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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Titanfall exclusivity proved to be (quite) pointless

Aura7541 on 01 May 2014
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The reason why people respond negatively to MS is because they probably dont trust the source or mode of how MS gets their exclusives. With Sony and Nintendo you know you're getting a wealth of games from quite a few proven studios in their arsenal. With Nintendo, you know they are going outside of their territory because first party isnt their strong suit. Another reason is because they suck they pay to keep games away from their competition too many times. Its like it was just a few games, they get desperate and in the end its just bad for gamers all around. Of course Xbox only gamers will never admit this but there are some games that do need to be multiplat. Their companies need the profits.

Huh? The "source" or "mode" of how companies get exclusive games are all the same: need and money. Any of the big 3 need a game for their portfolio, they pay for it. And if the deals with any of the big 3 were bad, publishers wouldn't do them. Does EA HAVE to sign a deal with MS? No. Did thatgamecompany HAVE to sign a 3 game exclusive deal with Sony? No. Did Platinum HAVE to sign a deal with Nintendo? No.

The reason why people respond negatively to MS is because of agendas, plain and simple. No need to put lipstick on a pig.

J_Allard, there are different ways of getting exclusivity and some are more ethical than others. Sony has been known for being a "prove it" publisher via their indie policies. They've also gambled on a few games. MS wanted Quantic Dream to remove the child kidnapping entirely from Heavy Rain, but Sony gave Quantic Dream a chance and look what happened. Same with ThatGameCompany. MS didn't approve of their games, but Sony gave them a chance and the PS3 got fl0w, Flower, and Journey. MS, on the other hand, has been infamous for moneyhatting 3rd party games to make them exclusives. They are also infamous for having the smallest team of 1st party devs and much of the 1st party devs are unknown. 343 is no Bungie. People criticized Halo 4 for being a step down from Halo Reach and Halo 3. Rare has not recently made a non-Kinect game and who knows when they'll actually make one.

So ultimately, no. People respond negatively to MS because of distrust, not agendas. Therefore, I'm agreeing with S.T.A.G.E. on this one.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 01 May 2014
Aura7541 said:

J_Allard, there are different ways of getting exclusivity and some are more ethical than others. Sony has been known for being a "prove it" publisher via their indie policies. They've also gambled on a few games. MS wanted Quantic Dream to remove the child kidnapping entirely from Heavy Rain, but Sony gave Quantic Dream a chance and look what happened. Same with ThatGameCompany. MS didn't approve of their games, but Sony gave them a chance and the PS3 got fl0w, Flower, and Journey. MS, on the other hand, has been infamous for moneyhatting 3rd party games to make them exclusives. They are also infamous for having the smallest team of 1st party devs and much of the 1st party devs are unknown. 343 is no Bungie. People criticized Halo 4 for being a step down from Halo Reach and Halo 3. Rare has not recently made a non-Kinect game and who knows when they'll actually make one.

So ultimately, no. People respond negatively to MS because of distrust, not agendas. Therefore, I'm agreeing with S.T.A.G.E. on this one.

@Bolded:  Really.  Did people forget about Sony policies over the years and only looking at today.  Both Sony, MS and Nintendo have changed their policy over the years and only recently have they been this open.  If anything MS started the trend with the 360.  Sony wasn't all that open to indies until the PS4 and looking at first party releases for this year, it appears that there is a little more behind that move then love and happyness.

So you tell me what is the difference between paying for an exclusive then purchasing the company outright.  Which one is the more ethical.



Goatseye on 01 May 2014
Aura7541 said:
 

J_Allard, there are different ways of getting exclusivity and some are more ethical than others. Sony has been known for being a "prove it" publisher via their indie policies. They've also gambled on a few games. MS wanted Quantic Dream to remove the child kidnapping entirely from Heavy Rain, but Sony gave Quantic Dream a chance and look what happened. Same with ThatGameCompany. MS didn't approve of their games, but Sony gave them a chance and the PS3 got fl0w, Flower, and Journey. MS, on the other hand, has been infamous for moneyhatting 3rd party games to make them exclusives. They are also infamous for having the smallest team of 1st party devs and much of the 1st party devs are unknown. 343 is no Bungie. People criticized Halo 4 for being a step down from Halo Reach and Halo 3. Rare has not recently made a non-Kinect game and who knows when they'll actually make one.

So ultimately, no. People respond negatively to MS because of distrust, not agendas. Therefore, I'm agreeing with S.T.A.G.E. on this one.

Just people like you and STAGE that come up with fallacies like this.

Who is Quantic Dream? And their games are the ones you should be writing about being pointless compared with Titanfall. Interactive movies infested with QTEs...

Why didn't MS approve of ThaGameCompany games? Is there a disclosure to what they said in their meetings or you're just speculating?

And what's infamous about funding 3rd party games and make it exclusive?

People criticize 343 due to the multiplayer, because the campaign was epic with one of the most exciting chapter of the Halo saga.

Do you know why Rare made only Kinect games since 2010? Kinect Adventures and Sport outsold or equal all the Sony 1st party titles combined since then. Just those two games. Is that economically and logically compelling enough for a publisher?

Ultimately you guys agenda is not even hidden.

Plus how was Titanfall pointless when it drove up XBL activity and it moved consoles?



Aura7541 on 01 May 2014
Goatseye said:
Aura7541 said:
 

J_Allard, there are different ways of getting exclusivity and some are more ethical than others. Sony has been known for being a "prove it" publisher via their indie policies. They've also gambled on a few games. MS wanted Quantic Dream to remove the child kidnapping entirely from Heavy Rain, but Sony gave Quantic Dream a chance and look what happened. Same with ThatGameCompany. MS didn't approve of their games, but Sony gave them a chance and the PS3 got fl0w, Flower, and Journey. MS, on the other hand, has been infamous for moneyhatting 3rd party games to make them exclusives. They are also infamous for having the smallest team of 1st party devs and much of the 1st party devs are unknown. 343 is no Bungie. People criticized Halo 4 for being a step down from Halo Reach and Halo 3. Rare has not recently made a non-Kinect game and who knows when they'll actually make one.

So ultimately, no. People respond negatively to MS because of distrust, not agendas. Therefore, I'm agreeing with S.T.A.G.E. on this one.

Just people like you and STAGE that come up with fallacies like this.

Who is Quantic Dream? And their games are the ones you should be writing about being pointless compared with Titanfall. Interactive movies infested with QTEs...

Why didn't MS approve of ThaGameCompany games? Is there a disclosure to what they said in their meetings or you're just speculating?

And what's infamous about funding 3rd party games and make it exclusive?

People criticize 343 due to the multiplayer, because the campaign was epic with one of the most exciting chapter of the Halo saga.

Do you know why Rare made only Kinect games since 2010? Kinect Adventures and Sport outsold or equal all the Sony 1st party titles combined since then. Just those two games. Is that economically and logically compelling enough for a publisher?

Ultimately you guys agenda is not even hidden.

Plus how was Titanfall pointless when it drove up XBL activity and it moved consoles?

Ignorance and dissent won't make your arguments correct unless you're providing evidence. To summarize your comments into one sentence, you're basically saying "You're wrong because I said so." Yes, it's true that there are people have an agenda against MS.  However, to categorize everyone who criticize MS for what they do as having an anti-MS agenda is outright silly and instead, validates the opposite. From the replies I've seen, you, J_Allard, fallen, Mach, and others seem to have an agenda against people who disagree with MS's practices. I and other people call out MS on doing BS things because that is what they are: BS. Do not make such slippery slope generalizations.

I'm not obligated to answer your questions when you, yourself, can find answers to those you've presented. Like I said, ignorance and dissent won't make you right. Put yourself in shoes of other people who have differing opinions and perhaps you will understand. However, you did not because you did not want to so you lazilly dump all these questions on me. That is why I did not answer your question of how Titanfall is a generic shooter earlier.



Goatseye on 01 May 2014
Aura7541 said:

Ignorance and dissent won't make your arguments correct unless you're providing evidence. To summarize your comments into one sentence, you're basically saying "You're wrong because I said so." Yes, it's true that there are people have an agenda against MS.  However, to categorize everyone who criticize MS for what they do as having an anti-MS agenda is outright silly and instead, validates the opposite. From the replies I've seen, you, J_Allard, fallen, Mach, and others seem to have an agenda against people who disagree with MS's practices. I and other people call out MS on doing BS things because that is what they are: BS. Do not make such slippery slope generalizations.

I'm not obligated to answer your questions when you, yourself, can find answers to those you've presented. Like I said, ignorance and dissent won't make you right. Put yourself in shoes of other people who have differing opinions and perhaps you will understand. However, you did not because you did not want to so you lazilly dump all these questions on me. That is why I did not answer your question of how Titanfall is a generic shooter earlier.

I don't have time for soap opera man, have a good rest of the day.



Around the Network
tinfamous12 on 01 May 2014

Microsoft had the money and helped fund its development. So definitely not pointless, plus increased sales over 90% and sold over 1,000,000 on X1 alone.



S.T.A.G.E. on 01 May 2014
tinfamous12 said:
Microsoft had the money and helped fund its development. So definitely not pointless, plus increased sales over 90% and sold over 1,000,000 on X1 alone.


 So where was EA in this whole situation?



Machiavellian on 01 May 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
tinfamous12 said:
Microsoft had the money and helped fund its development. So definitely not pointless, plus increased sales over 90% and sold over 1,000,000 on X1 alone.


 So where was EA in this whole situation?

In MS back pocket of course.



S.T.A.G.E. on 01 May 2014
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
fallen said:
Why is it always looked at as "bad" when Microsoft has an exclusive, and it's always harped on how they "bought it" as if it's somehow wrong or anti-consumer choice...

But whenever PS3 or PS4 have an exclusive, it's considered great, it's never acted as if Sony paid for it (even though they did), it's just like they must have donated it out of the goodness of their hearts, or because Sony is just so great, or because the Xbox One/Xbox 360 hardware sucks, etc etc.

I mean the last great example I can think of is I guess MGS4. Nobody hated that game because it was exclusive, it wasn't acted as if it was bad or Sony paid for it (but they did), it wasn't acted as if Sony was being anti-consumer, no it was looked on as wonderful.

Hell people practically cried themselves to death when it was announced FF13 WASNT PS3 exclusive, remember that? Further proving the double standard.

Anyways to the point. I feel like TF HAS boosted Xbox a lot, it's been bundled a lot, it's sold pretty well, it's probably sold a good amount of hardware. and it seems like a pretty fun game that a lot are enjoying. That's a success in my book. If you think software will ever beat hardware or price, you're just wrong. That's never happened in gaming history. So if you expected TF to suddenly make X1 sell better than PS4 despite costing $100 more, you were just wrong. But it helped and raised the X1 profile a lot. It probably outsold Infamous SS heavily as well (we know it was about 2:1 in the USA and UK).

Also just as a practical matter, MS had to have SOMETHING big for Spring 2014;. Sony had Infamous. MS had TF. Whether it was a 3rd party exclusive or a first party game doesn't really matter, just that each side had it's exclusive.

Also I'm sure it's been mentioned a lot, but didn't the documentary say TF was going to be canceled if Ms didn't fund it or whatever? TF wouldn't exist if MS didn't rescue it.

The reason why people respond negatively to MS is because they probably dont trust the source or mode of how MS gets their exclusives. With Sony and Nintendo you know you're getting a wealth of games from quite a few proven studios in their arsenal. With Nintendo, you know they are going outside of their territory because first party isnt their strong suit. Another reason is because they suck they pay to keep games away from their competition too many times. Its like it was just a few games, they get desperate and in the end its just bad for gamers all around. Of course Xbox only gamers will never admit this but there are some games that do need to be multiplat. Their companies need the profits.

Huh? The "source" or "mode" of how companies get exclusive games are all the same: need and money. Any of the big 3 need a game for their portfolio, they pay for it. And if the deals with any of the big 3 were bad, publishers wouldn't do them. Does EA HAVE to sign a deal with MS? No. Did thatgamecompany HAVE to sign a 3 game exclusive deal with Sony? No. Did Platinum HAVE to sign a deal with Nintendo? No.

The reason why people respond negatively to MS is because of agendas, plain and simple. No need to put lipstick on a pig.


Um....MS getting grilled by the gaming press for not developing enough first party isn't exactly something to overlook. There is no agenda, my friend.



S.T.A.G.E. on 01 May 2014
Machiavellian said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
tinfamous12 said:
Microsoft had the money and helped fund its development. So definitely not pointless, plus increased sales over 90% and sold over 1,000,000 on X1 alone.


 So where was EA in this whole situation?

In MS back pocket of course.

..and what a scary world it is for the industry when those two put their brilliant heads together. Their mentalities are the perfect marriage outside of Activision.