By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Neodegenerate on 15 June 2017
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
Neodegenerate said:

I do discern the difference.  I am not the one identifying things as black and white as product != content.

As someone who buys console A I understand that I am not getting the content that is exclusively available from console B when console B's first party studio creates it.  Therefore I can make the choice to also buy console B.  And also console C.

Also as someone who buys console A I know that I might not get all the content that someone who buys console C gets because console C decided to buy timed, or outright, exclusivity.

However, as the head of console A - the one who normalized the practice of timed exclusivity last gen - it is hypocritical to take potshots at console B for continuing the practice you started.  Especially when the only reason those potshots are taken is because you are no longer the one in the drivers seat.

Also, as a consumer of said content on a whole (video games, not just console specific pieces) it is hypocritical to say its ok to keep 100% of content (or to use your term the "product") away from people for X amount of time but not ok to keep 3% of content (from that same differentiated "product") away for X amount of time.

Might be a matter of perspective, but its not my statement that looks silly to me at all.  Quite the opposite actually.

So you not being able to play a game for a month or 6 but have access to play all parts of the game including any xtra items, maps, skins, DLC you name it is the same.  So what do you think is the worst case scenerio.  You having to wait to play a game or you get to play the game at the same time but there is content made by the developer you can never play unless you own console A.  The content is free on the other console but the developer decided to hold that content back from you because another company paid for it.

While a time exclusive does not help you as a gamer it does help the developer.  Since you are a consumer you care nothing about what helps the developer as the consumer you only care what makes you happy.  While a time exclusive is money in the developers pocket and afford them the luxury to pay the cost of development early and help their bottom line, its an inconvience to you as consumer because you cannot consume that product early.  I get your position but its really not the same.  Time exclusive still gives you as the consumer to play every part of the game including any content within the game compared to having content permantly kept from you because you have console B.

That right there is just riddled with assumptions.  I do care what helps the developer as a consumer because if they make more money they make more games.  They make more games I get more entertainment.

Let's look at Destiny as an example as it is currently probably the most egregious of the timed exclusivity models.  Does not being able to play one strike (optional content) or not being able to use one or two guns (not required in the campaign mode) and not having a specific look on the character make the game unplayable?  No?  Ok cool.  Now if cross play was a thing and those PS4 exclusive guns were able to be used in matches with XB1 players there would be a legit complaint, but it isn't right now.

Now let's look at RotTR as another example.  If I only own a PS4, does it not being available there for me because MS paid for exclusivity make the game unplayable (and thus the content unaccessible) for me?  Yes?  Ok cool.

But go ahead and finish proving your point.  Tell me a game that came out that a company had partial exclusivity on (content only) where that content was actually detrimental to the game and a player's ability to complete the story - or main portion - of the game.