• It's the most wonderful time of the year! Make your list and check it twice. The ResetEra Games of the Year 2019 Voting Thread is now live. Voting will be open for the next 1 day, 4 hours, 51 minutes, 3 seconds, and will close on Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

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

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,308
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
What's the difference between "moneyhatting" and funding? They are both essentially the same thing and I don't see the problem with either. "Moneyhatting" is just funding that happens after the game is made, which makes very little difference.
 

Timlot

Member
Nov 27, 2019
56
I'm expecting any PS5 exclusive Sony puts out to blow away anything Microsoft puts out. The consensus seems to be Xbox crossgen games are going to be held back so I'm looking for new mind blowing experiences from Sony. New graphically capabilities, art direction, more advance A.I, and scale. From what I'm reading their " from the ground up on a single nextgen platform" development approach is going to produce things we've never seen. I'm setting the bar high for Sony this fall.
 

DvdGzz

Member
Mar 21, 2018
1,479
If Sony takes advantage of the situation I will be loving it but if we get another PS4 launch, we won't get a great game for 1.5 years in. I hope they have good games that take advantage of the new power and SDD.
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,218
Sometimes, yes, but they're not the focus and premise of the article. This post is a poorly disguised knock on ERA by framing the conversations the author has been part of as widespread.
It's not a knock on specifically Era, it's simply a retort to those people who view exclusives or next-gen only exclusives as anti-consumer, something that wasn't relegated to just Era I should add (the sentiment also popped up from a small minority on Twitter, YouTube etc).
 
Oct 28, 2019
201
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 was my first thought as well. They really made an article about people that don't know what a word means?
 

DavidDesu

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,516
Glasgow, Scotland
This is getting ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ. Why does this article even exist?? You pay hundreds for a powerful new console and like always you want games that make use of that power. It will be interesting to see the backlash if and when (like the transition last time around) a lot of the current gen cross-gen games are absolutely terrible because they will be so cut back and maybe even have features removed versus the full version on next gen console. This is madness.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,006
Because there's a pretty big difference between funding a game and paying to delay one for the rest
I don't think you're getting my point. When you pay for a timed exclusivity agreement, you are funding the game. They're both "paying to delay" and "funding a game." It can be both of those things at once, you know. The money goes towards the development of the game either way, whether you're offsetting the costs in the balance sheet or funding it from the beginning of the process. Titanfall was originally planned for a multiplatform release. Microsoft then stepped in and funded the game in exchange for exclusivity. How is that any different or any better? By your logic, that's paying to cancel the game for other platforms, not just to delay it. The end result is the same or even worse.
Isn't that the job of the publisher and studio management?
Sure, and by taking a timed exclusivity agreement that helps them stay afloat, they're doing that job, are they not?
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.
Why would you say it doesn't change how shitty it is? Do you expect the company to give them the money in exchange for nothing in return?
Though I don't blame a platform holder for trying them, it's clearly effective, just the publisher for accepting.
Why attack the publisher? If they're at risk and they accept an agreement that lets them carry on, why is that some evil thing? The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that going into financial difficulty is better than taking cash assistance in exchange for a degree of exclusivity.
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
I'm very familiar with it
Hellblade itself was made 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
But that's just speculation
I'm sure future security was a big reason in the accepting MS offer
That may be, but it's not like it's above Microsoft to shutter one of their studios after they make a flop game. What if Ninja Theory just wanted the institutional support Microsoft could bring like larger budgets for more teams?
 

Sanka

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,200
Has there been any comment from a AAA developer on this yet? That developing for the xbox one would hold back nextgen games. Seems obvious to me but hearing it from a pro would be more interesting.
 

Marble

Member
Nov 27, 2017
3,136
Has there been any comment from a AAA developer on this yet? That developing for the xbox one would hold back nextgen games. Seems obvious to me but hearing it from a pro would be more interesting.
Why? It's not that there is any doubt about it. Games like Dead Rising 3 and Ryse Son of Rome weren't possible on 360 back in the days. Spider-Man's speed has been limited due to HDD limitations. The Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor needed to be altered on last gen. Guerilla tried to implement flying mounts in Horizon Zero Dawn, but the CPU and HDD bandwith were just not there. Novigrad in The Witcher 3 has been designed to reduce drawing distances, so PS4 and Xbox One could handle it.

There are countless examples and the difference next gen will be a lot bigger because of the storage being WAY faster.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,006
Has there been any comment from a AAA developer on this yet? That developing for the xbox one would hold back nextgen games. Seems obvious to me but hearing it from a pro would be more interesting.
It only applies to first party. Third party studios still can, and will, make games that can only be played on Series X and PS5. It may be an issue for Microsoft first party, but they're not gonna come out and attack their own company's policy.
 

Kalentan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,461
This thread seems odd cause I've seen plenty of people complain that any and all exclusive stuff was anti-consumer both on ERA and beyond. But people acting like that totally isn't a thing.
 

Kafkaa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,181
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.
Sony helped fund Street Fighter, Microsoft did not help fund Tomb Raider. Big difference there.
 

Trieu

Member
Feb 22, 2019
881
Of course it is not anti-consumer. It was a narrative pushed by whatever kind of people. It was almost like it was purposefully done in the same vein as russian trolls flooding facebook and other social media sites during elections. (I am not actually implying anything here).

It was a true showcase of a minority of people screaming louder than what reality actually looks like.

That being said I don't think there is any objectively right or wrong in either approach, but I personally prefer my new hardware I paid money for to come with games from the get-go that make complete use of the new hardware.
 

CaviarMeths

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,814
Western Canada
who are "some enthusiasts"?

is that the entire basis of this article, because I sure can't see any quotes. it could just be completely made up.

quality stuff
The writer is an Era poster.

And this thread is filled with examples and quotes of silly enthusiasts who think it's anti-consumer when a video game doesn't get released on a console they own. Like, the very first reply and a dozen people quoting it and agreeing with it.
 

Acquiescence

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,862
Lake Titicaca
Except Windows Central have sources, and occasionally have news.

Push Square is essentially a forum with a fancy fascia.
But in a case where Push Square does have news and sources, like the time they revealed that Deadly Premonition 2 is a timed exclusive, you chose to fixate on a brief remark made in the article about the first game's quality, even though it's hardly a controversial opinion to think that the first Deadly Premonition is pretty crap.

Seems like they can't do anything right in your eyes.
 

HBK

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,136
The term anti consumer have been extremely misused as of late.
The term is meaningless in the first place.

No company can succeed by being "anti consumer". That's literally being against money. No company is against money.

What can happen is more or less shitty practices. And those are literally in the eye of the beholder. So if some people feel it's shitty to "force" players to buy a PS5 to play the latest games, that's their prerogative.

I won't necessarily say I agree, but again, whether or not you find a practice shitty is hugely subjective, much more than many people are willing to admit judging by the heavy use of meaningless yet absolute-sounding terms such as "anti-consumer".
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,966
The Ocean
But in a case where Push Square does have news and sources, like the time they revealed that Deadly Premonition 2 is a timed exclusive, you chose to fixate on a brief remark made in the article about the first game's quality, even though it's hardly a controversial opinion to think that the first Deadly Premonition is pretty crap.

Seems like they can't do anything right in your eyes.
Write garbage copy geared to evoke a negative reaction, win scorn.
 
Dec 4, 2017
5,131
Brazil
You don't win anything arguing with someone who uses the "anti consumer" card without even knowing what it means. Those who don't say things like that will believe you are wasting your time and those who trully believe that wont give a shit about your opinion. This reminds me folks saying that "i didn't play this game but I watched a stream and...". You just have to ignore them because their opinions are empty at best.
 

MysticGon

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,633
Idk if they took the time to add BC and kept launch prices in the $400-$450 range that would be pretty pro-consumer but then again I hate the phrase consumer as if we are a swarm of locusts.
 

oni_gank

Member
May 13, 2019
45
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
What if those Money-hat's money goes to the game development and developer's pockets ? It could be benefitting the fans of the game as well, when the game gets extra support/fund.

Everything can be anti-consumer when you see it in a different perspective. There's no right or wrong answer.
 

TechnicPuppet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,940
I can't recall anyone saying it was anti consumer even on here and it absolutely isn't.

I recall people saying they preferred what MS are doing and people saying the opposite but not that either option was anti consumer.

There was a thread that exclusives in general were annoying.
 

entrydenied

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
2,548
I'd argue that even calling moneyhatting 'anti-consumer' is a bit tenuous. The term has lost all meaning on Era, and instead is just used as a buzzword to describe things people don't like.
Yes. I don't think 3rd party exclusive are anti consumers either. No one has to make content that can be sold or used everywhere🤷‍♀️ Especially when we are talking about luxury goods, which video games fall under.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,870
I don't think you're getting my point. When you pay for a timed exclusivity agreement, you are funding the game. They're both "paying to delay" and "funding a game." It can be both of those things at once, you know. The money goes towards the development of the game either way, whether you're offsetting the costs in the balance sheet or funding it from the beginning of the process. Titanfall was originally planned for a multiplatform release. Microsoft then stepped in and funded the game in exchange for exclusivity. How is that any different or any better? By your logic, that's paying to cancel the game for other platforms, not just to delay it. The end result is the same or even worse.

Sure, and by taking a timed exclusivity agreement that helps them stay afloat, they're doing that job, are they not?

Why would you say it doesn't change how shitty it is? Do you expect the company to give them the money in exchange for nothing in return?

Why attack the publisher? If they're at risk and they accept an agreement that lets them carry on, why is that some evil thing? The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that going into financial difficulty is better than taking cash assistance in exchange for a degree of exclusivity.

I'm very familiar with it

But that's just speculation

That may be, but it's not like it's above Microsoft to shutter one of their studios after they make a flop game. What if Ninja Theory just wanted the institutional support Microsoft could bring like larger budgets for more teams?
Titanfall wouldn't have existed anymore if Respawn are to be trusted, which I have no real reason to not. Notice how it didn't have a specific timed exclusivity period attached to it's funding.

If they need to relie on checks mid-late gen for timed exclusivity to stay afloat they probably aren't doing a good job at managing the project.

I don't expect anything from them, as I said.

And your "what if they go under" is purely hypothetical, mine is at least based on something, NT recent history, unlike yours.

That's part of having more job security, is it not?
 

Raijinto

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,382
I can't recall anyone saying it was anti consumer even on here and it absolutely isn't.

I recall people saying they preferred what MS are doing and people saying the opposite but not that either option was anti consumer.

There was a thread that exclusives in general were annoying.
TBF to the author there definitely were like single digit numbers of people who took things that far, but as you said most including myself were acting reasonable in the overall discussion. I do therefore question why the author felt the vast minority of fanboys were worth responding to and as I said originally what new insight they were even providing here. Then dropping in here as they did like they're above all this makes things extra confusing lol.
 

Kafkaa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,181
What? They absolutely did. They didn't make Tomb Raider exclusive out of charity
Rise of the Tomb Raider started development two weeks after the original game, it would have been released one way or another without Microsoft’s help. Now, obviously they didn’t do it out of charity, and I’m not sure where you think I got that from? They bought the exclusivity because Tomb Raider is a big IP and they obviously hoped it would attract people to the Xbox One. If you can point me to any references or anything stating that the game wouldn’t exist without Microsoft I’d be happy to read it.

Street Fighter V and Capcom, on the other hand, were in a development partnership with Sony from the very beginning. Again, that’s pretty different.
 

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
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.
People operating in the real world take nuanced views on the value of things based on their price. The only people to whom it is useful to frame the argument as a black & white 'principle' are those who are so wealthy that the actual price is meaningless.

If you want to sub to Disney+ for one month so you can bingewatch The Mandalorian, that is something a typical working class person can afford to do without it having a major effect on their finances. The same is not true when dropping $400 for a console. People react to these things differently because they actually have different practical effects on their lives that go beyond the facile ivory tower arguments.
 

Bya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,184
They're doing the right thing. MS will be held back by their decision to do both.
 

Bundy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,751
Imagine calling exclusive games, made by the console company (in this case SIE) itself.... anti-consumer. Hilarious.
 

Lobster Roll

Member
Sep 24, 2019
1,299
Chicago, IL
So the author of this article created an argument in their own head, deftly defeated themselves mentally while showering and thought, “this would make a brilliant article!”

Clown shoes from start to finish.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,006
Rise of the Tomb Raider started development two weeks after the original game, it would have been released one way or another without Microsoft’s help.
So what? That doesn't mean they didn't fund it.
If you can point me to any references or anything stating that the game wouldn’t exist without Microsoft I’d be happy to read it.
I never said that it wouldn't exist otherwise. I said that they funded it, which they did.

Just because a studio received funds at the end of a development process rather than the beginning doesn't mean it's not funding.

By your logic, the company I work for isn't funding my business trips if they reimburse the costs afterward rather than putting it directly onto a company card. It's just silly. Either way, it is money on a balance sheet that pays the cost of development.