I've notice the reaction to revealing exclusives on Sony vs. Microsoft

#111TehPwnzererPosted 8/13/2014 11:26:20 PM
Reichmaster01 posted...
Your language betrays you;

Microsoft paying a dev off = stealing

Sony paying a dev off = keeping it exclusive/kept a game from the Xbox crowd


Microsoft paying a dev off after the dev already announced it as a multiplatform release? You don't call that stealing? No, sorry. It;s not the same thing no matter how you look at it. It would have looked a whole lot better if Microsoft made arrangements to keep it exclusive from the beginning. Just like the aforementioned Dead Rising 3. Instead they waited until AFTER the game was announced as multiplatform to take it away. That's poor form no matter how much you want to defend them.
#112Reichmaster01Posted 8/13/2014 11:33:43 PM
TehPwnzerer posted...
Reichmaster01 posted...
Your language betrays you;

Microsoft paying a dev off = stealing

Sony paying a dev off = keeping it exclusive/kept a game from the Xbox crowd


Microsoft paying a dev off after the dev already announced it as a multiplatform release? You don't call that stealing? No, sorry. It;s not the same thing no matter how you look at it. It would have looked a whole lot better if Microsoft made arrangements to keep it exclusive from the beginning. Just like the aforementioned Dead Rising 3. Instead they waited until AFTER the game was announced as multiplatform to take it away. That's poor form no matter how much you want to defend them.


I am not defending MS at all. I really dislike the practice and hope it lessens over time. This is not good for those gamers who only have/can afford one console.

If you want to draw a distinction between the timing, the only difference is that some people had their hopes dashed. The end result is the same though - they don't get to play it on PS.
#113StrongBlackVinePosted 8/13/2014 11:36:49 PM
Reichmaster01 posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Reichmaster01 posted...
Your language betrays you;

Microsoft paying a dev off = stealing

Sony paying a dev off = keeping it exclusive/kept a game from the Xbox crowd


Microsoft paying a dev off after the dev already announced it as a multiplatform release? You don't call that stealing? No, sorry. It;s not the same thing no matter how you look at it. It would have looked a whole lot better if Microsoft made arrangements to keep it exclusive from the beginning. Just like the aforementioned Dead Rising 3. Instead they waited until AFTER the game was announced as multiplatform to take it away. That's poor form no matter how much you want to defend them.


I am not defending MS at all. I really dislike the practice and hope it lessens over time. This is not good for those gamers who only have/can afford one console.

If you want to draw a distinction between the timing, the only difference is that some people had their hopes dashed. The end result is the same though - they don't get to play it on PS.


They went even further by keeping it off PC as well. Microsoft essentially tried to blackmail 75 perecent of Tomb Raider fan base to buy a Xflop. Glad they failed.
#114TehPwnzererPosted 8/13/2014 11:44:31 PM
Reichmaster01 posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Reichmaster01 posted...
Your language betrays you;

Microsoft paying a dev off = stealing

Sony paying a dev off = keeping it exclusive/kept a game from the Xbox crowd


Microsoft paying a dev off after the dev already announced it as a multiplatform release? You don't call that stealing? No, sorry. It;s not the same thing no matter how you look at it. It would have looked a whole lot better if Microsoft made arrangements to keep it exclusive from the beginning. Just like the aforementioned Dead Rising 3. Instead they waited until AFTER the game was announced as multiplatform to take it away. That's poor form no matter how much you want to defend them.


I am not defending MS at all. I really dislike the practice and hope it lessens over time. This is not good for those gamers who only have/can afford one console.

If you want to draw a distinction between the timing, the only difference is that some people had their hopes dashed. The end result is the same though - they don't get to play it on PS.


But that's a HUGE difference. I mean like, defining difference. I don't consider Microsoft making a deal with Insomniac to keep Sunset Overdrive exclusive to the Xbox as problematic for example. Even despite their long history with Sony, it was never hinted that there would be a Playstation release of SO later on. Yeah, it sucks that Playstation owners won't get to play it, but at least they can say they didn't lie about anything.

Completely not the case here. It feel like you have Sony in one end of the ring, and Microsoft in the other, and the fight seems to be pretty tit for tat overall, but suddenly Microsoft pulls out a knife and goes for the Achilles heel in the middle of the fight. it feels like a really rotten low blow in a desperate attempt at stealing Sony's thunder. What they did was rob gamers of a game they were looking forward to. When's the last time Sony pulled a Judas like that?
#115Reichmaster01Posted 8/13/2014 11:54:34 PM
TehPwnzerer posted...
Reichmaster01 posted...
TehPwnzerer posted...
Reichmaster01 posted...
Your language betrays you;

Microsoft paying a dev off = stealing

Sony paying a dev off = keeping it exclusive/kept a game from the Xbox crowd


Microsoft paying a dev off after the dev already announced it as a multiplatform release? You don't call that stealing? No, sorry. It;s not the same thing no matter how you look at it. It would have looked a whole lot better if Microsoft made arrangements to keep it exclusive from the beginning. Just like the aforementioned Dead Rising 3. Instead they waited until AFTER the game was announced as multiplatform to take it away. That's poor form no matter how much you want to defend them.


I am not defending MS at all. I really dislike the practice and hope it lessens over time. This is not good for those gamers who only have/can afford one console.

If you want to draw a distinction between the timing, the only difference is that some people had their hopes dashed. The end result is the same though - they don't get to play it on PS.


But that's a HUGE difference. I mean like, defining difference. I don't consider Microsoft making a deal with Insomniac to keep Sunset Overdrive exclusive to the Xbox as problematic for example. Even despite their long history with Sony, it was never hinted that there would be a Playstation release of SO later on. Yeah, it sucks that Playstation owners won't get to play it, but at least they can say they didn't lie about anything.

Completely not the case here. It feel like you have Sony in one end of the ring, and Microsoft in the other, and the fight seems to be pretty tit for tat overall, but suddenly Microsoft pulls out a knife and goes for the Achilles heel in the middle of the fight. it feels like a really rotten low blow in a desperate attempt at stealing Sony's thunder. What they did was rob gamers of a game they were looking forward to. When's the last time Sony pulled a Judas like that?


Keep in mind that the only lie here was by Square Enix, not Microsoft. Sony to my knowledge has never pulled a "Judas" (I like that term lol). Again I dislike the practice as it is bad for gamers, but I don't really begrudge MS for trying, nor would I with Sony. Business is business afterall. Hell, maybe Sony has already tried this before and failed, or worse, maybe they haven't but will now that MS has put the idea out there.

In a perfect world both MS and Sony would compete and thrive and not resort to exclusives/paying off devs. This would mean that the chances of having DRM and the like are kept to a minimum. This is what fanboys on both sides do not realise. If Xbox is the only console left? Hello DRM! If Playstation is the only console left? Hello DRM!

I take back the fanboy insult as you are using logic and reasoning in your argument. So sorry for that.
#116Homie_202Posted 8/14/2014 12:00:23 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#117Homie_202Posted 8/14/2014 12:11:41 AM
lunchbox2042 posted...
Eh, Sony fans are more into Indies and remasters anyway. They don't want new AAA games anyway. Just give them The Last of Us in a shiny coat of paint and they're happy.


And yet the biggest game coming to xbox one is guess what a remaster in the form of master chief collection.
#118NessaJ_TuNPosted 8/15/2014 12:58:06 PM
Reichmaster01 posted...


So let me get this straight. It's bad for Microsoft to give lots of money to a dev so it only releases on one console. But it is okay if they give them even more money to buy them out so it only releases on one console. Have I got that right?

For the record, I dislike both practices.


Yes, btw Square Enix is the Publisher, CD is the developer, SE own Crystal Dynamics and Tomb Raider IP. If Microsoft buying Square, they would have to pay Billions, but at the same time they would get exclusive Hitman, Deus Ex, FF, KH, Just Cause, Sleeping Dogs, etc and all the developers would be under contract working under microsoft. If they just want Tomb Raider, they have to do specific agreement with square enix to just buy the IP.

All of these are depends whether SE agree to be bought by Microsoft or not though, remember EA tried to buy 2K and Valve back then, but neither of them want it. Sony bought Naughty Dog, Zipper, Media Molecule, Evolution, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch, they also tried to get Imsoniac Games after they making so many exclusives for playstation, but imsoniac wants to say independent and from second party, now became third party developers.

I don't see why Microsoft can't do this as well, Microsoft also bought some game developers as well such as Rare interactive.