By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chazore said:
DonFerrari said:

2) Sure, but didn't see you saying you were wrong on accusing to change topic.

3) I gone for the good to platform holders after you said good to no one without any caveats.

4) I don't buy any yearly game. And there is very few yearly titles, sports games, CoD, AC, what else? I also don't see what rushing games have to do with timed exclusives. You pointed that if they took more time developing game or if there wasn't new games every month no exclusivity would be necessary... makes zero sense.

2) wat?.

3)And this is where I disagree, because it's practically trying to excuse when one company does it over the others, which itself is overriding and citing that timed deals are factually better for everyone.

4) I don't buy into yearly games either, but making them as quickly as possible isn't a good thing. Things in life take time.

"As for sustainable, no, we don't have to have a AAA game out the wazoo every week or month. So they can take their time making them over the years, instead of getting the masses to think we can just churn them out like Activision does with every CoD iteration on a near yearly basis".

The model can be sustained without needing to rush your game and your budget to the ground. 


3) You seem to have some issue understanding.

You said no one benefited from it. I said platform holders and developer benefits, if they didn't they wouldn't do it. I didn't say that is good or not, you are distorting to try and come winning.

4) I have see no Sony game that is made as quick as possible, be them first party or timed exclusive (One could say about SF V, but that wasn't a Sony order) and considering the time of some MS reveals and delays I also don't see they pushing for quickly as possible... So which big 3 is pushing for this to be a negative?

I never said games have to be rushed, I said that crowd funding can't support all games, and publishers already exist so if the best option was to go timed exclusive them the alternatives you gave already don't cut it.



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."