• Light/Dark
  • 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.

Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games"

Status
Not open for further replies.
DieH@rd

DieH@rd

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,561
Matt said:
Yeah, there is a lot of it coming and the scale will be shocking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
9jo2wZI.gif
 
DrDeckard

DrDeckard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,109
UK
I think MS has to make gold free, and online gaming. They are going to have to be intelligent in how they combat this. Hurt Sonys bottom line in an intelligent way.
 
Conor

Conor

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
450
Mubrik_ said:
Although i agree with you, The poster points still stands.
Both approach still ends up accomplishing the same objective as the poster mentioned
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree, I even alluded to it in my post. From the platorm holders perspective it's the same outcome in which they get exclusive content for their platform. I just don't agree with equating the various business deals that can lead to that specific outcome. The differences are worth pointing out and discussing. There are pros and cons depending on whose perspective you look at it from
 
MrKlaw

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,038
What do the big publishers think about game pass? I wonder if some of the really big guys see it as a threat potentially to their day one sales and their own desires for subscription services like EA access? Does that give Sony a window to leverage that?
 
Kopite

Kopite

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,018
I was always planning to get a PS5, shame that these funds could've been put towards more excellent first party games
 
Toriko

Toriko

Member
Dec 29, 2017
7,674
I rather Sony use all of this money and buy Housemarque or the studio making Kena who could do with some financial security.
 
pg2g

pg2g

Member
Dec 18, 2018
4,794
Im sure, despite the size and scale, era will provide us with the list of AA and indie games that MS has timed exclusives on like its the same thing.
 
AegonSnake

AegonSnake

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,566
MrKlaw said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, i am ok with this scale.

And yeah, I guess we dont know the details of why certain games become exclusives. Like Nioh, Nier and Persona. I was like why, turns out there wasnt any reason, they just wanted to work on PS4.

That said, from the rumors it seems Sony is going around buying timed exclusitivity. Did all these games need a bailout or a Bayonetta style deal? I would say they are in the Not Good category. Which is not good.
 
Mubrik_

Mubrik_

Member
Dec 7, 2017
2,723
Conor said:
I agree, I even alluded to it in my post. From the platorm holders perspective it's the same outcome in which they get exclusive content for their platform. I just don't agree with equating the various business deals that can lead to that specific outcome. The differences are worth pointing out and discussing. There are pros and cons depending on whose perspective you look at it from
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Agreed, There's good discussions to be had about it,
Maybe a general thread stickied to keep the community engaged on it and eventually we'd get actual behind the scenes info from some insiders (If Lucky) about deals that go on, not several posters with differing opinions (2TF, MoneyHat, Licensing deal, War-Chest)
Till then i guess

Matt said:
Yeah, there is a lot of it coming and the scale will be shocking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wow!
Jim if youre reading this i'd rather PS5 cost $399 than any of this lol
 
Sense

Sense

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,551
wb Montreal batman game is my guess for one of these deals. Rocksteady teasing suicide squad could be multiplatform gaas but wb Montreal game could be timed exclusive for ps5.
 
FallenGrace

FallenGrace

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,035
PleaseDontHurtMe said:
Skimming through this thread again and man, people are kinda taking this a bit too hard here. Sure, I get how this can be annoying for non-PS players, the fact they get less for not having the right plastic box is pretty dumb. But some people take a lot of umbrage from a company trying to influence them into buying their product. Walled gardens can be too detrimental for the consumer, such as the case of Apple prohibiting Microsoft from bringing Game Pass to iOS. However, walled gardens could also be a net positive for consumers that actually buy the product and invest in the ecosystem. Microsoft, as open as they claim to be, is still a walled garden, but they're more subtle with it. There's a reason Game Pass isn't on PlayStation and Switch and probably will never be on those platforms for a long time. To leverage the benefits of Microsoft's Game Pass, you actually have to pay the subscription and invest in that ecosystem. Microsoft is a lot more accessible than PlayStation, but they're no more pro-consumer than Sony is. If a platform is beneficial for the consumer and gives them a lot of value and content, then how is that platform anti-consumer? Netflix will never have their original titles on competing platforms because they want people to subscribe specifically to them. Both Netflix and Microsoft sign checks to make sure certain content is only on their platform, be it for a limited time or for eternity. Sony is doing the same thing as Microsoft, except they're a lot more aggressive with it because they know the PS5 is a much larger financial hurdle for consumers to jump through. They want consumers to feel the PS5 is worth spending hundreds of dollars for. They're incentivizing consumers, not "holding them hostage". Consumers have the choice to opt out of the PlayStation ecosystem and go elsewhere. Sony doesn't have the power to strip that choice away from them. Instead, they have to make sure consumers don't *want* to leave PlayStation and to do that, these third-party deals are crucial in keeping them on board. It's a selling point Sony is offering consumers. If they're being anti-competitive (such as prohibiting Microsoft from selling the Xbox Series X in certain storefronts because they signed an agreement with a retailer chain), then they're also being anti-consumer. That's what Apple is doing with Game Pass, so that would make them anti-consumer. They refuse to allow a competing service to be sold on their ecosystem, despite them having a massive market share.

So, yes, these third-party deals aren't exactly fun or exciting, but they are designed to influence you. Making dramatized arguments about how Sony is "forcing" the helpless gamers into buying their console won't get us anywhere and thus creates an infantile thread that never ends. I personally hope Sony pursues a more accessible strategy like Microsoft is doing, but that's not how the industry is at the moment. In the meantime, let's try not to paint Sony as some kind of imperialist empire that pillages the industry just because they make aggressive third-party deals so people would want to buy their product. Because that practice is fair game and always has been. it's not monopolistic, it's just aggressive, and that's a perfectly legal business practice for Sony to pursue. Albeit, it's not my favorite one, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Best post in this thread.
 

Deleted member 61469

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Nov 17, 2019
1,587
Yeah, this is gonna be pretty fucking bad for MS if true. Their poor showing didn't really inspire any confidence, the games everyone looked forward too don't seem to be in any playable shape and on top of that, several AAA games skip the console? The fuck do they expect us to play on that console?
 
MrKlaw

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,038
AegonSnake said:
Yeah, i am ok with this scale.

And yeah, I guess we dont know the details of why certain games become exclusives. Like Nioh, Nier and Persona. I was like why, turns out there wasnt any reason, they just wanted to work on PS4.

That said, from the rumors it seems Sony is going around buying timed exclusitivity. Did all these games need a bailout or a Bayonetta style deal? I would say they are in the Not Good category. Which is not good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

that is how it seems but we need to try and consider the wider context too. Eg MS doing 6 month gamepass day 1 deals vs Sony doing 6 month day 1 launch exclusives (random numbers) but I think that looks like how it's going
 
Wise

Wise

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,228
Imagine if Sony got gta though...

Like holy shit.

I'm not liking where all this is going
 
Status
Not open for further replies.