For those just joining us today: Exclusivity is now "evil" and "terrible."

#11TheBorderCollie(Topic Creator)Posted 8/12/2014 8:37:28 PM
ThePaleRiderp posted...
Buying a multiplatform title for your console is a bad business practice. TC Bloodbourne is:

1. A new IP
2. Being co developed by Sony Japan studio and From Software. They partly funded its creation same way Nintendo did with Bayonetta 2. So to sum it up. No Sony= no bloodborne and no Nintendo= no Bayonetta 2.

The reason people are upset is because this is/was a multiplatform game and would have existed regardless. Exclusives from the console makers make sense because it is their games. Money hatting third parties doesn't make sense. Especially in todays industry where porting between PS4 PC and Xbox is a non issue. I honestly think it would have been cool if Microsoft used that money to expand their first party studios and make new games.


Why is it a bad practice?

Furthermore, are you implying that Bloodborn could never possibly have been funded without Sony's help? That somehow it's only Sony's money that could have made it happen? Because that doesn't make any sense...

Companies secure exclusive rights to "third party" sequels all of the time. What I'm wanting to know is why it's somehow evil and terrible today??
---
Proud supporter of the PS4 and Xbox #1
# of trolling Inbox messages deleted - without reading them - and users reported / banned: 11 :)
#12Draconian-WhitePosted 8/12/2014 8:56:21 PM
ThePaleRiderp posted...
I honestly think it would have been cool if Microsoft used that money to expand their first party studios and make new games.


Yes, it would a have been cool. I've seen an overabundance of shoulda, woulda, coulda all day long.

At the end of the day, Microsoft is a business entity. Who are you and I, or anyone else for that matter residing on a message board, going to unequivocally know what will be fiscally beneficial to the company?

Or for another matter, the right direction to channel funds with a birdseye view on the future? It's simply conjecture as to how things will shake out. There's no imaginary moral clause that applies to the vocal underground, and they must tiptoe on eggshells.

It's a tough road to hoe, as you can't appease all parties (even potential customers). I see nothing inherently wrong with what Microsoft did from a business standpoint, or for their fans and customers.

Alienating player segments on other platforms, is the casualty of a bold business decision. Also, common sense dictates they did so to attract and entice new customers to buy their product. Suddenly this becomes evil incarnate because Microsoft did it? P'shaw.
---
[XBL GT: AmbientGreen] [Steam: AmbientGreen]
[PSN: Vaporware]
#13TOhasNoRingPosted 8/12/2014 8:57:43 PM
I love how people actually say "evil". Stop overreacting children, it's called business.
---
Intel Atom 1.20GHz - 512MB DDR2 SDRAM - Serial ATA 5400 RPM HDD - Intel GMA 3600
#14EnclavePosted 8/12/2014 9:08:33 PM
People don't have problems with exclusives, the issue is when a previously multiplatform title gets moneyhatted into being an exclusive. Note, nobody complains about exclusives when they're first party or even titles that are historically exclusive.
---
The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist.
#15AwayFromHerePosted 8/12/2014 9:10:03 PM
Man, TheBorderTrollie is still still trolling.
---
You are hallucinating. Seek help immediately.
#16MrImpatient35Posted 8/12/2014 9:12:51 PM
Hypocrisy is really popular right now
---
HIIT or Tabata is necessary for me
#17ThePaleRiderpPosted 8/12/2014 9:26:05 PM
TheBorderCollie posted...
ThePaleRiderp posted...
Buying a multiplatform title for your console is a bad business practice. TC Bloodbourne is:

1. A new IP
2. Being co developed by Sony Japan studio and From Software. They partly funded its creation same way Nintendo did with Bayonetta 2. So to sum it up. No Sony= no bloodborne and no Nintendo= no Bayonetta 2.

The reason people are upset is because this is/was a multiplatform game and would have existed regardless. Exclusives from the console makers make sense because it is their games. Money hatting third parties doesn't make sense. Especially in todays industry where porting between PS4 PC and Xbox is a non issue. I honestly think it would have been cool if Microsoft used that money to expand their first party studios and make new games.


Why is it a bad practice?

Furthermore, are you implying that Bloodborn could never possibly have been funded without Sony's help? That somehow it's only Sony's money that could have made it happen? Because that doesn't make any sense...

Companies secure exclusive rights to "third party" sequels all of the time. What I'm wanting to know is why it's somehow evil and terrible today??


Sony owns the freaking IP. The origin of the game came from Sony not From Software. A better example is Hyrule warriors. Nintendo partly developed with tecmo to make the game but it is still Nintendo's IP. From Soft was never going to make bloodborne to begin with.

Enclave posted...
People don't have problems with exclusives, the issue is when a previously multiplatform title gets moneyhatted into being an exclusive. Note, nobody complains about exclusives when they're first party or even titles that are historically exclusive.


This is what I've been saying. Bloodborne is a new IP that was never multiplatform or revealed to be multiplatform it was Sony and From Software from start to finish. Bayonetta 2, while being a sequel to a multiplatform game would not exist without Nintendo's help because neither Microsoft, Sega, or Sony would back it.

That is not the case with tomb raider. The original bayonetta didn't even sell that well so I can see why people were hesitant to fund a sequel but tomb raider? A game that sold 3 million its first month and has now passed 6.5 million units couldn't get a sequel without the help of one of the big three? Come on that just doesn't add up.
---
Valar morghulis
#18vashkeyPosted 8/12/2014 9:31:20 PM
So what about Silent Hill. It's a multplat franchise. Why does that get a free pass?
#19Draconian-WhitePosted 8/12/2014 9:31:33 PM
Enclave posted...
People don't have problems with exclusives, the issue is when a previously multiplatform title gets moneyhatted into being an exclusive. Note, nobody complains about exclusives when they're first party or even titles that are historically exclusive.


So, let me get a handle on this. People have "problems" with businesses making business decisions? Ultimately, a company hopes to profit.

Like with: Sony and Destiny exclusive content, Watch Dogs same thing, or even MGS4? Sorry, but people cannot have it both ways. Grousing about it is all well and good, but most gaming companies do or have done this very same practice. That's the way it is.

I'm not saying you specifically mind you, but these people are adopting a rather naive and adolescent world view on simple business practice.
---
[XBL GT: AmbientGreen] [Steam: AmbientGreen]
[PSN: Vaporware]
#20ThePaleRiderpPosted 8/12/2014 9:36:26 PM
Draconian-White posted...
ThePaleRiderp posted...
I honestly think it would have been cool if Microsoft used that money to expand their first party studios and make new games.


Yes, it would a have been cool. I've seen an overabundance of shoulda, woulda, coulda all day long.

At the end of the day, Microsoft is a business entity. Who are you and I, or anyone else for that matter residing on a message board, going to unequivocally know what will be fiscally beneficial to the company?

Or for another matter, the right direction to channel funds with a birdseye view on the future? It's simply conjecture as to how things will shake out. There's no imaginary moral clause that applies to the vocal underground, and they must tiptoe on eggshells.

It's a tough road to hoe, as you can't appease all parties (even potential customers). I see nothing inherently wrong with what Microsoft did from a business standpoint, or for their fans and customers.

Alienating player segments on other platforms, is the casualty of a bold business decision. Also, common sense dictates they did so to attract and entice new customers to buy their product. Suddenly this becomes evil incarnate because Microsoft did it? P'shaw.


I never agreed with this practice regardless of who does it. Would you be saying the same if Nintendo made the next Red Dead Redemption game a WiiU exclusive? Or if Bethesda made the next Fallout or Elder Scrolls exclusive to PC? Keep in mind the first game failed to meet Square's expectations on three platforms at first. So this new sequel that will have no doubt a much bigger budget will have to sale like hot cakes in order to cover the user base of 10 million actually it'll be more than that by the time the game comes out plus the PC market.

It's not a smart business move once you also factor in that the PS3 and PS4 versions outsold both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions. Out of the PC and PS4 the Xbox One has the smallest install base. The WiiU even has more consoles sold than it does. How is that a good business move?
---
Valar morghulis