By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 04 October 2017
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

First Phil said he was not in favor of doing deals that permanately locks content away from other systems.  As been hashed out previously people seem to have their own interpretation of what the term CONTENT means.  He never said he did not favor making publishing agreement with 3rd party companies since he has done that for multiple projects not just PUG.

As I stated in my post, Many have made reference to his comments and either called him a liar, hypocritical or both based on his tweets and statements.  Even the OG of this post made reference to those comments.  

What is interesting is that this is any news.  We know MS makes exclusive contracts with 3rd party developers just like Sony and Nintendo.  People believe that this is something new that MS may be in talks extending their publishing agreement with a client especially if the agreement is only for 3 months.  Really, if you are going to make an agreement to have a game exclusive on your system for a period of time 3 months seems like nothing.  People forget that MS is the publisher for this game on the Xbox system.  Meaning that they are probably funding development for the X1 version as well as marketing and other auxiliary items.

The same people condemning MS for making a publishing agreement for the game on the X1 are the same ones who would have praised Sony for doing the same thing since they are also in talks to get the game on their system.  Also how does this not benefit the Xbox ecosystem.  If Sony gets 3rd party exclusives on their console whether they fund them or just because they are Japanese company its all good because they are looking to extend the games on their system.  When MS does the exact same thing, they are desperate.  All the major players look to get successful games on their platform whether 3rd, 1st or 2nd.  It just seems only Sony gets a pass when they do the same thing and everyone else is just greedy.

Please explain to me how is it worse to keep a skin locked away from a game forever than a full game locked away for 1 year.

Sorry but I'm not one of those people. I don't care about this game and mostly buy Sony 1st party so this practice is neutral to me. I am only pointing out that Phill have a big mouth but is a hypocrite. Show me where is the investiment in first party, showing games only when they are about to release and not locking away content in any way instead of being an appologist to someone that make millions on salary to be a hypocrite.

And you can't see a difference on desperation when Sony is selling 2x LTD, 3 or 4x weekly and a game get released exclusively with sony putting zero money on the game and MS looking into extending exclusivity after the developer said they are looking to release the game on the competitor?

You still get to play the game one year later, you will never get to use that skin, play that map, use that strike etc.  Its content you never get to ever experience and if you were a Xbox only gamer, the developer locked you out of content permantely and you will always wonder what you missed.  

In the situation of Tomb Raider, I actually did wait to play it on the Playstation instead of purchasing it for the X1 even though I have an X1.  Since I was going through my backlog, by the time I was ready to play the game, it was out on the PS system so purchase the game on the system it played the best on.  The difference here for me is that I had the option.

No, I do not see the desperation.  The reason why because no matter how much Sony or MS is selling consoles, this deal probably would still get done.  Let's just take this article as an example.  It says Sony is in talks to get PUBG on the Sony system.  If Sony was doing so great and developers are just creaming themselves to get their games on their system, why would Sony even need to be in talks to get the game on the PS.  Why isn't Sony always the first choice for any game to be on their system.  The reason is because no matter the installbase or who is selling the most, all players are going to try to get the best games on their system no matter what.  If MS was smart enough to reach out to Blue before Sony, then its smart business.  If Sony was smart to get the deal in place first I would be saying smart on them.  Also it would be smart business for MS to halt all talks about another system until they reap the benefit first.  Why even play the game if you lose marketing if the other company is playing the field.  After your exclusive deal is over, then let the company make and talk to anyone they want.  If anything MS should have learned this leasson from Tomb Raider.