Buying companies to make them exclusive is anti-consumer. Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer. If anything, it should create competition for high quality exclusives by investing in unique game designers. When Microsoft just buys Rare, Mojang, Activision, Blizzard, King, Bethesda, Arkane, Alpha Dog, etc, it’s not to create competition.
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. I’ve never had a PC that has worked for 7 years without replacing significant parts. I’ve only had 5 PlayStations total since I was 5. I’ve had at least twenty computers during the same time frame.
There’s investment made by Sony for games on their hardware. If the hardware were bad, developers wouldn’t use it.
I work for a start up, and I loved getting the opportunity to build a tech platform while not having to build up the business from the ground up. I can’t do human resources, marketing, sales, yaddah yaddah. I don’t have any way of just getting my product into retail. Two years in, and we’re about to land a $125M contact. It’s green energy, so I feel like I’m saving the world.
Assuming you’ve had every PS since the first one, released in 1994, that’d mean you had 20 computers in at most 29 years, meaning they lasted on average just under 1 1/2 years. What the hell are you doing to your computers?
frankly I don’t understand your point. Recently both companies have been porting games to PC, but NOT the other console. If Sony can port Spiderman, God of War, etc to PC there’s absolutely no reason they can’t port them to xbox as well, except to force consumers to buy a playstation. Same with MSFT and Elder Scrolls. That’s why it’s anti-consumer.
I’m not trying to be confrontational. I want to hear your honest takes. Let me put it to you this way:
If I make an app for Apple, do I have to make it for Android?
What if I’m not an Android developer?
What if I won’t make money if I make it for Android because my reach is already saturated?
What if I know that my app will be heavily pirated as soon as I make it available for Android and there’s nothing I can do about it?
To me, the only reason Sony is doing it with their back catalog is to try to generate new users for their upcoming sequels. The game is at the end of its earning lifespan if they don’t port it, so why not use it to market the upcoming titles?
“you” as an independent developer don’t have a vested interest in selling apple hardware. Microsoft and Sony do have an interest in selling xboxes and playstations.
“you” as an independent developer don’t have the resources to fairly easily port an app to another platform, like Microsoft/Sony do. Like other AAA developers have been doing with non-exclusive games for decades.
Market saturation for apps is not really comparable to AAA console games.
I don’t think piracy is a big concern in console games, but maybe I’m wrong. I don’t keep up with it.
To me, the only reason Sony is doing it with their back catalog is to try to generate new users for their upcoming sequels. The game is at the end of its earning lifespan if they don’t port it, so why not use it to market the upcoming titles?
So you’re saying releasing games on other platforms is beneficial for game sales?
If Sony doesn’t invest in their own studios, the consumer just doesn’t get the game those studios make. Without PlayStation, gaming would look significant worse over the last 30 years. Most of my favorite games are Sony exclusives.
If Sony doesn’t invest in their own studios, the consumer just doesn’t get the game those studios make. Without PlayStation, gaming would look significant worse over the last 30 years
Not true, Sony could have easily created or funded the studios anyway and make games just like they produce films right now under Columbia Pictures; they do not need to run a hardware business to make and distribute software, that’s what I’m saying. Nowadays it’s an artificial limitation to try and boost hardware sales.
Most of my favorite games are Sony exclusives.
And wouldn’t you like it if more people could play them and share those great experiences? Do you really want meaningless limitations on who can participate with art?
I think you aren’t realizing what you implying. Companies that just fund studios for publishing rights are companies like EA, Activision, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Tencent. Every one of these publishers has very aggressive microtransaction platforms. Plus, they all publish predominantly multiplayer games. If the only way for me to get single player games is to buy a console, so be it.
If the only way for me to get single player games is to buy a console, so be it.
It’s not though, that is a false dichotomy. Just because the major publishers are pushing trash because it’s profitable does not mean that single player games are impossible for cross platform.
Look at FromSoft, Bloodborne is made with the same engine as Dark Souls 3 which is available cross platform, same as Dark Souls 1 and 2, yet Bloodborne is exclusive because Sony is intentionally crafting a captive audience.
Both, your gripes with major publishers and console exclusivity, come from corporate putting sales above all else, yet you excuse one but not the other.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Buying companies to make them exclusive is anti-consumer. Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer. If anything, it should create competition for high quality exclusives by investing in unique game designers. When Microsoft just buys Rare, Mojang, Activision, Blizzard, King, Bethesda, Arkane, Alpha Dog, etc, it’s not to create competition.
nope, both are anti consumer. If you want to make unique games, great. No need to restrict them only to your platform.
all it does is make people buy redundant hardware which obviously costs more money but also creates more e-waste.
also without exclusive games, consoles would have to compete on the actual hardware, price, etc rather than which games you want to play.
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. I’ve never had a PC that has worked for 7 years without replacing significant parts. I’ve only had 5 PlayStations total since I was 5. I’ve had at least twenty computers during the same time frame.
There’s investment made by Sony for games on their hardware. If the hardware were bad, developers wouldn’t use it.
I work for a start up, and I loved getting the opportunity to build a tech platform while not having to build up the business from the ground up. I can’t do human resources, marketing, sales, yaddah yaddah. I don’t have any way of just getting my product into retail. Two years in, and we’re about to land a $125M contact. It’s green energy, so I feel like I’m saving the world.
Assuming you’ve had every PS since the first one, released in 1994, that’d mean you had 20 computers in at most 29 years, meaning they lasted on average just under 1 1/2 years. What the hell are you doing to your computers?
I currently have 8 computers. 3 for work. 2 for media. 2 old gaming rigs, and my current computer.
I had twelve salvaged hard drives in my stuff before I bought my house, and I started doing that in college, so it’s at least 20.
frankly I don’t understand your point. Recently both companies have been porting games to PC, but NOT the other console. If Sony can port Spiderman, God of War, etc to PC there’s absolutely no reason they can’t port them to xbox as well, except to force consumers to buy a playstation. Same with MSFT and Elder Scrolls. That’s why it’s anti-consumer.
I’m not trying to be confrontational. I want to hear your honest takes. Let me put it to you this way:
To me, the only reason Sony is doing it with their back catalog is to try to generate new users for their upcoming sequels. The game is at the end of its earning lifespan if they don’t port it, so why not use it to market the upcoming titles?
Your analogy is a poor one.
So you’re saying releasing games on other platforms is beneficial for game sales?
I’m saying releasing it years after the fact when you’re about the roll the next one out is a pretty good move.
I mean, it kinda is. The end result is the same: a product that can only be used in a closed ecosystem.
There’s a practical and ethical difference between creating something for a closed ecosystem and taking a product in an open ecosystem and closing it.
But they have the same result, so ultimately it has the same rating of consumer friendliness, which is “non”
If Sony doesn’t invest in their own studios, the consumer just doesn’t get the game those studios make. Without PlayStation, gaming would look significant worse over the last 30 years. Most of my favorite games are Sony exclusives.
Not true, Sony could have easily created or funded the studios anyway and make games just like they produce films right now under Columbia Pictures; they do not need to run a hardware business to make and distribute software, that’s what I’m saying. Nowadays it’s an artificial limitation to try and boost hardware sales.
And wouldn’t you like it if more people could play them and share those great experiences? Do you really want meaningless limitations on who can participate with art?
I think you aren’t realizing what you implying. Companies that just fund studios for publishing rights are companies like EA, Activision, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Tencent. Every one of these publishers has very aggressive microtransaction platforms. Plus, they all publish predominantly multiplayer games. If the only way for me to get single player games is to buy a console, so be it.
It’s not though, that is a false dichotomy. Just because the major publishers are pushing trash because it’s profitable does not mean that single player games are impossible for cross platform.
Look at FromSoft, Bloodborne is made with the same engine as Dark Souls 3 which is available cross platform, same as Dark Souls 1 and 2, yet Bloodborne is exclusive because Sony is intentionally crafting a captive audience.
Both, your gripes with major publishers and console exclusivity, come from corporate putting sales above all else, yet you excuse one but not the other.
Exclusivity has nothing to do with viability
It does when the company funding the game development wants a return on investment.