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

AngryLittleAlchemist on 22 December 2016

pretty sure microsofts deal just lended to timed exclusivity and marketing... i dont think microsoft was funding the games development. in that case it would most likely be a permanent exclusive. so yes, they could cut it.  



Around the Network
SWORDF1SH on 22 December 2016
Libara said:
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....

That's VGC for you, hypocrisy at its best.

But Shu didn't say that! How can there be hypocrisy over an event that hasn't happened. 

Btw to libara, he's not criticizing the actual deals but the spinning. 



SWORDF1SH on 22 December 2016
jason1637 said:
JRPGfan said:
abit hypocritical?

How so?

Off the top of my head, Battlefield 1on Xbox One has  a timed exclusive DLC deal.



jason1637 on 22 December 2016
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

pretty sure microsofts deal just lended to timed exclusivity and marketing... i dont think microsoft was funding the games development. in that case it would most likely be a permanent exclusive. so yes, they could cut it.  

Ok lets say MS went to capcom and said "Hey we want to cut the deal and we need our money back". Do you think Capcom would say yea sure.



jason1637 on 22 December 2016
SWORDF1SH said:
jason1637 said:

How so?

Off the top of my head, Battlefield 1on Xbox One has  a timed exclusive DLC deal.

It doesnt



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 22 December 2016
jason1637 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

pretty sure microsofts deal just lended to timed exclusivity and marketing... i dont think microsoft was funding the games development. in that case it would most likely be a permanent exclusive. so yes, they could cut it.  

Ok lets say MS went to capcom and said "Hey we want to cut the deal and we need our money back". Do you think Capcom would say yea sure.

Yes.  what is capcom to microsoft. i mean honestly if dead rising 4 is their last deal...ok fine. but i doubt it. 



AngryLittleAlchemist on 22 December 2016
shikamaru317 said:
VGC up to it's usual shenanigans, commenting without reading the full quote. He's talking about exclusive content, not full games. Only Sony has done that this gen, MS hasn't paid for exclusive content in any of the 3rd parties they bought marketing rights to.

WHICH IS WORSE. Timed exclusive GAMES IS WORSE than (timed) exclusive dlc



jason1637 on 22 December 2016
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
jason1637 said:

Ok lets say MS went to capcom and said "Hey we want to cut the deal and we need our money back". Do you think Capcom would say yea sure.

Yes.  what is capcom to microsoft. i mean honestly if dead rising 4 is their last deal...ok fine. but i doubt it. 

Well i doubt they would. Especially when they were putting more effort in the XB1 version because of its earlier release and MS would do all the marketing.



MTZehvor on 22 December 2016

I think the issue here isn't hypocrisy, but why it's fine for a third party game to be exclusive and not DLC. What makes a complete game somehow immune from the same criticism of "it's just keeping another console base from an experience?"



Veknoid_Outcast on 22 December 2016
shikamaru317 said:
VGC up to it's usual shenanigans, commenting without reading the full quote. He's talking about exclusive content, not full games. Only Sony has done that this gen, MS hasn't paid for exclusive content in any of the 3rd parties they bought marketing rights to.

Do you think there's a meaningful difference? In both cases the act denies content that would otherwise be available to another console's base.