Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square

orava

Member
Jun 10, 2019
285
Well, I'm not a sony products consumer and probably never will be so i guess it's true.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,067
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
but what's the actual difference? what you call "moneyhatting" is funding games to make them exclusives. what's the difference between $10m you receive to make a game from your parent company versus $10m you receive to make a game (or recoup the costs you've just spent on development) from a third party?
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,048
Does Nintendo suffer the same treatment because of Mario and Zelda, to name but two of their exclusives?
Bayo 2 was probably the most I saw it for Nintendo. But it was mostly just by people who were upset it'd be done by Nintendo and exclusive, because if anything it was pretty much the opposite of a anti-consumer move, given the near 0 chance SEGA would do Bayo 2 themselves.
 

Wackamole

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,151
This smells like an article that says one thing but is made solely to create or seed an idea of the opposite.
A "why mention it?" if it's clear it's not the case.

Sort of what Gilbert Gottfried did in the Bob Saget roast.
 

Remeran

Member
Nov 27, 2018
670
I can see Microsoft’s position as pro-consumer, but that doesn’t make Sony’s position anti-consumer.
This is how I see it. MS needs to keep the install base that they have very happy so they can continue their growth. Sony doesn’t really need to do that right now since their the market leader.
Sure MS leave no player left behind attitude can be consider pro consumer because they are going out of their way to do it, but Sony doing the normal thing certainly isn’t anti consumer.
 

RoninStrife

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,850
You know, it makes zero sense this issue is even being brought up, no tinfoil hat or anything, but this issue does play into their direct market competitors hands.

All in all, let's live and let live, let consumers decide what is anti consumer or not, let's see how Ps5's launch plays out. I'm guessing... PS5 will sell a cool 3 million units worldwide in launch month.

I advise everyone to vote with their wallets though. If you believe Sony is Anti Consumer, DO NOT support them.


But, personally I don't think having next gen exclusives is a bad thing, in fact, it's part of what gets me so excited. I can't wait for a true taste of next gen!

Just like Shadow Fall, or Second Son, I want to gasp and say "damn...no way this would run on last gen!"

Last gen's 512MB RAM is this gen's Jaguar CPUs... and that's just foolish to think it's ok to cater to that garbage CPU.
 
Last edited:

Gamer17

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
7,660
First post nails it as usual.

I want sony to bring it for launch, we will have a clear example of what an exclusive focused only game looks like compared to a cross gen one.
It will not happen as few will continuously compare gameplays to say in engine cutscene of HB2 and say well HB2 cutscene looks better than what it was shown for example.

All I m trying to say is people have already made up their minds and nothingthat will he showed will changed their minds imo
 

Eeyore

Member
Dec 13, 2019
1,296
but what's the actual difference? what you call "moneyhatting" is funding games to make them exclusives. what's the difference between $10m you receive to make a game from your parent company versus $10m you receive to make a game (or recoup the costs you've just spent on development) from a third party?
Bayonetta 2 vs. Rise of the Tomb Raider/Street Fighter V

One game wouldn't exist without Nintendo's funding, Tomb Raider was pulled from PS4 for a full year and SFV has never come out on Xbox One.
 

mazi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
31,392
This smells like an article that says one thing but is made solely to create or seed an idea of the opposite.
it's not even that. it's just a basic click-bait article with no substance. no one worth taking seriously ever claimed that sony making exclusives for their new console was anti-consumer. this is just reading some hot takes on a forum and making an article based on that for clicks.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,048
but what's the actual difference? what you call "moneyhatting" is funding games to make them exclusives. what's the difference between $10m you receive to make a game from your parent company versus $10m you receive to make a game (or recoup the costs you've just spent on development) from a third party?
1 would exist regardless of the money being paid. Paying for a (usually timed) exclusive is just them paying to delay other platforms, to benefit them, PS/Xbox/Nintendo users don't benefit from it, because they'd get the game regardless.
 

CaviarMeths

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,029
Western Canada
I like how this thread has a good mix of "lol who thought this was anti-consumer?" and "it is anti-consumer when companies publish video games on a console I don't want to buy."

But yeah the term "anti-consumer" has been used correctly exactly zero times on Era and honestly thinking that exclusives, 1st or 3rd party, are anti-consumer is why everyone just ignores gamers when they try to participate in adult conversations.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,068
London, UK
Was anybody saying exclusives were anti consumer?

I do think MS not having new gen exclusives for the first year is more consumer friendly but id never say exclusives are the opposite
 

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,794
I like how this thread has a good mix of "lol who thought this was anti-consumer?" and "it is anti-consumer when companies publish video games on a console I don't want to buy."

But yeah the term "anti-consumer" has been used correctly exactly zero times on Era and honestly thinking that exclusives, 1st or 3rd party, are anti-consumer is why everyone just ignores gamers when they try to participate in adult conversations.
I couldn't agree more. Ignorance and entitlement play into the discourse way too often.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,067
Bayonetta 2 vs. Rise of the Tomb Raider/Street Fighter V
but the development is ultimately still being funded by the third party
One game wouldn't exist without Nintendo's funding
in that specific instance sure, but that's not true in every case
1 would exist regardless of the money hat
Hellblade 2 would exist regardless of whether Ninja Theory was owned/funded by Microsoft as the first game was a success. If they were still an indie studio, they would still be making Hellblade 2. But the fact that Microsoft bought them and is funding the game doesn't mean Hellblade 2 has been victim of a so-called moneyhat. It just means Microsoft is funding the studio and so now it will be exclusive
 

DrDeckard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,241
UK
It will not happen as few will continuously compare gameplays to say in engine cutscene of HB2 and say well HB2 cutscene looks better than what it was shown for example.

All I m trying to say is people have already made up their minds and nothingthat will he showed will changed their minds imo
I think any of us with half a braincell will not accept a cutscene vs gameplay.

I'm talking live gameplay, in game, being played of say halo and forza vs whatever Sony brings to the table. I'm hoping for a real 60FPS minimum vs 60FPS minimum on ps5.

Imagine if the next forza can run at 120FPS on series X, for those with a 2020 TV :O
 

Eeyore

Member
Dec 13, 2019
1,296
but the development is ultimately still being funded by the third party

in that specific instance sure, but that's not true in every case
If Microsoft pays Square Enix to delay a release and Sony pays Capcom to not release the game on Xbox One, it's not the same thing as Bloodborne.
 

Gamer17

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
7,660
I think any of us with half a braincell will not accept a cutscene vs gameplay.

I'm talking live gameplay, in game, being played of say halo and forza vs whatever Sony brings to the table. I'm hoping for a real 60FPS minimum vs 60FPS minimum on ps5.

Imagine if the next forza can run at 120FPS on series X, for those with a 2020 TV :O
Imagine 120 FPS would be amazing for vr headset. Playing forza with that fidelity in vr would be orgasmic
 

Gamer17

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
7,660
Gran turismo or wipeout too!

I mainly used my PS4 pro for VR in 2019 so I'm looking forward to what happens there with PS5.
Psvr fidelity was so bad I said no thanks lol I m superficial haha if psvr 2 fidelity is at least like 2k ps4 games I ll be on board . Otherwise I ll skip that as well
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,450

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,048
but the development is ultimately still being funded by the third party

in that specific instance sure, but that's not true in every case

Hellblade 2 would exist regardless of whether Ninja Theory was owned/funded by Microsoft as the first game was a success. If they were still an indie studio, they would still be making Hellblade 2. But the fact that Microsoft bought them and is funding the game doesn't mean Hellblade 2 has been victim of a so-called moneyhat. It just means Microsoft is funding the studio and so now it will be exclusive
Who said it wouldn't? What ifs are pretty irrelevant though, NT could have went under too, but MS bought them out, so we'll never know. Hellblade 2 is a fully funded MS game, they don't owe other platforms anything.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,067
If Microsoft pays Square Enix to delay a release and Sony pays Capcom to not release the game on Xbox One, it's not the same thing as Bloodborne.
Xbox doesn't want Hellblade 2 on other platforms and they buy the studio. Ultimately the development of the game is being funded by a platform that it's now exclusive to. Whereas if Ninja Theory stayed indie, they would still be making Hellblade 2, but it would be on PS4. Why does it matter if the funding is coming from a parent or third party?
 

CaviarMeths

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,029
Western Canada
It's embarrassing that it needs to be explained to grown ups that "anti-consumer" doesn't mean "my consumer habits have been inconvenienced."

No, moneyhatting is not anti-consumer.
 

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,794
If Microsoft pays Square Enix to delay a release and Sony pays Capcom to not release the game on Xbox One, it's not the same thing as Bloodborne.
If you're an Xbox user, Sony doesn't have your best interests at heart. The same way Netflix doesn't have an Amazon Prime or Hulu user's best interests at heart.

Again, it's not pro-consumer, but it's not malpractice or an infringement of your inherent rights as a consumer.

I'll say this again, I don't agree with it personally but I'm looking at the bigger picture. There is a stark difference between actual anti consumer practices and doing things that don't favour users of competing services and platforms - which is what most of the 'exclusivity is anti-consumer' discourse boils down to.
 

Eeyore

Member
Dec 13, 2019
1,296
Xbox doesn't want Hellblade 2 on other platforms and they buy the studio. Ultimately the development of the game is being funded by a platform that it's now exclusive to. Whereas if Ninja Theory stayed indie, they would still be making Hellblade 2, but it would be on PS4. Why does it matter if the funding is coming from a parent or third party?
I'm not following. Why are we talking about HB2 now? I was responding to this:

but what's the actual difference? what you call "moneyhatting" is funding games to make them exclusives. what's the difference between $10m you receive to make a game from your parent company versus $10m you receive to make a game (or recoup the costs you've just spent on development) from a third party?
I think there's a difference from paying to prevent a release from appearing on a platform, or delaying it, vs. funding it.

If you're an Xbox user, Sony doesn't have your best interests at heart. The same way Netflix doesn't have an Amazon Prime or Hulu user's best interests at heart.

Again, it's not pro-consumer, but it's not malpractice or an infringement of your inherent rights as a consumer.

I'll say this again, I don't agree with it personally but I'm looking at the bigger picture. There is a stark difference between actual anti consumer practices and doing things that don't favour users of competing services and platforms - which is what most of the 'exclusivity is anti-consumer' discourse boils down to.
I'm not arguing it's anti-consumer, there's just something about a game that's already announced that then doesn't come to platform because of exclusivity wars. It's just difference in my mind, I do understand what you're saying here.
 

Weltall Zero

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,669
Madrid
But they don't quote or link to any sources. Push Square is a Sony focused outlet so any soapbox articles like this (literally published as "Soapbox:" aren't holding anyones feet to the fire without actually referencing anything other than a few disaffected posters on forums like this and Twitter.

That they made a whole article out of this is ridiculous.
Yeah, this all sounds a bit like "I woke up this morning itching to bash a strawman".
 

DrDeckard

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,241
UK
Psvr fidelity was so bad I said no thanks lol I m superficial haha if psvr 2 fidelity is at least like 2k ps4 games I ll be on board . Otherwise I ll skip that as well
Honestly, as someone with an oculus rift and a PSVR, i dont think PSVR looks too bad on a PS pro. Games like astro bot and Blood and truth were great.

I did play one ona standard PS4 once.....YIKES! lol
 

Marble

Member
Nov 27, 2017
3,214


Push Square is a site focusing on Playstation platforms with Playstation symbols on its site background.
Your point being? They are completely right. Both MS and Sony published next gen exclusives back in 2013/2014. That was fine, back then. No one of them decides to think backwards and suddenly the other is anti-consumer.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
12,397
Would it really surprise people to hear that a lot of gamers still hold the belief that all Exclusives are anti-consumer practice?
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,067
What ifs are pretty irrelevant
It's not a what-if any more than "what if ROTR wasn't funded by Microsoft" or "what if Control wasn't funded by Epic" is a what-if. What if those games weren't funded by those platforms? Then they would have released on other platforms.
NT could have went under too
No? Hellblade was a big success, they were in a good position.
I think there's a difference from paying to prevent a release from appearing on a platform, or delaying it, vs. funding it.
Because the argument you're making can apply to studios too. It's not like Ninja Theory wouldn't exist if Microsoft hadn't bought them. You could say Microsoft money hatted NT, as their games were multiplatform before and now they'll be exclusive. What's the actual difference if the funds come from a parent or a third party? You do understand that when Epic pays Remedy to make their game exclusive to their platform, that's a way of funding the game, right? The money doesn't disappear into a black hole. It goes to recoup the costs of development. The money is funding the game, and so the game becomes exclusive. Just like with Hellblade 2, which would be on PS4 if Microsoft didn't "money hat" the whole studio.
If we're going to use this logic then buying third party companies and making them console exclusive partners is moneyhatting as well which Sony has done.
Yup. Not sure why this doesn't apply to acquisitions
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,544




Your point being? They are completely right. Both MS and Sony published next gen exclusives back in 2013/2014. That was fine, back then. No one of them decides to think backwards and suddenly the other is anti-consumer.
It wasn't anti consumer then and it is still not now, but referencing push square for an unbiased opinion on a Sony product or ideology is a little silly as it's entire purpose is for Sony fans. You are not going to go out of your way to have a controversial or negative opinion that would effectively hurt your own business if you piss too many readers off.
 

Eeyore

Member
Dec 13, 2019
1,296
Because the argument you're making can apply to studios too. It's not like Ninja Theory wouldn't exist if Microsoft hadn't bought them. You could say Microsoft money hatted NT, as their games were multiplatform before and now they'll be exclusive. What's the actual difference if the funds come from a parent or a third party? You do understand that when Epic pays Remedy to make their game exclusive to their platform, that's a way of funding the game, right? The money doesn't disappear into a black hole. It goes to recoup the costs of development. The money is funding the game, and so the game becomes exclusive. Just like with Hellblade 2, which would be on PS4 if Microsoft didn't "money hat" the whole studio.
The consolidation of the game industry isn't great. I think the only time it's a good thing is when a studio may be financially struggling, otherwise, doing what Sony did or what Microsoft has done isn't great. I think we're in agreement there. I still don't think it's the same thing, because of the intent involved. There's something about someone intentionally paying money to keep a game off another platform that really gets under my skin.
 

C-Dub

Member
Oct 25, 2017
652
Cardiff, Wales
I don't think Sony making their own games exclusive to their own platform is anti-consumer. How they deal with PS4 owners who don't want to upgrade yet is up to Sony, of course. There is definitely a balancing act and they need to maintain goodwill with PS4 customers if they want them to upgrade to PS5, whether that's on day one or a couple of years (or more) down the line.

I am intrigued by Microsoft's stance, though. It's definitely more of a third party approach than a first party approach. Generally, the first party leads the way with exclusive games for the new platform, with third parties doing cross-gen releases for 6-24 months. I think their cross-gen approach will engender loyalty in the upgrade path for Xbox One owners. They seem to think that is more valuable in the long-run than satisfying people who want next-gen exclusives on day one.
 

ISOM

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,571
Like MS buying Obisidan or Ninja Theory?
Yes obviously if we're going by that logic of moneyhatting that people use. Both Sony and Microsoft buy studios that are now forced to make only exclusives which is worst than timed exclusives of Epic that people like to complain about constantly.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,067
The consolidation of the game industry isn't great. I think the only time it's a good thing is when a studio may be financially struggling, otherwise, doing what Sony did or what Microsoft has done isn't great. I think we're in agreement there. I still don't think it's the same thing, because of the intent involved. There's something about someone intentionally paying money to keep a game off another platform that really gets under my skin.
Fair enough, but I think you understand my point. At the end of the day, whether you're directly funding the game through a parent company or funding it through an exclusivity agreement, they're both still cash on the firm's balance sheet at the end of the day. I can understand why paying to keep a product off a rival platform gets under your skin, but it's not an uncommon business practice. And at least with timed exclusivity deals, the game will eventually come to other platforms.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,048
It's not a what-if any more than "what if ROTR wasn't funded by Microsoft" or "what if Control wasn't funded by Epic" is a what-if. What if those games weren't funded by those platforms? Then they would have released on other platforms.

No? Hellblade was a big success, they were in a good position.

Because the argument you're making can apply to studios too. It's not like Ninja Theory wouldn't exist if Microsoft hadn't bought them. You could say Microsoft money hatted NT, as their games were multiplatform before and now they'll be exclusive. What's the actual difference if the funds come from a parent or a third party? You do understand that when Epic pays Remedy to make their game exclusive to their platform, that's a way of funding the game, right? The money doesn't disappear into a black hole. It goes to recoup the costs of development. The money is funding the game, and so the game becomes exclusive. Just like with Hellblade 2, which would be on PS4 if Microsoft didn't "money hat" the whole studio.
You've lost me. They weren't funded by them to begin with, hence the very specific 12 month exclusivity, which is what they paid for. There's absolutely no positives in paying for a timed exclusive on the consumers end, it solely benefits the platform holder and maybe the publisher depending on how much, but I don't think anyone would say Square benefited from the RoTTR deal, given the state the franchise is now in after a very successful first entry in the reboot.

And Ninja Theory weren't in a good position, they had been struggling for years by the point MS bought them out, Hellblade's success might have bought them some time, but you only have to look at the way they developed Hellblade to see it wasn't in a particularly good place. Their fighting game which seemingly no one cares about would have probably set the on the edge again.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,472
This entire argument is moronic and anyone who thinks new hardware is anti-consumer is either an idiot or an extreme fanboy trying desperately to find an angle to blast Sony and Nintendo.