-
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.
Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
Don't worry...ERA will be outraged by something surely...
"That one frame drop in my games??! Someone needs to be call out!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
I couldn't agree more. Ignorance and entitlement play into the discourse way too often.
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
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
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.
Imagine 120 FPS would be amazing for vr headset. Playing forza with that fidelity in vr would be orgasmic
Quite a few posts in Jason Schrier thread about PS5 exclusives called it anti-consumer and 'not consumer friendly'. It was really weird.
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
There was also this thread shortly after too.
Exclusives suck (unless developed with a specific hardware limitation/use case in mind)
I think the author of this Push Square article may have been reading too many of those sorts of posts, whether on here or elsewhere, hence their response.
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.
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?
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.
No, moneyhatting is not anti-consumer.
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 following. Why are we talking about HB2 now? I was responding to this:
I think there's a difference from paying to prevent a release from appearing on a platform, or delaying it, vs. funding it.
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.
Yeah, this all sounds a bit like "I woke up this morning itching to bash a strawman".
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
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.
Would it really surprise people to hear that a lot of gamers still hold the belief that all Exclusives are anti-consumer practice?
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'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.
Yup. Not sure why this doesn't apply to acquisitions
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Providing exclusive games on a new platform is anti consumer!
also
Not providing exclusive games on a new platform is anti consumer!
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.
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.