Top
40°

Timed Exclusives Might Be Good Business, Just Don’t Treat Us Like Fools

Microsoft rubbed a few people the wrong way when it was revealed at and following the recent GamesCom Xbox media briefing that the upcoming Rise of the Tomb Raider would be an Xbox exclusive.

AusGamers considers if there's really a problem with that, or if the issue with how such announcements are communicated.

Read Full Story >>
ausgamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
nX1118d ago

You're paying money to prevent the release on other platforms for a set amount of time, I will never understand how this can be a good thing. I'd rather call it "aggressive marketing" and hope that this not become a trend.

mixolydian_id1118d ago (Edited 1118d ago )

@ Bloodborn,

Its not as bad as it sounds.

TR was a PS exclusive for years... same with Metal gear solid...

Remember final fantasy 7? just what platform was 1-6 released on?

Not to mention Destiny and PS favouritism... and COD and XB favouritism.

Timed exclusivity is better then full exclusivity. THE LATTER is aggressive marketing

The "There are more exclusives on blah console" argument... is the cause of the timed exclusivity deal and that makes US to blame for it.

Full exclusivity is what robs the majority of potential gaming experiences. Everyone would do well to remember that

nX1118d ago (Edited 1118d ago )

Wow you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

TR, MGS and FF7 were exclusive because at that time only the PS1 offered the capabilities needed to run these games, their creators decided to make them exclusive.

Timed exclusivity is not better than full exclusivity simply because full exclusivity means that the game wouldn't have existed without the funding of the platform holder. If you pay for development you certainly don't want the game on your competitors platform. Full exclusivity is NOT "aggressive marketing", it's traditional brand building in most cases.

In the recent Tomb Raider case the game would've existed anyway, funded by Square Enix, but Microsoft stepped in and paid money to prevent a release on Playstation and PC, that's not only aggressive but also consumer unfriendly because this brand was built on all platforms, most of all Playstation. Can't believe that people are supporting this, our industry reached a new low the day this deal was announced.

mixolydian_id1117d ago

Do you think publishers don't fund projects enough prior to the intervention of the console companies? Do the publishers decide upon the deadlines within their proposal/contract? Do the developers illicitly decide upon marketing deals without publishers consultation.

I don't think it's as simple as

-) ms did this to spite everyone

The game would surely exist without any outside funding. It isn't "low" it's business .
As for me being wrong about previous ps1 deals, they had a choice and they decided to go exclusive to one device. They could have gone multiplat... Let's be honest FF7 graphics are tré pants (loved the game of course) they could have still released a great game elsewhere... The series may have been greater the. It is today.

What's the lowest is the growing amount of fandom across the board... That is something that gets consistently worse.

Spotie1117d ago

First off, your examples fail because those weren't bought. As Bloodborn says, there were technical or market reasons for those games being exclusive.

No such things here. Just Microsoft paying money to be first.

And that's not good for business, particularly when you're shafting the majority of your fanbase.