Well first off you are asking for an explanation on how something is or is not moral in relation exclusive content but state that since this is an opinion that no one where can be wrong. This is counter intuitive to the reasoning you are asking in response to your question. If no one could be wrong in how they are thinking then your basic point seems to indicate that there is no moral standard to which a company such as Bungie must ascribe. Yet you are attempting to note that Bungie acted immorally.....so in the end you have a problem with your initial thesis. Your asking for an argument based on moral grounds but if something is based on moral grounds than that thing that is moral (or immoral) continues to be so outside of your own personal thoughts about it. You might have an opinion that murder is ok but morality will have its say despite what your opinion is and it does not care what your opinion is morality will always say murder is wrong. So just wanted to point out that the question you are asking is in and of itself self defeating if no one has the possibility of being wrong. By this statement one can argue that you have basically said Bungie's opinion is that exclusives are not wrong and since opinions cannot be wrong they cannot be wrong or "immoral" in their choice to offer exclusives. That being said I will attempt to argue why exclusives are not inherently wrong. Your first premise is that everyone pays the same amount of money for a video game. This premise however is false and due to an incorrect understanding of how exclusives work. In the case of Destiny Sony paid Bungie X dollar figures for exclusive content for their customers only that will be unavailable on the Xbox for a period of 1 year. Now essentially instead of every Sony player paying bungie $60 for the game (the same as Xbox) but instead Bungie has collected $60 + $Y for every Sony player. The cost of the exclusive content is in the Y dollars of which not a single MS player actually paid. In truth if once wants to consider it in light of who gets free content its the Sony players who are getting screwed because they had to pay $60 + $Y for the content that MS players only pay $60 for. However because the Sony decided as a company to pitch in the $Y for every Sony gamer the end result is that both Sony and MS players pay the same cost for the game while Sony decided to pay for extras as an incentive to buy the game on their console system. So the premise that both players pay the same amount but MS gets less content is false. Sony players pay more per player then MS players do and as a result they get more content. Its the MS players who get stuff for free they just have to wait for Z period of time before they can get the free items. This is all just basic free market competition. Essentially what has happened here is there are 2 hotdog stands. The hotdogs are of roughly equal quality and they are the same cost. One stand offers free condiments to all customers while the other stand provides no condiments at all. If both are roughly the same then more customer will tend towards purchasing the hotdog from the vender who also has the free condiments that they enjoy on their hotdog. While customers who dont care about condiments are pretty ambivalent regarding which stand they choose because they eat their dogs plain anyway. These two competitors also advertise this difference. The one with the condiments advertises to everyone that they provide free condiments to all their customers and they will also provide free condiments to the other vendors customers as long as they wait until their hotdog is cold. So the customer of the vendor that offers free condiment gets a warm hotdog with condiments they enjoy while the other vendors customers must either eat their hotdog plain if they wish to eat it while it is hot or if they want condiments they must wait until their hotdog is cold before they can get it from the other vendor (at no additional fee). This is an example of the principle we see for the competition between MS and Sony. It seems pretty unreasonable for the customers of the vendor who only offers plain hot dogs to complain that they have to wait until their hotdog is cold to get condiments when they gave that vendor nothing for those condiments. Rather they should be more upset at their vendor not providing those same (or similar) condiments. The vendor who offers the condiments will naturally attract more business for their willingness to bear the nominal cost of providing free condiments. There is a problem with your "ultimate metaphor". That is your metaphor shows the person being rewarded that item but not having the ability to use it. However with the exclusives you are not rewarded the item at all. You have no access to that quest period (based on your metaphor). You can watch other people go down and they go through a rock that is blocking a cave but every time you try the rock blocks you and then tells you that you have to wait for a period of 1 year after this cave was released to be able to access it. BTW your statement that only corporations win would be inherently wrong as it is denying the aspect of free market capitalism known as competition. Competition will drive the companies to find new ways to try to make their brand "stick out more" to their targeted consumer. Gamers win when companies are competing for their business. Oh and this is definitely not illegal....nor is it really immoral.