Weedlab said:
Osc89 said:
Weedlab said:
All of them are guilty of this. Microsoft is not the only one who 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.
|
In your original comment you said that it was a positive Microsoft does this, that's why I targeted them specifically. If you check my first post I acknowledge they all do this and it's bad, but Nintendo do it the least (I think) so I went with them.
You can make a case for MS being better at publishing than Nintendo, but I wouldn't say that examples like Titanfall should be used. It's looking like they paid for 1 year of exclusivity which is money spent to weaken the PS4 lineup rather than boost their own. That is the only reason I targeted your comment, I'm not debating the rest of their strategy, just saying this aspect is bad.
|
Well ... I don't see that issue as a clear cut one. It is in some sense like the used game problem that is regularly discussed, and that's why I said it can't be decoupled from more positive actions. One may say that implementing a timed exclusive strategy is bad in the sense that it excludes a group of gamers from experiencing games. That's fair, but gamers will still get to experience the game(s) since it is temporary, and one could also argue they're doing this with the aim of increasing their foothold and installed base (a benefit to them) of which influences the risks and number of titles they're willing to publish (benefit to gamers). I can’t discount the positive ripple effects from those actions.
|
Surely it reduces the risks and titles they publish? If the timed exclusive strategy is effective, they'll keep doing it. There will always be fewer games than there would have been. Or it isn't effective and they have to boost their first party to catch up, so all they have accomplished is wasting money and time better spent on their own games.
