Xbox |OT|

[Ryuu96]

Spade said:

EspadaGrim said:

Funny to still see people saying that MS are hypocrites when it comes to arguing against 3rd party timed exclusives because "They do it too", If this subject was to go to an Anti-trust review what do you think is going to hold more weight? Sony paying Billion Dollar Publishers to keep AAA games off of Xbox for a timed period many of which are big franchises or MS making deals for small games many of the which are self published like Tunic, Scorn, High on Life, The Medium.

You would have to go back all the way to Rise of the Tomb Raider to even find anything comparable to what Sony has been normalizing for years now and if people want to bring up Stalker 2 as AAA example note that the game as of now is Self Published and the Stalker franchise has no history on consoles so how can you compare it to the likes of Final Fantasy, Star Wars, Metal Gear or Silent Hill?

Plus isn't Stalker confirmed like 6 month timed deal? Where's FF 7? Oh right Sony has to pay to keep the game off of Xbox when they have a 95/5 dominance over xbox. Seems Sony is a little scared? 

Stalker 2 is three months.

It was only revealed due to the Epic court case.

I'll say what I said earlier, all companies should be forced to state how long their timed exclusivities are for and when/if future platforms are planned and what those future platforms are and the maximum someone should be allowed to money-hat something should be 1 year.

That focuses on giving consumers the best possible knowledge on a situation to make their own decisions rather than keeping them in the dark. This would be a pro-consumer move rather than a pro-corporation move Imo.

Moneyhats could still happen for smaller titles and bigger titles but the key thing is we'd have transparency rather than this vague shit right now. Cause Tbh...Moneyhats are never being blocked outright, it'd just be too complicated and messy.