this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
166 points (94.6% liked)
Games
31990 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sony exclusives are anti consumer, and Naughty Dog games are more just cinematics then game.
I think you can take the "sony" out of that sentence...although exclusives can potentially be healthy to avoid monopolies and grant competition between makers.
Yeah, I'm mostly fine with Sony's exclusives. I don't love exclusives, but Sony funds a lot of games from the start. Their exclusives would often not exist without their funding. You know what I have a huge fucking problem with though? Microsoft buying companies and games already in progress to make exclusive. Microsoft has not contributed to Starfield, they haven't contributed to any Activision games, all they're doing is taking shit that would have existed with or without Microsoft and holding them hostage. They even did this with the OG Halo, it was originally supposed to be a Mac OS game.
All the companies do this, but Microsoft is by far the worst in recent memory. At least Sony and Nintendo actually make good games to hide it. They don't built their entire game libraries on buying other people's shit.
Microsoft is doing what Epic tried to (and miserably failed): they tried buying exclusives with Fortnite money but gave "us" (between quotes because I personally have never given into Epic's "here's a free game to dig into your data") a shit launcher with fewer functions than steam had when it first launched.
EXACTLY! When Fortnite released? Fine, it can be on its own launcher. It's annoying, but Epic made it, they can release it how they want. But to buy games that are already on Steam/coming to steam and just to take them off Steam? Bullshit.
Bethesda said Starfield would have released about a year or more ago if Microsoft hadn't purchased them. They've provided them the resources to keep going until the game is done. To say they aren't contributing to it is just completely misinformed.
I don't like exclusives at all. They're just greed. Both companies are a out equal for it though, except I will say Microsoft at least still let's their exclusives be played on PC.
It's just not the same. Activision could say whoever the fuck has been paying for the COD DLC timed exclusively contributes to that DLC and it probably wouldn't be wrong, wouldn't make it any less bullshit.
I don't really see how doing first-party development and acquiring third-party IP is functionally different. Nintendo still isn't going to release a Zelda title on other platforms.
Maybe there's a human psychology element there -- if a title already was available across platforms, I feel like I "lost" something. With a first-party title, I never had it in the first place. Humans do have loss aversion, are more upset about losing something then not getting it in the first place.
But it seems to me that any rational economic restrictions on acquiring third-party IP to do exclusives should also apply to first-party development.