not already existing that is being paid to be removed -important distinction)
Not good - timed exclusive entire games - at least everyone will get to play eventually but assuming this would have happened anyway then it feels like the money is more about excluding access for a period
Very bad - fully exclusive games where it is about exclusion where it otherwise woudl be available on another platform or be reasonably expected to
Thank god someone else is being thoughtful about this. This is a great post.
Having all these people hinting at stuff without a hint at any specific game is actually starting to hurt.
- Status