That might be the case, but in two years the new consoles will be well established and there will probably be some sort of complete edition to buy, so i don't really agree with you here.
Marvel's Avengers will have Spiderman as part of future update. BBBUUUTTTTT.....
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
A shame really, it is a problem whether you're willing to admit it or not, and you are objectively wrong about exclusivity not being a problem because you are compartmentalising it exclusively to video-games even though that same practices exist for stuff like medicine which is what causes stuff like Epipens to be absurdly expensive costing people's lives, but getting back to games and why this specific scenario is bad for the customers and the customers have a legitimate right to be displeased with the exclusivity deal.
Spider-Man does not belong to Sony, at least not the rights to video-games barring the recent Sony produce Insomniac game Spider-Man has appeared in many other platforms as mentioned above as recently as July of 2019 after release of the Insomniac game, not to mention he's been included in most Avengers games, so there's no reason for the public not to expect such a popular character from being one of the promised free DLC characters, but because Sony paid a lot of money to Square Enix to specifically restrict the future free DLC character to be announced to their platform, this means that Square-Enix prefers to receive some "additional funding" from Sony than provide their customers with a better product, now I'm not going to shit on Crystal Dynamics as this was probably a deal between Sony and Square so I very much doubt they had much to do with it but it is very shitty, also like Spider-Man is the most popular Marvel character and a very prominent member of the Avengers, at least to modern audiences that are more familiar with the films, so people expect him to be there.
Now like Brawlman I don't really have any emotional investment in this argument I'm not interested in the game and due to my hatred of the Walt Disney company have no plans of getting it, so you know I'm not upset over it, I'm just tired of the same Corporate apologist arguments you keep making, these companies don't need defending let their PR departments and lawyers take care of that, if they fold to the backlash all that happens is that PC and Xbox users get an additional character which if you ask me, is great for them and doesn't really affect Playstation users either, if they don't they just have to deal with the shitty PR that comes from it, I mean you are defending the virtues of the Free Market, so let it operate as intended and don't defend the company, allow the customers to freely voice their opinion and let the market decide rather than defending a company claiming that's how capitalism works while completely ignoring the fact that the complaints of the customers are also a feature of Capitalism.
So you know, people complaining have a lot more reason to do so than those defending the company, at least the ones that are complaining have something to gain.
I was speaking flippantly and generally. Point being, buying the same game across multiple platforms shouldn't be a differentiating experience. Again, I couldn't care less seeing as my support of the industry has waned to basically nil over the past few years, but petty business practices, however sensible they might seem objectively, are still petty. I.e.: Id much rather see efforts put into making Uncharted 5 a must-own Playstation title versus Call of Duty #948 having Playstation-exclusive content.
Honestly this doesn't bother me at all. Sony paid for the Spiderman IP, they shouldn't be expected to just give it to other companies they're competing with just so PC gamers and Xboners don't feel left out.
I saw Jim Sterling's video on it and he's off the mark yet again. It is exclusivity. That's the point. Sony has an exclusive right to use Spiderman and if they want to dangle that as a carrot to get a playstation, well Microsoft what can you offer.
Its a smart business move from a company that wants to sell you stuff.
I saw Jim Sterling's video on it and he's off the mark yet again. It is exclusivity. That's the point. Sony has an exclusive right to use Spiderman and if they want to dangle that as a carrot to get a playstation, well Microsoft what can you offer.
Its a smart business move from a company that wants to sell you stuff.
"Its a
No no, its smart. People like Spiderman. They want to play as Spiderman. Buy a Playstation. That's smart. It knows what people want and will sell it to them - kinda like every business offer ever.
Dude, it's okay. The game probably's gonna suck anyway, Spider-Man or no Spider-Man. The experience will not be radically changed.
That's wrong. Sony does not actually have the videogame rights to Spider-Man. They paid Marvel money to be allowed to make an exclusive Marvel character game, and they let Insomniac choose which character, and that's the story of how Spider-Man 2018 got made. Up until that game, actually, Activision had been the producer of Spider-Man videogames.
Sony is likely just throwing money at Marvel and Square-Enix to further get people to associate Spider-Man with Playstation.
It's corporate branding at the expense of consumers and nothing more.
Remember how the Raimi Spider-Man movies and the original Playstation 3 logo had the same font?
That's every exclusive deal ever made. No one said Sony was throwing their weight around when they bought Bloodborne to be exclusive to the PS4.
And its no more at the expense of consumers than any exclusive title for any console ever at any point.
Which is why I, and many others, are against console exclusives. I don't think this is a difficult position to understand.
That is a pretty difficult position. Without console exclusives, why bother making a console? Just let one company have the console and make games all for the same system.
Exclusives need to exist to bring people to your platform. Period.
People butthurt over exclusives are usually the people who's perferred platform gets the short end of the stick.
Complaints about exclusive products make no sense. What about pre order bonuses and swag from gamestop that you dont get if you pre order digitally or from another store.
What about various editions of a game that feature more content if you buy the Golden Deluxe version?
This is about business. Not about making gamers happy. Nintendo makes gamers happy. Everyone else is about the bottom dollar, and that aint changing.
Yall wanna talk scummy business practices, yall should see what they're doing to Magic The Gathering these days, because holy shit.
To make money.
Wrong. Why is there more than one manufacturer of TV's? Why aren't movies tied to TV screens? Because there is far, far more to business products than "exclusives": build quality, features, resolution, in-built programming. There is a crap ton of stuff that goes into videogame boxes that companies can compete with each other on. Videogame exclusivity began due to console manufacturers being the main developers. When Atari sunk and independent (from manufacturers') game development started taking off, it continued due to technical limitations, different systems and PCs had fundamentally different architectures and graphical capabilities unlike today (and even then, the big hits generally did have people who would go on to develop ports for as many systems as possible). By the time that there wasn't any logistical need for exclusives, publishers continued them, because they realized they could be marketing tools. There is no other reason for them to exist.
Go eat a bowl of cereal and be grateful that you don't need a specific bowl that is compatible with Cheerio's and Fruit Loops but not Cocoa Puffs, with ice cream being right out.
But movies are tied to different players, and subscription services. Not to mention you need to pay for a cable package of some sort which *gasp* have exclusives! Direct TV for example will not show Dodger Baseball games, so you HAVE to order Spectrum (in my area) if you are a fan of the Dodgers, but if you have the service that gives you the Dodgers you don't have the service to watch the Lakers. Both Southern California teams for two different sports and I can't imagine sport fans would wanna watch all their local teams and not just one.
Hmmm...crazy how that works.
Exclusives today are still funded, if not outright developed, by the console manufacturer. Sony owns or outright pays for the development of an exclusive title. As does Nintendo. And Theoretically Microsoft does too, but I'm not sure about that anymore.
Remember when they bragged about all the extra shit the Xbox One would be able to do. It was going to be an all-in-one media machine, adding in all those extra features you say would make the console competitive, but nobody fucking cared. Because people don't want their console to do a bunch of stupid shit if the thing can't play the games they want the console to play, which is why exclusives are still so enticing for both companies and the public.
But even buying something is a form of exclusivity. TV shows aren't tied to TV screens, yes, but they're tied to people that paid for them. How is that fair? Doesn't that alienate everyone who didn't buy it? How is one form of exclusivity okay but another isn't?
If I want to watch a show, i have to buy a TV. That sounds a lot like big corporations throwing their money behind TV productions so that Im forced to buy a TV.
Saw this video which highlights something interesting. Playstation apparently gets a shit load more exclusivity with this game than anyone else. PS plus members are going to get special benefits, and rare outfits for not only the launch heroes but also ALL future free heroes coming post launch.
Which makes me curious like Keef here, if Sony was going to dip their nutsack into this game like this, why not just make it entirely an exclusive game?
But then I got to think about the conversation we've been having here today. Maybe this is the compromise to exclusivity of a title entirely. Like people, not me, have complained about console exclusives and how they are "bad practice". So what if this is the compromise?
Alright everybody gets the game, it wont be exclusive. BUT.....our version is gonna be better than everyone else's. That's how we'll get to entice people to buy it for our system over all the others. Everybody gets the game, but we get it better.
Looking at this thread I don't think people like that idea either. At least most of the game is better than none of the game though right?
Seriously people?!?! THIS is what you're gonna choose to be upset about?!
What about Soul Calibur 2's "guest" characters?
The game is gonna suck anyway.
What about Soul Calibur 2's "guest" characters?
The game is gonna suck anyway.
The IP of Bloodborne was squarely Sony's idea. They didn't just buy the game.
There have been other platform exclusive content before, like missions in various AAA games, one recently I saw was in Arkhum Knight. They have been at this for a while. There's also the other restriction still going under the radar of pre-order bonuses basically postponing the game's release by about 3 days or more for anyone who doesn't pre-order. Publishers are still regularly doing that btw, cause no-one calls them out on it. Not saying it to excuse, but to put into perspective; they've been indulging in some form of this throughout the generation. It's just now a higher-ish profile content/character. That's capitalism folks!
People like money, too; is robbing banks a "smart" move? Is embezzlement a "smart" move? How about insider trading; "smart" move?
Again, I really couldn't care less, but calling moves like this anything other than shrewd and opportunistic is being too gracious. Besides, I highly doubt this kind of "nickle and dime" exclusivity moves consoles, i.e.: I doubt anyone is buying a PS for Spider-Man in a single game, so why the bother? Why the intentional segmentation of a fan base, even if it is a timed deal? Were I a publisher, I would want my game disseminated as widely as possible, and exclusive content that might deter a buyer of a non-preferred console is just a missed opportunity and senselessly divisive of the larger gaming community (hence this thread.)
So, you've got 100 people willing to buy a game at full price at launch, but you shun 50 of them with content exclusive to a single platform. Two years later, the other half can buy your "complete" game at a discount, and you've somehow won? Personally, I'd rather get 100 buyers at full price up front and sell them all DLC down the line (if I can't be arsed to hand them a finished product at launch.) Exclusive content for multi-platform titles is just dumb and a way for publishers to bilk consoles developers into some imagined elite status that the general public couldn't care less about save for feeling jaded that owning this or the other platform has them missing out.
Or I can shun 50 of them out of ever having the game ever at all. DLC or not. Exclusive means i can keep the game to just my platform and everyone else can eat a dick.
Doing it this way, allows all 100 people to get the game. Then those 50 on my exclusive platform get new content 6 months later.
I don't understand why the problem. You get the game, and you miss one update 6 months down the line. Which frankly banks pretty heavily on people actually giving a fuck about the game that long.