And now we're changing the subject entirely, but putting focus on something that you think is a jab (why the hell would it be unless a fan took it very personally).

That makes no sense to what I said at the end about it being bad for everyone.

Is this the turning point where a mod now has to step in, because we're to become overly and purposely hostile?. Or are we going to get back on track and drop the "hypocrisy" and "jab" cards?. Your call, don't disappoint me. 

Not changing any topics... you asked who benefited, my answer was platform holders because if it didn't they wouldn't purchase, and you asked who was a platform holder, I'm explaining what is a platform holder.

If you didn't intend as a jab you wouldn't phrase singling out one fanbase defending one situation and attacking the other and them reiterating it. But if you say it isn't ok.

We are deviating away from talking about timed exclusivity to "you're taking jabs at Sony, how dare you".

I asked because of the way you worded platform holder. Here it's worded as console company or "one of the big 3".

No, I've said before that it is bad when all of them do it. Then we ended up circling around to basically singled out one of the big 3 being allowed to do it and "earning" the right to egt away with it, it's definitely not MS and not Nintendo, so the only answer becomes Sony. 

It isn't okay for either of them to make the deals and then defend them on it. Timed exclusivity is vile and bullshit no matter what excuses one pulls out of their backside. 

1) ok let's ignore it

2) Nope, VGC have used platform holder as one of the companies creating the platform for a long time as I can get. But as I said I was explaining what I meant not deviating the subject.

3) You were the only one singling out, I haven't said it was bad if MS done or good if Sony did. All I said was that the examples I checked we had clear evidence of TR losing sales because of it, and that the ones during PS3 era still outsold X360 version but probably also lost sales due to it and that this one probably will sell less than if launched together.

4) We can't rule out all of them as being bad without context, they are all potentially bad, but some where the only option for the game to see the light of the day.

1)Well we have to, because we know where accusations like that lead.

2)VGC is not the dictionary, or the law of definition. 

3) It was singled out because this conversation went from timed exclusive deals to "it can work with the platform holder", and then we also had "funding" tossed into the conversation. The ones that are often talked about as "getting it right" are Sony, while the others that have made timed deals or "bad" funding decisions would be MS and to a degree Nintendo.

I said, and I still say it now. Timed exclusivity deals are just flat out bad for the consumer and the the one who makes the game. I don't care if it "benefits" the one making the deal. It doesn't benefit me in any way, let alone the game producer that I'd like to buy from.

4)making that excuse that it was the only possible option is just defending the concept of money hatting something for exclusivity. We now live in an age where we have multiple venues to choose and support to and from. The gaming industry is not solely based on MS, Nintendo and Sony.

2) Have I said it was? Still you were the one that tried to say how it is called HERE (or is that here another place?) and still again as I said, I was explaining what I was calling platform holders, but you said I was deviating from the subject, have no idea why.

3) Again, if it wasn't worth for the platform holders they wouldn't pay for it. How you gone from that to saying when Sony do is good and others is bad I have no idea. Also if the developers or producers didn't think it benefited them they also wouldn't do. It may not benefit you as PC gamer or even not benefit gamers at large, but to say no one benefits is wrong since companies aren't imbeciles to keep doing things they think won't benefit them.

4) Sure there are other funders besides the big 3, not all game would be able to get them (I believe you mean crowd funding), considering the budget of AAA games and average crowd funding doesn't seem like they would be able to sustain multiple AAA games there... and most games get publishers without exclusivity... Have you seem where Sega talked about why Yakuza was exclusive to PS? Do you think they where lying?

2) When I said here, I meant where I come from, not here as in VGC the forum.

3)And again, I was talking about it being bad for the consumers and the game producer. It is bad when anyone does it, no matter how "successful" we coin one deal over another. 

I'm not even going to give a kudos to any of those deals falling through and gaining a benefit. I think they are all just as bad.

4)I mean more than just Crowd funding. We have 3rd party publishers and game devs that are becoming publishers like Chucklefish. AAA games can vary on what money is spent on them and where it goes into. Before MS bought up NT, they had actually proved what you can do with a decent budget and art style direction. They can exist and they can be made. They are not something only the big 3 can make either.

As for sustainable, no, we don't have to have a AAA game out the wazoo every week or month. So they can take their time making them over the years, instead of getting the masses to think we can just churn them out like Activision does with every CoD iteration on a near yearly basis. 

Have you seen where Sega just announced two Yakuza games and VC4 coming to PC, as well as Shenmu 1-2?.

2) And who is supposed to know that? Still it wasn't change of subject.

3) Yet you said it isn't good to anyone, now some caveats, ok.

4) Making an AAA game takes about 4 years to be made releasing every month or only every year. But I like your idea of it being better to have less games instead of having exclusives. I suppose it makes some logic for you to have 2 multiplats per year instead of 2 multiplats plus 10 exclusives and how it benefit gamers, would you care to explain it?

2) You, for not thinking here meaning VGC.

3) Well, since you've been arguing "good for the money hatter", where do you think that was going to go?. Definitely not on a repeat track.

4) It can range anywhere from 3-10 years, depending on the company, the team, the budget and the co-operation and technologies involved. All of those can fall apart, and we have seen this happening over the decades, with games getting cancelled, people being let off, assets being deleted or stolen, budgets being overblown, not enough money etc. All those kind of issues have happened to AAA studios/publishers before, in fact that's how we lost THQ originally. 

That last part has lost me completely. 

2) We are talking through VGC so the logical conclusion to "here" is VGC.

3) Nope, you started saying it was good for no one, I said to who it should be good because if not they wouldn't do, still you say it is not good for devs, so why would they do it?

4) So your premise that they should take years to develop changes nothing since they already take years, AAA games launching every month have to do with how many are made not how fast.

You complained about to much games being made and I fail to see how it is bad that the big 3 releasing games and making more available is bad for gamers.