{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/29/2014 1:30:11 PM
16
Everyone is saying stop complaining and refuse to see the problem. If it were sony users paying the same as xbox users and getting less content they would complain too. Hell everyones complaining about how the game itself and how they feel the content already on disc is bad.
But as soon as things like this come up the users who get more content tell the other users to get over it. Makes no sense.
English
-
No, we wouldn't. We are used to it, from years and years of Microsoft outspending Sony on full-exclusivity and timed-exclusivity. Really, it is more of a "Welcome to our world" sort of moment. It is nice for us to see Sony finally stepping up to the plate. But more importantly, the question is why Microsoft did not want to invest in this specific game for you? Only they can answer it, but I am sure that some of it is going towards putting money into things like Tomb Raider, etc. They thought that their money was better spent to bring their players that, in terms of exclusive content.
-
It is not a poor excuse. Sorry it does not match your experiences, but it matches mine. Nothing to get over - I'm a big boy, and do not whine on the internet about what I do or don't get. Perhaps you find it hard to believe that people are capable of that, but they are. Fair to say a certain segment of the Sony population whines as much as a certain segment of the Microsoft population - but to assume the characteristics of every person who owns a console is that of ranting and raving about what the other ones have is ultimately out of touch with reality.
-
Understand what you are saying, but exclusivity like this is neither new, nor limited to the gaming industry. The thing that Sony bought was not exclusivity for the release, but an entire window of time. And, the outline of what that deal would include was likely determined before Microsoft and Sony were asked who was going to pay more for it. No different than early access for DLC on Microsoft consoles in other deals with Activision, just on a longer timescale. Jumping back into the Tomb Raider example, that is actually an incredibly smart business move by Microsoft. I would go as far as saying it is the best move, by either side, for this generation, so far. The reason is simple - Uncharted 4. Within the Sony culture, the game is incredibly popular. It is a great franchise, in my opinion. And, Uncharted probably would not exist without Tomb Raider. Taking that game from being multiplatform to a time-limited exclusive means that Tomb Raider will, in all likelihood, be the only game of its type available for the duration of that exclusivity. As someone who is likely to by an Xbox One, given the right motivation, it is going to help me make that decision to get the console. And, I am sure that I am not the only one. :-)
-
Oh for sure its a great buisness move for Microsoft. I just personally think from a consumer standpoint that taking things away from gamers who pay their hard earned cash for a console shouldnt have to now purchase another console to play something they like. Then again you would be stupid to buy a console for one game lol
-
Very much agreed on that point. When I say that it will help me make the decision to by an Xbox One, it would not be just for one game, either. Simply put, there needs to be enough exclusives on a console's radar for me to want to buy it - and that depends on if those exclusives are in my wheelhouse or not. For every generation, I eventually end up owning all of the consoles - but how late into their lifecycle is dependent on games that I want to play that I cannot play on another console or one of my PCs. Each generation, the first console I get is usually determined by announced first-party content, and exclusive content.
