Shiken said:
Unless it is a case where it is piblished and funded by a 1st party, just like Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2/3. Had it not been for Nintendo/MS, those games would not exist so I feel it is justified in that case. It is when games get moneyhatted like Destiny on PS4, Rise of the Tomb Raider on X1, or any other game that fits that bill (timed or not) that it becomes anti consumer. |
Agree, I'm fine with including third party in the first party bunch when a first party publisher completely funded the development of a game, particularly if it was the only chance for a game to ever exist. Other cases, in which the game would have been made anyway, sadden me if they become exclusives, although in such cases, a first party becoming the sole publisher and funder of a third party, although being a more irreversible action, is surely less anticonsumer than moneyhatting a formally independent third party for exclusives. Very often, btw, the short term benefit of moneyhatting isn't even worth giving up other platforms potential revenues in the long term, and it's not surprising that in the past, outside of gaming market, execs responsible of choices in favour of MS and Intel that in the end damaged or even killed their companies, most probably were Intel and/or MS "moles", like Rick Belluzzo at HP and SGI and Stephen Elop at Nokia (almost sure, I'd say, as MS wouldn't have hired them for important and princely paid roles just after they killed or almost killed their companies if they had done it due to incompetence).
