- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Microsoft aquires ZeniMax Media (Bethesda, id, Arkane, MachineGames, and more)
Posted on 9/21/20 at 11:52 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 9/21/20 at 11:52 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I would rather MS use this to make Sony play nice, rather than to continue the terrible practice of exclusivity.
Interesting take coming from a nintendo fanboy.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 11:53 am
2
Posted on 9/21/20 at 11:55 am to Jcorye1
3. Xbox/PC/Microsoft Mobile devices. Also any Windows OS Toasters/Ovens/Fridges
Posted on 9/21/20 at 11:58 am to Carson123987
quote:
It has a whole lot more value now with these heavy hitters
Well there's definitely no doubt about that.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 11:59 am to sicboy
quote:
Interesting take coming from a nintendo fanboy.
Not a fanboy at all.
And I don't expect 1st party games to be exclusive, not one bit - for Sony or Nintendo or MS. First party games are first party games.
But the years of Sony exclusivity on 3rd party games like Final Fantasy really soured me on the concept. There is no reason 3rd party games should be exclusive except for greed and control.
ETA: The "Healthy competition" comment was made above, but anyone pursuing an exclusive focused strategy like Sony is not interested in competition at all. They want gaming to be exclusive to them, only.
Nintendo is actually the one company not pursuing video gaming dominance in the same way. In fact, a large part of their strategy over the last 10 years has been to be a more cost effective console where the considerations are not as hard to justify purchasing a second console. That in and of itself goes against your comment just because their games are "exclusive" to their console.
They aren't seeking to be your "only gaming option," like Sony, they just want to be in your entertainment center as an option. And their general lack of focus on AAA games also supports that.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:01 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
But the years of Sony exclusivity on 3rd party games like Final Fantasy really soured me on the concept. There is no reason 3rd party games should be exclusive except for greed and control.
Yeah. Moves like this are why I refuse to buy a PlayStation. I'm not going to support a company that operates that way.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:05 pm to imjustafatkid
What about the crossplay stuff? Sony just isnt playing nice and I hope it eventually bites them in the arse. The last generations of consoles being so long really gave sony a foothold that they didnt have before.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:10 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
but anyone pursuing an exclusive focused strategy like Sony is not interested in competition at all. They want gaming to be exclusive to them, only.
so you support Mario and Zelda coming to Playstation and Xbox?
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:11 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I just see tons of lost revenue from something like the next Fallout or Skyrim follow-up.
Possibly. But the strategy is to create an incentive for Game Pass and the Xbox.
Microsoft could release these games on the PS5 for $60, sell 5 million copies per game on the PS5, and be happy. Or, they could create an incentive for people to put down the DualSense controller, move over to PC and/or invest in a Xbox to play those titles. That means more Game Pass subs, and more time those players spend playing within the Microsoft ecosystem rather than on Sony's machine.
There's a lot more value created for Microsoft in the long term if they can incentivize someone to buy a Xbox rather than pay $60 for one of their games on the PS5.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:13 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
so you support Mario and Zelda coming to Playstation and Xbox?
quote:
And I don't expect 1st party games to be exclusive, not one bit - for Sony or Nintendo or MS. First party games are first party games.
No I don't. And I don't expect God of War on an Xbox or Halo on a PS. First party games are categorically different.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:18 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
But the years of Sony exclusivity on 3rd party games like Final Fantasy really soured me on the concept. There is no reason 3rd party games should be exclusive except for greed and control. ETA: The "Healthy competition" comment was made above, but anyone pursuing an exclusive focused strategy like Sony is not interested in competition at all. They want gaming to be exclusive to them, only.
So business should not find ways or have things to sell exclusively in order to pull in consumers? Kind of an absurd request.
I don’t and I’m sure quite a few others don’t own an Xbox...solely because we own high end gaming PC’s. There just isn’t a need for Xbox.
If Xbox has the lock on FF and Elder scrolls...I’d be buying console with no questions asked.
It may sound crazy to some I guess but I thought business’s were in business to make money.And businesses stay in business by making money.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:26 pm to sicboy
Apparently sicboy just hates fun.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:27 pm to Blitzed
quote:
So business should not find ways or have things to sell exclusively in order to pull in consumers? Kind of an absurd request.
Of course they should. But with that comes the backlash. We just went through all this stuff with the Epic Games store vs Steam. 3rd party games don't really feel like should be only on one system.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:30 pm to Blitzed
quote:
So business should not find ways or have things to sell exclusively in order to pull in consumers? Kind of an absurd request.
But exclusivity in any kind of digital space is completely arbitrary. There's no reason for it. We aren't talking about a limited resource that some company created, or about some perfectly designed piece of equipment that can only work in one thing, with one product, that a company sells (although this argument can be made for some Nintendo games - Nintendoland, Wii Fit, etc.).
Digital Rights management is still antiquated. There's no reason films shouldn't be released everywhere, all at once. Or that when I buy a digital movie I shouldn't be able to play it whenever, wherever I want on whatever device I want without having to be online.
quote:
I don’t and I’m sure quite a few others don’t own an Xbox...solely because we own high end gaming PC’s. There just isn’t a need for Xbox.
If Xbox has the lock on FF and Elder scrolls...I’d be buying console with no questions asked.
Right, I'm mainly a PC gamer. I do have an X1 and would consider Series X if they ever get in home game streaming right, either via the PC or the Xbox, that's what I'm waiting on.
quote:
It may sound crazy to some I guess but I thought business’s were in business to make money.And businesses stay in business by making money.
Do you realize that the end goal of this statement that you flippantly make is very much complete market dominance? A perfect resolution of making as much money as possible from the Video Game market is to be the only player in the video game market. That's exclusivity by definition. And that's why it is a bad practice.
Exclusivity means lack of choice by definition, it does not mean more choices for the consumer.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:46 pm to Freauxzen
]
Clearly there is a reason for it as it exist and is profitable or else it wouldn’t exist. Streamers contracts for this platform. Streaming rights to this platform. Exclusives games to this console.
What is the complete video game market dominance? I see consoles everywhere. I see games everywhere. I see cars everywhere. Different food chains everywhere. All with their unique “sales” pitch. IMO it’s not a bad practice...it’s a necessary one.
quote:
But exclusivity in any kind of digital space is completely arbitrary. There's no reason for it.
Clearly there is a reason for it as it exist and is profitable or else it wouldn’t exist. Streamers contracts for this platform. Streaming rights to this platform. Exclusives games to this console.
quote:
Do you realize that the end goal of this statement that you flippantly make is very much complete market dominance? A perfect resolution of making as much money as possible from the Video Game market is to be the only player in the video game market. That's exclusivity by definition. And that's why it is a bad practice.
What is the complete video game market dominance? I see consoles everywhere. I see games everywhere. I see cars everywhere. Different food chains everywhere. All with their unique “sales” pitch. IMO it’s not a bad practice...it’s a necessary one.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:54 pm to Blitzed
Wouldn’t be shocked in the coming months if Sony purchases take two for rockstar, early 2019 rumors was Sony was going to purchase them for 5bn, than nothing came of it except Somt started getting some timed exclusives gta stuff. Could see Sony say gloves off and look to purchase take two and maybe Konami.
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 12:55 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Exclusivity means lack of choice by definition, it does not mean more choices for the consumer.
We choose to consume. If we all choose to live off the grid then these things wouldn’t exist. But to say it doesn’t mean more choices? Did Microsoft just appear with the Xbox out of nowhere? Or did exclusives consoles create the market for Xbox to jump in and get a piece of the pie?
Why not make all consoles run on the same equipment so we can all get the same experience? With all the same games? What’s the point in multip,e consoles then?
This post was edited on 9/21/20 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 9/21/20 at 1:00 pm to Blitzed
quote:
Clearly there is a reason for it as it exist and is profitable or else it wouldn’t exist. Streamers contracts for this platform. Streaming rights to this platform. Exclusives games to this console.
But there isn't a reason for a video game to be exclusive, except for "perceived" monetary gains, which are in effect, unproven. Or - the company advocating or "buying" the exclusivity.
Take something like Bloodborne - the only reason it is exclusive is because of a transaction. Not because it was only made for the PS4, or made by Sony, etc. But just because From found "more revenue" by taking whatever fee Sony was willing to pay as a bigger payout than putting it out on X1 or PC.
That's it. You don't find that problematic?
Sony paid for the rights to limit consumer access, and From Software agree because money.
While you are right on the business side of it, the consumer is hurt by said action with Sony controlling their choices as a consumer. Exclusivity in the digital space is strictly a consumer limiting action.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 1:05 pm to Freauxzen
]
No. I see that as two business doing business. And those who paid for a PS4 got the rewards. I mean sorry....
I’m sorry again. I just see it as Sony paid to provide better games for Sony’s consumers. Again consuming is a choice brother. If you want it. You pay for it.
quote:
Take something like Bloodborne - the only reason it is exclusive is because of a transaction. Not because it was only made for the PS4, or made by Sony, etc. But just because From found "more revenue" by taking whatever fee Sony was willing to pay as a bigger payout than putting it out on X1 or PC. That's it. You don't find that problematic?
No. I see that as two business doing business. And those who paid for a PS4 got the rewards. I mean sorry....
quote:
Sony paid for the rights to limit consumer access, and From Software agree because money.
I’m sorry again. I just see it as Sony paid to provide better games for Sony’s consumers. Again consuming is a choice brother. If you want it. You pay for it.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 1:07 pm to tigermike5
Microsoft has a long term goal. They are setting up the infrastructure for cloud gaming.
Sony cannot compete with that, unless they use Azure. In which they will be paying Microsoft a ton of money for.
You can see why Microsoft is heavily investing in cloud gaming. It will be a huge money maker for them, no matter what happens.
Sony cannot compete with that, unless they use Azure. In which they will be paying Microsoft a ton of money for.
You can see why Microsoft is heavily investing in cloud gaming. It will be a huge money maker for them, no matter what happens.
Posted on 9/21/20 at 1:07 pm to Blitzed
quote:
We choose to consume. If we all choose to live off the grid then these things wouldn’t exist. But to say it doesn’t mean more choices? Did Microsoft just appear with the Xbox out of nowhere? Or did exclusives consoles create the market for Xbox to jump in and get a piece of the pie?
I only brought up other markets to show why the digital space is not like them. There were, at one time, stark differences between systems. N64 vs. Playstation. Wii vs. Xbox/PS. Etc. And again, first party games are different.
But....
quote:
Why not make all consoles run on the same equipment so we can all get the same experience? With all the same games? What’s the point in multip,e consoles then?
Outside of Exclusives - they can largely play games with similar performance. That's precisely why exclusives are a bad practice.
You seem to want exclusives to support console differentiation (I don't know why, that just forces the consumer to purchase two consoles), I'd rather the consoles find other ways to be different - Gamepass, slightly better visuals, Streaming tech, etc.
Games being exclusive is just a bad idea.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News