2) We are talking through VGC so the logical conclusion to "here" is VGC.

3) Nope, you started saying it was good for no one, I said to who it should be good because if not they wouldn't do, still you say it is not good for devs, so why would they do it?

4) So your premise that they should take years to develop changes nothing since they already take years, AAA games launching every month have to do with how many are made not how fast.

You complained about to much games being made and I fail to see how it is bad that the big 3 releasing games and making more available is bad for gamers.

2)Yes but I was reffing to where I come from, and not VGC. I cleared that up with the post before last. 

3)You ended up argument hat it was good for the "platform holder" (one of the big 3) and you kept with it, thus the "caveat" was to focus on the two that "didn't" benefit from it.

4)CDPR has taken their sweet ass time with Cyberpunk, and I'm in no rush to have them just fasten the pace. The last thing I want is a rushed game. Devs need to take their time with their projects, not rush them. We have something of an ugly culture, that some of us want things asap and yearly. I love C&C a lot, but I wouldn't ever want it pumped out yearly. I'd be fine with a 3-5 year gap, because during that time I'd be able to play it for a year or two (maybe longer), while also being able to play other games during those years.

I'm not complaining about having too many games. Far from it. I've got a huge issue with the time spent. if you don't spend enough time, you can end up with a rushed game. With some issues I listed in my previous post, you could spend too much time and your team can end up disagreeing, which can lead to falling outs, being let go, or disbanding, which can also leadto cancellation.

2) Sure, but didn't see you saying you were wrong on accusing to change topic.

3) I gone for the good to platform holders after you said good to no one without any caveats.

4) I don't buy any yearly game. And there is very few yearly titles, sports games, CoD, AC, what else? I also don't see what rushing games have to do with timed exclusives. You pointed that if they took more time developing game or if there wasn't new games every month no exclusivity would be necessary... makes zero sense.

2) wat?.

3)And this is where I disagree, because it's practically trying to excuse when one company does it over the others, which itself is overriding and citing that timed deals are factually better for everyone.

4) I don't buy into yearly games either, but making them as quickly as possible isn't a good thing. Things in life take time.

"As for sustainable, no, we don't have to have a AAA game out the wazoo every week or month. So they can take their time making them over the years, instead of getting the masses to think we can just churn them out like Activision does with every CoD iteration on a near yearly basis".

The model can be sustained without needing to rush your game and your budget to the ground. 

3) You seem to have some issue understanding.

You said no one benefited from it. I said platform holders and developer benefits, if they didn't they wouldn't do it. I didn't say that is good or not, you are distorting to try and come winning.

4) I have see no Sony game that is made as quick as possible, be them first party or timed exclusive (One could say about SF V, but that wasn't a Sony order) and considering the time of some MS reveals and delays I also don't see they pushing for quickly as possible... So which big 3 is pushing for this to be a negative?

I never said games have to be rushed, I said that crowd funding can't support all games, and publishers already exist so if the best option was to go timed exclusive them the alternatives you gave already don't cut it.

2)Yes, the way you type your sentences. They appear broken and misused.

3)I see we're playing the most obvious game of cat and mouse and the object is "I gotta win this argument". I'm not playing that game. I don't care for the retort that's to follow from the previous sentence either. This isn't about winning, so let's eject that from the anal system now, before things do get ugly.

4) I wasn't talking about Sony though. Not sure why you brought just them up for a year round production cycle. That's why I said Activision, because they are known for this, and Ubisoft can be added to that list as well.

See, that question is begging for a different kind of answer, and that answer will then be used as an excuse for timed exclusivity. 

Crowd funding cannot support all games, well neither can the big 3, otherwise we'd have everyone under their thumb and roof and clearly we aren't seeing that. Sustainability relies on a lot of factors, not just one of the big 3. We've seen games come and go, delayed and cancelled, rushed and put to the side.

I like how you basically put all other possible venues (which means not just crowd funding) and slapped timed exclusivity as being obnjectively better.

I'm not going to continue this obvious back and forth "I gotta win this shit" debate. I know that timed exclusivity does not benefit the consumer, sales wise it doesn't benefit the game producer, certainly not with numbers that aren't combined and not including long tail sales from all those combined.

I honestly and quite frankly do not care for any reasoning or illogical factors being brought forth to excuse the abuse of timed exclusivity, to go against the consumer, and hinder the game producer, the game itself and generally the possibility of getting a sequel. It's not okay when one person does it subjectively "right", it's not good when anyone does it. 

3) You seem to have some issue understanding.

You said no one benefited from it. I said platform holders and developer benefits, if they didn't they wouldn't do it. I didn't say that is good or not, you are distorting to try and come winning.

4) I have see no Sony game that is made as quick as possible, be them first party or timed exclusive (One could say about SF V, but that wasn't a Sony order) and considering the time of some MS reveals and delays I also don't see they pushing for quickly as possible... So which big 3 is pushing for this to be a negative?

I never said games have to be rushed, I said that crowd funding can't support all games, and publishers already exist so if the best option was to go timed exclusive them the alternatives you gave already don't cut it.

2)Yes, the way you type your sentences. They appear broken and misused.

3)I see we're playing the most obvious game of cat and mouse and the object is "I gotta win this argument". I'm not playing that game. I don't care for the retort that's to follow from the previous sentence either. This isn't about winning, so let's eject that from the anal system now, before things do get ugly.

4) I wasn't talking about Sony though. Not sure why you brought just them up for a year round production cycle. That's why I said Activision, because they are known for this, and Ubisoft can be added to that list as well.

See, that question is begging for a different kind of answer, and that answer will then be used as an excuse for timed exclusivity. 

Crowd funding cannot support all games, well neither can the big 3, otherwise we'd have everyone under their thumb and roof and clearly we aren't seeing that. Sustainability relies on a lot of factors, not just one of the big 3. We've seen games come and go, delayed and cancelled, rushed and put to the side.

I like how you basically put all other possible venues (which means not just crowd funding) and slapped timed exclusivity as being obnjectively better.

I'm not going to continue this obvious back and forth "I gotta win this shit" debate. I know that timed exclusivity does not benefit the consumer, sales wise it doesn't benefit the game producer, certainly not with numbers that aren't combined and not including long tail sales from all those combined.

I honestly and quite frankly do not care for any reasoning or illogical factors being brought forth to excuse the abuse of timed exclusivity, to go against the consumer, and hinder the game producer, the game itself and generally the possibility of getting a sequel. It's not okay when one person does it subjectively "right", it's not good when anyone does it.