Timed Exclusives - What's your take on that

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

I opened that thread 2 or 3 weeks ago on the other forum already. Right now something changed. Here some "evidence" about timed console exclusives that now come out on PC. First 3 are examples where there is no evidence, but seems pretty likely it had a 1 year exclusivity period.

1.

World of Final Fantasy: It has been on Steam for 1 year now, as shown here:

The public updates were 8 days ago, exactly 1 year after the Ps4 Release, so it seems it was a timed exclusive.​

2.

FFX/X-2: The Steamapp was finished when the PS4 and Vita version hit and wasnt really worked on since then and just showed up on Steam exactly 1 year after the Console release.​

3.

NiOh: Has been on Steam for 1 year. During that time the producer said it doesnt know anything about a PC-version. Comes out in a few days on PC.
​

4.

RE7 VR: Capcom said that Sony paid for a 1 year exlusivity time frame for the VR functions.
​

5.

Gone to the Rapture: ChineseGameRoom said Sony paid for half a year exlusivity time frame
​

6. (my thoughts on that)

SAO: Hollow Realization: The game has been on Steam since the beginning of the year, it came out on PC 2 days after the 1 year passed. I think it might be because Sony Music was heavily involved in the production of the Anime. I cant confirm it though, because Accel World vs SAO came out before that.
​

_________________________________________________________________________

My "problem" arent timed exclusives in general. My problem is more that some of the games seem to be timed exclusives, but there is no disclore about it. In the case of RE7 VR, Capcom came out and said that, so we know about that.
Sometimes Sony is using "console exclusive" in press conferences like they did with KoF14 or NiOh, but that doesnt tell us that much.

The thing is that apparently the FF12 PC version is already in development, but no one talked about that. Things like Crash were confirmed, then denied, then confirmed again by various Sony twitter accounts and afaik Activision said something like "its an exclusive - for now" or sth. along those lines.

 

[Bennibop]

No issue at all with it as long as it is acknowledged as a time exclusive - That seems to be an issue Microsoft have labelling everything as exclusive when it is only timed.

 

[carlosrox]

Pointless.

 

[antispin]

Good for the platform, not for the gamer. As the latter, I think they're pointless.

 

[InquisitorAles]

It's good decision from business point of view, but bad for customers, simple. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize those companies for doing this though.

 

[MilesQ]

Didn't Sony help with development for Rapture and it wouldn't have been made without them?

Does that really count?

 

[Sir Guts]

Bad marketing and pointless, thats what I really think

 

[Expy]

I can get salty if the timed exclusivity is for a platform I do not own or care about, but I don't fault them for doing so. Money talks, video gaming is a business, it's what feeds the developers' families.

I do however doubt the effectiveness of such deals, they don't always work out the way they'd expect.

 

[Gamer17]

Doesn't matter what we think. The market leader will get tons of timed exclusives, always. This Gen is Sony. Next gent might be someone else. Doesn't matter. It will be there as it's a business decision.

And no it doesnt matter for me personally as long as I know the game I like is coming to platforms I own.

 

[Abominuz]

No problem if it helps with the survival of a console. But the time in timed is sometimes to much. If its timed half a year oke, but a year is way to long.

 

[Darji]

I am fine with this since I understand the reason for it busines swise. However they should be clearly stated as time exclusive and not liek the whole Tomb Raider Microsoft disaaster back then. Sony normally does a pretty good job in telling that this one is time exclusive etc.

 

[Deleted member 2945]

I have no issue with it - if the game is worth playing then I can wait the time to play it.

No issues with companies trying to mitigate risk and platform holders wanting to make their product more alluring to customers.

Helps the developers as well as it allows them to push their game again.

 

[Brandon]

That seems weird that those Final Fantasy titles may have had paid timed exclusivity since they most likely weren't even planned for Xbox One.

 

[Shahed]

I think it's a bit pointless, but ultimately it doesn't really bother me. I get to play the game I want in the end.

I'd rather have 5 timed exclusives over 1 full exclusive

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

That seems weird that those Final Fantasy titles may have had paid timed exclusivity since they most likely weren't even planned for Xbox One.

Click to shrink...

I think Sony is doing that to make sure the PS4 is the "to go" plattform for FF/S-E titles.

Sony normally does a pretty good job in telling that this one is time exclusive etc.

Click to shrink...

I provided some examples in the OP that shows that this isnt normally the case. For RE7 we didnt know that from Sony, but a Capcom rep told that. The other things like FFX/X-2 we didnt even know about it even though the full game was on Steam at PS4 release.

 

[Darcadia]

It depends on the timing and messaging. It's getting so complex with different terms. When the word "exclusive" is brought up, it can mean many different things. Now don't get me started on retailer exclusive items...

 

[SinCityAssassin]

I like Switch's exclusivity on Steamworld Dig 2 because it was mostly a technicality. It was a day earlier.

And it STILL sold the most out of every platform it was on.

 

[MilesQ]

Doesn't matter what we think. The market leader will get tons of timed exclusives, always. This Gen is Sony. Next gent might be someone else. Doesn't matter. It will be there as it's a business decision.

And no it doesnt matter for me personally as long as I know the game I like is coming to platforms I own.

Click to shrink...

But isn't the point of this thread that developers are denying other versios exist and so pushing people who really want the game into purchasing a console to play it?

 

[mindsale]

I kind of like them. I don't have a preferred console so sometimes it makes me boot up my Xbox or PS4 if it's been a while. It's like musical chairs.

 

[BassForever]

I'd much rather see 1 month exclusivitiy on dlc then year long exclusivitity of a game.

 

[StraySheep]

As long as platform owners are fairly transparent, it's probably a good alternative for an extra source of income than some of the other shit we've seen this year.

The real question is: does is truly pay off in the long run for the developers?

 

[Hektor]

It's better than full exclusives, but atleast communicate the fact properly instead of trying to hide behind ambigous wording.

 

[Deleted member 14080]

Don't like them. Rise of the Tomb Raider springs to mind...

 

[Platy]

I see as games that have a very small review embargo.

 

[Kudo]

I hate it with passion, and mostly because Sony is playing marketing on me and making me think they're exclusive. I don't have the time or money to double dip yet I'd want to play the best possible version of the game, PC versions are half the price of console and I have good PC so could even use better settings.
I've been shot too many times by this I've stopped buying games for PS4 lately, if it's not Sony first party.
I wouldn't have such an issue with this if they just stated Release PS4 11.11.2017, PC 11.11.2018, and let me decide if I can wait that year or not.

 

[Notaskwid]

Don't buy the games when they arrive to your platform of choice if you don't agree with it.

 

[Deleted member 6949]

The worst is the bullshit that Call of Duty pulls where some platforms get patched and some don't.

 

[Krypton115]

I don't mind them that much.

On a related note, does anyone really know if timed exclusives really make a big difference? I know that Rise of The Tomb Raider's sales were disappointing for Square, which might've been cause by the timed fuckery.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I generally don't like timed ones.

I'd rather a full moneyhat lockdown or nothing at all.

Timed just hurts the games potential long term sales as people hold off for "their" version only to get over waiting and forget about it.

That's combined with the general negativity that surrounds those titles which also hurts sales as people don't buy out of "protest".

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

Don't buy the games when they arrive to your platform of choice if you don't agree with it.

Click to shrink...

But thats not the point I tried to make.

If they are transparent about it and say "It is a timed exclusive", I can wait. But the examples I provided, besides the last one (which is just my theory), didnt say anything about being a timed exclusive. For NiOh it was announced as a console-exclusive at PSX2016, but the producer or director said "We dont know anything about any other version", while exactly in December the steamapp for NiOh was uploaded.
For FFX/X-2 it came out exactly 1 year after the PS4/Vita version, which would "prove" that there was some sort of deal in place. We didnt know about it.
WoFF was uploaded last year to Steam, last public steamapp update was 8 days ago, on 25th October, exactly 1 year after the console release. We didnt know anything about that game coming to PC.

 

[Sangetsu-II]

7

But thats not the point I tried to make.

If they are transparent about it and say "It is a timed exclusive", I can wait. But the examples I provided, besides the last one (which is just my theory), didnt say anything about being a timed exclusive. For NiOh it was announced as a console-exclusive at PSX2016, but the producer or director said "We dont know anything about any other version", while exactly in December the steamapp for NiOh was uploaded.
For FFX/X-2 it came out exactly 1 year after the PS4/Vita version, which would "prove" that there was some sort of deal in place. We didnt know about it.
WoFF was uploaded last year to Steam, last public steamapp update was 8 days ago, on 25th October, exactly 1 year after the console release. We didnt know anything about that game coming to PC.

Click to shrink...

NDA's contracts with marketing rights sometimes obligate devs not talk about other platforms even though they exist. Probably that what happens.

 

[Gamer17]

But isn't the point of this thread that developers are denying other versios exist and so pushing people who really want the game into purchasing a console to play it?

Click to shrink...

Well they don't lie about it. They just refuse to share info as they have signed a contract with the other publisher for certain time. My general rule of thumb is when a developer doesnt say the other version doesn't exist, it means it's timed. Just like crash. They won't lie and say it doesn't exist. You have to read between the lines. Yes it is shitty but it will not change.

 

[Salty Rice]

Its stupid and sometimes wasted money for them. Rise of the Tomb Raider was the worst.

No exclusivity when anouncend but then suddenly Microsoft got 1 year timed exclusivity because they cant make their own Uncharted and wanted to compete with 4.

As a result it sold really poorly as a Xbone exclusive and 1 year later not that many people cared that its on PS4 now.

It really made it look like money flow so a huge chunk of the consumers cant have it. Especially fucked up since it was a sequel.

Invest money into making your own games instead.

 

[emir]

It's something that failed companies have created, then everyone started trying. For me, a poor fake marketing. The most shity thing after Lootbox.

 

[shimon]

Hate that shit with a passion. The "timed content" is also trash (see Sony's Destiny 1 bs).

 

[black070]

Timed-exclusives suck plain and simple.

 

[azertydu91]

Those are actually bad examples The reveal trailer of World of Final Fantasy was aired during the Square Enix conference so Sony's not a fault and furthermore had the mention "Play it first on Ps4 and Vita".

For resident evil 7 I think eplaining the VR is a timed exclusive might be confusing and some would probably think the game is a timed exclusive.

Nioh had console exclusive labeled on its trailers so it was Ps4 and later pc.

FF X/X2 we're presented by Square Enix so once again maybe Square Enix is more to blame

And as for gone to the rapture it never said exclusive even though Santa Monica Studio helped with the devellopement.

So all in all these are timed exclusives of course but the message was always clear even more so comparing it to "launch exclusive" or the very liberal appraoch of exclusivity of Microsoft.

Now back to the point Timed exclusives are sometimes justified maybe not for as long but when a constructor helps the devs to make a game I can understand a timed exclusive(gone to the rapture and pubg for example) other than that it's really anti consumer

 

[Gamer17]

Hate that shit with a passion. The "timed content" is also trash (see Sony's Destiny 1 bs).

Click to shrink...

Timed content was invented by MS in 360 Era. Now Sony has market share and is giving them their own treatment. Sucks ofcourse but both Sony and ms will do it in a heart beat given the opportunity.

 

[Lukas Taves]

I have no problem with them at all.

What pisses me off is exclusive content for only one platform when it costs the same everywhere else.

 

[DaeJim]

The one and only good thing that can be said about Timed Exclusives is that some games might not have exist, without some sort of deal. Timed content in multiplatform games is bullshit and an insult for gamers on a specific console. I deeply hate every single developer that decides to keep content from gamers.

 

[FelipeMGM]

Its not a good look for us that pay attention to the industry more closely (and I believe when announcements like this happen we can spot the bs fro the start) but people forget fast and this had no bad impact on companies whatsoever for the past years

​

5.

Gone to the Rapture: ChineseGameRoom said Sony paid for half a year exlusivity time frame
​

Click to shrink...

This one is wrong though, thats not what happened. Everybody's Gone To The Rapture is a property of Sony Interactive Entertainment, they just published on Steam via Sony Mobile imprint (same case of Helldivers)

They didnt pay for exclusivity, they bought the project and Santa Monica produced and published the title

 

[Phellps]

I think it's shitty. It only benefits the platform holder, so I have nothing to gain from it.

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

Its not a good look for us that pay attention to the industry more closely (and I believe when announcements like this happen we can spot the bs fro the start) but people forget fast and this had no bad impact on companies whatsoever for the past years



This one is wrong though, Everybody's Gone To The Rapture is a property of Sony Interactive Entertainment, they just pulbished on Steam via Sony Mobile imprint (same case of Helldivers)

Click to shrink...

Alright. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Alexandros]

A console manufacturer is paying money to keep games or game content away from some gamers. Not to produce new and original content for its own customers but to make sure that others are deprived of content that would otherwise be available to them.

 

[Raw64life]

 

[shimon]

Timed content was invented by MS in 360 Era. Now Sony has market share and is giving them their own treatment. Sucks ofcourse but both Sony and ms will do it in a heart beat given the opportunity.

Click to shrink...

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Sony for it,just used this example bc Xbox just got the content recently. I know what happened in the 360 ERA (hehe) and I absolutely hate it,regardless whether it's MS or Sony doing it.

 

[King_Moc]

Anti-consumer and just shitty in general.

 

[Ge0force]

I hate it when a company spends money to keep games or gamecontent away from certain platforms. I even consider it anti consumer, since not a single gamer benefits from it: gamers from the platform that got the deal still get the game at the planned release date, and every other gamer has to wait until the deal is over. It's a waste of money, that could have been spend on creating new games.

 

[Ln Wanderer]

Personally I really hate any kind of exclusivity but I get it from a business standpoint. It is not going away. The bigger issue to me is the silence, half truths, and outright lies that we get told. Marketing people are not our friends and will bold faced lie to us. Sometimes it almost seems defensible. Oh, they didn't want to spoil a surprise or they are just promoting their platforms or whatever. It just makes it to where I can't believe anything that they say. That is what makes honest games press and communities like this so important. It is impossible for most people to sift through all the bullshit to find the kernel of truth and that is what they count on.

As for timed exclusives specifically, I think they really just hurt the game and the longer they run, the more they hurt. For the most part, most games need that initial buzz to get sales churning. Especially if they don't have the AAA hype machine behind them. Even if they do, no publisher is going to run two marketing campaigns for two launches. I loved Rise of the Tomb Raider so much and I feel like by the time it came out on PS4, any hype that it had was gone. It is a damn shame.

 

[Dr. Caroll]

Its stupid and sometimes wasted money for them. Rise of the Tomb Raider was the worst.

No exclusivity when anouncend but then suddenly Microsoft got 1 year timed exclusivity because they cant make their own Uncharted and wanted to compete with 4.

As a result it sold really poorly as a Xbone exclusive and 1 year later not that many people cared that its on PS4 now.

It really made it look like money flow so a huge chunk of the consumers cant have it. Especially fucked up since it was a sequel.

Invest money into making your own games instead.

Click to shrink...

How is this different to when Sony paid Eidos to keep Tomb Raider games off competing consoles for about three years? You know, the series that started on Saturn? The series whose N64 port mysteriously vanished? The series that didn't appear on the Dreamcast until 2000? Invest money in making your own games? Sony's entire gimmick in the early days was paying people to not make games for the N64 and/or Saturn. They didn't "make their own games". They paid developers money to not make games for other people. (Square had to create a fake company to weasel out of their contract with Sony which prohibited them from making games for Nintendo consoles. Square flat-out weren't allowed to make games for the N64 or Gamecube, even if they wanted to.)


I hate the Xbox 360 exclusive DLC for Tomb Raider: Underworld as much as the next chap, but there is supreme irony in the whole Tomb Raider situation. It was Sony who started this nonsense with that series.