Reasons for why Microsoft has timed exclusives (NO TROlLS OR HATERS HERE)

[ameratsu]

r505Matt said:

1. So what if MS wants to build themselves as a gaming platform instead of a developer? Is there really something wrong with that? I think it's better that way, keep things seperate. All of those Sony companies can only make for Sony's platform. This is a little extreme, but what if everything were 1st party? Would that be a better situation to you?

2. Why is that a copout? They're all businesses. At the end of the day they have to be profitable, whatever they do to do it, that's all that matters to them. Otherwise, the company (or at least a division of that company) will cease to be. They don't compete over how many customers they have, or who is the 'nicer' business to deal with. It's all about the money.

3. I think the OP's idea is interesting; I don't think it's that 'haphazard'.

4. And rushing development was a mistake. They know that, they have acknowledged that. How long until you forget about that? 10 years? 50? They've fixed RRoD in their newer consoles, and they extended their warranty to cover for their past consoles. I think that's as much as any company should do.

5. Why should a platform developer take that kind of risk? Is that some kind of strange requirement in your head for a good gaming platform company? There are already SOOOO many games out there, too many to fully play all of them, and you want MORE made? Not to mention, I'm not a big fan of Sony's first party. Uncharted 1 and 2 are essentially just 2 $60 movies with mediocre gunplay, and good platforming, if a bit simple/easy. How long has GT5 been in the making? 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like MS any more than I like Sony (they're equal in my book), but I think MS has a stronger/better business plan.

 

My problem is the deception surrounding exclusive games and timed exclusive games. I know that when a new game announced exclusively for a Sony or Nintendo platform, this actually means something. When it happen on the 360, it's more like Microsoft provided some benefit to keep it off other platforms for a year. I would say the net result of Microsoft approaching a developer to have a year of exclusivity is less people being able to play it while it's temporarily exclusive, in addition to misleading those who want to play that game into buying an xbox. When ms,sony or nintendo actually funds thats a new game that's actually exclusive more people are able to play it, as its something that otherwise would not have come to market. 

I know "it's just business". But again, I don't have to agree with it or defend it. Just like I don't agree with paying to play online using my own internet connection.

As an aside, think of the brand-building power that Halo: Combat Evolved had because microsoft secured it as an exclusive. Had it been a timed exclusive, appearing on ps2/gc a year later, would people identify it so strongly with the xbox brand as they do now? Would Halo still be a flagship title?

I hope that reasonable is right where he says people are wising up to Microsoft's trickery, but I'm not so sure. We'll see I guess.