You can see how those two things are a little different though, right?
PlayStation buys smaller studios, usually that they have history with, and helps them to build games from the ground up - even new IP’s.
Microsoft bought a major studio that had a game near completion, a game that the studio fully intended on releasing on all platforms, and Microsoft exclusified it.
To be clear, I actually don’t like exclusives at all. But there’s still clearly a difference here, and I can understand where people are coming from when they criticize Microsoft and not Sony.
I don’t understand the difference honestly. Investment is investment. I think it’s stupid to do exclusives, but if one is going to build a walled garden then the other needs one too.
I’m PC only so I don’t give a fuck. I can emulate a Switch and eventually I’ll be able to emulate a PS5. If they want exclusives, they don’t want my money. If they stop building walled gardens then great.
I think it’s stupid to do exclusives, but if one is going to build a walled garden then the other needs one too.
I agree, but how you go about that is important imo. I’m on PC too, so let me use a better example that might hit closer to home.
Epic games. Their use of exclusives has garnered more hate then almost any other storefront in the pc space. But it’s not the exclusives in and of themselves - after all, people never cared when Fortnite didn’t come to Steam. Similarly, nobody lost their minds when The Sims was exclusive to Origin, or Assassins Creed to Uplay.
The difference between these games, as opposed to other Epic exclusives, is that these games were built by these companies from the ground up. Nobody cares if Fortnite is an Epic exclusive because Epic made that game - it’s their right to keep it to themselves. The same goes for the Sims with EA, and Assassins Creed with Ubisoft.
It’s only when Epic snatches nearly completed games that they had nothing to do with, that people get angry. So in this way, Microsoft is the Epic games of the console scene, while Sony is more akin to Ubisoft or something.
You can see how those two things are a little different though, right?
No, not really. Contrary to your point, Bethesda has worked quite closely with Xbox a number of times (especially back in the oblivion days) and Sony has never been interested in Bethesda’s ideas about games (support for Skyrim was abysmal on PlayStation and mods on PS3/4 were a joke).
Is MS a huge jerk for yanking starfield out of the hands of the majority of console gamers? Yeah totally, but Sony is also a huge jerk (and has been) for a long time when it comes to negotiating exclusivity deals, which they have been able to do because they are the number 1 console. It’s really not hard to extrapolate how much leverage Sony has over the industry when you see that they have sold 75% more consoles than xbox (35 vs 20 million units sold PS5/XS). I believe the previous gen was even worse. The outcry over this would have been much smaller if the roles were reversed, because it would have just been business as usual for every gamer.
You can see how those two things are a little different though, right?
PlayStation buys smaller studios, usually that they have history with, and helps them to build games from the ground up - even new IP’s.
Microsoft bought a major studio that had a game near completion, a game that the studio fully intended on releasing on all platforms, and Microsoft exclusified it.
To be clear, I actually don’t like exclusives at all. But there’s still clearly a difference here, and I can understand where people are coming from when they criticize Microsoft and not Sony.
I don’t understand the difference honestly. Investment is investment. I think it’s stupid to do exclusives, but if one is going to build a walled garden then the other needs one too.
I’m PC only so I don’t give a fuck. I can emulate a Switch and eventually I’ll be able to emulate a PS5. If they want exclusives, they don’t want my money. If they stop building walled gardens then great.
I agree, but how you go about that is important imo. I’m on PC too, so let me use a better example that might hit closer to home.
Epic games. Their use of exclusives has garnered more hate then almost any other storefront in the pc space. But it’s not the exclusives in and of themselves - after all, people never cared when Fortnite didn’t come to Steam. Similarly, nobody lost their minds when The Sims was exclusive to Origin, or Assassins Creed to Uplay.
The difference between these games, as opposed to other Epic exclusives, is that these games were built by these companies from the ground up. Nobody cares if Fortnite is an Epic exclusive because Epic made that game - it’s their right to keep it to themselves. The same goes for the Sims with EA, and Assassins Creed with Ubisoft.
It’s only when Epic snatches nearly completed games that they had nothing to do with, that people get angry. So in this way, Microsoft is the Epic games of the console scene, while Sony is more akin to Ubisoft or something.
No, not really. Contrary to your point, Bethesda has worked quite closely with Xbox a number of times (especially back in the oblivion days) and Sony has never been interested in Bethesda’s ideas about games (support for Skyrim was abysmal on PlayStation and mods on PS3/4 were a joke).
Is MS a huge jerk for yanking starfield out of the hands of the majority of console gamers? Yeah totally, but Sony is also a huge jerk (and has been) for a long time when it comes to negotiating exclusivity deals, which they have been able to do because they are the number 1 console. It’s really not hard to extrapolate how much leverage Sony has over the industry when you see that they have sold 75% more consoles than xbox (35 vs 20 million units sold PS5/XS). I believe the previous gen was even worse. The outcry over this would have been much smaller if the roles were reversed, because it would have just been business as usual for every gamer.