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

KayonXaikyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,074
I'm not sure why some people think any of these console manufacturers are doing new shit. This is so confusing to me. No Sony isn't anti consumer and one of the only reasons why Microsoft is saying they aren't leaving the original behind is because these games were in development probably as cross gen / late xbox one titles in the first place. Like the only reason Sony isn't going to have a lot of cross gen is because well... Death Stranding, Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima, Dreams, and other big titles came out so late during the Playstation life cycle (or are still coming) that there's literally no need to make more shit for PS4. Death Stranding, Last of Us 2, Ghosts, and Dreams WOULD be the cross gen titles in the first place if the PS5 was going to have any. The only games left are ones that are new and in reality most of the huge flagships aren't coming to PS5 launch anyway. Only thing you can really expect is Horizon 2, something from Bluepoint, maybe something from Ready at Dawn, maybbeee Spiderman 2 (but probably not), and that's about it (I mean Knack??... I guess... and Japan Studio prolly working on some VR shit but I'd love Gravity Rush 3). The rest of the studios won't have any big games ready because it takes Sony a long ass time to make games and a lot of the studios just finished making them or haven't even gotten done the PS4 ones. Third party is going to be filling the other gaps and those games are going to be a mix of cross gen too.

Sony isn't anti-consumer and nor are they looking out for you to give you high fidelity gaming in some deep strategic move. They are just doing what makes sense with what they have and are literally doing what most consoles have done for decades now. Neither company is doing something ground breaking. Hell even Switch only had 1 cross gen title (which it robbed at gunpoint from Wii U) and nothing else was made for Wii U from Nintendo after that. They are doing basically what everyone does every time a new console is released lol.
 

EGOMON

Member
Nov 5, 2017
800
Oman
The complains about the article are fuckin rich coming from this forum, giving the amount of useless/tasteless threads being made around here
 

Transistor

Now there's one thing I don't understand
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
13,388
Washington, D.C.
Tomb Raider was obviously a shitty one, but TitanFall was a good one that dug the developers out of a hole(if the story was true, didn't dig that deep into it)

Most deals these days are just rubbish focused on the extras.
There's a difference between moneyhatting and funding. You're examples are good examples of the difference.
 

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
758
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.
Right. Not to start wars, but apart from Insomniac ( And even that is debatable ) the only studios Sony bought, where studios that developed exclusive for Playstation anyways. So if we go by that logic, MS strategy is a lot more "Anti-Consumer".
 

starblue

Member
Oct 28, 2017
352
Why people looks mad at this article ? It's just one opinion more...

edit: I can not believe some people wants to bann the site just for posting some opinion article lol
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,065
They weren't funded by them to begin with, hence the very specific 12 month exclusivity, which is what they paid for
So what? Why does it matter if the funding comes at the beginning or the end of development? That's my fundamental point-- it's still funding the development, whether you're paying for it from the start or offsetting the cost toward the end.
There's absolutely no positives in paying for a timed exclusive on consumers end
What if the money prevents a studio from becoming insolvent? If a company like Remedy is able to pay their bills because they took a timed exclusivity agreement, I'd rather have that than lose the ability to play their games entirely.
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 the some time, but you only have to look at the way they developed Hellblade to see it wasn't in a particularly good place
Sorry but do you have any evidence or factual basis for that? Everything they've said publicly indicates that Hellblade was very profitable for them and that they were doing well. Do you think Microsoft bought them because they were a sinking ship? I think you're stretching the credibility of your arguments
 

DrScissorsMD

Member
Jan 19, 2019
474
Making a thread on Era, about a user-written article on Push Square, about a complete non issue not seen outside of enthusiast forums due to being ridiculous to begin with. What could go wrong.
 

SharpX68K

Member
Nov 10, 2017
5,774
Yeah, I think the entire anti-consumer argument about making next gen PS5 exclusive games is insanely stupid and pathetic.

As for Microsoft, it is no longer about a potential 4 TFLOP Lockhart holding Series X back, it is now about OG XBone and 1S (and even 1X) holding back the new generation for upto 2 years with mechanical HDDs and shitty Jaguar CPUs.
 
Last edited:

dskzero

Member
Oct 30, 2019
396
Lol.
This whole anti consumer hot take literally comes from a few Era users who are having a bad reaction due to MS' announcement that the series X won't have next gen exclusives.
To be fair I haven't argued a lot online because I don't really care all that much but I've seen more than a handful of PS fanboys grinding their teeth to the thought of Microsoft not caring about exclusives all that much as if it affected Playstation's chances somehow.

I really don't get it, to be honest. Nor do I get this article.
 

Jonnax

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,241
"anti-consumer" and "moneyhat" are some of the most stupid memes of the gaming community.

It's just an excuse for harassment of developers.

It's a video game, not a train ticket or food. Don't buy it. Your life will continue on.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,542
To be fair I haven't argued a lot online because I don't really care all that much but I've seen more than a handful of PS fanboys grinding their teeth to the thought of Microsoft not caring about exclusives all that much as if it affected Playstation's chances somehow.

I really don't get it, to be honest. Nor do I get this article.
There are way more Sony posters here than any other platform. So more fanboy opinions.

Anything different then Sony's stance will be attacjed. Which was silly for shit like cross play or initially 'protecting' us from EA Access.

But in this instance having PS5 exclusives from first party studios madness sense as Sony cares easy more about moving hardware than MS does
 

Siresly

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,732
I appreciate that Microsoft's initial cross-gen strategy is good for PC and Xbox One owners, who will continue being able to play first party Xbox games, but if I am to buy a next-gen console, I would like for next-gen games to be designed for it, unrestricted by the hardware of the previous generation.

Who knows how or if first party PS5 exclusives will excel, Sony is yet to demonstrate that they'll actually use this potential in compelling ways, but at this point the fact that there will be PS5 games developed specifically around its hardware, is doing the usual thing of acting as a selling point. Apparently a unique one this time, for some two years.

And it's not anti-consumer. Good lord.
The omnipresent strategy of producing exclusive stuff for your thing, which has existed and driven competitive quality since the dawn of time, doesn't suddenly become anti-consumer because Microsoft has positioned itself for a different strategy. For customers they both have their pros and cons.

Microsoft will eventually dump the Xbox One and up the hardware requirements. PC games will start requiring SSD's capable of X transfer rates. That will become a standard for games at large, and that's neat. First party PS5 games get a headstart.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,915
Of course they aren’t.

If they were, Nintendo would be getting way more flak because they keep more exclusives than the other two. Sony even has non-first party exclusives going to PC and PS Now for 1st party.

This is just another silly battle in the endless Sony vs MS war.

The attempts to make it anything more than that are cute though.
 

Batatina

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,700
Edinburgh, UK
If they weren't exclusives, games would come out fragmented by millions of microtransactions, subscriptions and loot boxes. The reason they are so amazing and fully packaged is because they are made to sell the hardware, not to necessarily make all the profit by themselves. Most of my favourite games as usually exclusive to one console or another and I personally am very happy they exist.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,065
I know we're being cheeky, but the whole framing of pro- or anti-consumer isn't that helpful. People paint themselves as standing up to big corporations by pointing out their "anti-consumer" practices but the reality is there's nothing these companies love more than framing your arguments around your "right" to consume their products.

Of course big companies are pro-consumption. What they really hate, though, is when people are pro-labor rather than "pro-consumer" and call out actual issues like their shitty treatment of their employees, poor workplace culture, crunch, exploitation and the rest of it.

That actually strikes fear into the big firms because it requires them to fundamentally reevaluate their model and try to fix structural issues. Whereas the "pro-consumer" arguments will always boil down to "make it easier to purchase this product in more places on more formats," which still increases their bottom line. Even when it's framed as a criticism, corporations love that line of reasoning.
 

Jamesac68

Member
Oct 27, 2017
564
Re- moneyhatting. There are two sides to every business deal. If Bungie felt it was necessary to accept Sony's money to keep Destiny going, that's on Bungie. Anti-consumer would be like Nintendo used to do, saying if you want to be on the NES then you can't be elsewhere. Buying non-exclusivity (the PC version of Destiny 2 is just fine) isn't great but it's hardly "anti-consumer". The worst reasonable thing is that it's slightly obnoxious if you don't have a PS4.
 

Elandyll

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,666
To be fair I haven't argued a lot online because I don't really care all that much but I've seen more than a handful of PS fanboys grinding their teeth to the thought of Microsoft not caring about exclusives all that much as if it affected Playstation's chances somehow.

I really don't get it, to be honest. Nor do I get this article.
This article is in (obvious) response to the many dumb forum hot takes on Sony's "anti consumer stance" that followed the MS interview about No exclusives the first 2 years, followed by Jason's "reveal" that the PS5 would have exclusives at launch.

But I'm sure you know that.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,065
Yeah, well, it does kind of matter if the cost-of-entry to your platform is $10 vs $400.
Sorry, how does that change the principle behind the argument in any way? Besides, you're comparing a one-time purchase to a recurring monthly subscription. Pay $400 once or pay $120 every year.

The point is that it's common for companies to pay creators to keep their content off rival platforms.
 

dskzero

Member
Oct 30, 2019
396
I appreciate that Microsoft's initial cross-gen strategy is good for PC and Xbox One owners, who will continue being able to play first party Xbox games, but if I am to buy a next-gen console, I would like for next-gen games to be designed for it, unrestricted by the hardware of the previous generation.

Who knows how or if first party PS5 exclusives will excel, Sony is yet to demonstrate that they'll actually use this potential in compelling ways, but at this point the fact that there will be PS5 games developed specifically around its hardware, is doing the usual thing of acting as a selling point. Apparently a unique one this time, for some two years.

And it's not anti-consumer. Good lord.
The omnipresent strategy of producing exclusive stuff for your thing, which has existed and driven competitive quality since the dawn of time, doesn't suddenly become anti-consumer because Microsoft has positioned itself for a different strategy. For customers they both have their pros and cons.

Microsoft will eventually dump the Xbox One and up the hardware requirements. PC games will start requiring SSD's capable of X transfer rates. That will become a standard for games at large, and that's neat. First party PS5 games get a headstart.
This only really matters for early adopters. I'll get a Xbox Series X when a game that requires it comes out. I like that idea.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,043
So what? Why does it matter if the funding comes at the beginning or the end of development? That's my fundamental point-- it's still funding the development, whether you're paying for it from the start or offsetting the cost toward the end.

What if the money prevents a studio from becoming insolvent? If a company like Remedy is able to pay their bills because they took a timed exclusivity agreement, I'd rather have that than lose the ability to play their games entirely.

Sorry but do you have any evidence or factual basis for that? Everything they've said publicly indicates that Hellblade was very profitable for them and that they were doing well. Do you think Microsoft bought them because they were a sinking ship? I think you're stretching the credibility of your arguments
Because there's a pretty big difference between funding a game and paying to delay one for the rest. But anti-competition is probably more accurate than anti-consumer. Either way fuck it.

Isn't that the job of the publisher and studio management? But yeah, I don't think anyone would take the studio dying over a artificial delay to however many platforms, doesn't really change how shitty it is and I don't think that applies to any of the AAA money hats either. Though I don't blame a platform holder for trying them, it's clearly effective, just the publisher for accepting.

Again look up how they developed Hellblade, the way the studio is structured and how they've got by since DMC, it's something they've talked about a lot, Hellblade itself was made in a way to show it's possible to do AAA like games on a tiny budget, I don't think it was sustainable personally, they were a flop away from disaster most likely. Also healthy studios don't really get bought out by publishers who they have little working relationship with prior, I'm sure future security was a big reason in them accepting MS offer (well they have said as much).
 
Nov 11, 2017
2,479
Moneyhatting is trash I can't believe people in here is defending it, especially when the pub is wealthy as ever


ROTR TRASH
FF7R TRASH
DESTINY TRASH
COD TRASH
KINGDOM HEART DLC TRASH

Etc people shouldn't be defending it.


As far as the article, it plays up to the base it markets too , its whatever.
 

score01

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,349
I don’t think anyone seriously considered that it was anti-consumer. By that logic, MS are only going to be pro-consumer for an additional 12 months after launch, after which they will also be anti-consumer when they stop making cross gen titles...
 

Theorry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
24,458
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.
I have a feeling alot of these sites just look at forums and reddit and call that sources. As some people here said it also. Wich I don't agree with.
 

Aaron D.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,780
Was gonna post a sarcastic retort to the posted article but I think I'll go with Ignore Thread instead.

Thank you, New Year's Resolutions!
 
Oct 27, 2017
16,540
These guys need to stop riding Sony so hard. They manufacturere a strawman "enthusiast" who suddenly has problems with new gens having exclusives despite that being the case since gaming's inception, seemingly just to pat Sony on the back. Does this article have a purpose at all?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,188
The Ocean
Same reason windows central articles should be banned then too right?
Except Windows Central have sources, and occasionally have news.

Push Square is essentially a forum with a fancy fascia.

These guys need to stop riding Sony so hard. They manufacturere a strawman "enthusiast" who suddenly has problems with new gens having exclusives despite that being the case since gaming's inception, seemingly just to pat Sony on the back. Does this article have a purpose at all?
I think you nailed the purpose quite well. Guess they want that PS5 advertising revenue.
 

Sotha_Sil

Member
Nov 4, 2017
2,007
I feel like this article was written to address one or two dumb posters on Era. Seems kind of ridiculous and making a mountain out of a molehill.
 

Simsamdeo

Member
Jan 19, 2018
760
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
Agree. And I would say moneyhatting 3rd party games is anti-competitive as well. If anyone wants to argue against that, "exclusive dealing" is literally listed as an example of anti-competitive behavior in business on various government sites worldwide. First-party is fine because they made the games. Third-party is no-no.