Microsoft Is Trying to Keep PUBG Off PS4 for Longer

[DonFerrari]

Ganoncrotch said:

AlfredoTurkey said:

Yeah... like this hasn't been going on since the late 70's. Buying exclusive games is as old as the hills.

Oh yeah, think the OP is just making a point of this coming off the tails of Phil Spencer at this interview

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-12-the-big-interview-xbox-boss-phil-spencer

Most notably : I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play.I don't think it's good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal.

So yeah, no one really would be shocked about a third party game being wrapped up in the guise of wanting to be on a system if it wasn't for the fact that big Phil said he wasn't a fan of such moves to stop games appearing on other machines.

We have sony Xbox fans here in the community saying it's worse to keep a skin locked forever than a full game locked a year...

Soundwave said:

RJ_Sizzle said:

Actually, it's even older than that for consoles. Before Nintendo threw their hats in the ring, exclusives weren't locked to a platform. Nintendo games themselves were appearing on many platforms. Cue, the NES. Nintendo started locking down devs and publishers left and right. And they were highly restricted as to how they were able to distribute games. Third parties were allowed only so many carts and could publish only five games a year, so companies that developed for the platform had to create shell companies to get around Nintendo's anti-competitive measures. 

Which is crazy, since they were competing not only against rival console makers, but their third parties as well. Soooo, if we REALLY want to get into who was starting these corporate lockdowns on console, we can start with the big N and ol' Hiroshi Yamauchi himself.

The situation with the NES is different because Nintendo wanted control over the content on their machine due to Atari crashing the market with waves of crappy games. Nintendo never "bid" on third party exclusives on the NES or offered money for like Megaman 2 exclusivity for 3-6 months or actively worked to pressure developers to keep games off other systems. 

And as stated Nintendo did not put a lockout chip in the Super NES, developers were free after the NES era to make games on whatever system they wanted.

Sorry to burst your bubble again... Nintendo FORBADE the company to releasing games on the competitors, ANY game... so it was MUCH worse. They didn't offer money, they blackmailed devs. And yet people today have harsh criticism towards the 3rd parties not being Nintendo best friend.