Chazore said:
You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from. |
I don't see how those are the same at all. With crowdfunded games you have gamers fund the games and in return get the finished game plus any optional bonuses. They don't pay for exclusivity and the developers are free to put the game wherever they want (they may or may not get into trouble if they promise to put the game on a specific platform and then fail to deliver). They pay for a copy of the game, not the rights to it.
When a company like Nintendo funds a game they're not doing so because they merely want to play it. For them it's an investment, they want more in return than a copy of the finished product, and there most likely will be some kind of exclusivity deal involved because you don't want the developers to put the game you just invested in on your competitors platform(s).
Making the sequels exclusives might be seen as backwards thinking (though that kind of thing happens quite a lot) if you completely ignore the part where SEGA cancels Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo steps in with a bag of money.
