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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft Is Trying to Keep PUBG Off PS4 for Longer

KLAMarine on 04 October 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
KLAMarine said:
This is a shitty practice but are we pretending Sony doesn't have some deals with third parties to keep content off of other platforms?

Yeah, but market leader generally gets those perks. Sony  never posed to not be for timed exclusives as they've been very aggressive towards Microsoft and rightfully so. Phil Spencer did say that he did not like unerhanded timed exclusive practices and yet since his time as the head theyve gone for timed exclusive after timed exclusive. They need to start investing in their first party. Its pathetic. As long as Sony remains the Japanese third party machine of choice they will always get the hot Japanese titles. There is little that can be done for them there for Xbox. Nintendo, perhaps, but not Xbox. Microsoft needs to really focus on first party for next gen because my.... have they been exposed this gen. If people didnt know about Microosofts first party then now they know. They shouldnt have to be sweating over a company like this. 

"Yeah, but market leader generally gets those perks."

>Is that supposed to make it okay?

"Sony  never posed to not be for timed exclusives as they've been very aggressive towards Microsoft and rightfully so."

>Via exclusivity deals?

"Phil Spencer did say that he did not like unerhanded timed exclusive practices and yet since his time as the head theyve gone for timed exclusive after timed exclusive."

>Yes, he did. And? I don't like taking the garbage out every day but I gotta do it or else it piles up and attracts pests.

"They need to start investing in their first party. Its pathetic. As long as Sony remains the Japanese third party machine of choice they will always get the hot Japanese titles. There is little that can be done for them there for Xbox. Nintendo, perhaps, but not Xbox. Microsoft needs to really focus on first party for next gen because my.... have they been exposed this gen. If people didnt know about Microosofts first party then now they know. They shouldnt have to be sweating over a company like this. "

>It's best to let Microsoft worry about XBox.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 04 October 2017
RJ_Sizzle said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
What's funny about that list of games is that the only one actually exclusive to Xbox (Sunset) only came to Xbox because Insomniac refused to give Sony the IP, which was the only way they'd publish it.

By the way did you guys hear that Xbone owners finally got all the content yesterday that they paid for when they bought Destiny or any of its DLC? LOL. Shadiest deal ever.

That's just PR spin. Honestly, what good is keeping your IP when you're not allowed to release it anywhere else? Sunset Overdrive is a dead IP due to that deal. Unless MS wants to pony up the money for a sequel, it will never happen again.

Yeah man, real shady deal on Destiny there. Oh but it's not since you got actually got to play the game day and date with the PS4 version. I guess those deals that MS had with Activision over getting CoD maps first on 360 were the shadiest deal ever too, huh?

What makes it shady is that people who payed money on the Xbox system cannot ever play content released for the game and is exclusive on the PS4.  Even the worst MS DLC exclusive deals never locked content permanately away from another customer base.  Hell, they fully funded the DLC for GTA and I believe that DLC came to Sony system.  Interesting enough, I remember an article saying MS paid 75 Million to make GTA unexclusive to Sony platform.



LudicrousSpeed on 04 October 2017

Idk what it was, I stopped playing Destiny ages ago.

I know at launch it was a mix of skins, MP maps, weapons, story missions, and strikes.

It took two years for some of this stuff to release on Xbox. Yeah, shadiest DLC shenanigans ever imho. Feel free to disagree. I don't mind exclusives, because I own all the platforms. But even if I didn't, at least I know I won't have access to a game. This is worse to me. This is paying money for something and only having partial access. I don't mind or care if one user base gets access to buy DLC a month early. But once you buy the game or the DLC it should be yours :) Thats my opinion and that's why it's the shadiest DLC deal ever.

 

edit, this was in response to Jared Dunn but this forum blows on mobile for quoting. Not going to bother fixing it :)



RJ_Sizzle on 04 October 2017
Machiavellian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

Yeah, that's the reason PlayStation saw games like Titanfall, Rise, Sunset Overdrive, Cuphead and Dead Rising 3. Oh wait, they didn't, and never will. Microsoft has a harder time getting full exclusives from third parties because they no longer have the leverage. That's what this is all about. THEY'RE the ones actually having to buy things at this point, because they don't have a market advantage. And that's okay, they have to, it's business. They have a right to do that, just like consumers have a right to be angry about it when it happens. 

Even Microsoft Phil Spencer himself said these things tend to happen organically. It's not always just a big bag of money. Publishers determine doing business with a platform holder by their track record and current trajectory of sales. If they take a chance and get burned, or see the opposing console excelling, then they gravitate toward the winner. No one is owed loyalty in this industry. You have to go where your sales are best.

People just tend to find Phil Spencer getting fussy about it ridiculous, since a) they've been doing it for years, b) that's his damn job. Don't bellyache to us about it, we can't relate. We're the people buying the games. When you're the platform that's fallen way behind, you're going to take heat for it, period. If the tables were turned this gen, you wouldn't hear things like this come from MS. They've had to change up SO much of their business model this gen because of Sony, and it makes the Xbox execs tend to get more candid about their frustrations than we care to hear about.

Not sure where the leverage part comes into play.  If I read your comment correctly you are saying that the developers/ publisher determine what agreement they want and this is based on their projections of sales.  If sales is the deciding factor then whoever sells the most consoles that generation sees the lionshare of the 3rd party exclusive party.

If that is the case I would totally agree.  

As to Phil belly aching, its hard for me to see it that way since he was asked a question and he answered it from his perspective.  You may or may not have liked his answer but its from how he views those deals which was asked.

"“I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play."

if you take what he stated in his response to Eurogamer when asked about exclusive deals, its clear he is talking about stuff like DLC content.  If you noticed when he became head of the Xbox division, MS doesn't do those DLC time exclusive deals anymore.  Did he ever state he was not in favor of exclusive deals or publishing deals, No but each time I see his statements used when MS make a publishing deal this comment always seem to be the poster statement used.

And we're saying, what's the difference? Getting some skins and some maps held back from certain ports is not comparable to whole games being held off for a certain amount of time. Platform makers do this to make their consoles more attractive understandibly, yes. You can't say you're a not a fan of making tactical business decisions in favor of your product and turn around and do them. It's what the man is employed to do. Platform makers spend entire generations looking for ways to subvert each other. Phil didn't get his recent promotion at MS because Xbox One was successful, he likely got it due to how aggressive he was with trying to turn the division around. He showed initiative with the money he had. All while doing this with his hands in his pockets pretending like he's a cool dad.



RJ_Sizzle on 04 October 2017
Machiavellian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

That's just PR spin. Honestly, what good is keeping your IP when you're not allowed to release it anywhere else? Sunset Overdrive is a dead IP due to that deal. Unless MS wants to pony up the money for a sequel, it will never happen again.

Yeah man, real shady deal on Destiny there. Oh but it's not since you got actually got to play the game day and date with the PS4 version. I guess those deals that MS had with Activision over getting CoD maps first on 360 were the shadiest deal ever too, huh?

Actually Sunset is not a dead IP.  Only the Sunset Overdrive game as its exclusive to the Xbox.  They could make Sunset Super Duper Overdrive with extra sause and can publish it on any system they want.  They can make a Overdrive 2 and publish it anywhere they want including Sony system.  You guys really need to understand how those publishing deals work.

Okay, tell us how these deals work, because I'm sure Playstation owners are ready to see the game now. Considering how SO sold on Xbox, you'd think they'd want to get it out there to as many people as possible so it can actually be a valuable IP in the future. Because it's not like Insomniac doesn't have a long and storied history with Playstation or something.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 04 October 2017
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes we Sony loyalist are incapable to accept rumor and wishes as hard cold evidence.

The point of this thread isn't calling Phil a liar, but a hipocrite.

He said they are investing in 1st party, talked against exclusivity deals and that it's bad to put up games on stage that will take a long time to release... and he have done all 3 very short after he said those. Nothing about MS doing their best to secure content they think will drive sales for them.

First Phil said he was not in favor of doing deals that permanately locks content away from other systems.  As been hashed out previously people seem to have their own interpretation of what the term CONTENT means.  He never said he did not favor making publishing agreement with 3rd party companies since he has done that for multiple projects not just PUG.

As I stated in my post, Many have made reference to his comments and either called him a liar, hypocritical or both based on his tweets and statements.  Even the OG of this post made reference to those comments.  

What is interesting is that this is any news.  We know MS makes exclusive contracts with 3rd party developers just like Sony and Nintendo.  People believe that this is something new that MS may be in talks extending their publishing agreement with a client especially if the agreement is only for 3 months.  Really, if you are going to make an agreement to have a game exclusive on your system for a period of time 3 months seems like nothing.  People forget that MS is the publisher for this game on the Xbox system.  Meaning that they are probably funding development for the X1 version as well as marketing and other auxiliary items.

The same people condemning MS for making a publishing agreement for the game on the X1 are the same ones who would have praised Sony for doing the same thing since they are also in talks to get the game on their system.  Also how does this not benefit the Xbox ecosystem.  If Sony gets 3rd party exclusives on their console whether they fund them or just because they are Japanese company its all good because they are looking to extend the games on their system.  When MS does the exact same thing, they are desperate.  All the major players look to get successful games on their platform whether 3rd, 1st or 2nd.  It just seems only Sony gets a pass when they do the same thing and everyone else is just greedy.

Please explain to me how is it worse to keep a skin locked away from a game forever than a full game locked away for 1 year.

Sorry but I'm not one of those people. I don't care about this game and mostly buy Sony 1st party so this practice is neutral to me. I am only pointing out that Phill have a big mouth but is a hypocrite. Show me where is the investiment in first party, showing games only when they are about to release and not locking away content in any way instead of being an appologist to someone that make millions on salary to be a hypocrite.

And you can't see a difference on desperation when Sony is selling 2x LTD, 3 or 4x weekly and a game get released exclusively with sony putting zero money on the game and MS looking into extending exclusivity after the developer said they are looking to release the game on the competitor?

Machiavellian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

That's just PR spin. Honestly, what good is keeping your IP when you're not allowed to release it anywhere else? Sunset Overdrive is a dead IP due to that deal. Unless MS wants to pony up the money for a sequel, it will never happen again.

Yeah man, real shady deal on Destiny there. Oh but it's not since you got actually got to play the game day and date with the PS4 version. I guess those deals that MS had with Activision over getting CoD maps first on 360 were the shadiest deal ever too, huh?

Actually Sunset is not a dead IP.  Only the Sunset Overdrive game as its exclusive to the Xbox.  They could make Sunset Super Duper Overdrive with extra sause and can publish it on any system they want.  They can make a Overdrive 2 and publish it anywhere they want including Sony system.  You guys really need to understand how those publishing deals work.

So show us where is the Sunset Duper Edition on PC and PS4



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Machiavellian on 04 October 2017
RJ_Sizzle said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure where the leverage part comes into play.  If I read your comment correctly you are saying that the developers/ publisher determine what agreement they want and this is based on their projections of sales.  If sales is the deciding factor then whoever sells the most consoles that generation sees the lionshare of the 3rd party exclusive party.

If that is the case I would totally agree.  

As to Phil belly aching, its hard for me to see it that way since he was asked a question and he answered it from his perspective.  You may or may not have liked his answer but its from how he views those deals which was asked.

"“I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play."

if you take what he stated in his response to Eurogamer when asked about exclusive deals, its clear he is talking about stuff like DLC content.  If you noticed when he became head of the Xbox division, MS doesn't do those DLC time exclusive deals anymore.  Did he ever state he was not in favor of exclusive deals or publishing deals, No but each time I see his statements used when MS make a publishing deal this comment always seem to be the poster statement used.

And we're saying, what's the difference? Getting some skins and some maps held back from certain ports is not comparable to whole games being held off for a certain amount of time. Platform makers do this to make their consoles more attractive understandibly, yes. You can't say you're a not a fan of making tactical business decisions in favor of your product and turn around and do them. It's what the man is employed to do. Platform makers spend entire generations looking for ways to subvert each other. Phil didn't get his recent promotion at MS because Xbox One was successful, he likely got it due to how aggressive he was with trying to turn the division around. He showed initiative with the money he had. All while doing this with his hands in his pockets pretending like he's a cool dad.

So what deals has MS done that are time exclusive DLC.  I am not following you on this.  The man stated he does not like to do time exclusive DLC deals and MS does not do those deals anymore.  Exactly how does that contradict what Phil stated.  It doesn't really matters if you believe a full game is in the same category as DLC because your interpretations of what you hear is not the point.  Further in that interview Phil has with Eurogamer he gives more reasons on what he is stating.  Basically what you are trying to do is say "Phil, I know you specifically stated DLC but I FEEL, you mean all time exclusives even though you specifically stated just DLC." This feel part is where the problem is, people always feel greater meaning instead of just talking exactly what someone says.

 So let’s bring this question back up again.  Phil says he doesn't favor doing DLC exclusive marketing deals.  Since Phil is head of the Xbox division now, do MS do DLC time exclusive deals.  Let’s just limit this to what the man said and not what people like to interpret the meaning.



Machiavellian on 04 October 2017
RJ_Sizzle said:
Machiavellian said:

Actually Sunset is not a dead IP.  Only the Sunset Overdrive game as its exclusive to the Xbox.  They could make Sunset Super Duper Overdrive with extra sause and can publish it on any system they want.  They can make a Overdrive 2 and publish it anywhere they want including Sony system.  You guys really need to understand how those publishing deals work.

Okay, tell us how these deals work, because I'm sure Playstation owners are ready to see the game now. Considering how SO sold on Xbox, you'd think they'd want to get it out there to as many people as possible so it can actually be a valuable IP in the future. Because it's not like Insomniac doesn't have a long and storied history with Playstation or something.

Are you saying that the exclusive deal for Sunset Overdrive on the Xbox is holding back the game on the Sony platform or you just totally ignored why it even came to the Xbox platform in the first place.  As the company stated, they went to MS because they get to keep exclusive control of their IP.  Do you understand what exclusive control means.  It means they could whenever they want, take their IP to another publisher and product a game for any system they want.  They could also go back to MS and do a sequel.  No Sunset Overdrive will probably never see the day on a PS system but that doesn't stop any other games in the series.  Its no different then Dead Rising 3 being exclusive to the Xbox but Dead Rising 1, 2 and 4 being on the PS system.  You can even look at Ninja Gaiden where they just changed the name of the game and waas able to get it on the PS system.  Most companies will not lock their IP to just one system if they have total control.



Machiavellian on 04 October 2017
Bandorr said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/insomniac-would-love-for-sunset-overdrive-to-come-to-pc-if-given-the-go-ahead/

" It’s also understood that Microsoft allowed Insomniac to maintain rights to Sunset Overdrive post-launch, so long as it remained an Xbox One exclusive. "

"@Heldengeist @MegapiemanPHD @Xbox @XboxP3 we'd love for it to come to PC, though it's up to Xbox on that one.September 26, 2016"

If it was simple as naming it "SSO.5" to get it released on PC - They would have done it. Clearly the contract they came up with prevented any such trickery.

True but what is stopping SO 2 from coming to any other system.



RJ_Sizzle on 04 October 2017
Machiavellian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

And we're saying, what's the difference? Getting some skins and some maps held back from certain ports is not comparable to whole games being held off for a certain amount of time. Platform makers do this to make their consoles more attractive understandibly, yes. You can't say you're a not a fan of making tactical business decisions in favor of your product and turn around and do them. It's what the man is employed to do. Platform makers spend entire generations looking for ways to subvert each other. Phil didn't get his recent promotion at MS because Xbox One was successful, he likely got it due to how aggressive he was with trying to turn the division around. He showed initiative with the money he had. All while doing this with his hands in his pockets pretending like he's a cool dad.

So what deals has MS done that are time exclusive DLC.  I am not following you on this.  The man stated he does not like to do time exclusive DLC deals and MS does not do those deals anymore.  Exactly how does that contradict what Phil stated.  It doesn't really matters if you believe a full game is in the same category as DLC because your interpretations of what you hear is not the point.  Further in that interview Phil has with Eurogamer he gives more reasons on what he is stating.  Basically what you are trying to do is say "Phil, I know you specifically stated DLC but I FEEL, you mean all time exclusives even though you specifically stated just DLC." This feel part is where the problem is, people always feel greater meaning instead of just talking exactly what someone says.

 So let’s bring this question back up again.  Phil says he doesn't favor doing DLC exclusive marketing deals.  Since Phil is head of the Xbox division now, do MS do DLC time exclusive deals.  Let’s just limit this to what the man said and not what people like to interpret the meaning.

The question is, "Why would he say that?". Obviously, he's trying to make it seem like this is a raw deal for gamers when things like this happen, when in reality, it's the very nature of his business. It doesn't matter if it's timed DLC or a full or timed exclusive. These deals are in place to give the platform holder an advantage over their rivals. MS is getting less of these timed deals, or ANY kind of deals due to their place in the market. They get still get the ad exclusives, but the days of getting content advantages less over his rivals isn't by choice these days. No matter what he says. 

You can't limit the conversation to DLC deals, because that's not even what this topic is about in the first place. It's about MS looking to secure a title that's not theirs for longer to keep the competition for having it. It's all in the same ballpark when it comes down to it. You have to remember, if the Xbox One were successful, he wouldn't even be in the position he's in, Mattrick still would have had the job. It's not like he can keep the position by being passive, he still has to make some kind of moves. Hence, the reason he's trying to extend this deal and the reason PS fans will NEVER get Cuphead and other titles. 

Phil isn't a fan of these kinds of deals because his company is in a lesser position of making them, like they used to.