NieR: Automata coming to Xbox One on June 26

[DonFerrari]

Chazore said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

2)Yes, the way you type your sentences. They appear broken and misused.

3)I see we're playing the most obvious game of cat and mouse and the object is "I gotta win this argument". I'm not playing that game. I don't care for the retort that's to follow from the previous sentence either. This isn't about winning, so let's eject that from the anal system now, before things do get ugly.

4) I wasn't talking about Sony though. Not sure why you brought just them up for a year round production cycle. That's why I said Activision, because they are known for this, and Ubisoft can be added to that list as well.

See, that question is begging for a different kind of answer, and that answer will then be used as an excuse for timed exclusivity. 

Crowd funding cannot support all games, well neither can the big 3, otherwise we'd have everyone under their thumb and roof and clearly we aren't seeing that. Sustainability relies on a lot of factors, not just one of the big 3. We've seen games come and go, delayed and cancelled, rushed and put to the side.

I like how you basically put all other possible venues (which means not just crowd funding) and slapped timed exclusivity as being obnjectively better.

I'm not going to continue this obvious back and forth "I gotta win this shit" debate. I know that timed exclusivity does not benefit the consumer, sales wise it doesn't benefit the game producer, certainly not with numbers that aren't combined and not including long tail sales from all those combined.

I honestly and quite frankly do not care for any reasoning or illogical factors being brought forth to excuse the abuse of timed exclusivity, to go against the consumer, and hinder the game producer, the game itself and generally the possibility of getting a sequel. It's not okay when one person does it subjectively "right", it's not good when anyone does it. 

 

4)

If you weren't talking about Sony, MS or Nintendo on the push for 1 year I fail to see how they financing a game can mean pushing a short dev cycle. Activision and Ubisoft are 3rd party MP devs.

Sure we can't count only on big3... that is why we have, independent, publishers, crowd funding, major devs AND big3. If they gone for big3 support is probably because that was their best option.

I have never put timed exclusivity as better, that is you assuming again. I said that sometimes it may have been the only or better option for that specific game. Go back on this convo and see that I disagreed that timed exclusivity is always bad and said they are always potentially bad, but to be sure we need to confirm that each case.

If you want to forfeit the discussion, as you made on some of your points but tried to hide it, be my guest. But again, devs aren't stupid, if they accept the timed exclusivity is because they though it was the best option for them. As gamers probably it always is worse for us, but in cases a game wouldn't come forward without it, then we can't say it's the worse.

 

Moderated - think-man

Last edited by think-man - on 12 June 2018