The article is a bit of meaningless fluff really, but if fluff was banned we would probably have nothing to talk about.
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?Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
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.Does Nintendo suffer the same treatment because of Mario and Zelda, to name but two of their exclusives?
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.I can see Microsoft's position as pro-consumer, but that doesn't make Sony's position anti-consumer.
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.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.
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?
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.This smells like an article that says one thing but is made solely to create or seed an idea of the opposite.
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.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 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.
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
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
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
Imagine 120 FPS would be amazing for vr headset. Playing forza with that fidelity in vr would be orgasmicI 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
Quite a few posts in Jason Schrier thread about PS5 exclusives called it anti-consumer and 'not consumer friendly'. It was really weird.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
Imagine 120 FPS would be amazing for vr headset. Playing forza with that fidelity in vr would be orgasmic
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 wellGran 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.
Quite a few posts in Jason Schrier thread about PS5 exclusives called it anti-consumer and 'not consumer friendly'. It was really weird.
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.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
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?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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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
Push Square is a site focusing on Playstation platforms with Playstation symbols on its site background.
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
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.I think there's a difference from paying to prevent a release from appearing on a platform, or delaying it, vs. funding it.
Yup. Not sure why this doesn't apply to acquisitionsIf 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.
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.
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.
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.
It really is that simple.Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
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.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.
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.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.
The term anti consumer have been extremely misused as of late.
Game Pass isn't exclusive to Xbox.