Machiavellian said:
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. |
So explain to me how paying for a 1 year full content exclusivity making the game sell less help the developer more than a small portion of the game being exclusive for life and not making it sell less but getting extra money.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







