FF16 Dev’s Response To Exclusivity Complaints: ‘Just Buy A PS5!”
from the let-them-eat-playstations dept
We’ve been talking a lot about video game exclusivity over the past couple of years. The sudden uptick in concern over a longstanding practice that ebbs and flows with time is largely related to industry consolidation of studios coming out of the COVID pandemic. In times of financial stress in an industry, that is often when bigger companies gobble up smaller companies that can’t survive whatever the crises is. In this case, Microsoft began gobbling up studios, with Sony following suit. Suddenly everyone had to wonder if certain titles were going to be exclusive to those platforms. The wishy-washy responses to public concern by those big companies far from helped.
Sony appears to be going with exclusivity even outside its acquisition. Final Fantasy 16 is set to drop later this year. Much like the Final Fantasy 7 remake, it was always going to be a timed exclusive for the PlayStation 5.
Scrubbing through some old Final Fantasy XVI trailers, such as the “Awakening” one from September 2020, it was definitely stated that the game is “not available on other platforms for a limited time after release on PS5,” suggesting it could possibly hit other consoles in the future at the very least. Such was the case with the Final Fantasy VII Remake, where the “limited time” window was about a year.
As Kotaku notes, the more recent marketing output for the game has removed much of that language, leading many to have wondered if this was now going to be a purely PlayStation title. FF16’s producer, Naoki Yoshida, was interviewed recently and stated that the game would not come out on PC, unlike recent other games in the series, and instead advised any disappointed PC gamers to simply go out and buy Sony hardware.
Producer Naoki Yoshida, colloquially known as Yoshi-P, was interviewed at a Mahjong tournament over the weekend, where he was asked whether Final Fantasy XVI would come to PC, something Square Enix confirmed when it revealed the game almost two years ago. However, despite that detail found in the footnote text at the bottom of the trailer, Yoshi-P said the release information is wrong, according to a “rough translation” by the Japanese gaming news Twitter account Genki_JPN. In fact, there may not be a PC version coming at all, as Yoshi-P is apparently suggesting folks go out and buy a PS5 instead.
Now, perhaps that “(laughs)” was intended to do more work than it comes off doing by Yoshida. And I certainly hope so, because otherwise his suggestion very much brings to mind the potentially apocryphal quote: “Let them eat cake.”
I should also say that there are plenty of Twitter replies suggesting that people were getting this wrong and he was suggesting that anyone that doesn’t want to wait go get a PS5. I find that slightly hard to believe, given the scrubbing of the marketing material.
Regardless, a company representative being unclear and, frankly, that capricious over public concern about any sort of game exclusivity isn’t a good look. Sony can do as it likes with the game, but the company doesn’t have to come off as uncaring about it, assuming it does in fact care about its customers.
Filed Under: exclusives, final fantasy, final fantasy xvi, naoki yoshida, playstation
Companies: sony
Comments on “FF16 Dev’s Response To Exclusivity Complaints: ‘Just Buy A PS5!””
So as player of Final Fantasy XIV including 1.0 and have been playing the game since 11yrs now(including 1.0) i don’t think he is being out of touch or mean, he very much doesn’t like to take about things till they are set in stone unless he has planned date in mind for a release he doesn’t like taking about release dates, he is one the most transparent and open developer i have ever seen in the gaming industry. he almost broke down in tears when he had to delay endwalker the FFXIV expansion. he as also made this joke before this in a the live letters he does for FFXIV (something he does regularly were he personally discusses content releases for FFXIV). he also not stupid he knows that like 80% of the FFXIV player base is on PC and that’s huge known group to sell to, in which he has a very high trust with the players. he likely doesn’t have time yet nail down even internally so doesn’t want to say anything, and there is the fact i don’t think Sony would like him talking about a PC version it could in their minds hurt sales for the PS5 version
Re:
He could still be a little more clear. It’s like when Microsoft acquired Bethesda and were extremely unclear on if their titles would come to non-Xbox consoles before finally admitting that yeah some games would be exclusive.
The fact the game’s marketing is trying to scrub all instances of the game being a timed exclusive doesn’t help matters either.
Re: Re: they weren't unclear
They weren’t unclear they straight up lied.
Re:
If it’s a case of him misspeaking or trying to make a joke only to have it fall flat it’s in everyone’s best interest that he clear things up as soon as possible, even if he can’t give any solid release dates yet.
Re:
If he doesn’t like to talk about things not set in stone, he’s doing a really bad job.
Re:
Then all he had to do is apologize.
Not make an off-color joke about buying a console that is so hard to obtain a streamer I watch had a fucking alarm go off to alert them on WHEN a PS5 was in stock. (And at a discount.)
Exclusives
The one upside to all this BS exclusive nonsense is that when it eventually ends up on “other” platforms it tends to be discounted … so, I end up waiting for it to be released “everywhere”, but then get a significant discount because it’s no longer popular.
This right here is the reason that I learned to have some patience … huge discounts on popular games once the exclusive bs ends…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
BIDEN calls CONGRESS TO REGULATE BIG TECH!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/unite-against-big-tech-abuses-social-media-privacy-competition-antitrust-children-algorithm-11673439411
LONG OVERDUE. End Section 230 and hold Big Tech accountable for destroying America!
Re:
The only thing ending section 230 would accomplish is turn websites hosted in the US into hellscapes, and stifle startups. The only ones in favour of that are assholes and people who don’t understand section 230.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Everyone knows Section 230 is harmful. Regulating online harassment, removing doxing, cyberbullying, harassing content would lead to a better and safer internet it would not turn into hellscape. And startups – who the hell cares about startups? if you can’t make your startup safe for users, you don’t deserve to be in business.
You’re basically saying let’s sacrifice the privacy and safety of users by making startups immune from liability – well guess what, I have a better proposal: why don’t we sacrifice the money of startups to make the internet SAFER for everyone? Why should startups be favored over victims of online harassment?
You’re the only one who is lying and spreading misinformation about Section 230, aka all that “startups will be harmed” BS. Tell me one good reason why the public and America should give a shit about startups getting harmed when they are harming the general public by making money off defamation, harassment, and stalking?
You’re a real god damn f— liar and scum for supporting Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
Out of curiosity how much is Richard Spencer paying you to advocate for a free internet for nazis?
Re: Re: Re:2
Dude, the Nazis don’t even like him any more. Him getting smacked in the mouth on camera and crying as he walked away from the scene of the attack did a huge hit to his reputation. Fascists will forgive any and every heinous act you can imagine, but a sign of weakness is unforgivable to them.
(Full disclosure: I enjoy watching Dick Spencer getting punched in the face over and over again as a ward against depression. I also hope whoever socked him goes to the grave with their secret.)
Re: Re: Re:
Liar.
Section 230 isn’t stopping any of that, you liar.
Spoken like a true dumbass. Google was once a startup. Facebook was once a startup. Twitter was once a startup. Amazon was once a startup.
If those companies could have been sued into nonexistence because some moron didn’t like how they moderated their websites, they wouldn’t exist.
No, I’m not, and the fact that you think that just shows how little you understand.
Removing section 230 would make the internet UNsafer for everyone, because websites could no longer remove posts from harassers, doxxers and cyberbullies without liability. So let me spell it out: Removing section 230 would make websites LESS likely to remove the content you’re talking about, not more.
Said the liar who doesn’t understand what section 230 does.
All major tech companies most likely wouldn’t exist. And if you don’t think that’s a good reason, you’re even dumber than you sound.
Said the liar.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 I don't give a fuck if Google, Facebook didn't exist
They have not given me a single penny of their earnings so why the hell would I care if Google and Facebook didn’t exist?
They can exist but they need to make their products safe for the public by not allowing harmful content like cyberstalking.
Repeal Section 230 would force them to make their platforms safer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 The world is simply better off if Section 230 didn't exist
Many victims of online harassment would be able to force platforms to remove harmful content.
Internet entrepeneurs would be worse off but who cares? I don’t get a fucken penny from their profits anyways. Why do I care if internet companies make less money? Are you giving your money to me?
Re: Re: Re:4
Kiwifarms got yeeted to the darknet, thanks to Keffals and her clout.
And that was WITH Section 230.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Repeal Section 230 would force them to make their platforms safer.”
Historical evidence shows THE OPPOSITE.
Prior to 230, the options were –
Moderate NO content and enjoy protection from liability.
Moderate ANY content and you were liable for any and all content you missed.
Which option do you think service providers chose to go with once this legal precedent was established in the courts over 30 years ago?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Section 230 ALLOWS for FAR MORE HARASSMENT
Service providers are choosing to MODERATE NOTHING and hide under Section 230, even if it causes harm to victims. That’s not right, nor it is tenable. It was not intended by the original creators of the CDA 230 that platforms can ignore online abuse.
Big companies like Google and Microsoft are basically IGNORING all online abuse and leaving victims no redress for the crimes they have suffered.
Biden is calling for Section 230 reform again: https://telecoms.com/519355/us-president-once-more-calls-for-section-230-reform/
You people on Tech Dirt are liars because you benefit financially from Section 230, that’s why you ignore the reality that Section 230 harms a lot more people than it helps. Section 230 only helps tech entrepreneurs who want to get richer off of causing more people harm. Many of you should be in jail for supporting crime. You guys are pigs.
Re: Re: Re:5
You are really out of touch with reality, aren’t you?
Tell us, what was the stated reason for why Musk bought Twitter? It certainly wasn’t because Twitter didn’t moderate.
Seems you are an emotional wreck that can’t stop lying and it doesn’t help your case one bit because no one takes a liar seriously.
Re: Re: Re:6
It was because the Delaware Chancery Court said he had to.
Right after he threw the legal equivalent of a hissy fit.
Re: Re: Re:5
I enable far worse by being a Singapore citizen, and even I don’t think Section 230 enables crimial harm.
Google et al have tried to do business in China with verying results, mind. Even WITH Section 230 in place and specifically with Google, trying to sell a version of their search engine that would AID China’s censorship.
And if you are talking about the removal of terrorist content, well, is the CIA gonna help Google then? Or will you fucking white supremacists scream that the CIA is not allowed to do so because you guys want to continue harassing anyone who isn’t worshipping the white race?
Re: Re: Re:6
What do the CIA have to do with online harrassment lol. The CIA don’t even work within American borders and got no power to prosecute Americans
Re: Re: Re:5
This is demonstrably false. Most large platforms are actively trying to moderate against harmful content. That they are imperfect at getting rid of all of it is inevitable at the scales they operate on and doesn’t mean they aren’t trying. Furthermore, refusing to remove content without a court ruling that the content is unlawfully harmful also doesn’t mean that they are moderating nothing.
It was intended by the original creators that platforms should be free to moderate as they choose without government intervention, and that’s exactly what they’re doing. They ask so didn’t want every platform to engage in no moderation if they didn’t want liability for the stuff that slipped through the cracks, but engaging in no moderation, while not the purpose of 230, was also considered in the writing of the bill and understood to be a potential consequence.
[citation needed]
And he is wrong again.
[citation needed]
Please provide evidence for the claim that Section 230 harms anyone at all, let alone more than it helps.
Did you miss the part where §230 protects users from liability for content posted by others as well? Or where it also protects against liability for decisions to moderate, not just decisions not to moderate? Or how it also ensures they aren’t liable for content that they chose to remove? Or how it protects everyone equally regardless of size or profits (including non-profits and individual bloggers)? It most definitely does not protect only entrepreneurs who “get richer off of causing more people harm” by refusing to (or merely failing to) moderate potentially or actually harmful content.
Providing a tool by which crimes can be committed is not supporting crime per se.
Re: Re: Re:3
Thank you for highlightning your selfishness on this issue.
Except they most likely wouldn’t if section 230 didn’t exist.
Cyberstalking isn’t allowed, but I’m not surprised you failed to read the TOS of these sites before spouting nonsense.
Repealing section 230 would either severely inhibit speech on those platforms, or make things worse than they are now by forcing platforms to not moderate at all.
Re: Re: Re:
You can say fucking. It’s the internet not your moms basement.
Re: Re: Re: Good times
“they are harming the general public by making money off defamation, harassment, and stalking?”
Hey jhon remember when you tried to fistfight me bro?
Re: Re: Re: Jesus you're stupid
Jesus you’re stupid 230 protects sites from being sued for moderating. getting rid of it would cause the thing you’re pretending to care about.
Re: Re:
And the established big tech companies. They would be fine because they have the lawyers to navigate a post-Section 230 world but it will do a GREAT job of strangling potential competitors to Google and Facebook before they can become a threat to their market dominance.
Big Tech LOVES regulation, and the more costly the better because all it does is entrench them further and locks them into a position of market dominance.
Re:
Have fun without 230 browsing the walled garden of the facebooknet on the latest version of microsoft facebook explorer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Without Section 230 I'll spend more time offline
Nobody needs to use the internet and certainly nobody needs the internet to be one big toilet full of harmful content, harassment, and hate.
Arthur Chu is the man:
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/swatting_stalking_doxing_how_reddit_and_other_web_2_0_communities_broke_the_internet/
Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes, as a “child of the 90s” he clearly isn’t old enough to recall the days before 230 and cases like Cubby vs Compuserve.
230 is the reason we HAVE any kind of moderation of user posted content on the internet. And the only ones who’d be happy to see it go are the entrenched tech giants who can afford to weather its removal.
Re: Re: Re:2 Dance my little puppets dance
230 is the reason we HAVE any kind of moderation of user posted content on the internet. And the only ones who’d be happy to see it go are the entrenched tech giants who can afford to weather its removal.
It’s more than a little funny how the people trying to ‘take down/reign in Big Tech’ by gutting 230 are in actuality acting like good little puppets for those companies by pushing for exactly what they’d want.
Kill 230 and the likes of Google and Facebook will not just be fine they will be better off, because while they can compensate and pay the legal fees to argue their first amendment rights in court any potential competitors won’t be so lucky.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Internet entrepreneurs are straight up corporate pigs
Dishonest corporate pigs who put profits above safety and morality. Internet entrepreneurs need to be put into jail for life for the crimes they have committed against humanity.
Re: Re: Re:4
Sure. Okay. And what about their lapdogs doing their dirty work for them like you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Tech Dirt is run by dishonest corporate liars
Tech Dirt is run by dishonest corporate liars who put profit above safety, and they lie about Section 230 to try to keep this bloated, outdated law. Tech Dirt makes money off Section 230 even if causes society harm.
Re: Re: Re:6
HOW?
Re: Re: Re:7
Well yes, small outlets like techdirt are able to exist thanks to 230. so indirectly, in the sense that they are able to operate independently without billions of dollars in dark money backing, yes, they “make money” due to 230 existing.
Re: Re: Re:8
“Making money from existing because of a law” and “making money off a law” are not the same thing.
Re: Re: Re:6 Emphasis mine
“Tech Dirt is run by dishonest corporate….”
Tell me this is your first time here without saying it’s your first time here.
Re: Re: Re:6
[citation needed]
Re:
Dude. This story has nothing to do with 230. I have already warned you, but will do so again: spamming off-topic nonsense about 230 will get deleted. Go crazy on the actual stories about 230. But on other stories, fuck off.
Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure he’ll be back tomorrow spamming the same nonsense under a different pseudonym.
Just Buy a PS5
I’m pretty sure a “SOLD OUT” sign can’t run this game.
Besides, I’m happily plugging away on older consoles anyway. There’s lot’s of entertainment to be had dusting off a PS4 and playing some games on that. Plus, most of the games are cheaper to buy. I don’t get overly worked up over not playing the absolute newest game on the market, beta testing said game for the devs in the process.
Re:
I’m relatively sure some poor Final Fantasy fan will try to do a Cardboard FFXVI.
It's a console exclusive
And these evil bastards are trying to use it to sell the console its exclusive to!?!?
Wow, evil capitalism at its worst, right here….
Hey YoshiP…
What PS5s?
They’re, like, sold out, man.
Re:
A relative in Tokyo tells me they’re not so hard to get over there. So just move to Japan. (laughs)
Re: Re:
Welp, I guess I’ll just have to make a deal with the yakuza then…
This is a joke.
'Just buy the several hundred dollar console that's not available!'
He went full Blizzard but worse.
Never go full Blizzard.
Square Enix aren’t stupid (Well, okay, going all-in on NFTs just after the market collapses aside) – but tbh even the NFT thing proves they know a decent grift when they see one. And Sony paying them tens of millions a year to not make a game is a vastly safer proposition than actually making a port of a game and having to compete in a market.
Re:
[citation needed]
Sony has not cared about customers for years
That’s the bottom line, once they have your money, they truly do not care. They will lock you out of your account and if you have never used a CC with them (and after the breeches, who would) then in order to get back in you need to provide the serial number of the first sony console you registered with them. Yeah, pretty sure that first Vita is in a landfill in China somewhere by now.
Before they eliminated their twitter support route, it was filled with an abnormally high number of customer complaints; all unaddressed. Spending money on sony consoles and games is gambling. It is not a matter of if, but when you will lose everything, usually through no fault of your own.
Re:
You leave out that Sony has, and continues, to put out censored games available on other platforms in their original form.
If you buy for or from Sony, you support censorship.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Tech Dirt is a corporate liar for supporting Section 230 and putting public in danger
Tech Dirt makes money off online harassment and Section 230, that’s why they support it and gaslight the real issue of online abuse.
Even Biden wants regulations for tech companies. There is real harm from tech companies and Section 230. Repeal this outdated bloated law and sue tech companies out of existence.
We don’t care about tech profits because tech companies never cared about human lives.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/11/tech/biden-congress-tech-legislation/index.html
Re:
That you think a law that is made up, essentially, of three paragraphs is bloated is telling of how little you understand about it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Tech entrepreneurs do not deserve special protection from killing people
Everyone knows Section 230 harms a lot of people. It helps tech entrepreneurs and harms everyone else. Tech entrepreneurs don’t deserve special protection from killing people and enabling crimes. They should be jailed.
Re: Re: Re:
Do you know that many people say that it’s obvious that people who say everyone knows are just speaking for themselves, and no-one else, and that they should do their own reesearch.
Just askin.
Re: Re: Re:
You don’t know the meaning of the word “everyone”.
Stop lying. Section 230 protects every website hosted in the US, from the smallest personal blog to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. If section 230 was repealed, you could sue a travel blog if they removed posts of people being assholes.
Re: Re: Re:
“Everyone knows”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Re: Re: Re:
Argumentum ad populum. Also demonstrably false.
I’m not going to bother addressing anything else as this is entirely off-topic.
Re:
This has nothing to do with this post, so it doesn’t even deserve a substantive response.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Instead of making the internet safer, Tech Dirt chooses to support crime
By spreading misinformation to prevent the repeal of Section 230. Instead of making the world a safer and better place online, Tech Dirt tries to gaslight online abuse and blame victims, or pretend it doesn’t exist, as Tech Dirt only seems to care about corporate profits as opposed to user safety.
Tech Dirt doesn’t seem to care if the internet is a cesspool of online harassment, abuse, doxing, cyber-stalking, etc….
Tech Dirt only seems to care about corporate profits and putting the money interests of tech entrepreneurs over the rights of victims to hold tech platforms accountable for enabling online abuse.
I sincerely hope Tech dirt is sued into oblivion when Section 230 is repealed by the Supreme Court.
Re:
Oh great. The anti-section-230 spambot is back.
Re: Re:
I wonder if he gets paid by the post or by the word?
… or did someone set up a chatGPT bot to spam us?…
Re: Re: Re:
ChatGPT at least makes the effort to appear more eloquent.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ll give him this – if people weren’t aware he was full of shit before this little stunt, his constant spamming on irrelevant threads leaves people with little doubt. It’s like the reverse of advertising, where he’s ensuring that way less people support his cause than they would if he didn’t do anything.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 The only people full of shit are supporters of Section 230
Who put profits before public safety and reasonable duty of care.
Everyone knows that. Supreme Court will tear down this miserable Section 230 this year. Fuck Tech Dirt.
Re: Re: Re:3
Koch Industries.
News Corp.
Bayer.
John Deere.
Boeing.
Lockheed-Martin.
BP. Shell. Exxon Monil.
AT&T. Time Warner. Everything Elon Musk does.
Need I go on?
At least Google got investigated by Congress. We’ll NEVER see the Kochs be hauled in front of a Congressional Committee, however.
Re: Re: Re:3 You aren;t very good at this
“Everyone knows”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Re: Re: Re:3
You do realise that your obsessive spamming about 230 in threads that have nothing to do with it is reducing support for your fantasies, right? Even if they were true, this is the worst possible way to try and get people to agree with you.
Re: Re: Re:3
None of this refutes the assertion that this is entirely irrelevant here.
Re: Re: Re:2
Balderdash, I thought all sane and rational people knew that the best way to convince people of the validity of your argument is to post dozens of comments on completely unrelated articles filled with incoherent ranting about how much you loathe that thing and how any day now it’ll get what’s coming to it.
Re: Re:
“Meet the new bot …”
I have a better counter-offer – “I won’t buy FF16”. I have plenty of competitors to play games from without spending hundreds on a new console. This is non-negotiable, come back to me when you’re willing to take my money without an extra random to Sony’s hardware division.
Just don’t start whining about things like piracy or bad reviews or such things if the game doesn’t sell the number you expected. If you’re refusing money, you can’t complain when you don’t have it.
Re:
Square Enix burned a lot of bridges over the last decade, and its recently renewed full fledged dedication of NFT-based grift games, and 3 heavily monetized “long-term” mobile games all cancelled within 15 months of launch in the last quarter have completely soured me on a brand I used to support with every release. I might have considered purchasing after a possible exclusivity window, but this behavior just means FFXVI becomes a hard no. As you say, the market is competitive, both from AAA and Indy developers. This whole thing is a dumb PR move for a company that already is intentionally restricting the audience for a niche genre to a console that can’t have a broad install base due to ongoing shortages.
Also friendly reminder that Square Enix’s President, Matsuda, keeps thinking that NFTs and Web3 are the future of gaming. Trying to push these scams on users as the future of gaming is morally bakrupt. Shinra from FFVII looks like an even more ethical company than Square Enix at this point.
The problem is not Sony. It’s that we’ve let Sony claim a monopoly via copyright law, such that nobody else can fix the problem.
Defense against microsoft
I wouldn’t be shocked if they did make this exclusive to PS5 as a defense against Microsoft trying to gobble up every big game studio and making everything exclusive to xbox and pc even after they explicitly say they won’t and then immediately do after the focus moves away from the merger.
Re:
Lol, MS can’t win, can they? The whining was all about them not having enough exclusives. Now they’re heading in that direction and Sony (who also bought up game studios to offer exclusives, including those who originally worked on XBox exclusives) are now justified in using shady tactics to defend against them.
Well
This all started with Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo had to follow to keep their hardware sales up. So far Im finding that just about everything plays better on the PS5 than Xbox and PC and the games on switch are made for them and can’t do what the others can do to limits. But they all have exclusives now, its just pick your poison and I have always had better luck with all my playstations still working to this day.
Re:
“they all have exclusives now”
That’s only part of the story. Many exclusives exist, but a lot of them were timed exclusives, as FF16 was meant to be when first announced – that is, they’re released on one platform and then later on PC or another console. Sony seem to be the ones focussed on full exclusives, that is you have to buy their console if you ever want to play their games. Which at one point in history made some sense with the vast difference in hardware, but now that consoles are just variations on PC hardware there’s no reason on a technical level not to offer cross-platform.
I’m on the other side of this divide. I very much prefer the XBox achievement system to the others, and I don’t have time to play all the games on that platform I want to play, so I’m sticking to that. xCloud ensures I can play Series X games even on my One, and it performs well enough for my needs. Argue all you want about which console’s exclusives you personally prefer, there’s plenty of high quality games for me to pass my time.
So, I’ll play games that make it over to XBox eventually (for example, I just completed Deathloop, which was originally a PS console exclusive), but I’m not paying hundreds to buy a new console that will only get turned on for God Of War, FF or Uncharted, as much as I’d like to play those games. I’ll stick to what I’ve got and pay my money to people who want to sell to me.
Re: Re:
An extra, hilarious secondary point.
Microsoft’s gaming division isn’t swimming in bad PR, and at least TRIES to treats its game developers decently.
I am happy to be proven wrong, though!
Re: Re: Re:
“Microsoft’s gaming division isn’t swimming in bad PR”
That’s the fun part here. The XBox One launch was disastrous, to the point where it was arguably a system seller for the PS4. Most of the advantages we see today – including the fact that if you use xCloud you don’t even have to own a console at all to play first party MS published games, let alone the latest model – were in reaction to that disaster. A far cry from Sony’s apparent tactic to use big games to force people to buy expensive hardware.
I’m sure they’re not 100% clean and there will be some kind of story to tarnish their reputation in future, but right now they seem to have redeemed themselves as a consumer and developer-friendly platform.
Thank You for sharing the great information. This is very useful.