Chazore said:
Holding it doesn't really benefit anyone, not even the company that made the game. Sure with temp exclusivity contracts, the game producer gets a limited sack of cash, but that is always going to be a defined supply, which will likely be outdone by the sales of other platforms combined at the end of the day. The thing is, those companies really shouldn't be pulling temp exclusivity deals at all these days. It's just not healthy and it creates discordance between user bases and their desire to support those games. Whenever I see a timed exclusive deal, I feel like I want to support that company in the least way possible (like a deep discount sale for example). That's one effect that deal can have on some folk out there. I don't think any side should ever be allowed to pull and get away with timed deals. Not for the winner of the gen, not for the loser or middle man either. |
The only one that could possibly win from the timed exclusivity is the platform holder... and if a new IP or one that needed help to fund... all else is basically a loss.

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."







