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

It literally says "hypothetical" 

Also if a company invests into the development, sure, no issues being exclusives, if a company slides a $50 to keep a game off competition consoles, thats taking a short cut. Thats my point. Use the money to create or buy more studios to build a 1st party empire instead of hurting the competition by taking away games form other platforms. 

O_O................ that in no way is a coherent response to what I said. 

We know these deals are generally beneficial to third party devs or else they would not be pursuing them. So in a hypothetical world without third party exclusives they would be worse off. 

What you said after the also makes no sense either, but I'm only going to address one bad point at a time.

There are plenty of 3rd party games that don't have exclusive deals. Thats how it should be. The developers have a better chance of selling more copies making more profit just as much as receiving a payout to keep games off other platforms. Its anti competitive when companies have to pay to stop games releasing. If console manufacturers want to compete for the customers money, do it via 1st party games.