-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why do people get upset over Timed Exclusivity Deals but not so much when Console Manufacturers buy Game Studios?
- Thread starter bob100
- Start date
- Status
Because despite being one of the richest companies on earth, and orders of magnitude richer than Sony, Microsoft has marketed itself as the underdog, and people bought it.
My thoughts on this as well. Timed Exclusivity sucks for everyone.
You know the reason, come on. It's console wars shit, always has been. I had some friends in a discord we're all in tell me that Microsoft buying Bethesda was unironically good for the industry and when I challenged him on it he boiled it down to "Microsoft good/Sony bad."
OP
OP
No you're 100% right only Microsoft buying studios is good and sony buying studios is bad for everyone///....and after your condescending comment and no apology I have no interest in talking to you. Now stop messaging me.
Well I guess that the impact will be smaller as MS went first, but I truly hope that it's the breaking point where everyone here finally understand why big third party publishers/devs being bought and consolidated isn't a good thing for anyone really.
Last edited:
I filtered the list to timed exclusive and started searching release dates. Way way too many where it's exactly a year.
lmao
A)are you familiar with the term investment? and B) are you aware of Microsoft's market cap and availability of cash? Microsoft could buy Sony lol
I said nothing about spending money to block anyone. I asserted that the acquisition was tantamount to a loss leader. Recouping the outlay isn't necessarily dependent on Sony.
I dunno. Microsoft buying Bethesda hasn't canceled their current timed exclusives and doesn't stop them from pursuing more third party timed exclusives.
there's a difference between buying a studio and having a hand in making their games and straight up paying a studio money to keep it out of the hands of slices of people
one feels way more spiteful towards consumers than the other
one feels way more spiteful towards consumers than the other
It depends, lots of time the timed deals have a whole lot of misleading involved- (for instance game is talked about prior and implied to be multiplatform then announced as exclusive) You also get the publishers getting basically paid to lie and stonewall about when other versions are coming out. If they stated the terms of the deal it wouldn't be so bad. This Breaks our ability to make informed purchasing decisions. There is also the thing about devs being able to focus on on platform thus optimize and focus on delivering a better product - when they're fully bought out (at least in Sony's case) they can put a lot of time into the seldom used features in the console and push the graphics further on the platform.
Yes. And one has you assuming all the risk while the other is just petty as fuck
I Hate all timed exclusives they are pointless to the consumer and only helps companies.
Yeah honestly this sorta stuff pisses me off more than acquisitions, the Avengers thing sucked.
I have no idea how things regarding exclusivity are going to pan out, but just because MS is bigger than Sony or has cash available in no way means that the same principles of return of investment and financial sensibility wouldn't apply in exactly the same way.
MS can just have the gaming division to remain unprofitable for a longer period of time. That's the only difference, but it still doesn't mean that once you take the risks into account, there wouldn't still be a need for a rational, calculable and clear plan for profitability before 7.5B is spent. It just emphasises the point when as of now Xbox isn't selling too well and at the same time MS has decided to give Game Pass out very cheaply and sell XSX at loss.
There's of course a plan to make all this money back and then some. These decision aren't done recklessly, on a whim or based on guesses just because the company is big.
The truth is that both "exclude" a group from playing content.
Buying a studio is an investment, whereas buying exclusivity is (generally) just a means of preventing competition from enjoying the heightened release-period hype. I think that's what bothers people in those scenarios - they hear about a game for years, it drops on a machine they don't have, and then they are out of the zeitgeist by the time they can buy and play it.
Not all "money hats" are created equal though. Seemingly SFV wouldn't have happened without Sony, though I often wonder how much Sony pays into that agreement as it continues getting updates.
I think the ones that irritate people (at least myself) the most are where a game is across multiple platforms, but one gets stuff earlier (that affects online) or is the only place to get the content period. The publisher is adding value for one set of customers, but charging another set the same price.
edit: I'll likely catch flak for this, but I also think MS "exclusivity" at the moment is the least impactful of the three. Nintendo exclusives are generally exclusive to hardware intenrally, let alone a company (but they'll gladly re-charge you for access on a new machine, at full price) and Sony is still largely locked to their consoles until recently with PC ports. That is to say that Nintendo/Sony exclusivity (in any form) is more likely to restrict more people overall (Xbox+PC users likely outwiegh Nintendo+Playstation users)
Buying a studio is an investment, whereas buying exclusivity is (generally) just a means of preventing competition from enjoying the heightened release-period hype. I think that's what bothers people in those scenarios - they hear about a game for years, it drops on a machine they don't have, and then they are out of the zeitgeist by the time they can buy and play it.
Not all "money hats" are created equal though. Seemingly SFV wouldn't have happened without Sony, though I often wonder how much Sony pays into that agreement as it continues getting updates.
I think the ones that irritate people (at least myself) the most are where a game is across multiple platforms, but one gets stuff earlier (that affects online) or is the only place to get the content period. The publisher is adding value for one set of customers, but charging another set the same price.
edit: I'll likely catch flak for this, but I also think MS "exclusivity" at the moment is the least impactful of the three. Nintendo exclusives are generally exclusive to hardware intenrally, let alone a company (but they'll gladly re-charge you for access on a new machine, at full price) and Sony is still largely locked to their consoles until recently with PC ports. That is to say that Nintendo/Sony exclusivity (in any form) is more likely to restrict more people overall (Xbox+PC users likely outwiegh Nintendo+Playstation users)
Last edited:
I'm not a huge fan of either but dislike timed exclusives more due to the constant secretiveness and sometimes outright dishonesty.
If companies would just come out and outright say "looks its a 6 month exclusive" or something like that it'd bring down my negativity about it (still wouldn't like it but still it'd help)
If companies would just come out and outright say "looks its a 6 month exclusive" or something like that it'd bring down my negativity about it (still wouldn't like it but still it'd help)
I think timed exclusives are better than buying studios, so I don't get it.
I have no issue waiting a year for a game.
From a game point of view, there are definitely advantages for timed exclusives, and being bought. Namely more funding.
But from a consumer point of view, I think waiting a year for a title is better than never getting a game on your preferred platform.
I have no issue waiting a year for a game.
From a game point of view, there are definitely advantages for timed exclusives, and being bought. Namely more funding.
But from a consumer point of view, I think waiting a year for a title is better than never getting a game on your preferred platform.
Yeah
Are you familiar with the term ROI?
A company having a lot of money doesnt make them keen on wasting it. Why spend $7.5 Billion buying Bethesda if all they wanted was to block Sony? They could have just paid Bethesda to skip Playstation and got the same result for a fraction of the cost.
No company is going to sign off of a $7.5 billion aquisition without a s solid plan to convert that into profit.
Last edited:
It's hard to get mad or stay mad when a game or studio only gets made/continues to exist because it was purchased (see Bayonetta 2/3). It's frustrating when a game doesn't need to be a timed exclusive to sell (see FF7R or FFXVI) but money is thrown at it to keep it exclusive for a time.
The majority of people who complain about this shit only do so when it affects them, it's really that simple.
You suggested that it being a loss leader meant they might not release on a competitors console right?
I guess Bethesda was trying to sell themselves just for fun then.
Last edited:
Yes, let's see where it leads the industry and how "better off" developers and consumers will be in a decade or two.
Again, same answer to your new post:
OK, so why did they buy Bethesda? What was the point if not to bolster their first party offerings? ROI doesn't have to simply be the direct sales of Bethesda games. It's enriching the Xbox/Gamepass experience. If the same can be had on PlayStation, a potential consumer wouldn't need to come to Xbox. By your logic they might as well put Halo and Gears and Forza on every platform known to man as well. More money, right?
are you aware they were trying to sell because of the uncertainty of the AAA market ?
Not really. As a primary playstation gamer/secondary PC gamer, I'm not a fan of Sony buying timed exclusives. It must have had some benefit for them to keep doing it, but I don't go yaaay a game only for me.
For instance, in case of FFVIIR, the only benefit I can think of is: Okay, SE is shit at completing games, maybe with this exclusivity they can focus on just one SKU for now, and get some extra development cash on top of it, and the game will be better for it.
As for acquisitions, I couldn't care less about Bethesda, but if it happened to a developer I like, like CDPR, with such a gargantuan amount of cash involved, one can only say "well played" and hope it possibly leads to more special games.
Pretty much. Every other long winded justification is just mental gymnastics to defend their plastic box of choice
Man these discussions kill me. Neither of you knows if the games will be exclusive or not, and trying to use big boy words to convince each other is so corny. No one knows, stop acting like people who disagree with you are dumb.
I still don't really understand the idea that 6-12 months of timed exclusivity is worse than permanently removing a dozen historically multiformat franchises from another system, but it seems this is genuinely where we're at.
You can't really compare the Insomniac Games or Ninja Theory (for example) acquisitions to the Bethesda buyout because, in Insomniac's case at least, its biggest franchises were Sony IP anyway.
You can't really compare the Insomniac Games or Ninja Theory (for example) acquisitions to the Bethesda buyout because, in Insomniac's case at least, its biggest franchises were Sony IP anyway.
Not true. I own all platforms and will next gen as well so I was never at risk of being "left out in the rain". I played Destiny exclusively on Playstation and always thought that exclusive strike/mission deal was utter shit. Genuinely felt bad for Xbox players. It's not at all comparable to investing in developers and bringing them in-house.
What the hell was Microsoft supposed to do if people kept complaining they didn't have enough exclusives? Bethesda was a PRIVATE company and wanted to be bought. And now, incredible teams like Arkane that don't always light up the sales chart have a bit of a lifeline. The sale was mutually beneficial.
Seeing this being brought up often, how exactly will a studio like Arkane benefit from MS acquisition?
Nah I disagree with the hypocrisy nonsense.
In my opinion if you want games exclusively on your system, buy that shit outright. I can much easier tolerate exclusivity when it's because the game is owned by someone than knowing the company just straight up wrote a check to keep it off the competitors for a while.
At least when the company is owned you know Sony/Microsoft money is being invested into that company fully. Because it is now their money to gain or lose.
In my opinion if you want games exclusively on your system, buy that shit outright. I can much easier tolerate exclusivity when it's because the game is owned by someone than knowing the company just straight up wrote a check to keep it off the competitors for a while.
At least when the company is owned you know Sony/Microsoft money is being invested into that company fully. Because it is now their money to gain or lose.
Well like I said I don't know how the exclusivity is going to pan out, but imo the biggest benefits to MS is control over them, having the games on game pass day one and getting the studios before someone else does. The exclusivity is a benefit, but nowhere near the biggest factor. It's just a very long term investment.
All I can say is that I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger games would release on PS5 also because A. there's an established, clear fan base who will surely buy the games in millions, and B. (this is more important), because something like ES6 would make way more money for MS on Playstation than anywhere else just because of the simple fact that it would be sold at full price instead of offered through Game Pass like everywhere else. Game Pass day 1 is either a loss for MS or at least cuts profits from game sales significantly for the foreseeable future, there's no way around it.
7.5B is an absolutely massive amount of money, and how things are for Xbox, it's going to basically take at least the whole generation until some profits are on the horizon. They would still have the often underestimated, big advantage that you can play those games at release with a Game Pass sub, when on other platforms you have to pay the full price.
Of course the other, also quite likely possibility is that Zeni games are just exclusive, and that's it.
I think exclusive content is a little different when someone pays the same for the game but receives an inferior product. I don't like waiting to play game either but it's far more acceptable.
Microsoft can bolster their 1st party and enhance Xbox/Gamepass despite putting their games on competitng platforms. In fact, they are already doing this. You can go buy Gears or Halo on Steam RIGHT NOW.
There's no path to recouping $7.5Billion through Bethesda exlusives. That's roughly Playstations entire operating profit since ps4 launched, and their exclusives sell gangbusters. The Minecraft IP was $2 Billion, and that stayed multiplat, even Minecraft Dungeons, which came out years after the acquisition.
The Gamepass experience has NEVER been about exclusives. NONE of the games on the service, aside from Forza4 are exclusive to xbox. It's been about having a huge collection of great games, including all of MS 1st party on day one, for a great price. This dynamic would still be true if and when Bethesda games land on competing platforms.
One of the biggest lessons MS has learned this gen is how to be a multiplatform developer and convert that into demand for in-house products and services. By supporting steam, they've converted some steam users into Gamepass subscribers and sell games directly to those who won't subscribe... it's a win-win. We see the same thing happening with Nintendo users. It's silly to think MS wont see the same opportunity on Playstation.
I'm not saying this will happen for all MS IP. But it makes too much sense to do this for IP that cost $7.5 Billion and already have established fanbases on other platforms.
Last edited:
I remember people defending basically every Microsoft timed exclusivity deal and studio acquisition by saying "it's okay because it's an indie/mid-range studio having trouble with funding." I wonder what they think about buying a major publisher and 5 major studios in one fell swoop.
Is it smart business? Yes, but is it also damaging to the industry in the long term? Not sure.
This is an arms race that only Microsoft can win in this space.
Had Sony purchased ZeniMax, we would definitely have people performing mental gymnastics to justify why its great/bad depending on which side of the fence you sit on. But even then the concern would be legit in regards to long-term health of the industry when one mega corp is hoarding content to keep it away from others.
Timed exclusives are not on the same scale, those games usually end up everywhere within a certain amount of time.
That is what has surprised me the most. The fact that an Avengers exclusive character garnered more vitriol and backlash here and on the internet in general, than a mega corp buying a healthy multiplatform publisher and cutting off the largest console install base in the process. All the while proclaiming that "Exclusives are counter to what gaming is about"
People literally switched stances overnight because it suited their preferred choice of plastic at that particular time.
This is an arms race that only Microsoft can win in this space.
Had Sony purchased ZeniMax, we would definitely have people performing mental gymnastics to justify why its great/bad depending on which side of the fence you sit on. But even then the concern would be legit in regards to long-term health of the industry when one mega corp is hoarding content to keep it away from others.
Timed exclusives are not on the same scale, those games usually end up everywhere within a certain amount of time.
That is what has surprised me the most. The fact that an Avengers exclusive character garnered more vitriol and backlash here and on the internet in general, than a mega corp buying a healthy multiplatform publisher and cutting off the largest console install base in the process. All the while proclaiming that "Exclusives are counter to what gaming is about"
People literally switched stances overnight because it suited their preferred choice of plastic at that particular time.
Well, I look at it somewhat like how the film industry handles "prestige" movies. Those movies don't make bank and some of them even expectedly lose money. But there's merit in having them in your portfolio. Sony does it with their Classics label, and they clearly do it with game studios like Media Molecule. Microsoft can better absorb the blow of an underperforming Dishonored better than an independent Bethesda can. I mean, this is all baseless conjecture lol but one can dream.
Never been on a gaming forum during a transition to next gen but it all just seems like console wars tbh. From people being happy Spider-Man was exclusive while others were pissed off. And now there's the potential of usual multi plat games becoming exclusive and both reactions happening again.
- Status