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

Forums - Microsoft - Titanfall designer on Xbox exclusivity: "Microsoft is like the Apple of videogames"

Figgycal on 19 August 2013

It's a sad day when people can't tell between PR bullshit and reality.

Respawn doesn't get to choose what consoles their games get released on. That power belongs to EA. EA is a pretty successful business that knows that there's more money to be made if the games are released on more than one platform.... that is... unless more money would be made if that game were to only be released on one platform. (I'm using their definition of 1 platform: 360, PC One).

Let's consider the possibilities.
1. EA hates money... (that can't be right)
2.EA had no faith that their games would sell on PS3 or PS4 (a quick look at the sales of other EA games on PS3 shows otherwise).
3. The power of the cloud makes the game only possible on the Xbox One.... and PC..... and 360 (do you see the hole in this one?)
4. EA/ PS don't support dedicated servers (getting warmer)
or
5. They were paid by Microsoft for exclusivity

Next I suppose that COD: Ghost map packs are coming to xbox platforms first because of the cloud. Or Dead Rising is only playable with smartglass functionality. And that COD: Ghost and Assassin's Creed would fully utilize cloud computing right...? I mean it would only make sense that every game would use cloud computing rather than just the exclusives right?




Around the Network
Subie_Greg on 19 August 2013
Lulz said:
the-pi-guy said:
errorpwns said:
Subie_Greg said:
I prefer truth. Microsoft paid. It's easy to say and understand. It's no different than COD or BF... other than Titan Fall not being as big a franchise as those 2 are.


Basically what I hear from you is "Titanfall isn't on the PS4 SO MICROSOFT HAD TO HAVE PAID!" I'm sorry, but I bet if it was a PS4 exclusive you wouldn't even consider for a moment Sony paid. I don't even have interest in Titanfall or the Xbox One. Actually my next home console will be a PS4, but come on seriously? How biased do you have to get?

MS has a history of buying exclusivity, and Sony doesn't have any money. They are selling buildings just to stay in black.  

When a company doesn't give a reasonable answer when it comes to why it's exclusive, it's because they're being paid.  There is no reason at all, outside of being paid, for Titanfall to be exclusive.  

It has nothing to do with him being biased.  


Oh poor Sony. They don't have any monies!!! 

Any company that makes an exclusive for a console is being paid by that console maker. It's not like devs make games for Microsoft because MS pays them while Sony is somehow getting devs to make exclusives for their console because they're just really really nice guys that deserve to have exclusive given to them for free.

There is no reason for any game to be exclusive aside from money being paid. Period.

It's hilarious how people act like MS is doing something wrong just because they actually have money, and Sony gets a pass because they are almost in finacial ruin. 

 

I ain't saying it's wrong. Not at all. Business is business

I am simply saying it's a money thing. Anyone thinking this is about dedi servers or cloud computing is being silly. It's about the money. Don't feel sorry for Sony or think it's shitty of Microsoft 



S.T.A.G.E. on 19 August 2013
J_Allard said:
LOL this place is awesome to read sometimes.

Sony has a bunch of timed exclusive games on stage at their E3 conference, the response is wow, Sony awesome at supporting games. Sony moneyhats fir a game like Journey, no problem.

MS does those things and everyone starts crying. Never change, VGC.


What timed exclusives?



S.T.A.G.E. on 19 August 2013
Nsanity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Nsanity said:
I don't know why people are only complaining about Microsoft money hatting, because Sony and Nintendo are doing the exact same thing.


They moneyhat just not as much as Microsoft.

It's still money hatting:

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/06/11/e3-2013-assassins-creed-iv-watch-dogs-get-exclusive-ps3-ps4-content

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/412547/grand-theft-auto-5-exclusive-ps3-bundle-announced/

http://www.psu.com/a020417/Batman--Arkham-Origins-Collectors-Edition-has-PS3-exclusive-content?page=0


Dude....are you kidding me? I thought you were talking about moneyhatting timed exclusivity or exclusivity for full games not little things or bundles.



jacks81x on 19 August 2013

There's no point in arguing because no one here really knows what went on behind the scenes. Maybe MS paid for the exclusivity. Maybe they didn't. If I have have to bet my life on it, I would guess that it is more likely that they did as opposed to Respawn genuinely wanting to just release on the MS platforms, but at the end of the day, who really cares how they secured exclusivity to the game?



Around the Network
wick on 19 August 2013

I know a lot of people are angry at Microsoft lately, myself included, but to compare them to Apple is a bit harsh.

They don't just make shiny rubbish and overcharge the masses.



 

 

        Wii FC: 6440 8298 7583 0720   XBOX GT: WICK1978               PSN: its_the_wick   3DS: 1676-3747-7846                                          Nintendo Network: its-the-wick

Systems I've owned: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, GBColor, N64, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, GBAdvance, DSlite, PSP, Wii, Xbox360, PS3, 3DS, PSVita, PS4, 3DS XL, Wii U

The best quote I've seen this year:

Angelus said: I'm a moron
Puppyroach on 19 August 2013
badgenome said:
Puppyroach said:

Why must plattform mean only one console? I agree they only do it because they got the most cash (and probably support) from MS, but you seem to think it in some way is offensive calling a game an XBox exclusive when it is coming out for several consoles/PC when is is, in reality, an XBox excluive.

Because when everyone wants to know why they're skipping the Playstation they claim that it's because they are only large enough to focus on one platform? Not one "brand", but one platform. Tell lies is bad, and telling stupid lies is even worse.


Well, they aren´t making the game for X360, that one is outsourced. And as other developers have already said, the process of converting a game from X1/PS4 to PC is a lot easier than in the past, so it seems quite plausible that their explanation (along with a big pile of cash from MS) is the right one.

And why is it so bad if they received a lot of money and also felt that MS had the best offerings in terms of server support (an area in which they are world leaders). What lie have they told you or do you honestly believe that money was the only driving force behind this?I still get the feeling that this is just an argument for you to bring up how terrible it is to call a game XBox exclusive.



badgenome on 19 August 2013
Puppyroach said:

do you honestly believe that money was the only driving force behind this?

Yes. There is a 0% chance that an EA published game is exclusive for any reason other than money. The figure being bandied about is $50 million, and all talk about dedicated servers or the cloud or "waaah, waaah, our studio is too small" is, to put it politely, fucking horseshit.



J_Allard on 19 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
J_Allard said:
LOL this place is awesome to read sometimes.

Sony has a bunch of timed exclusive games on stage at their E3 conference, the response is wow, Sony awesome at supporting games. Sony moneyhats fir a game like Journey, no problem.

MS does those things and everyone starts crying. Never change, VGC.


What timed exclusives?

They showcased 8 downloadable titles debuting first on PS4.



badgenome on 19 August 2013
J_Allard said:

They showcased 8 downloadable titles debuting first on PS4.

Oh, man. I bet Galak-Z cost them a pretty penny!

I'm sure that couldn't have anything to do with Sony giving the option to self publish when Microsoft doesn't.