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.
-
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
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.
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
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.
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).
Yeah this was my first thought as well. They really made an article about people that don't know what a word means?
It's from two forum posts here on Era. Nothing more than that.
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.
Articles entire premise seems to be written from thin air, I guess it plays up to the console war base
The author posts a lot on here apparently
So his sources are just like forum posts
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?
Bad post, unlike this forum push square has some validity and is qualified as a website for new threads. No one making threads inspired by random console war post
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.
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.
Sony helped fund Street Fighter, Microsoft did not help fund Tomb Raider. Big difference there.
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.
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.
Microsoft actually did help fund tomb raider doesn't stop it from being Garbage. And poor ole capcom has enough to fund games by themselves
What? They absolutely did. They didn't make Tomb Raider exclusive out of charity
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.
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.
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".
Write garbage copy geared to evoke a negative reaction, win scorn.
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.
It is stupid if you ask me. It is an argument level of earth is flat...
Exclusive moved all gens. Now MS want try something different and their hard fans start this bs of anti consumer for exclusives on a new gen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
in this case it becomes funding. Its not like borderlands 3 would not be possible without EGS money, right? Or Control, Or RDR2....
being annoyed because you can buy at your favorite store is ok i guess, while death threats and meltdowns aren't.
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?
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.
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.
I think this whole narrative was pushed by trolls and somehow gained traction. It's ridiculous.
Oh no!
Oh no!
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.
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.
Clown shoes from start to finish.
So what? That doesn't mean they didn't fund 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.