Timed Exclusives - What's your take on that

[Bjones]

I think these are probably the most anti consumer thing about the industry.

It's not the timed exclusive deal itself but the slimey way they are advertised. " play this November only on ___"

But it does seem some companies are coming around to being more upfront about these. Last e3 we saw a lot of " play it first on ____".

 

[freakybj]

I don't really have a problem with timed console exclusives since the developer/publisher agreed to it. I'm sure they wouldn't have if they thought the deal would harm them financially. The fact they said "yes" to the deal confirms the agreement was beneficial to both parties which will help that developer/publisher make more games. And it's a win for owners of the platform too.

In some cases an exclusivity deal helps the game get made in the first place. For example, PUBG for Xbox and Bayonetta 2 for Wii U.

 

[NimbusCub]

I think timed exclusives are usually pretty silly, except in cases where a publisher helped fund the game or the developer only has the capital to push out one version out of the gate.

The thing that bothers me the most is how ambiguous the terms of a timed exclusive can be. It'd be nice if the publishers with timed exclusives weren't paying hush money to prevent developers from saying when and where their games will go in the future.

 

[julia crawford]

It's business

 

[ApeEscaper]

Bullshit

 

[GhostTrick]

I'm okay if publishers and first parties are transparent about it. The fact is they're not. Sony was but isnt anymore.


Edit: There's also marketing stuff like Nier Automata, Ni ko Kuni II or Ace Combat 7.

 

[gar3]

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.

Click to shrink...

I bring this up all the time. It's so sad the SEGA Saturn wasn't "powerful" enough to run the complexity of the game that was Tomb Raider II >:-(

[...]
In some cases an exclusivity deal helps the game get made in the first place. For example, PUBG for Xbox and Bayonetta 2 for Wii U.

Click to shrink...

This is true and I applaud when Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft step up to the plate in these instances. Titanfall was dead in the water and Respawn would be closed if not for Microsoft at the time. Bayonetta 2 most certainly would never have been made without Nintendo stepping in. Yes, it locks these games onto that specific platform but since these companies are now footing a large portion of the bill if not the entire bill what can ya do?

 

[Lucc]

Remember what Phil Spencer said after E3 2017. In the same year they secure PUBG as a timed exclusive. Withholding certain guns or levels for some time is a nono but withholding a complete game is absolutely fine. Both suck. But in my opinion the most scummy thing you can possibly do is going to the dev of a game in late beta, flashing your money and making a deal to release the game as a timed exclusive for your console.

It would have been fine if they supported them from the start, believed in their vision and encourage them. Instead they are picking the raisins out of the cake, only betting on sure deals and crippling the creativity of the industry in the process. Other creative devs whose game isn't such a smash hit at first glance are left on the raidside.

Phil Spencer is such a hypocrite, masking himself as a gamer who knows what a gamer wants while fucking over the community behind its back.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Timed exclusivity deals don't really bother me all that much; when the exclusivity period is a maximum of 12 months.

I often buy games 6-12 months after launch to get them cheap, as game prices here in the UK have shit the bed this generation.

If the exclusivity period is longer than a year, then yeah that sucks. I understand why companies do it though. It makes perfect sense business-wise.

 

[WaqarYounis]

Remember what Phil Spencer said after E3 2017. In the same year they secure PUBG as a timed exclusive. Withholding certain guns or levels for some time is a nono but withholding a complete game is absolutely fine. Both suck. But in my opinion the most scummy thing you can possibly do is going to the dev of a game in late beta, flashing your money and making a deal to release the game as a timed exclusive for your console.

It would have been fine if they supported them from the start, believed in their vision and encourage them. Instead they are picking the raisins out of the cake, only betting on sure deals and crippling the creativity of the industry in the process. Other creative devs whose game isn't such a smash hit at first glance are left on the raidside.

Phil Spencer is such a hypocrite, masking himself as a gamer who knows what a gamer wants while fucking over the community behind its back.

Click to shrink...

Well said. All is just a BS act.

 

[Septic]

Not a fan.

Well said. All is just a BS act.

Click to shrink...

Lol oh Waqar!

Btw, isn't MS assisting with the development of PUBG on consoles? This was the defence for SFV, a lifetime exclusive no less?

I'm not a fan of timed exclusives, particularly when MS does it. That money should be better spent on fostering new 1P talent in the form of new studios and exclusives.

 

[Van Bur3n]

A scummy business practice that at best is an annoyance to consumers and at worst detrimental to consumers in their decision-making when it's not disclosed to be timed.

 

[Deleted member 249]

I feel it is pointless from every perspective.

 

[Maligna]

I'm very much bummed I don't get to try PUBG this December, so I guess I don't view them favorably.

 

[Bigg]

I don't have that much issue with it but I would appreciate transparency. Just straight up say "This game is exclusive to [platform] for one year." The way PR people have been deliberately cagey about the exclusivity of games like Rise of the Tomb Raider and PUBG doesn't fool anyone and doesn't do them any favors.

 

[Deleted member 9486]

I mean they're annoying if you don't have whatever platform they come to first. But at the same time I know these companies have hardware to sell and need all the exclusives they can get to do so, so I understand the business side of it.

There's also always a TON more great games coming out that I'll ever have time to play, so I personally really don't care. If it's something I really want to play and I don't own the platform its on first, I'll grab it a year later or whatever. If it's not, I'll probably forget about it and never get around to it and they lost a potential sale from me. No skin off my nose either way.

 

[Xiyng]

Good for one platform owner, probably good for the publisher, and mostly bad for everyone else. Indirectly, it could have good sides for others as well. For example, the publisher might be better off financially because of timed exclusives, which might result in better game output from them. Also, other platforms might get a complete edition straight away after the exclusivity wears off. Overall, I think it's a bad practice for consumers despite the potential good sides, but I can see why it's done.

 

[fourfourfun]

Don't mind. I actually like to know WHEN it will come out. I'm not bleeding edge day/date with buying a majority of games nowadays anyway. So whenever suits me fine.

 

[Gunny T Highway]

From a business standpoint it is great. From a consumer standpoint it is terrible.

 

[TalonJH]

I think it is only fair that they make sure to clearly label them as "Time Exclusive" in their marketing. I also would prefer that series don't become exclusive after the previous game is not. Otherwise, it's just business to me. To be fair, I usually have at least 3 gaming platforms at a time so I don't run into the problem of having to wait for a game to hit my platform. I do sometimes wait if I have a specific platform I would like to play a game on.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

Like others have said, as long as they're upfront about something being timed and can give a window, I don't mind it.

It also sometimes means that the devs, usually indie, have gotten a little financial backing and marketing on behalf of the publisher which is nice for them.

 

[Ahasverus]

I'm still confused about Crash.

 

[Ahegao]

I don't really care that much about timed exclusive games as long as they sell the game much cheaper and with all the dlcs to the one that got it late.

Timed exclusive content though? Fuck that shit.

 

[Deleted member 9840]

Timed exclusivity has the opposite of the desired effect on me. Instead of wanting to purchase the game on the exclusive platform, I do not want to purchase the game at all and it lowers my opinion of the developer/publisher involved, even if it was not the developer's choice.

 

[Starlatine]

Not a fan. Not a fan of exclusives regardless, games should aim for all consoles when possible and the console makers should differentiate themselves in the services they offer, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Remember what Phil Spencer said after E3 2017. In the same year they secure PUBG as a timed exclusive. Withholding certain guns or levels for some time is a nono but withholding a complete game is absolutely fine. Both suck. But in my opinion the most scummy thing you can possibly do is going to the dev of a game in late beta, flashing your money and making a deal to release the game as a timed exclusive for your console.

It would have been fine if they supported them from the start, believed in their vision and encourage them. Instead they are picking the raisins out of the cake, only betting on sure deals and crippling the creativity of the industry in the process. Other creative devs whose game isn't such a smash hit at first glance are left on the raidside.

Phil Spencer is such a hypocrite, masking himself as a gamer who knows what a gamer wants while fucking over the community behind its back.

Click to shrink...

Yeah how scummy of Microsoft to pour their own resources, personnel and tech to get a port to their console when Bluehole had no intention of doing any console version by then (and is still only focusing on the PC one) and there is absolutely no proof that there is a timed deal in work, let alone if Sony even approached Bluehole with the same support Microsoft is offering them to get a version for PS4

It's impossible to discuss this seriously here. Despite several examples to all platforms already being given the thread is already up in arms about the horror of the Rise of the Tomb Raider deal (which wasn't even a first for the tomb raider series as others already pointed out - and were of course ignored) and nothing else.

 

[Ambient80]

From a business standpoint it is great. From a consumer standpoint it is terrible.

Click to shrink...

lol I was about to say the exact same thing. Totally understand from a business perspective. Totally despise it as a consumer.

 

[Captain of Industry]

Pointless to me. I'm not going to buy a console for a timed exclusive, especially since the version that is released later will likely be superior (patches, game of the year edition, extra modes, etc)

 

[RdN]

I don't mind timed exclusives.

I do mind timed content, like happens with Sony and Activision for Destiny. Such a shitty practice.

 

[Host Samurai]

Depends on how it was funded and if it hurts the developers.

 

[Van Bur3n]

From a business standpoint it is great. From a consumer standpoint it is terrible.

Click to shrink...

In which case, who gives a fuck about the former.

 

[Durante]

The bigger issue to me is the silence, half truths, and outright lies that we get told.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this. While timed exclusives would suck even if they were upfront about it, the whole "bought silence" aspect is what truly annoys me. How stupid do they think we are?

 

[Alexandros]

I agree with this. While timed exclusives would suck even if they were upfront about it, the whole "bought silence" aspect is what truly annoys me. How stupid do they think we are?

Click to shrink...

It works though. People who own both platforms are buying games on ps4 because they don't know if and when a game will appear on PC, even if they'd prefer to play it there. Bought silence works so they'll keep doing it.

 

[Chocobo115]

Sucks when you're affected by them.
When they do show up and I'm still interested in buying the game, then I just wait for the price to drop to at least half of the original before i buy the game.

 

[Father Kratos]

Pointless IMO, as I dont find any timed-exclusive tempting enuf, to buy a console for it. Can happily wait for the release of a supposedly bug-free version of the game.

 

[TwinsUltra64]

I'm all for full exclusive, nah for timed exclusives

 

[RossoneR]

Despise them.
Nioh really made me angry. Had to pay inflated price cause it was hard to find but thought wth its exclusive, so no point in waiting.
If i knew it was planned for pc, i d have waited.

 

[Tickling]

It all depends on how the timed exclusive is worked. If it is because they are helping with the porting ala PUBG or they are funding development I think it is fine. If it is like Destinys where its pating stop content on other system I think its very iffy.

 

[Mars People]

Very anti consumer.

 

[Mifec]

I'm very much bummed I don't get to try PUBG this December, so I guess I don't view them favorably.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you'd have played it on any console this December if not for MS trying to get exclusivity.

 

[Deleted member 2254]

They only make sense if the platform who has the timed exclusivity gave an actual hand in development with engineers and stuff or funded a release that otherwise may not have been greenlighted. Rise Of The Tomb Raider and Battlegrounds are two good examples of these scenarios.

It's plain stupid when it's just extra money thrown towards a publisher like with Destiny that goes like "here is some money, now cripple the other versions of the game, thanks". Those are just plain trash.

 

[Sams]

I think they are pointless but the real issue comes when they start confusing what exclusive means. Microsoft is really to blame for this and it's annoying.

 

[travisbickle]

It works though. People who own both platforms are buying games on ps4 because they don't know if and when a game will appear on PC, even if they'd prefer to play it there. Bought silence works so they'll keep doing it.

Click to shrink...

It's a problem that will always exist because no one is paying to market on the PC. If MS/Sony will pay to promote your game, possibly even publish, and all you have to do is not talk about a PC version, no one will turn that down.

 

[Brown Intruder]

It is what it is now unfortunately.

Saying the same thing on one forum or another isn't going to change anything.

 

[Playsage]

I don't like them but they don't necessarily upset me, unless the timed thing is actively hidden by PR talk

 

[Deleted member 2840]

Incredibly anti-consumer move. Most absurd thing is to see how many people on this forum and the old one defended that move.

 

[MrCinos]

The worst thing about this is that often enough you are not aware if it's a timed exclusive or an actual exclusive. But even if I am warned in advance it's a horrible anti-consumer policy anyway where I feel like 2-nd rate citizen waiting while everyone else's enjoying and discussing the game in question. I'm surprised to see so many people fine with that.

 

[LoyalPhoenix]

im ok if a company decides to fund a game (especially one that probably wouldn't have happened) and then make it exclusive for a year. I think a feature like RE7 VR is dumb af, Exclusive DLC is stupid regardless with the only one as an exception is like when Shovel knight had a battletoads stage on xbox (now on pc) and a god of war stage on PS4.

Buying timed exclusivity for a game that the company had 0% input in development other than paying for the exclusive i think is dumb.

 

[Aygomyownroad]

Annoyance.

I don't mind the Call of Duty exclusivity of a few weeks, but when it comes to years its awful.

Sony are the worst for it. MS had rise of the Tomb Raider but Sony do it even for PC games as OP stated and the whole Destiny crap of some missions only being made available to Xbox owners AFTER Destiny 2 dropped! I am done with that series thanks to that!

Then there is Crash Bandicoot style crap where one department says its exclusive then another says its not then another says its console exclusive etc. I expect Crash out next year for Switch... Which I will then double dip as I hate myself!

 

[Deleted member 7450]

Shite garbage.
Hate videogame marketing.

Artwork shouldn't exist to serve a medium on which artwork is presented.

Games should exist to serve games, and be enjoyed by everyone.

 

[werezompire]

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.

Click to shrink...

This isn't always the case. Sometimes, timed exclusivity helps get the game made in the first place - a 3rd party comes to a platform holder with a game proposal & the platform holder likes it, but not enough to fund it fully for full exclusivity. They pay a smaller amount (either directly in development funding or with marketing funds) and in exchange, the game is exclusive to their platform for a period of time.