Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

If you havent realized by now, i am doing this shit on purpose.

Yes I know you're doing it on purpose for the Starfield comment in the other thread lol, but there's still a lot of gaps

WRT Starfield that game was and still has not been announced for other consoles in 12/24/36 months yet. Not the same case unfortunately.

I don't get this narrative that this form of exclusivity is any different than other forms of exclusivity. It is moneyhatting bullshit and it is fine to call it that but saying moneyhatting an entire game is somehow more preferable than a single mission is absurd. But I shouldn't be surprised considering the amount of hypocrisy spewing out from this console war.

I guess it depends, I think they're not comparable at all. In one case a game is not coming to a platform at all, in one case at least the game is coming but it doesn't have content parity with xyz other version. Somehow the prospect of getting the game on a platform but not having it feature complete is worse than not having it at all, at least in that case you're not left wanting for more.

But that's just me.

 

[xHunter]

Yes I know you're doing it on purpose for the Starfield comment in the other thread lol, but there's still a lot of gaps

WRT Starfield that game was and still has not been announced for other consoles in 12/24/36 months yet. Not the same case unfortunately.

It is the same since you rightfully assume that the dlc will come other platforms. Just like the next big ip from bethesda was coming to one of the biggest platform holders at the time of announcement. Until it got cancelled, which in my eyes is not a bad thing. Microsoft owns the IP now, they can do what they want with it. I dont understand why you have to pretend like it was never supposed release on Playstation.

 

[Topher]

I guess it depends, I think they're not comparable at all. In one case a game is not coming to a platform at all, in one case at least the game is coming but it doesn't have content parity with xyz other version. Somehow the prospect of getting the game on a platform but not having it feature complete is worse than not having it at all, at least in that case you're not left wanting for more.

But that's just me.

It is the same thing. A company is paying money to deprive another company's platform of content for a specific period of time. That is happening in either case. Biggest difference is which company is doing it this time. Watching the script flip-flop back and forth is mildly amusing though.

 

[Halo2redvsblue]

FF7 was only possible on PS. Do you think that stopped people bringing it up 30 years later? Fuck no. There is always a reason why some game was exclusive.

The point is MS also made deals with 3rd-parties they didn't own. They even had exclusives with Square, Capcom, Ubisoft, Tecmo, Namco.

Dead or Alive 1 and 2 were on PS then MS moneyhatted Dead or Alive 3 for Xbox launch and DO4 for 360 launch. People only talk about SF5 but MS did the same thing first. Oops

Morrowind was literally only possible on Xbox and if you actually watch what they had to do to make it work on that console it's crazy. Doom 3 was also only possible on the Xbox because it was the only system powerful enough to play it, Same with Half Life 2. Final fantasy 7 wasn't only possible on PlayStation. The 64 could play it but because it would need to have more memory in the cartridge to make it run it would have cost too much money. You also can't say it was only possible on the PlayStation, the sega Saturn was out too and it's more powerful and used discs.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

It's timed content not forever. Almost just like this.

Call of Duty DLC exclusive to XBOX 360 first.

Skyrim DLC exclusive to XBOX first.

Tomb Raider DLC exclusive to XBOX 360 first

I mean it's like people don't think Microsoft did this shit themselves, hell they were just as bad that generation. At least Sony aren't just buying up publishers and studios and preventing PlayStation from ever getting them.

 

[adamsapple]

I mean it's like people don't think Microsoft did this shit themselves, hell they were just as bad that generation. At least Sony aren't just buying up publishers and studios and preventing PlayStation from ever getting them.

Folks saying this with a straight face will never not be funny.

Morrowind was literally only possible on Xbox and if you actually watch what they had to do to make it work on that console it's crazy. Doom 3 was also only possible on the Xbox because it was the only system powerful enough to play it, Same with Half Life 2. Final fantasy 7 wasn't only possible on PlayStation. The 64 could play it but because it would need to have more memory in the cartridge to make it run it would have cost too much money. You also can't say it was only possible on the PlayStation, the sega Saturn was out too and it's more powerful and used discs.

RE2, a 2CD 1GB+ game, was able to fit in a single N64 cart. And the PS1 discs for the game (FFVII) are full of duplicate data, at most a 2 cart release of FFVII would have easily been possible. But it wasn't because Sony paid a lot of money to Square to get/keep the game on the PSX.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Make up your mind, when I talked about some PS deals from even before you didn't like that

You're talking about Xbox doing deals, I'm showing you examples that Xbox has only done a fraction of what Sony has been doing for much longer.

If you don't want to hear it, that's too bad.

Sony did it for longer because Xbox didn't exist. Duh.

As soon as MS entered the market they started doing it very aggressively. As you can see by the list they were targeting the biggest names in their moneyhats world tour. Sony was almost bankrupt in those years so there was not much they could do.

No words about any of them but you keep bringing up SF5 or FF7

And the PS1 discs for the game (FFVII) are full of duplicate data, at most a 2 cart release of FFVII would have easily been possible. But it wasn't because Sony paid a lot of money to Square to get/keep the game on the PSX.

Total bullshit. The game would never work on N64. This is known. Stop reading facts from Xbox twitter.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

Disgusting. I'm in no rush, will get it on PC cheap later.

 

[sachos]

I wonder if the general public actually care about this minor exclusive quests when making their purchase decision. It seems like such a waste of money but i guess they wouldnt do it if it did not work.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

 

[Trazyn the Infinite]

Sony has been courting PC gamers for awhile now hoping to build a new user base on PC with an assumable launcher being the next big move. I don't understand how pissing off that new group fits into the equation. It's certainly not getting me closer to open my wallet that's for sure.

I don't see this pissing off any PC only user as the exclusives were always on console for at least a year or more before they eventually get ported to PC - at least from Sony barring very rare exceptions. Again, this is just a minor side quest. Acting like this is somehow new for anyone or that this is a major issue is hyperbole at its finest.

 

[Kataploom]

I don't se the problem, Sony is surely protecting gamers with this move

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I still don't understand why people compare buying entire companies and publishers with all their franchises to buying timed exclusivity and marketing rights for a game. When buying entire companies, most of not all those franchises eventually will probably never come to a competing platform again. At least with a timed exclusive, there is a good chance that you can play them later on your platform of choice. Deathloop and I think Ghostwire Tokyo is coming to XBOX. Is Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 coming to PS5 later?

 

[Edgelord79]

Cool. If I want that stuff right away guess I'll have to play it on my PlayStation.

 

[ManaByte]

I wonder if the general public actually care about this minor exclusive quests when making their purchase decision. It seems like such a waste of money but i guess they wouldnt do it if it did not work.

It's not about that, it's about the words "PLAYSTATION EXCLUSIVE" on the box. Most of the public is too stupid to read that it's just for a quest and they just assume the whole game is exclusive.

 

[MScarpa]

Do you guys have some kinda secret findom fetish to get off at acquisitions like this

I think people like to watch other people die inside when their precious company loses. I know I enjoy it. It's hilarious

 

[Trazyn the Infinite]

It's not about that, it's about the words "PLAYSTATION EXCLUSIVE" on the box. Most of the public is too stupid to read that it's just for a quest and they just assume the whole game is exclusive.

You are literally crying over a minor DLC quest and you claim the public is being stupid. Are you getting paid to cry about Playstation in an effort to defend your plastic box of choice or do you actually believe the shit that you write?

 

[MScarpa]

Those are Xbox deals. Talk about them instead of deflecting to fucking Sega.

Damn relax, you're so angry. It's just games. You take it so seriously. It's why we laugh at you, so take a breath and chill.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

I think people like to watch otjer people die inside when their precious company loses. I know I enjoy it. It's hilarious

Instead of constantly making ban bets with other people you should ban yourself and spare us your lol emojis and useless replies. Troll account.

Damn relax, you're so angry. It's just games. You take it so seriously. It's why we laugh at you, so take a breath and chill.

Why don't you tag your pal adamsapple who kept making shit up. I wasn't talking by myself you know.

Here's another about the Sega Saturn port of Resident Evil 2. It wasn't Sony's fault.

Resident Evil 2 (Sega Saturn)

Resident Evil 2 was developed by Capcom for the PlayStation, with third-parties tasked with developing ports. Though the game was talked about repeatedly in the Official Sega Saturn Magazine, it ultimately failed to materialise. Development of the Saturn port began some time after the...

residentevil.fandom.com

 

[GHG]

Those are Xbox deals. Talk about them instead of deflecting to fucking Sega.

thicc_girls_are_teh_best called it.

Lots of Sega refugees whose hearts were broken during their childhoods and they have spent the last 2 decades fantasising for revenge instead of growing up and acknowledging the fact that Sega were primarily at fault for their own demise. It's the only thing that explains the delusional tunnel vision levels of hate.

 

[MScarpa]

Instead of constantly making ban bets with other people you should ban yourself and spare us your lol emojis and useless replies. Troll account.

Why didn't you take me up on the bet if you want me gone so bad? Stay mad buddy. It's Saturday, the fights are on, good luck with your war.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

Folks saying this with a straight face will never not be funny.




RE2, a 2CD 1GB+ game, was able to fit in a single N64 cart. And the PS1 discs for the game (FFVII) are full of duplicate data, at most a 2 cart release of FFVII would have easily been possible. But it wasn't because Sony paid a lot of money to Square to get/keep the game on the PSX.

Hooooookay. Ha ha, okay. You want to be incredibly technical then yeah, Sony bought Psygnosis who were multiplatform for a while but then went exclusive. A necessary move because in 1993 Sony had hardware with no software. I would also point out in 1993 that game development was a very different beast and there were far more companies out there making games and publishers too back in the days where developers relied on publishers. Equally, when Sony bought Bungie, which I might add I believe was a stupid idea (however the alternative in another universe being acquired by Activision who would have now made them part of Microsoft so either way, it seemed to be in their fate) it was stated that they will remain multiplatform and independent, not that Destiny has any power against any major Activision IP. But other than two minor examples there, prove me wrong. The studios that Sony have acquired with the exception to companies who port PC titles have virtually been working exclusivity with PlayStation so they've taken nothing from the market.

Also your comparison with FFVII is complete bullshit. Sony never paid Square for anything. They made concessions, yes. Risks had to be mitigated because of the relationship dynamic Nintendo and Square had. This is a long debate that's been happening for years but all the evidence is out there. Just a few points to keep in mind:

• It was released on PC so it's not exclusive. They can't have paid that much when it was multiplatform already by June 1998.
• Sony asked Square to develop for their platform and Square pretty much told them no. Unless Sony agreed to let Square inform Nintendo and speak to them about it and Sony happily agreed.
• Nintendo executives virtually told Square in their own way that Nintendo as a platform is there for people who want their games published by Nintendo, if you don't want to be here, don't be. In other words, Nintendo kindly told Square they weren't wanted and it really hurt their relationship.
• More proof of this is when Square nearly went bankrupt after the Final Fantasy movie debacle, Sony funded all of their development costs to physically stay in business. Nintendo didn't contribute or help.
• In the design process of the Nintendo 64, Square were a huge part of that. Square gave lots of feedback to Nintendo about the product including adding a CD ROM drive. Nintendo virtually ignored all of Squares feedback.
• Nintendo controlled and owned the manufacture and distribution of their cartridges. As a game developer explained on Reddit once (and there's hundreds of other sources out there for this) on a $55/£40 title released on Nintendo platforms, you'd make $6-7 or £4-5 per cart and it cost $150,000 for just 15,000. This is before all the other bullshit fees Nintendo charges you for the privilege of making a game on their platform. PlayStation discs cost about $4 each, can be pumped out far quicker and developers could make up-to $27/£20 per copy which was a gigantic profit margin for that time.
• Regardless of the fact that Nintendo politely said they didn't want them, development costs on N64 might have significantly affected the profitability of the game. Square were using state of the art technology at the time and and the development costs were already been 40 and 45 million.
• SEGA Saturn and other platforms were explored but the Saturn's position in the market at the time did not make it viable.
• Square did you with development demos on the 64DD which never took off and pretty much ended all development on Nintendo platforms.
• Kitatse himself literally said "we made a 2,000-count polygon version of Behemoth for the Nintendo 64, but when we rendered and animated it, the framerate was way too low. To properly display Behemoth with that technology, we needed 2,000 polygons, but it was a little too much for the hardware. That was part of the problem with choosing Nintendo."
• 64MB carts weren't even available when the N64 was released. It took until 1998 to get that size.
• It was actually a major shareholder in Square that made the final decision not to develop the game on N64 because they weren't happy with their results.
• Sony did make some concessions for Square to mitigate risks as this was a huge move for Square who were virtually seen as Nintendo first party at that time. FFVII was even supposed to be originally being developed for the SNES.
• Sony actually bought 19% of Square at a later point in time to keep them in business. They sold those shares at a later date when Square were financially stable.

Long story short Sony never paid them anything. They accepted a lower royalty rate and helped with marketing costs because the development costs for the game were huge. But they were fronted by Square and always were, which is how they nearly went bankrupt in 2000.

Regarding Resident Evil 2 being ported to N64, the story is well told and you can't compare apples to oranges. Two different games, two very different processes. Resident Evil 2 was massively compressed in terms of data, textures, audio etc and they had to write a bespoke compression engine for the FMV sequences. They filled a 64MB cartridge when they were available. They were never that big during development of FFVII or the Nintendo 64. The documentary digital foundry did on it really shows great detail how they did it. But apples and oranges. Seriously.

 

[Three]

I agree with almost everything you say, and an not excusing any case where MS has gotten timed exclusivity. It's just that historically it will trend way more towards one company than the other if we start counting.

It really wouldn't.

 

[Three]

Hooooookay. Ha ha, okay. You want to be incredibly technical then yeah, Sony bought Psygnosis who were multiplatform for a while but then went exclusive. A necessary move because in 1993 Sony had hardware with no software. I would also point out in 1993 that game development was a very different beast and there were far more companies out there making games and publishers too back in the days where developers relied on publishers. Equally, when Sony bought Bungie, which I might add I believe was a stupid idea (however the alternative in another universe being acquired by Activision who would have now made them part of Microsoft so either way, it seemed to be in their fate) it was stated that they will remain multiplatform and independent, not that Destiny has any power against any major Activision IP. But other than two minor examples there, prove me wrong. The studios that Sony have acquired with the exception to companies who port PC titles have virtually been working exclusivity with PlayStation so they've taken nothing from the market.

Also your comparison with FFVII is complete bullshit. Sony never paid Square for anything. They made concessions, yes. Risks had to be mitigated because of the relationship dynamic Nintendo and Square had. This is a long debate that's been happening for years but all the evidence is out there. Just a few points to keep in mind:

• It was released on PC so it's not exclusive. They can't have paid that much when it was multiplatform already by June 1998.
• Sony asked Square to develop for their platform and Square pretty much told them no. Unless Sony agreed to let Square inform Nintendo and speak to them about it and Sony happily agreed.
• Nintendo executives virtually told Square in their own way that Nintendo as a platform is there for people who want their games published by Nintendo, if you don't want to be here, don't be. In other words, Nintendo kindly told Square they weren't wanted and it really hurt their relationship.
• More proof of this is when Square nearly went bankrupt after the Final Fantasy movie debacle, Sony funded all of their development costs to physically stay in business. Nintendo didn't contribute or help.
• In the design process of the Nintendo 64, Square were a huge part of that. Square gave lots of feedback to Nintendo about the product including adding a CD ROM drive. Nintendo virtually ignored all of Squares feedback.
• Nintendo controlled and owned the manufacture and distribution of their cartridges. As a game developer explained on Reddit once (and there's hundreds of other sources out there for this) on a $55/£40 title released on Nintendo platforms, you'd make $6-7 or £4-5 per cart and it cost $150,000 for just 15,000. This is before all the other bullshit fees Nintendo charges you for the privilege of making a game on their platform. PlayStation discs cost about $4 each, can be pumped out far quicker and developers could make up-to $27/£20 per copy which was a gigantic profit margin for that time.
• Regardless of the fact that Nintendo politely said they didn't want them, development costs on N64 might have significantly affected the profitability of the game. Square were using state of the art technology at the time and and the development costs were already been 40 and 45 million.
• SEGA Saturn and other platforms were explored but the Saturn's position in the market at the time did not make it viable.
• Square did you with development demos on the 64DD which never took off and pretty much ended all development on Nintendo platforms.
• Kitatse himself literally said "we made a 2,000-count polygon version of Behemoth for the Nintendo 64, but when we rendered and animated it, the framerate was way too low. To properly display Behemoth with that technology, we needed 2,000 polygons, but it was a little too much for the hardware. That was part of the problem with choosing Nintendo."
• 64MB carts weren't even available when the N64 was released. It took until 1998 to get that size.
• It was actually a major shareholder in Square that made the final decision not to develop the game on N64 because they weren't happy with their results.
• Sony did make some concessions for Square to mitigate risks as this was a huge move for Square who were virtually seen as Nintendo first party at that time. FFVII was even supposed to be originally being developed for the SNES.
• Sony actually bought 19% of Square at a later point in time to keep them in business. They sold those shares at a later date when Square were financially stable.

Long story short Sony never paid them anything. They accepted a lower royalty rate and helped with marketing costs because the development costs for the game were huge. But they were fronted by Square and always were, which is how they nearly went bankrupt in 2000.

Regarding Resident Evil 2 being ported to N64, the story is well told and you can't compare apples to oranges. Two different games, two very different processes. Resident Evil 2 was massively compressed in terms of data, textures, audio etc and they had to write a bespoke compression engine for the FMV sequences. They filled a 64MB cartridge when they were available. They were never that big during development of FFVII or the Nintendo 64. The documentary digital foundry did on it really shows great detail how they did it. But apples and oranges. Seriously.

In 1993 Sony didn't even have hardware when they bought Psygnosis. They were a publisher like Warner Brothers making multiplatform games. Crazy I know but did you know Sony published Battletoads for the SNES, GB and Sega Genesis with Rare? Then they wanted to make A CD version of the SNES to make publishing cheaper and we all know how that turned out. Playstation was born and Psygnosis remained pretty much multiplatform until it became Studio Liverpool.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Hooooookay. Ha ha, okay. You want to be incredibly technical then yeah, Sony bought Psygnosis who were multiplatform for a while but then went exclusive. A necessary move because in 1993 Sony had hardware with no software. I would also point out in 1993 that game development was a very different beast and there were far more companies out there making games and publishers too back in the days where developers relied on publishers. Equally, when Sony bought Bungie, which I might add I believe was a stupid idea (however the alternative in another universe being acquired by Activision who would have now made them part of Microsoft so either way, it seemed to be in their fate) it was stated that they will remain multiplatform and independent, not that Destiny has any power against any major Activision IP. But other than two minor examples there, prove me wrong. The studios that Sony have acquired with the exception to companies who port PC titles have virtually been working exclusivity with PlayStation so they've taken nothing from the market.

Also your comparison with FFVII is complete bullshit. Sony never paid Square for anything. They made concessions, yes. Risks had to be mitigated because of the relationship dynamic Nintendo and Square had. This is a long debate that's been happening for years but all the evidence is out there. Just a few points to keep in mind:

• It was released on PC so it's not exclusive. They can't have paid that much when it was multiplatform already by June 1998.
• Sony asked Square to develop for their platform and Square pretty much told them no. Unless Sony agreed to let Square inform Nintendo and speak to them about it and Sony happily agreed.
• Nintendo executives virtually told Square in their own way that Nintendo as a platform is there for people who want their games published by Nintendo, if you don't want to be here, don't be. In other words, Nintendo kindly told Square they weren't wanted and it really hurt their relationship.
• More proof of this is when Square nearly went bankrupt after the Final Fantasy movie debacle, Sony funded all of their development costs to physically stay in business. Nintendo didn't contribute or help.
• In the design process of the Nintendo 64, Square were a huge part of that. Square gave lots of feedback to Nintendo about the product including adding a CD ROM drive. Nintendo virtually ignored all of Squares feedback.
• Nintendo controlled and owned the manufacture and distribution of their cartridges. As a game developer explained on Reddit once (and there's hundreds of other sources out there for this) on a $55/£40 title released on Nintendo platforms, you'd make $6-7 or £4-5 per cart and it cost $150,000 for just 15,000. This is before all the other bullshit fees Nintendo charges you for the privilege of making a game on their platform. PlayStation discs cost about $4 each, can be pumped out far quicker and developers could make up-to $27/£20 per copy which was a gigantic profit margin for that time.
• Regardless of the fact that Nintendo politely said they didn't want them, development costs on N64 might have significantly affected the profitability of the game. Square were using state of the art technology at the time and and the development costs were already been 40 and 45 million.
• SEGA Saturn and other platforms were explored but the Saturn's position in the market at the time did not make it viable.
• Square did you with development demos on the 64DD which never took off and pretty much ended all development on Nintendo platforms.
• Kitatse himself literally said "we made a 2,000-count polygon version of Behemoth for the Nintendo 64, but when we rendered and animated it, the framerate was way too low. To properly display Behemoth with that technology, we needed 2,000 polygons, but it was a little too much for the hardware. That was part of the problem with choosing Nintendo."
• 64MB carts weren't even available when the N64 was released. It took until 1998 to get that size.
• It was actually a major shareholder in Square that made the final decision not to develop the game on N64 because they weren't happy with their results.
• Sony did make some concessions for Square to mitigate risks as this was a huge move for Square who were virtually seen as Nintendo first party at that time. FFVII was even supposed to be originally being developed for the SNES.
• Sony actually bought 19% of Square at a later point in time to keep them in business. They sold those shares at a later date when Square were financially stable.

Long story short Sony never paid them anything. They accepted a lower royalty rate and helped with marketing costs because the development costs for the game were huge. But they were fronted by Square and always were, which is how they nearly went bankrupt in 2000.

Regarding Resident Evil 2 being ported to N64, the story is well told and you can't compare apples to oranges. Two different games, two very different processes. Resident Evil 2 was massively compressed in terms of data, textures, audio etc and they had to write a bespoke compression engine for the FMV sequences. They filled a 64MB cartridge when they were available. They were never that big during development of FFVII or the Nintendo 64. The documentary digital foundry did on it really shows great detail how they did it. But apples and oranges. Seriously.

Incredibly informative post but I'm afraid they won't care about the facts and they will keep pushing the Evil Sony narrative they made up.

What's sad is that adamsapple has been gaming for a looooong time. I'm 100% sure he's aware of all this.

It really wouldn't.

I agree. Besides FF7R and SF5 that they keep parroting I think Nintendo and Xbox did more. A lot of games were exclusively on PlayStation because that was the market back then. It wasn't moneyhats.

 

[Markio128]

1 minor quest for a whole year. Whoopee fucking do. Particularly hilarious reading the comments from the same folk championing the Activision deal.

 

[Jimmyisback]

This is inadequate for Xbox harry potter fans.

 

[adamsapple]

Long story short Sony never paid them anything. They accepted a lower royalty rate and helped with marketing costs because the development costs for the game were huge. But they were fronted by Square and always were, which is how they nearly went bankrupt in 2000.

These are some good points, but again you've highlighted as well that Sony gave them incredible incentives and a first-party level marketing push which helped sweeten the deal to bring and keep the game on PS and not even approaching Saturn or any other console at that time which had disc based systems.

It really wouldn't.

It most definitely would.

Rather than dig up the entire 20+ year history like GhostofTsu did for all of Xbox and come up with that little list, I'll just rattle off some things in the last 2 years. And this is nowhere near a complete list, this is just stuff off the top of my head.

Deathloop timed exclusivity
Ghostwire Tokyo timed exclusivity
Godfall timed exclusivity
Guilty Gear Strive timed exclusivity
Oddworld Soulstorm timed exclusivity
Forspoken timed (?) exclusivity
Bugsnax timed exclusivity
Kena timed (?) exclusivity
Stray timed (?) exclusivity
Worms Rumble timed exclusivity
Solar Ash timed exclusivity
The Pathless timed exclusivity
Tribes of Midgard timed exclusivity
FFVII R timed (?) exclusivity
FFXVI timed (?) exclusivity
NioH 2 timed (?) exclusivity
NBA 2K23 exclusive Myteam content
Avatars Fronteier of Pandora has PS5 exclusive content/marketing
Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War - timed exclusive content
Call of Duty Vanguard - timed exclusive content
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - timed exclusive content
Hogwarts Legacy - timed/ exclusive content
Calisto Protocol - timed/ exclusive content
Control - PS4 exclusive mission


I mean there's arguably a lot of stuff in the last 2 years that I am not remembering at the moment, but again, unlike GhostOfTsu 's list which spans 2+ decades, this is all from 2020 onward.

So, to answer the original question.

Yes it would, the list would be incredibly lopsided, much more so than any of us can fathom.

1 minor quest for a whole year. Whoopee fucking do. Particularly hilarious reading the comments from the same folk championing the Activision deal.

dejavu

 

[drganon]

I think people like to watch other people die inside when their precious company loses. I know I enjoy it. It's hilarious

So in other words, you're a massive douche on top of being an insecure fanboy.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

I mean there's arguably a lot of stuff in the last 2 years that I am not remembering at the moment, but again, unlike GhostOfTsu GhostOfTsu 's list which spans 2+ decades, this is all from 2020 onward.

As I said I only named major publishers or big series (mostly from past gens to make a point). You really don't want to start with Xbox indies and game pass deals because we would be here all night just last showcase there was tons and this week TGS too.

So in other words, you're a massive douche on top of being an insecure fanboy.

I keep getting notifications from that warrior MScarpa with lol emojis. Even old posts that I did months ago. This is Catlady-level of loser troll. I've never seen a meaningful post from her.

 

[adamsapple]

As I said I only named major publishers or big series (mostly from past gens to make a point). You really don't want to start with Xbox indies and game pass deals because we would be here all night just last showcase there was tons and this week TGS too.

Exactly I've already used a snazzy list wars gif in another topic, i don't want to use it here.

 

[Three]

These are some good points, but again you've highlighted as well that Sony gave them incredible incentives and a first-party level marketing push which helped sweeten the deal to bring and keep the game on PS and not even approaching Saturn or any other console at that time which had disc based systems.



It most definitely would.

Rather than dig up the entire 20+ year history like GhostofTsu did for all of Xbox and come up with that little list, I'll just rattle off some things in the last 2 years. And this is nowhere near a complete list, this is just stuff off the top of my head.

Deathloop timed exclusivity
Ghostwire Tokyo timed exclusivity
Godfall timed exclusivity
Guilty Gear Strive timed exclusivity
Oddworld Soulstorm timed exclusivity
Forspoken timed (?) exclusivity
Bugsnax timed exclusivity
Kena timed (?) exclusivity
Stray timed (?) exclusivity
Worms Rumble timed exclusivity
Solar Ash timed exclusivity
The Pathless timed exclusivity
Tribes of Midgard timed exclusivity
FFVII R timed (?) exclusivity
FFXVI timed (?) exclusivity
NioH 2 timed (?) exclusivity
NBA 2K23 exclusive Myteam content
Avatars Fronteier of Pandora has PS5 exclusive content/marketing
Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War - timed exclusive content
Call of Duty Vanguard - timed exclusive content
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - timed exclusive content
Hogwarts Legacy - timed/ exclusive content
Calisto Protocol - timed/ exclusive content
Control - PS4 exclusive mission


I mean there's arguably a lot of stuff in the last 2 years that I am not remembering at the moment, but again, unlike GhostOfTsu 's list which spans 2+ decades, this is all from 2020 onward.

So, to answer the original question.

Yes it would, the list would be incredibly lopsided, much more so than any of us can fathom.




dejavu

You said historically it would but I don't think it would. Only since 2017/2018 the strategy has changed for MS/Phil because of gamepass. Today there are countless deals for indies on gamepass instead and you will see them release on PS as the years go by. Even then for each one of those listed historically you have an xbox equivalent with big publishers when xbox was selling games. In addition to games like The Ascent, The Medium, CrossfireX now, they had the big publishers before; every Call of duty for at least 5 years, The Division, Battlefield 4, Plants vs Zombies: Garden warfare, FIFA, GTA, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, PUBG, Dead Rising 1,4, several Tomb Raiders, several Splinter Cells, even Guilty Gear 2. It leans very indie now so a lot of it isn't in the limelight anymore. Just wait to see the ports come in over the years to other platforms.

Historically I don't think they're that different, today I think it's a lot more an indie vs big game publisher difference but the deals are happening.

 

[MScarpa]

So in other words, you're a massive douche on top of being an insecure fanboy.

I'm a massive douche for watching people fight some invisible war? Insecure fanboy? Come on man, you can do better. I adore my PS5. I love my Series, my switch is MEH, and my 3080 is awesome. I'm not the fanboy in this conversation.

Side note. Canelo beat GGG easy. Sandhagen won and it was a great night of fights! Gnight gamers.

 

[bender]

All this over warring Harry Potter dlc.

 

[killatopak]

Thanks Jim.

 

[Fess]

I don't see this pissing off any PC only user as the exclusives were always on console for at least a year or more before they eventually get ported to PC - at least from Sony barring very rare exceptions. Again, this is just a minor side quest. Acting like this is somehow new for anyone or that this is a major issue is hyperbole at its finest.

Of course delayed PC releases are pissing off PC gamers, there is nothing to debate there, especially PC only gamers because they have no way around it. This being a quest and not the actual game makes it less severe of course but it's still annoying.

 

[NahaNago]

This is essentially what this is. However people argue and it's hard to prove whether the publisher created additional free content for one platform paid for by the platform holder or cut content from the others.

The point of these content exclusives are the platform holders competing for game sales of multiplatforms. If however each paid for additional content then it dilutes its effect and the platform holders are less likely to do it. People seem to have convinced themselves that MS and Phil don't do these things because it's evil but the truth of the matter is that they did it up until the point where game sales were no longer the driving force of their business, after gamepass in late 2017. Now they are trying to secure exclusives indefinitely to drive subscriptions and get you to pay for your cosmetics. It doesn't make sense to pay a publisher to make content to compete for game sales. It makes sense to make franchises exclusive to attract people to gamepass.

I keep thinking of how this would be a win for the studio though. Like how gamefreaks creates 2 pokemon games with unique pokemon in each game forcing you to either trade or buy the game twice. I could easily see gamers buying both games just to try out both content eventually if the content is really good.

The exclusivity idea has simply transferred from convincing folks to buy your console to pay for gamepass. Which seems like a decent idea since you get money coming in every month thanks to gamepass. Get 20 million folks paying like 10 every month versus the difficulty of getting 20 million of video game unit sales in a month.

It is a lot a cheaper though for the platform holder to pay for content rather than funding a whole studio to make a game.

 

[ParaSeoul]

I think people like to watch other people die inside when their precious company loses. I know I enjoy it. It's hilarious

For me its the people who haven't realised theirs already lost....
multiple times............

 

[DenchDeckard]

It's timed content not forever. Almost just like this.

Call of Duty DLC exclusive to XBOX 360 first.

Skyrim DLC exclusive to XBOX first.

Tomb Raider DLC exclusive to XBOX 360 first

I mean it's like people don't think Microsoft did this shit themselves, hell they were just as bad that generation. At least Sony aren't just buying up publishers and studios and preventing PlayStation from ever getting them.

are you literally going back over 10 years to find evidence of this shit?
lmao

Also, microsoft never did content in a game for a year like sony.

The one game they tried to buy exclusivity for was Tomb Raider, and we know how that went down.
Move on bro, move on.

 

[DarkMage619]

are you literally going back over 10 years to find evidence of this shit?
lmao

Also, microsoft never did content in a game for a year like sony.

The one game they tried to buy exclusivity for was Tomb Raider, and we know how that went down.
Move on bro, move on.

The one thing we can all agree on is what the two companies are doing is different. MS would prefer to fully invest in a company taking on all the risks of development and hopefully, in the case of Activision, improving the work environment of the studio. Sony is far more interested in locking down timed exclusives and limiting content on other platforms. Neither is right or wrong its just business.

I'll always prefer the full investment over blocking content but it's good both companies are charting the path that works best for them. In the end the consumer will decide what works best for them.

 

[Warablo]

Tons of games release first on Playstation, but I'm not gonna sort through it all and make a list. At least in the 360 era timed exclusives weren't a year long.

Timed exclusives are stupid, at least with real exclusives you build a brand and ecosystem.

 

[Topher]

Tons of games release first on Playstation

Same with Xbox

 

[SLB1904]

I keep getting notifications from that warrior MScarpa with lol emojis. Even old posts that I did months ago. This is Catlady-level of loser troll. I've never seen a meaningful post from her.

OK this is hilarious

 

[Stuart360]

Marketing deals nearly always come with some kind of exclusive content, and its been that way for years. Dont see what the big problem is with it suddenly.
Also all this comparing which console owner is the 'more evil', well its really starting to get old. They all do this shit.

 

[Trazyn the Infinite]

Of course delayed PC releases are pissing off PC gamers, there is nothing to debate there, especially PC only gamers because they have no way around it. This being a quest and not the actual game makes it less severe of course but it's still annoying.

I have never met a PC Gamer who isn't 12 that gets pissed about exclusivity deals. This has been a thing in general since the dawn of gaming.

 

[Fess]

I have never met a PC Gamer who isn't 12 that gets pissed about exclusivity deals. This has been a thing in general since the dawn of gaming.

Funny, I talk daily with PC gamers who're 35-50 years old who're annoyed when being leftout on exclusivity deals, these days it's mostly about launcher exclusives though but console exclusives most definitely seem to get them triggered too.

 

[Mr Moose]

are you literally going back over 10 years to find evidence of this shit?
lmao

Also, microsoft never did content in a game for a year like sony.

The one game they tried to buy exclusivity for was Tomb Raider, and we know how that went down.
Move on bro, move on.

What about permanently.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

What about permanently.

They also did it for Tomb Raider DenchDeckard do your research next time instead of parroting

It's still exclusive to this day? I can't find it on PC or PS.

Xbox 360 gets two exclusive downloadable chapters for Tomb Raider: Underworld

www.destructoid.com

They also did 30 days exclusive lol

The Division's first two expansions are exclusive to Xbox One for a month

Does this change your platform choice?

www.polygon.com

 

[Three]

Also, microsoft never did content in a game for a year like sony.

GTAIV stories? Lost and Damned, whole expansion, 1 year exclusive.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Literally going back like 6 years minimum but yes both companies have done it in the past on bigger games. Sony is doing it more currently across more larger third party titles and Microsoft has decided to take a different approach.

I'm sure its not going to stop either, probs get worse.