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

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer criticizes buying exclusive content/DLC

BMaker11 on 22 December 2016
jason1637 said:
BMaker11 said:

Like I said, we have nothing but speculation regarding RotTR when it was announced, but all the signs point to it being multiplatform. Not under "blockbuster exclusives" on the Xbox site, but instead, coupled with multiplatform games. No "play it first on Xbox" at the end of the trailer, when they did it for all exclusive games, timed or permanent. 

Then, it was announced at Gamescom 2014 (not at a Square conference), 2 months after E3, that it was an Xbox exclusive. Proof

Then, it was clarified after the fact that the exclusivity "has a duration". Proof

Exclusivity doesn't get announced after the fact like that unless either A. a deal was recently made or B. the other platform's version is cancelled.

It was announced just a bit over their month after their E3 http://press.na.square-enix.com/releases/492/square-enix-annnounces-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-destined-for-windows-10 Forbes said it was announced at Square conference which was wrong my bad.

Also Square said the deal was made based on how MS supported Tomb Raider DE so it would also make sense the deal was made before Phill became head.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/5/9104411/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-microsoft-support-square-enix

Umm.....that first article you linked is from 2015. Rise was announced in 2014 (your second link even says that). The press release was when a PS4 release was finally confirmed. And the deal with Microsoft was made because MS approached them because they wanted something "of the quality of Uncharted, which we don't have" or however Spencer said it. At least, that's what I understand when I ignore the spin.

First off, was it how they supported the Definitive Edition or the original release? The article says the original release, so you're giving a conflicting message. Secondly, it sold overwhelmingly better on PS3 and PS4. You think they ignored that, especially when the game had millions of sales but was still considered a "failure" up to a certain point? Because Microsoft was "supportive", SE jumped ship and went exclusive when they have extremely lofty aspirations for the game? That doesn't make sense. 



Around the Network
bunchanumbers on 22 December 2016
ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
@bananaking21, can't u read he is talking about about dlc content and u bring up a full game. If u Wana play that game , how about street fighter 5, I can name some more if u want.
But if shu said this u would not have a Damn problem with it right . Because it's a sony person saying , that's a fact....

QFT. QFT.

As long as it fills the MS is bad narrative then its ok but its always glossed over when it comes to Sony. Look at Destiny. Xbox owners have to wait a year for DLC. How ridiculous is that?



RidingMower on 22 December 2016
jason1637 said:

1. PS4 doesn't have BC so adding BC to the Fallout 4 version isn't anti-consumer.

2. Mods weren't ready on PS4. Bethesda even delayed PS4 Mods and then Sony said no Mods until they only made it internal.

Inside - The platformer game by playdead that also made Limbo.

We Happy Few - Another timed exclusive



REDZONE on 22 December 2016

Funny people say MS hasn't payed for any dlc,yet Fifa has the legends pack exclusively on xbox.Talk about convenient memory.http://fifa17news.com/fifa-17-legends-debate-xbox-vs-ps4/



LudicrousSpeed on 22 December 2016

Papa Phil FTW. Can always count on him to tell it like it is :)

RidingMower said:
jason1637 said:

FIFA doesn't have exclusive Xbox content. The Division was announced to have Xbox early content E3 2013 before he took charge.


"Fallout 4 will let Xbox One owners in on the fun. Mods created can be shared and played for no additional charge on XB1. The implication seems to be that you can't design mods on Xbox One but even getting access to others' creations is a huge boon for Xbox."

This ones from the time of Phil.  

Bethesda should have included a worthless code for a nonexistent copy of Fallout 3 utilizing PS4's nonexistent backwards compatibility.

That's like saying any game with PSVR bonus content is some Sony moneyhat because the Xbone version didn't get it lol.

Thread has been a great read. Papa Phil always delivers.



Around the Network
Jazz2K on 22 December 2016
TheGreatOther said:
Jazz2K said:

I'm sorry but history teaches us that MS didn't start that trend at all. Other companies have payed devs to keep games from appearing on other consoles.

Imo we all have a voice and instead of using it to make gaming better we use it to hate on each other. Phil is right and we all should make companies know that this needs to stop. Keeping Titanfall, Tomb Raider etc from Playstation frustrated Sony fans as much as keeping Street Fighter V, Destiny first year DLC etc pissed MS fans. He's right and gaming is not growing with these practices. I can't wait until gaming is a service and we just pay to play the games we want on whatever device we have.

Yes exclsuivity deals existed before last gen, but last gen was when they really became a huge part of games and MS lead the charge for that.

It's easy to pretend you're for the gamers when you have no choice since your higher ups won't give you the money to buy these deals, but we already seen where you really stand when you had the power to buy them.

You can see the same thing happening with MS pushing for cross platform play this gen since they have  the smallest online communities, while last gen they wanted nothing to do with it because they had the advantage when it came to online community numbers.

 

Again, not arguing against the fact that it would be better if these companies stopped wasting cash on keeping games off other consoles and instead used it to fund more games, or cross platform play would be great. But unless the company that's in control says it it means nothing. MS is only advocating for these things now because they would benefit them since they can't afford to pay for these deals, If next gen they are in the lead and still hold this view then we can praise them as of now they're just salty.

So if someone points to a bad practice we should blame them even if they are right? If Sony said that would you encourage MS fans to blame Sony because they are also guilty of it? What I see is that there are bad practices made by companies and people fight with each other instead of trying to help fix this.

BTW, last gen was way better in case of exclusivity than past gens. Both Nintendo and Sony got better positions because of these practices. Nintendo's way of doing was rather draconian and Sony did made a lot of exclusive deals to ensure other consoles git no where near their position. Last gen was almost the end of such era. This gen is 1000x better, exclusivity is less and less prevalent than it was.



Chazore on 22 December 2016
Ganoncrotch said:

Surely if you start to complain that a person starts to punch you in the head after you hit them in the arm first, I mean... who's fault is it that you're being punched in the head?

I'm not saying that either is right, but one of them complaining about the practice while both do it is just stupid looking imo.

Ahh so it's fine to excuse whatever happens afterward and forevermore, just as long as you never ever hit back or do anything else afterwards, gotcha.

If you're not saying that either is right, then you'd narutally want a stop to the whole deal. One is talking about how it's bad, the other is just not saying anything. Why pat the one who carries on and says nothing?.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

REDZONE on 22 December 2016
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Good old Phill with the PR bs of only saying things gamers want to hear for him and microsoft look good.

Typical of him really.



UltimateGamer1982 on 22 December 2016

Wow I'm reminded that Microsoft paid huge amounts of money for the gta4 dlc years ago. Something like 50 million dollars I heard. Now he's complaining?



jason1637 on 22 December 2016
BMaker11 said:
jason1637 said:

It was announced just a bit over their month after their E3 http://press.na.square-enix.com/releases/492/square-enix-annnounces-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-destined-for-windows-10 Forbes said it was announced at Square conference which was wrong my bad.

Also Square said the deal was made based on how MS supported Tomb Raider DE so it would also make sense the deal was made before Phill became head.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/5/9104411/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-microsoft-support-square-enix

Umm.....that first article you linked is from 2015. Rise was announced in 2014 (your second link even says that). The press release was when a PS4 release was finally confirmed. And the deal with Microsoft was made because MS approached them because they wanted something "of the quality of Uncharted, which we don't have" or however Spencer said it. At least, that's what I understand when I ignore the spin.

First off, was it how they supported the Definitive Edition or the original release? The article says the original release, so you're giving a conflicting message. Secondly, it sold overwhelmingly better on PS3 and PS4. You think they ignored that, especially when the game had millions of sales but was still considered a "failure" up to a certain point? Because Microsoft was "supportive", SE jumped ship and went exclusive when they have extremely lofty aspirations for the game? That doesn't make sense. 

“Having been working with us on previous games in a lesser sense, they’ve been supportive. [However], for Rise of the Tomb Raider, they’ve just brought this passion and belief that has really enabled us to blow people away. People should feel that about Microsoft. Their commitment to Tomb Raider is just amazing for us,” he added.  http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2015/07/29/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-exclusivity-deal-was-taken-very-very-seriously/

MS had some type of envolvement in the reboot and so it makes sense that they knew about Rise and got timed under Don before it was offcially announced.  Also their staff had mixed reactions about the deal http://www.idigitaltimes.com/rise-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-deal-had-mixed-response-square-enix-employees-465383 . They could have not wanted bad press for their E3 event, and it wouldnt surprise me because they did the same thing for Dead Rising 4.

 

RidingMower said:
jason1637 said:

1. PS4 doesn't have BC so adding BC to the Fallout 4 version isn't anti-consumer.

2. Mods weren't ready on PS4. Bethesda even delayed PS4 Mods and then Sony said no Mods until they only made it internal.

Inside - The platformer game by playdead that also made Limbo.

We Happy Few - Another timed exclusive

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-09-limbo-developer-playdead-reveals-xbox-one-exclusive-inside Inside is a ID@Xbox game so MS gave them resources to make their game. So it makes sense it was timed when it was literally part of their program. Without it the game might nto have been made.

We Happy Few is in game preview. The PS4 doesnt have game preview so thats why its on xbox and PC.