Osc89 said:
Weedlab said:
Osc89 said:
Weedlab said:
It is, but it also says publishing strategy. Those don't necessarily have to be made by them. Look at Bayonetta 2 and W101 on Wii U for instance. Are those being made internally at Nintendo? With Sony they've been building relationships with indies and in some cases they get to publish exclusive indie games on PS platforms (Journey). Microsoft publishes games that are often timed exclusive titles or pays for them to be timed exclusive. Ninja Gaiden 2 for instance was published by Microsoft even though it wasn't developed by one of their studios. That's not unlike some of the games for the One. Titan Fall may not be a true exclusive for instance, but it will be exclusively available on Microsoft platforms, and for people who want the 'true HD experience' there's only one option to do so for at least a year. That's defintely going to give some people, however small the number, a reason to get the XB1 over the PS4.
|
The question asks what is best for gamers. Microsoft paying for games to be exclusives isn't. They are spending money on negative games rather than making their own exclusives.
|
First, define 'negative games' for me. What is a 'negative game'? Are they not employing a combination strategy with respect to the games they are publishing? (In house and out). Do they not have exclusive in double digit figures? Those games appear to be oriented towards both the core and casual segments. How is that bad for gamers? Enlighten me if you find me ignorant. I am led to believe Microsoft’s position is still better for the gamer when compared to Nintendo (but only in those narrowly defined terms), and I am by no means an Xbox enthusiast. That’s just how it looks to me as a gamer.
|
When I say "negative game" I mean they are paying for an otherwise multiplatform game to be exclusive to their platform, so money is spent taking games from other platforms rather than increasing the number for their own. It makes sense for them strategically as they close the gap between them and other platforms by 2 games for less than the cost of one, however this results in fewer games overall and is bad for gamers.
|
All of them are guilty of this. Microsoft is not the only one that engages in such behavior, and from the looks of things it seems their stance has shifted in favor of creating more true exclusive content than timed exclusives. It is also not always a disservice to gamers. Look at Bayonetta 2 since it apparently would not have seen the light of day as a multiplatform game. But the real question is, what proportion of games are true exclusive to timed exclusives? Added to that Microsoft seems to have a strong showing (quantitatively at least).
Nintendo has been forming partnerships with a lot of developers. One could argue if that wasn’t the case third parties could channel their resources in multiplatform games for the benefit of a wider group of gamers. Platinum could be making multiplatform games for all systems instead of making Bayoetta 2 exclusively for the Wii U, or NamcoBandai could channel more of their resources to other projects (multiplat) instead of providing Nintendo with assistance. On the other side of the coin these partnerships are needed since Nintendo insinuated that they need assistance with the transition to HD. These instances can hardly be decoupled, and with that said and taking everything into consideration, I still think Microsoft > Nintendo with respect to the topic.
