under cover joke thread

Exclusives do not hurt the industry. They help increase console sales and they encourage competition. For example, why did Sega even bother creating Sonic the Hedgehog as well as the now-defunct Sega Technical Institute development team? It's because Nintendo had most of the exclusives as well as most of the general third party support. These games helped boost Genesis sales which brought more third party support to that platform which meant that Nintendo had to be more competitive. As a result, we got StarFox, Super Metroid, and Donkey Kong Country. As kids, we got better games because of exclusives.

As for the backlash against exclusives, before 7 or 8 years ago, I never heard anything like that before. Yes, it was a little frustrating when you had a game that looked good coming to a system you didn't own, but you also expected it. You had several choice. You could sell the system you currently own and by the competing system. Save your money and buy a second console, or just not play the game at all.

Besides, what would be the point in having three competing consoles if they all had the same games?

Too many logical mistakes in the OP.

Some of these exclusives wouldn't even be made without the help these console makers so its either you suck it up or have no game at all.

Because some folks are allergic to Nintendo.

Ahem. I don't think Kojima is exactly known for disliking Sony (I'm kind of trying to hint the opposite), and it's not a terrible business decision either to release a game exclusively on the most popular console platform that's only looking to grow its lead. My point is that it's not black and white.

There's a cure for that allergy!

Love.

The difference btween this and CDs deal with MS is the same difference it was btween the Bloodborne deal and CDs deal. Sony came in the project on its infancy and funded the whoe thing (on Bloodbornes case even landed workforce letting From use the facilitys and the personel of Japan Studios) while MS simple came with a truckload of money to buy exclusivity of a game that had no suport during its conseption. The way MS is dealling with Scalebound is the non jerky way to go about exclusive deals, the Tomb Raider deal is the complete jerky way of doing it on the other hand.

But thats besides the point, exclusivity deals arent bad, they drive the competition with is necessary for any business to suceed and result in some of the best games, if not the best games, each generation. Only in a dreamland wed have a scenario were no competition would result in better quality products.

If the OP wanted to be taken seriously he would the Kojima deal to Platinum deals.

Scalebound is a positive exclusive deal as the developer gets the necessary funding allowing them to create a game that needed the funding to exist.

Kojima new studio will need funding, and help/advice from friends. He's getting them all from Sony to help create his first game. Sony isn't buying his studio, he's free to do whatever he wants after the first titles. If it's a huge success, he'll have the money necessary to invest in what he wants. This is all a positive for the industry.

Tomb Raider is paying to restrict games. It's a game already in development, that would of existed regardless of the deal. To make things worse Microsoft/Xbox users sent the game to die. Not only did this restrict (harm) gamers. The result was only negative, and might lead to the death of a franchise.

One of these things is not like the other.

The IP doesn't even exists yet, its more like teh Titanfalls and Respawn