By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
chakkra on 30 August 2020
Edit Thread
GamingRabbit said:
chakkra said:

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Sometimes developers simply do not have the resources to develop a game for multiple platforms and they have to choose just one, and many of those times they actually reach out to publishers for funds. If either Sony, MS or Nintendo fund the development of a game, of course they're going to require exclusivity of the game. Why wouldn't they?

You took it too literal.

Those are some pretty extreme cases you described and yes, in those it is justifyable to have it exclusive to whatever platform.

But I'm not talking about those.

I am talking about these games where the developer has sufficient resources to provide a version for all systems where it makes financial sense.

Not giving system xy a version, even though they would have no problem in doing so just because company ab gave them a pile of money is

reprehensible and should never be accepted.

So no purchased exclusivity, be it forever or limited in time. If a developer is able to release a game on many systems they should.

I edited my post to make it clearer what I mean.

I understand your point better now, but sadly I will still have to disagree. I mean, I know it is distasteful to us as consumers but at the end of the day, it is their property and it is their work; they get to choose where to put it and when to put it. All we can do as consumers is vote with our wallets and voice our opinions on the matter, but ultimately they have the right to do as they please with their property.