You still get to play the game one year later, you will never get to use that skin, play that map, use that strike etc.  Its content you never get to ever experience and if you were a Xbox only gamer, the developer locked you out of content permantely and you will always wonder what you missed.  

In the situation of Tomb Raider, I actually did wait to play it on the Playstation instead of purchasing it for the X1 even though I have an X1.  Since I was going through my backlog, by the time I was ready to play the game, it was out on the PS system so purchase the game on the system it played the best on.  The difference here for me is that I had the option.

No, I do not see the desperation.  The reason why because no matter how much Sony or MS is selling consoles, this deal probably would still get done.  Let's just take this article as an example.  It says Sony is in talks to get PUBG on the Sony system.  If Sony was doing so great and developers are just creaming themselves to get their games on their system, why would Sony even need to be in talks to get the game on the PS.  Why isn't Sony always the first choice for any game to be on their system.  The reason is because no matter the installbase or who is selling the most, all players are going to try to get the best games on their system no matter what.  If MS was smart enough to reach out to Blue before Sony, then its smart business.  If Sony was smart to get the deal in place first I would be saying smart on them.  Also it would be smart business for MS to halt all talks about another system until they reap the benefit first.  Why even play the game if you lose marketing if the other company is playing the field.  After your exclusive deal is over, then let the company make and talk to anyone they want.  If anything MS should have learned this leasson from Tomb Raider.

Nope I won't, I never buy DLC and most games sell most and are more relevant on their first couple months... so holding a game for a year is worse than holding a map for life.

I still haven't bought TR, since I had to wait a year for it I can wait more to buy it for 20 or less or not even play it since I have other things to play.

Why would Sony be in talks? Because the game is big enough and Sony hold good relationship with devs, so why wouldn't they talk about bringing it to PS?

The Lesson on TR where they gave a completely obtuse definition of exclusive that needed clarification just after being mentioned (because they tried to make it sound more than it was) and SquareEnix talking about PS4 release before X1 had it release? Seems the same bad management from MS.

And you tegiversated from the point on desperation, both situation exposed are so different that you can't say one can't be desperation without the other also being.

Maybe he said it because that is how he feels and its exactly what MS has stopped doing.  If MS stop doing the deals then it would appear that what he believes is now part of how MS view those deals.  Could it be that MS isn't getting DLC time deals because just maybe I am reaching, because they do not want them anymore.  

As for what the topic is about, as I stated to another poster, there have been comments about Phil being a hypocrite because of this timed exclusive deal with Blue.  People have referenced comments Phil has made in the Eurogamer interview including the orginal poster.  So yes, this has everything to do with the DLC because if you are going to use someone comments concerning timed exclusives and their position, its always good to keep it in context.

Also why would MS not secure a better deal since they are publishing the game on the Xbox.  Exacly why would it be good business for MS to let Sony be able to say PUBG is coming to our system if MS has already paid to secure this right.  As many posters comments in this thread suggest, this is a foul move on MS but in reality, it would be stupid for MS to not make this move.  Allowing Sony to grab some headlines by saying we also have an agreement for PUBG would undermine MS play to get the game on the Xbox in the first place. If you go by some poster here, Sony is so great and has such a big lead in marketshare of course PUBG is coming to the PS system.  If Sony is in talks with blue then it's Sony trying to basically steal some glory away from MS deal and thus lessen the impact of this game not coming to the PS system for a lenght of time.

It's a raw deal either way. Either lose the IP, or publish on one platform where the fans ignore it and it dies, which is what happened. Insomniac knows how the business works, they were better off shopping it as a multiplatform, but whatevs. I mean it's a chicken and egg type deal, you only have use for the IP if the game is in demand. This does not change the fact that these games have not, or will not be seen for a period of time on rival consoles. Even if they did show up, they'd be way past their expiration date anyway since people would move on, still putting that game at a disadvantage.

How, this destiny deal is absolutely shittier. Xbox owners have to pay the same $60 for less amount of content. That content would come out on Xbox after most people have stopped playing, and when the sequel is already out. PlayStation will get the exact same pubg experience, but just a bit later.

Interesting you should say you never buy DLC because neither do I but if I did want to purchase DLC, I would feel cheated if a developer created content for another platform and locked it away permananty.  I also purchase all the console systems because I love gaming so I never have to wait for a game to appear on another system unless I want to.

I will give you another reason Sony is in talks for PUBG because if they thought the game was so big to get on their system they would have beat MS to the punch.  Sony is in talks because its a win for MS and they would love to market the game coming to their system to take that win away.  

As for TR, MS should always make their deals so that the developer cannot speak about another system until after the exclusive times out.  This is the one of the problems I thought MS should have realize the during that mess.  If you are going to play the game, even if you say the deal is timed, having the developer talk about another platform while you are funding and marketing the game for yours seems like bad business. Why allow free press for your competitor when you are funding the project.

As for desperation, is MS doing anything different then they have in the pass. Would MS make this deal if this was the 360 and they have an opportunity to get a 10mill PC seller onto their platform.  What makes this deal a desperation for MS.  I have not seen any real reason from you why this isn't a deal that doesn't get done like any other deal for a successful product.  It's desperation for MS but for Sony its because they have good relationship with devs.  I am sure you are not seeing the irony in those statements.

I probalby would not actually relly on interpretation of a one line tweet as to the postion of an IP for a developer.  I would just go by interviews where they state they totally own the IP and with or without MS can do what they want.

As to what is stopping it from coming to another platform, I have to ask at what point are you coming into this discussion.  The original part of the discussion was that the IP is dead because it can only be used on the Xbox system.  The disagreement from me is that Isomniac has total control of the IP so they can do what they want with that IP.  As for Sunset Overdrive the game well that was published by MS so the actual game is under the direction of MS.

Who said they didn't shop around.  If MS came with the better deal then they went with MS.  If Insomniac was able to get full funding for the project, marketing and also pay the bills seems like a win.  May not be a total win but then again since making games has a lot of risk, having the bill paid in full gives the developer freedom where they do not have to worry about going into the red to fund a project and it fails.  Nothing guarantee that SO would have sold any better or kept the developer out of the red by going multiplatform.  If anything being exclusive is the safely net if the project isn't a success.  Multiplatform agreements are not always fully funded and some are just publishing deals more than anything else.

As for timed exclusives, I agree with you that they may not be the best deals but then again why do companies do them.  There must be ratio between how much a company gets for the deal compared to what they get when the game release on another system.  Probably for most is that they only just have enough staff, resources and time for one platform anyway so entering these agreements are a win.

If it turns out Phil Spencer is part of this plan for this, then I would lose quite a bit of respect for him or possibly all of it, considering he's against these sort of anti-consumer methods. The practice itself is one thing, but to do this after speaking against it is another.

I would fell cheated if the dlc was needed to enjoy the game be it available in my console or not. I fell much more cheated if a game that I always got on my console was highjacked for one year.

Nope I don't see irony. MS doing it on x360 wouldn't look desperate. They doing on x1 looks like even more after it was revealed bluepoint is looking to make it on ps4.