Why don't Nintendo?

Silly article.

The Fury said: Why don't Nintendo?

Because they're about to become a third party?

Crapgamer has a few points though.

There are people that legit bought a Xbox One, for this one game, that wouldnt have if they from the start said it was on both.

Its kinda false advertiseing, or atleast tricking people into buying a product.

 

And why is Membership 60$/year , if its free on pc, and they get the same games & services?

 

 

 

"So why allow those games to go to PC and not the exclusive blockbusters? Well, because for Sony, its first-party output acts as a sort of advertisement for the PS4. Titles like Bloodborneexist to sell consoles, and while exclusives are waning ever so slightly in importance, it's licensing fees and subscriptions where platform holders make money. If a game like The Last Guardianhelps to move a few boxes, then it's worth the investment, because it helps introduce people to the ecosystem."

I actually agree with this.

I think down the line, every exclusive the XB1 gets going to PC, kills insentive to buy one.

I dont think you will see Sony IPs on Steam. If they decide to bring these games to PC they will do that on their own PlayStation store which can be used in the webbrowser or as an own PC OS.

The main reason is because sony doesn't have an OS to pitch to pc owners. Sony doesn't benefit if it's first party exclusives went to PC and people would have less reasons to buy a PS4. What MS is doing with the whole cross-buy thing will likely hurt anyone's incentive for buying a xbox one but it will greatly add more value to windows 10. It's obvious which is ultimately more important to MS.

I disagree with the idea that exclusives are becoming less important. They are becoming more important in my opinion. Without a doubt, third party games sell truck loads but exclusives are what makes a console distinctive. Otherwise, there would be no point in owning more than one console because they would all be relatively the same. It's the most logical way for a console to really stand out from the competition other than going with gimmicks.

noname2200 said: The Fury said: Why don't Nintendo? Because they're about to become a third party?

Yeah, thats why they are releasing a new console...to become third party.

Because they want to sell the PS4, perhaps it's difficult for some to believe but console exclusives are a major selling point.

JRPGfan said: Crapgamer has a few points though. There are people that legit bought a Xbox One, for this one game, that wouldnt have if they from the start said it was on both. Its kinda false advertiseing, or atleast tricking people into buying a product.   And why is Membership 60$/year , if its free on pc, and they get the same games & services?   "So why allow those games to go to PC and not the exclusive blockbusters? Well, because for Sony, its first-party output acts as a sort of advertisement for the PS4. Titles like Bloodborneexist to sell consoles, and while exclusives are waning ever so slightly in importance, it's licensing fees and subscriptions where platform holders make money. If a game like The Last Guardianhelps to move a few boxes, then it's worth the investment, because it helps introduce people to the ecosystem." I actually agree with this. I think down the line, every exclusive the XB1 gets going to PC, kills insentive to buy one.

crapgamers points are very legit. 

SFV was announced from the begining as a console exclusive.  no one really cares that it is only console exclusive on also on pc.  the main point is it has been advertised as an xbox 1 exclusive for years.  if i were a pc-centric gamer that heard for years that in order to play a game i want i have to buy an xbox and then do only to find out the games are actually coming to pc day-1,..  i'd be livid.

this is all about doing what you say and saying what you do.   ..and the backlash is the result of years of double talk from ms all the way back to titles like mass effect and bioshock not just QB.

The market would likely be quite small.

kitler53 said: JRPGfan said: Crapgamer has a few points though. There are people that legit bought a Xbox One, for this one game, that wouldnt have if they from the start said it was on both. Its kinda false advertiseing, or atleast tricking people into buying a product.   And why is Membership 60$/year , if its free on pc, and they get the same games & services?   "So why allow those games to go to PC and not the exclusive blockbusters? Well, because for Sony, its first-party output acts as a sort of advertisement for the PS4. Titles like Bloodborneexist to sell consoles, and while exclusives are waning ever so slightly in importance, it's licensing fees and subscriptions where platform holders make money. If a game like The Last Guardianhelps to move a few boxes, then it's worth the investment, because it helps introduce people to the ecosystem." I actually agree with this. I think down the line, every exclusive the XB1 gets going to PC, kills insentive to buy one.     crapgamers points are very legit.  SFV was announced from the begining as a console exclusive.  no one really cares that it is only console exclusive on also on pc.  the main point is it has been advertised as an xbox 1 exclusive for years.  if i were a pc-centric gamer that heard for years that in order to play a game i want i have to buy an xbox and then do only to find out the games are actually coming to pc day-1,..  i'd be livid. this is all about doing what you say and saying what you do.   ..and the backlash is the result of years of double talk from ms all the way back to titles like mass effect and bioshock not just QB.

So why would anyone be mad then? Phil Spencer SAID that they would be bringing more titles to PC and start focusing on Xbox AND PC again, and now that it's being done to the benefit of the gamers and Remedy people are mad? lol the gaming world is so funny.

Ive never seen fashion lovers mad because more than one store sells a t-shirt from the same brand.