Probably easier to get exclusive content deals when you have a demanding market position.Im not saying they don't, I just can't honestly remember the last major release MS had exclusive content for.
"Temporary", this is exclusive for the lifetime of the game essentially, a new CoD will be out when the deal is up.lol It's always fun to see people trying to compare these temporary exclusives to what Microsoft does.
Probably not given they did the same thing last year, it's just part of their shitty marketing deal after Acti stopped doing map packs. The mode will be a complete afterthought due to it like Spec Ops Survival was.I'm guessing at some point in the last few months this had planned to be a bit of a megaton.
500 Free Atoms for Fallout 76. Lol.
And loses out on tons of games due to market share and preference of devs. The number of games that come out on everything but Xbox is crazy. That's partially why they are unifying the PC and Xbox SDKs.Hard to fault MS when Sony has: Bought Spiderman exclusivity for Avengers + exclusive modes/quests/skins, FF16 exclusivity for 1 year, exclusive CoD mode for 1 year, Deathloop and Ghostwire exclusivity for (forget how long) and attempted Starfield exclusivity (among whatever else is bought/in the works we don't know about yet).
At this point MS is just fighting back, anybody who picks and chooses what to be upset about is likely biased.
Yep it's basically a full exclusive lol.
Forgot about a year, will anyone honestly care about this mode a week after release?
I wonder how much Sony pays for these modes?they cant be paying that much if this is the sort of dull throwaway mode acti can be bothered to give them.
Hard to fault MS when Sony has: Bought Spiderman exclusivity for Avengers + exclusive modes/quests/skins, FF16 exclusivity for 1 year, exclusive CoD mode for 1 year, Deathloop and Ghostwire exclusivity for (forget how long) and attempted Starfield exclusivity (among whatever else is bought/in the works we don't know about yet).
At this point MS is just fighting back, anybody who picks and chooses what to be upset about is likely biased.
It's a side mode, not the main zombie mode. If it's like Spec Ops Survival it's just a wave mode on a few of the MP maps.wait is this the whole zombies mode which I assumed already has co op up to 4 players right?
or is this like a sub section of the zombies mode that is only 2 player mode?
Never, DLCs came to Xbox only a month before, not a year. And the base games had the same amount of content.
lol at people crying over this seeing as how MS literally just bought an entire publisher. This is nowhere on the same level and anyone trying to say so is being naive.
I don't believe there was any exclusivity on Oblivion. It was originally supposed to come out year before the PS3 released, was delayed a year and iirc they had issues developing on the system (not related to the PS3 ram issue with Skyrim) and handed it off to 4J so they could continue working on FO3 and TES:V. I don't know anything about the others you mentioned though.By this reasoning, it's hard to fault Sony for buying those timed exclusives you just listed, when during the Xbox 360 era Microsoft got:
-1 year timed exclusivity for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
-10 month timed exclusivity for Bioshock
- 2-9 month timed exclusivity for Fallout 3's DLC packs
-1 year timed exclusivity for Mass Effect 2
-and other smaller exclusivity deals that I'm sure I'm forgetting
They were just "fighting back" against Microsoft's exclusivity deals after all.
Listen, call out any company that you think is doing shitty things, I fully support that. But DON'T try to pretend like Sony forced or provoked Microsoft into "fighting back" as if they're some peaceful bystander and Sony started mugging them on the street.
Businesses try to secure deals that are beneficial to their console platform and their customers. They always have done it, and they always will. Sony does it, Microsoft does it, Nintendo does it.
Eh, agree to disagree. Sony is clearly being more aggressive this time around in hopes to fade MS into irrelevance. Its clear by industry vets and insiders echoing similar points. Still feels like fighting back.By this reasoning, it's hard to fault Sony for buying those timed exclusives you just listed, when during the Xbox 360 era Microsoft got:
-1 year timed exclusivity for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
-10 month timed exclusivity for Bioshock
- 2-9 month timed exclusivity for Fallout 3's DLC packs
-1 year timed exclusivity for Mass Effect 2
-and other smaller exclusivity deals that I'm sure I'm forgetting
They were just "fighting back" against Microsoft's exclusivity deals after all.
Listen, call out any company that you think is doing shitty things, I fully support that. But DON'T try to pretend like Sony forced or provoked Microsoft into "fighting back" as if they're some peaceful bystander and Sony started mugging them on the street.
Businesses try to secure deals that are beneficial to their console platform and their customers. They always have done it, and they always will. Sony does it, Microsoft does it, Nintendo does it.
Eh, agree to disagree. Sony is clearly being more aggressive this time around in hopes to fade MS into irrelevance. Its clear by industry vets and insiders echoing similar points. Still feels like fighting back.
It arguably would not count due to market share. Sony outsold Xbox over 2:1. One is attempting to earn back marketshare, the other is utilizing its existing marketshare to further push competition out, at least on paper. In execution, especially with the looming streaming wars, the situation is not as black or white for either side here.That seems like a thin excuse to me. Why would Microsoft securing timed exclusive deals for some of the highest profile third party games of the entire gen not count as "trying to fade Sony into irrelevance" but it counts when it subsequently happens the other way around?
We can agree to disagree, but I side with the data, and the historical data shows that this is nothing unprecedented or one-sided
Because at that time Xbox was trying to battle the industry titan.... not coming from a gen where they savagely destroyed their competitor in every aspect of gamingThat seems like a thin excuse to me. Why would Microsoft securing timed exclusive deals for some of the highest profile third party games of the entire gen not count as "trying to fade Sony into irrelevance" but it counts when it subsequently happens the other way around?
We can agree to disagree, but I side with the data, and the historical data shows that this is nothing unprecedented or one-sided
It arguably would not count due to market share. Sony outsold Xbox over 2:1. One is attempting to earn back marketshare, the other is utilizing its existing marketshare to further push competition out, at least on paper. In execution, especially with the looming streaming wars, the situation is not as black or white for either side here.
Oh, undoubtedly. Granted, with Mass Effect 2 they did publish the first so it may have been a contractual obligation on EA's end, but agreed overall. These deals become cheaper the more market share you get, which then begets more market share. Something of a vicious cycle for sure.I get what you're saying but look at the numbers from the Xbox 360 / PS3 gen:
More data here
This is total sales through April 2009, and as you can see Xbox was outselling PS3 roughly 2:1. Many of those timed exclusive deals (Fallout 3 DLC, Bioshock, etc.) happened before April 2009. While Microsoft was in this dominant position they were also securing timed exclusivity for giant games like Mass Effect 2. So Microsoft wasn't fighting to earn back marketshare with those deals, it was trying to shove PS3 out of the market, just like we're seeing now that the tables are turned.
Businesses will always use a dominant position in the market to their advantage to secure more big deals, because the stronger their position already is, the cheaper big deals like that become.
Because at that time Xbox was trying to battle the industry titan.... not coming from a gen where they savagely destroyed their competitor in every aspect of gaming
Please stop spreading so much truth. The narratives and victim complexes are more important.not true. See the data I posted above to Deo-- Xbox was absolutely in the dominant position for much of the 360/PS3 gen, and they were already in that position as they were striking big exclusivity deals. They didn't claw their way to parity and then stopped doing exclusivity deals -- they kept using their strong position to get even more big deals to try to crush PS3 even more.
It's what every business does when they find themselves in a strong position where they can get even more big deals for an even cheaper price. It's a snowball effect
Please stop spreading so much truth. The narratives and victim complexes are more important.