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

[r505Matt]

Squilliam said:

Reasonable said:

I think you have the main points but wrong order. MS knows it is coming from behind (if you'll pardon the phrase) both in terms of brand recognition and first party support. Therefore it's clearly:

1 - using timed exclusives as a denial of service tactic to try and force people towards the 360 as many gamers simply can't wait for big games. It's fair in business but not something I personally condone. Basically, it's like a sportsman holding the back of the shirt of an opponent to keep them close

2 - using timed exclusives to get more attention for 360 and have it seen as the console with more titles/content. They know than many gamers, particularly the teenage/young adult males will ignore the fact the title isn't really exclusive when it releases on PS3 in the end

3 - a variation of 1 but I think they also used this a lot to try and slow up the PS3 in Japan particularly to give them more room to grow in the region. Again, fair play in business, but I'd personally prevent this as a could as I don't agree with the practice.


As the core of this approach is acutally negative to the consumer, which is my main focus for business regulation, I don't like it. If MS want to be successful they shouldn't do it by focusing on tripping up the competition but being better themselves. Instead of 30 day DLC timed exclusives, 12 month exclusives, etc. I think all of that money should go to IP instead. They can commission true exclusives with third party developers, get more Mass Effects, Gears, etc. on the console instead.

Even for 360 owners I therefore don't see this as a good practice. Sure, the really nutjob fans will see it as great, but in the end you're not really getting anything truly exclusive just first play vs true exclusives like Alan Wake. I would hope most 360 owners would rather have 3 exclusive new IPs heading to the 360 rather than playing a multiplatform title first.

I'm not sure how much MS will focus on this now though, as once the game was up first time around, most people now assume it's just a timed exclusive now and assume the title or DLC will hit PS3 anyway, which seriously undermines the practice.

1. Buying developers is a permament denial of service tactic to try and force people towards X console, usually PSx in this case as Sony has used that tactic the most. I haven't seen you condone or attack that practice, where do you stand? In my mind purchasing a developer permamently is far worse than renting a developer for a couple of years.

2. Often the game doesn't get a wise release after timed exclusivity and is in short supply when it finally releases. It may even be withdrawn from print before the Xbox 360 version for example or the Xbox 360 version could be cheaper which still gives the advantage.

3. Mistwalker -> Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are a studio which wouldn't have existed otherwise. We get Last Story for the Wii out of that positive arrangement. Tales of Vesperia used the money to essentially make a better Tales for PS3 and Star Ocean was apparantly due to the fact they couldn't get dev kits on time and so on.

Btw which practice do you prefer: Bioshock -> Microsoft helps development but Take 2 keeps I.P. and releases on the PS3 later or Demons Souls -> Sony helps development but they lock up the I.P. in their vault forever?

If you're going to progress onto talking about regulation, then have you considered the anti-trust implications of deliberately dumping consoles onto the market at a huge loss to win market share? In the business world that a great moral travesty than making a business arangement with content providers. In this discussion its the proverbial fly vs camel swallowing of biblical proportions. They both do it, and Nintendo would probably have a decent case against them both.

Most games devalue over time anyway. Most people want to play the game day and date with their friends, hence seeing how games are very front loaded. Most people don't care what happens to a game they own a year down the track. In addition to this, im not sure they're so keen on getting people who own PS3s to buy Xbox 360s as much as getting people who don't own the console to buy one. People simply don't pay that much attention to the industry to note or care whether something is coming 6 or 12 months down the track for another console.

There are a lot of good points here, especially the first and the last. I'm curious now as to what IPs exactly Sony has control over. Anyone know?