Reply
Aug 12 2014
By: bob-maul PlayStation MVP 14299 posts
Online

An Argument for Exclusivity

6 replies 241 views Edited Aug 12, 2014

A lot of buzz is surrounding the new Tomb Raider game and how it is only coming to Xbox One- even though its predecessor came to both Ps3 and Ps4. I want to give an argument for why this is not an atrocity. You may not like it, but so be it. The core of the message is that the industry is a business. You are a consumer. Microsoft and Square Enix are corporations with money in mind.

 

The problem with this exclusivity for people is that the previous title came to Playstation. Actually, it has always been Playstation! But MS paid for the exxclusivity of the game. Meaning, Square got some sort of deal where it hopes to benefit more than if it went multiplatform. This could mean development money from MS or simply a lot of marketing power like we saw with EA and Titanfall. 

 

First, I would like to point out the blatant hypocrisy in the minds of some fans. After all,  Bloodborne is exclusive. Bloodborne is obviously the spiritual successor to the Souls games. 2 of the 3 were on the Xbox 360. Yet Bloodborne is being published by Sony. Is it not an atrocity that Souls fans on Xbox cannot play the new one? It seems unfair to them. But the name change makes this a lesser hit. also, this is a PS forum, so the Xbox fans are not here to voice concerns. Tomb Raider was more unexpected for people, but the idea is the same. Money changed hands to ensure that one system looks better than the other. It is mutually beneficial in that they intend to both make more money in the long-run and/or gather a larger mindshare of the people. 

 

Secondly, games are luxuries. You do not deserve anything from these publishers. They only want the best buddy friendship to make more money off of you. MS offered a good deal and undercut their competition with an exclusive franchise that pressures you into buying the system. This is not them cutting your supply of water or building a railroad by your home. This is them making you purchase their product in order to buy a special luxury item. Games are no life or death. It is a hobby and you need to spend money to get the most out of it. This is a b usiness venture. Not a moral question. If it hurts consumer relations, that is a problem. If it only irritates consumers, then it may be a worthy trade-off. Whatever makes more money and is better for a long-run profit. 

 

Lastly, you hopped on the train early. It is your fault for taking the time to analyze the route thoroughly. Waiting is your best bet to ensure your purchase is the most ideal for you. If you waited a few years, the trajectories of both systems would have been much clearer and you could judge the purchase of weither system better. Look at the last generation for MS's strategy. You buy exclusive games to get the marketshare early on. In this case, they are trying to compete with Sony (who, also, is buying exclusives left and right). 

 

This is business. You are no entitled to the future. Get over it or succumb to the desire for the console. If you stille disagree, vote with your wallet and hope that others are turned off by the ploy. Otherwise, again, it is business as usual.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 1 of 7 (241 Views)
Fender Bender
Registered: 03/30/2013
Offline
2921 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

Sony spent about 15% of all their time on E3 13,14 and Gamescom 13,14 on Destiny. and THE GAME ISN'T AN EXCLUSIVE.


This is Sony to me.fdfd

 

 

 

free advertising for Destiny from Sony. just to get the extra map which is a timed exclusive and exclusivity in Japan. really. Japan? you couldnt have picked a worst place for futurisitc shooter game. Sony need to get their brains together.


Message 2 of 7 (218 Views)
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 10/02/2008
Online
14299 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

B3GV5M63 wrote:

Sony spent about 15% of all their time on E3 13,14 and Gamescom 13,14 on Destiny. and THE GAME ISN'T AN EXCLUSIVE.


This is Sony to me.fdfd

 

 

 

free advertising for Destiny from Sony. just to get the extra map which is a timed exclusive and exclusivity in Japan. really. Japan? you couldnt have picked a worst place for futurisitc shooter game. Sony need to get their brains together.


It is mindshare. Just like CoD in that a lot think it is an Xbox game because of advertising.

 

Sony is paying and giving press time to Destiny in exchange for that mindshare. 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 3 of 7 (206 Views)
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 07/16/2012
Offline
10156 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

I'm perfectly content with the new Tomb Raider being exclusive on the Xbox One because it doesn't hurt me, and I might purchase the console just to play that game once it turns out to be pretty enjoyable after playing it for the very first time.

 

I also agree that waiting is the best thing to ensure a purchase that is the most ideal.


Message 4 of 7 (139 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 07/27/2012
Online
13496 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

Overall, you made a very interesting arguement Bob. I personally am not bothered with this decision of Tomb Raider on the PS4. Square Enix is a third party developer and can do whatever they choose; as you said, it's all business. 

 

But, there are a couple of points I would comment on from your OP:

 

 

Your first point used Bloodbourne and the Souls series as an example of people being hypocritical to Microsoft and Tomb Raider. This example isn't really relevent. Demon's Souls was published and made directly from Playstation. So it earned its exclusivity. Dark Souls did not have Sony involved with it and was fully responsible to third party companies. This made it possible for Dark Souls to be multiplatform. But, Bloodbourne is also being directly made from Sony. So, this also earns its exclusivity. The new Tomb Raider game, from what is known, doesn't have Microsoft directly involved in production. From what is known, it is more like Microsoft paying Square just to make the game an exclusive. It also cannot be known for certain if the money given to Square will be directly used for Rise of the Tomb Raider; Square has other products being made.So, while Sony made it known that they helped create Demon's Souls and Bloodbourne, it is not currently known if Microsoft will directly do the same.

 

Also, to your last point, are you saying that it is the people's fault for "hopping on the train" too early?.It was announced on Gamescom that over 10 million PS4 consoles were sold, in less than a year. This is no doubt helping Sony and Playstation. In a "console war" such as this, people aren't willing to wait a few years to choose; the consumers that purchase these games and consoles are just as competitive as the people that create them. So, is Sony's success for the PS4 really a failure to the people? These companies do buy for exclusive rights, I agree. But should this really be considered as a punishment for those that invested early and resulted in the PS4's 10 million?

 

 

Other than that, great point of view on this subject! 

Message 5 of 7 (105 Views)
Umbrella Scientist
Registered: 04/05/2003
Online
12605 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

This could be a deal forSquare Enix to grab cash to save them selves. They havnt real realsed a top notch game in years and also hurting in sales. But this may do them more harm then good in the end.

Skimble photo skimble-o_zps32latisj.gif
Message 6 of 7 (93 Views)
0 Likes
Highlighted
PlayStation Moderator
Registered: 10/28/2013
Offline
3423 posts
 

Re: An Argument for Exclusivity

Aug 12, 2014

Locked.

Message 7 of 7 (84 Views)
0 Likes