Thankyou.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kotaku Rumor: Respawn's Game Xbox 360/720 Only, always-online, FPS, Includes Details
- Thread starter V_Ben
- Start date
Thankyou.
Wait what? Haven't DICE and EA themselves said how great BF4 was running on PS4 hardware?
ScepticMatt
Member
always-online shooter = hype lost.
Dota 2 takes the little multiplayer time I have.
Dota 2 takes the little multiplayer time I have.
The perfect Dark
Banned
always-online?
Well...let me think abo...lol no.
Well...let me think abo...lol no.
Crytek also had a version of Crysis 3 running on WiiU...
I don't think BF will go 720 console exclusive, but I don't doubt a fat pay cheque can change things.
It's just a matter of whether MS thinks it's worth it.
Chuck Norris
Banned
What I quoted was saying that MS is paying specifically to keep the system OFF of PS4, not to make it an exclusive. If that could be proven it would be extremely anti consumer and would likely produce an anti-trust lawsuit
Mortimer Brewster
Member
Don't believe it, simply because if EA tried that with FIFA, Sony, who are one of the biggest powerbrokers in FIFA, would yank that license away from them in an instant. Microsoft would have to pony up a ridiculous amount of cash to cover for that inevitabilty alone. It would cost alot more then 150 million to cover all that lost FIFA revenue. The exclusive Respawn game sounds legitimate but anything else beyond maybe some timed exclusive dlc for Battlefield 4 does not.
Officerrob
Banned
It's a multiplayer shooter, what did you expect?
Petrae
Member
It's a business decision. I don't see how there's anything illegal about it. It's securing an exclusive. We know that EA and Nintendo are divorced anyway, so the bottom line for software is: Exclusive or multi? MS has the right to pay EA or make a compensation deal with EA to secure exclusivity.
Chuck Norris
Banned
It is an illegal act to pay to specifically shut one competitor out of the market, its an anti-competitive practice.
Of course it has to be proven.
gaming_noob
Member
Not the first time Microsoft would be doing it, and have been tried for it also.
Can Crusher
Banned
Getting only EA as an exclusive would be so far out from a monopoly it ain't even funny.
something fishy
Member
You stopped thinking mid-sentence. There's your problem
Indeed. it is the kind of game you'd normally play connected to psn to be fair.
FonkyByNature
Member
Hmm, Sony did it like crazy back in the PS2 days. It's called business. I don't see why Microsoft can't do it. I'm pretty sure Sony is securing some exclusives too.
The perfect Dark
Banned
No, I'm just tired of multiplayer shooter
MightyHedgehog
Member
What is the damned difference between securing an exclusive and paying to not have a title on another platform? Nothing. This 'anti-consumer' fantasy bullshit people are spewing lately is laughable. Every single platform holder has secured exclusives that did not originate from their own internal teams. Every one. Happens every generation, too. So many of the teams that produce titles people get excited about were once not a part of the console corporations they are now owned by. As for third party alliances, it's happened as well, particularly with Japanese consoles, too. How do you think Sony came to power and created all of their development teams to support the PS line of consoles? The entire console industry is built upon exclusives to drive sales and differentiate from each other. In other words, they're competing much the same way they've all been competing for decades.
BloodMoney
Banned
Microsoft's game development strategy: Why cultivate your own 1st party creative game development companies when you can simply moneyhat your way into the mainstream?
MS can buyout all the COD's and COD knock off's as far as i care.
I personally think it would be better for all of us if there were no 3rd party exclusives or 3rd party exclusive content/DLC. They the big firms (EA, Activision, Ubisoft) push there warez to everyone. Leave it up to the console companies (Sony & MS) to make awesome exclusive games.
EDIT: I mean, when MS locked up The Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and the Damned... i didn't go buy a 360... it just pissed me off, and i waited a year until it was available on the PS3. I get it... it's business, but it's also anti-consumer.
MS can buyout all the COD's and COD knock off's as far as i care.
I personally think it would be better for all of us if there were no 3rd party exclusives or 3rd party exclusive content/DLC. They the big firms (EA, Activision, Ubisoft) push there warez to everyone. Leave it up to the console companies (Sony & MS) to make awesome exclusive games.
EDIT: I mean, when MS locked up The Ballad of Gay Tony, and The Lost and the Damned... i didn't go buy a 360... it just pissed me off, and i waited a year until it was available on the PS3. I get it... it's business, but it's also anti-consumer.
mentalfloss
Banned
I'm sure they won't mind taking the majority of third party support as well.
I expect no "always online drm"
if its in, then I'm out, no matter which game on which console
BloodMoney
Banned
wut?
you mean like how Sony locked down an hour of additional content for Watchdogs?
or how Sony locked down exclusive content to Bungie's (ex MS moneyhat company) Destiny?
MightyHedgehog
Member
Anti-consumer? Hahaa. It's called drawing up a contract between two business parties and going for it. The consumer didn't get fucked, only the fanboy did.
Sounds like an interesting twist on it at least. This is a big get for MS.
BloodMoney
Banned
The kid who's dad purchased him the opposing console got fucked, as did the college kid who only has one console, as did the person who refuses to buy more than 1 game machine. Its business YES, but its not BENEFICIAL to everyone.
AHAHAHAHAHhahahha har har har ahr har. i can laugh too, see.
I wish Valve would have announced the follow up to the Source engine like last year. Source has gone through some pretty significant changes over its lifetime but it is still an antiquated engine. If Respawn would have had Source + or whatever it'll be, this game would have looked beyond amazing. I just hope they nail the game play. Graphics aren't nearly as important when your game play is spot on.
While that isn't anti-consumer by definition, in many, many cases, that's exactly what is the intent. In this case it can't be, because it's not against Microsoft's customers, which is the only group of consumers whose interest they should have in mind.
Well said.
MightyHedgehog
Member
You're pointing something that sucks for an individual, but there's nothing anti-consumer about it. Ha.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Anti-consumer? Lol seriously. It is 100% the same as first party development. It just pisses you off that some companies will release stuff on the console you don't like.
Anyway... expect a lot more of this. Big Western companies will support Durango more than PS4 for various reasons.
it's not anti-consumer, but it can hurt the consumer. How about the people who don't give a rats ass about 90% of a console's first party exclusives, but feel like they need to purchase that system just because that company threw money at another for the sole purpose to prevent a certain other group to play it?
So?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Rockstar could easily have turned that deal down but they didn't so they're just as "anti-consumer" as Microsoft...but you still went out and bought their game.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Are you saying that a platform holder and a software maker cannot make a deal for exclusivity because it's not fair to some persons who don't own or don't want to own that platform for that game? Boohoo. It's how it goes. Save up and get that other system or just deal with it like a normal person should. I hate to sound so callous about it, but this is Real Life 101 here.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
Anyone care to guess if Titan is supposed to be a launch game? On one hand, it would make sense the rumors are true of Microsoft first party games running behind schedule. Plus, it sounds similar enough to Destiny that it would be smart to space the two apart. On the other hand, Titan sales would likely benefit from it being a post-launch release, when more consoles are out there. Not to mention it would be going up against Battlefield 4 at launch.
I'm guessing spring 2014.
I'm guessing spring 2014.
R3TRODYCE
Member
That made me smile, not even going to lie.
BloodMoney
Banned
100% the same?
First party developers are owned and financed by the console they produce for. It makes sense their content is exclusive.
Brokering deals with 3rd parties developers to make games exclusive (which would otherwise be cross platform) makes sense just like it made sense for Apple to make the original iPhone exclusive to AT&T... get it, it didn't make sense... because AT&T's network sucked. But Apple went along with it because AT&T threw a wad of cash at them. Yay! what great business!!!!!!
As for "big western companies will support Durango more than PS4 for various reasons"... please expand on that wish.
MightyHedgehog
Member
What are you saying then? That an ages-old practice of strategic alliances and partnerships is not fair to a competitor who does the same? Consumers of any platform aren't entitled to anything before it's actually released when it comes to software. Are people gonna whine when Ninty and Sony bring out their exclusives at E3? Then we're on the path to asking ourselves, where's the reason to buy this system over the other? Besides price, services, and functionality, games are the only things to differentiate with.
Eh, you're assuming evil intentions in that most cartoony way. The only thing hurt is the feelings of fanboys. Everyone else can do what normal people have done since the inception of video game consoles and that is to buy the other one to get what they want, wait for a possible clone or port, or just try to deal and whine about it like it's so unfair.
I don't know if "attempting to attain a monopoly" is a crime. It's just the government's supposed duty to prevent them from happening, and break them apart when they do. But I don't know if it's a crime for a business to try and gain as much market share as they can. It is in their best interest to try to avoid catching the interest of monopoly-busters though.
And I know you're not really saying this, but just to be clear -- going after exclusives is in no way close to monopolizing the games industry. There are more competitors in the platform game space than there have ever been.
Hey.
I don't know why you're complaining so much. You have Killzone Shadowfall to look forward to.
Guys there isn't a chance in hell that EA would sign a deal for their next gen development to be exclusive to xbox. One game? Possible. Timed DLC? Yeah could easily happen.
The financial implications for both MS and EA are huge. For a minute take a step back and remember the US does not = the world wide video game market. Yes in the States MS have a strong lead, but in Europe, and Asia? No.
After that consideration is out of the way look at the games. EA would have to gamble that the money offered by MS would cover all potential lost sales from excluding the Sony formats. A hard sell for the board to present to the investors. An even harder sell on Microsoft's bank account. The potential loss of Fifa customers in Europe alone is enough to generate second thoughts, especially considering Sony sponsor The Champions League.
In the end there is potential that Respawn's title is exclusive. MS could be desperate if games aren't ready to money hat the project for a timed window.
The financial implications for both MS and EA are huge. For a minute take a step back and remember the US does not = the world wide video game market. Yes in the States MS have a strong lead, but in Europe, and Asia? No.
After that consideration is out of the way look at the games. EA would have to gamble that the money offered by MS would cover all potential lost sales from excluding the Sony formats. A hard sell for the board to present to the investors. An even harder sell on Microsoft's bank account. The potential loss of Fifa customers in Europe alone is enough to generate second thoughts, especially considering Sony sponsor The Champions League.
In the end there is potential that Respawn's title is exclusive. MS could be desperate if games aren't ready to money hat the project for a timed window.
BloodMoney
Banned
I'm going to leave this thread after this comment, because i agree that both Sony and MS are going to have great exclusive content.
but GG is owned by Sony, so Killzone Shadowfall being exclusive to PS4 makes sense to me... third party exclusives don't IMO, especially next-gen when games are being written for PC'esque consoles that are more similar than different (unlike the architectural differences of the 360 and PS4).
I'm saying that businesses are intrinsically malicious and a partnership between such entities doubly so; I don't think this is realized as anti-consumer behavior in the instances you mentioned. I was thinking of things like cartel agreements.
Can Crusher
Banned
Fair? lol
Man I swear the only reason some of you say shit like this is because Sony actually has a great lineup of 1st party studios.
Is it unfair when Versus or whatever it's called now is Sony exclusive? Of course not. It's pure business, I don't see how a sense of fairness even enters the fold. Talk about entitlement.
PS2 aka the greatest, had plenty of 3rd party exclusives.