Thay're released only when the time is right
| GamerOhaLAA said: I was talking to a buddy of mine about this issue earlier. I think that Microsoft should build first party developement to make REAL exclusive games than having timed exclusives. It is a good strategy to have timed exclusives, but it sucks when you hear that a game that was so called exclusive to your fave console goes to the rival one. I hate that about MS. They say Netflix, GTA Episodes, Bioshock, lost planet and so on are for Xbox ONLY and then a year later, they shrug their shoulders. They should just say its timed from the start. |
This.
They bold face lie to their customers and like idiots we keep believing the same bullshit over and over. Who knows what great IP's MS could have come up with if they hadn't wasted so much money on having exclusivity for a year. To me, timed exclusivity is the scourge of the video game industry.
My thoughts: Microsoft has to settle for timed exclusivity because 3rd parties want to put their games on the Sony platform, but Microsoft has no real 1st party to really support them otherwise. So they have to give out the $$$ to make it seem like the 360 is that much better than the PS3. It's a rouse, I tell ya
| Hisiru said: First of: NO TROLLS OR HATERS HERE. Let's discuss with good arguments. My arguments: 1) Microsoft is trying to build recognition and userbase. Sony and Nintendo are 2 strong and experienced companies, Microsoft really needs to build an userbase.
2) Some people will buy a x360 because it has timed exclusives. There are some people who won't wait 9 months to play a game. (you like it or not, 5~10 months is too much for some people), so it's just business.
3) Timed exclusives like Episodes from Liberty City will make people look at Microsoft thinking "woow, GTA was a playstation franchise and now Microsoft has the game first, they really have more significance in this market now, they are growing.". Who is really trying to look at this situation using the logical side will realize that Microsoft is doing a good job and has more significance in this industry than ever before (that's why I think that timed exclusives are important).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the end of the day, this is just business. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are no different, they aren't here to make you feel happy, they are here to make money. Don't be fooled, Sony and Nintendo aren't your best friends, they want money.
You don't like timed exclusives, right? I could say that I hate when Sony buys a company (or finances the development of a game just for the exclusivity) because this company could make multiplatform games, so everyone would be able to enjoy the games. I could say that I hate when Nintendo focuses too much on the casual market (actually, I don't care, I like Wii Sports, but I am just giving you an example).
Am I wrong? Do you have a different opinion? Discuss! (but please, no trolls or haters here)
|
Also, actually, most of the games Sony "finances" wouldn't even get past the drawing board without such financing. Look at the few 2nd party games Microsoft has. Do you really think they would have funded something like LBP?
The market is already flooded with too many IP's, investing money in the creation of new ones seems foolish compared to working out contracts with existing quality IP's.
Everyone knows its just business.
The line in the sand that youre not mentioneing is how they claim its "exclusive" when they damn well know its not and people who would be willing to wait for shitty DLC or have enough games to play for 10 months dont know any better until all of a sudden its not exclusive.
Its obviously business, this thread contains no new logic or revalations and completely ignores the main complaint against MSFT for doing it. If its exclusive fine, we need to make our buying decisions based on content, but dont tell me its exclusive and then push it out on my console in a year after i buy your console.
Well MS are winning more market share while Sony are heavily loosing theirs, Microsoft has been far more successful than Sony this gen even if the PS3 eventually outsells the 360. So they are obviously doing something right.
| Fumanchu said: I think for anyone to be even the slightest bit upset they are too pre-occupied being fans of a console than being fans of a game. |
^^This.
Essentially, MS has a better business plan. It's a plan involving less risk, and it's working well for them. As someone else said, if you think a company cares about you, then you are kidding yourself. Well, better put, Sony/MS/Ninty only care about you to give them money. Any kind of 'customer service' these companies do is to, in the end, get more of your (or someone else's) money. They do not want to 'make you happy'. Customer service should be renamed 'Damage Control' since that's all it really is.
The 'MS has a better business plan' is really just my opinion though. Who knows how things will turn out in the end. It's almost funny how people are saying "I wish MS would force me to buy their console instead of forcing me to be patient".
I feel I should say my favorite platform is the PC, even if it seems to be a dying (but it won't completely die of course (hopefully)) gaming platform.
it's business, dirty business but business.
"2 store open across the street, one family owned, the other a big corporate comglomerate.
big company pays providers to sell delay supply on competition, so they can't sell, or have to pay more and forced out of business.
business, maybe, still find it dirty."
and it wouldn't make sense if microsoft had the first party to supply their own console
the thing is competition isn't small and both sony and nintendo have huge first party.
ameratsu said:
1) There is nothing wrong with building recognition and a userbase. Putting a "Only on Xbox" logo on the box of a game that is exclusive for a brief period of time is misleading and dishonest. Their aim in buying up exclusives for a certain period is a sort of temporary differentiation. Nintendo and Sony spend money funding their own IPs and first party studios to produce games that will never leave their platforms. Microsoft does this as well, but in buying temporary exclusivity their aim is not to create compelling exclusive content, but the illusion that they are the only place to play that content. 2) Saying it's "just business" is such a copout. Microsoft doesn't do this to benefit their existing customers, but rather to deprive others of it or create artificial differentiation between them and the competition. Someone who already owns an x360 gains no benefit from a game not appearing on ps3, pc or wii. Like I said above, instead of funding or otherwise ensuring games that will never leave the platform, they want those without a system to think timed exclusive games are actual exclusive games. Microsoft is deliberately decieving those looking to buy a console and who want to HONESTLY compare what is available / what will be available for the console. It's absolutely an anti-consumer tactic. 3) I won't argue that Microsoft has more significance in the industry than before, but how you tie this point to timed exclusives is haphazard at best. Please clarify. 4) Of course businesses are here to make money. While their motive is profit, I would say Sony is doing a better job of securing actual exclusive content and listening to their customers. Microsoft entered this generation a year early in an attempt to beat competitors to the punch, cutting corners in hardware design in the process. That was a "business" decision but it doesn't mean that those who experience RROD or who are wary of unreliable hardware have to put up with it because Microsoft is out to make money. Same goes for Sony cutting ps2 playback in the ps3. 5) When Sony (or whoever) buys a company, they are actually funding and taking a risk in creating new games and content. While Microsoft did (I think) fund the GTA DLC, the focus with buying companies or funding new games is to produce original content that differentiates one system from another. Microsoft tries to sidestep this with timed exclusives. Of course to the casual observer this sort of thing is fair game, and it works. Someone who wants to buy a system compares what is available for each system, and buys the console with the most features/games/whatever they're looking for. Since at any given time Microsoft has a number of games that appear to be exclusive, there is a benefit they get from it. Doesn't mean I have to like it or defend their actions. edit: I think I fixed the formatting now. |
1. So what if MS wants to build themselves as a gaming platform instead of a developer? Is there really something wrong with that? I think it's better that way, keep things seperate. All of those Sony companies can only make for Sony's platform. This is a little extreme, but what if everything were 1st party? Would that be a better situation to you?
2. Why is that a copout? They're all businesses. At the end of the day they have to be profitable, whatever they do to do it, that's all that matters to them. Otherwise, the company (or at least a division of that company) will cease to be. They don't compete over how many customers they have, or who is the 'nicer' business to deal with. It's all about the money.
3. I think the OP's idea is interesting; I don't think it's that 'haphazard'.
4. And rushing development was a mistake. They know that, they have acknowledged that. How long until you forget about that? 10 years? 50? They've fixed RRoD in their newer consoles, and they extended their warranty to cover for their past consoles. I think that's as much as any company should do.
5. Why should a platform developer take that kind of risk? Is that some kind of strange requirement in your head for a good gaming platform company? There are already SOOOO many games out there, too many to fully play all of them, and you want MORE made? Not to mention, I'm not a big fan of Sony's first party. Uncharted 1 and 2 are essentially just 2 $60 movies with mediocre gunplay, and good platforming, if a bit simple/easy. How long has GT5 been in the making?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like MS any more than I like Sony (they're equal in my book), but I think MS has a stronger/better business plan.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
