Looks like Phil Spencer is going to be congratulating Sony for their exclusives for a while

[Zoombael]

 

zero129 said:

Bandorr said:

1)Minecraft came to the ps4 on September 4th. Microsoft bought  Minecraft two weeks later. And they "allowed" it because that is the only way it sells.

Go look at what systems it is on. It is on EVERYTHING. Yet Microsoft has done NOTHING with it. It is even coming to the switch. That is how it sells. By being on everything and being cheap.

2) Can you point my to any other threads or post where you are are "against" third party exclusives? How about one about Dead rising? SSO? Quantum break? Recore, Ryse? Oh how about one where you are outraged at Tomb raider?

Back seat modding would be "use multiquote or get banned" I'm telling to use it because I've had to tell you many times. Like someone that never learns or wants to learn.

There was an entire thread made about the multiquote thread and how to use it.

3) and go back and reading the articles where Phil talks about Tomb raider. He literally says they had nothing to compete with uncharted 4, so that is why they were interested in Tomb Raider. Although they really, really messed that up. Instead of competing with uncharted.. they competed with their fall out 4 bundle.

gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=225796&page=1

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8296423

First of all "Dont" be telling me to do something and come down off your high horse, your not a mod and most likely never will be one, so dont be trying to act like one.

2nd, Go look into my posts and you will find plenty of times i talked about how im against exclusives of all kinds. Not just when one console does it.

This also doesnt mean im going to be going into every game thread saying how they shouldnt be exclusives, but when the subject comes up to me ill let my opinion be known on it. This is also why you dont see me in Uncharted 4, GT Sports, Horizon: Zero Dawn threads proclaiming how they should not be exclusive.

But hey use strawman tactics to try take my point out of context and into something else all you want.

It wont change my opinion that Money hatting, or locking well known IP's to one console is bad for consumers. Exclusives are anti consumer and the gaming industry is the only place such anti consumer stuff is expected. Like i said they are mostly just to fuel the silly console wars and the fans of them consoles are ok with it since it gives them ammo to use.

Also point out where it says they money hatted Tomb Raider after it was almost complete?.

Mostly? You are saying, Sony and Nintendo executives scheme evil plans how to fuel the war of platforms and instil hatred into the hearts of gamers in their dimly lit headquaters of malicious intent? Yeah. It is as ridiculous as it sounds.

Not mostly, but 100%, the intention is not to fuel 'silly console wars'. It is to make a product stand out, to make people want to buy a product for the sake of the content. To differentiate from the competitors and be ahead of them. Reminds of something. Don't you and your likeminded anti consumer-sayers use to say "competition is good for consumer". Aren't we in a predicament now. What shall it be? Competition anti-consumer or good for consumer? How exaclty should the competitive procedure take place, if not putting emphasis on what counts most: Games. Who lowers the prices the fastest? Make gaming even cheaper than they it is now? Yeah, that does bode well. We see how well when taking a look at the Steam shop, how the publishers and developers reacting to collapsing prices and games inflation. With a steady decline of quality, diversity and development budget.

You claim to be against any kind of exclusivity. Means, you wish to see games like Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Starcraft, Total War on consoles. Yeah, that went very well with Supreme Commander (2) and the recently released Halo Wars 2... not.