Are Timed-Exclusives a Good Idea?

S

Strubes

It's become a growing trend nowadays for Microsoft to pay for a timed-exclusive and have it release later on PS3. This is not bashing the 360, but these are just a couple thoughts. Let's take one of the more recent timed-exclusives for example. Alone in the Dark. I think maybe Microsoft puts pressure on developers to release the game a lot sooner than the other version and thus, is an inferior version (though not always true of course). Alone in the Dark for the 360 had terrible camera angles, combat wasn't fluid, and the inventory was hard to sort out...those were at least a few of the more common complaints I've heard.

Now, the developers have taken these complaints to heart and have fixed all of it for the PS3 version. Will the PS3 version be an amazing game? Probably not, but it seems it will be the superior version between the two. I understand the 360 gets ahead in sales when a timed-exclusive is released, but it just seems to me that they may be pressuring developers to release earlier than expected. I guess you can just call this a rant but I've been thinking about it for a while.
 
Expected Rock Band 2. Was disappointed. Anyways, no, I don't think so, as long as the game is complete. For Rock Band 2, odds are the money just went into their DLC budget. I don't see a problem with that.
 
Yeah, Rock Band 2 I couldn't see having too many glitches, especially how it's a sequel. It just didn't seem like Alone in the Dark was a complete game.
 
It was a bad game across the board, I heard, so I doubt it being a timed-exclusive had anything to do with it.
 
I would agree and say no, timed exclusives are not a good idea, but not for the same reasons.

I don't think timed exclusives really eat into development cycles, so I don't think developers are rushed to get a game ready for an earlier release date. I would guess the disparity between the PS3 and 360 version of Alone in the Dark was simply due to the fact that problems which existed in the game but went unnoticed became visible when it finally got into the hands of the public. If both versions had come out at the same time, I think the problems with the 360 version would have been in both. So in that sense I don't think timed exclusives are a problem, at the very least they ensure that one version of the game will have a few extra bugs fixed.

I'm not a fan of timed exclusives because I really don't think they're necessary. The only reason Microsoft or Sony would try to acquire a timed exclusive would be to give people extra incentive to buy a multi-platform title on their platform. But for myself, I very rarely buy a game the day it comes out anyway, and knowing a game will eventually come to my system, however many days, weeks, or months later, is all I need to not feel like I'm missing out on something. I think Microsoft, Sony, and so forth, need to come up with more productive and meaningful ways to separate the experience they provide from that of their competitor's, because if anything these timed exclusives show just how petty and menial these supposed "differences" are.
 
stealth toilet said:
I don't think timed exclusives really eat into development cycles, so I don't think developers are rushed to get a game ready for an earlier release date. I would guess the disparity between the PS3 and 360 version of Alone in the Dark was simply due to the fact that problems which existed in the game but went unnoticed became visible when it finally got into the hands of the public. If both versions had come out at the same time, I think the problems with the 360 version would have been in both. So in that sense I don't think timed exclusives are a problem, at the very least they ensure that one version of the game will have a few extra bugs fixed.
Click to expand...
Agreed completely. Alone in the Dark wasn't even published by Microsoft so they certainly weren't rushing anyone to get the game onto store shelves.

However, you brought up the reason that I think timed exclusives are a good thing. Timed exclusives essentially give the developers a large-scale beta in which people buy, and play through the entire game, then give their complaints to the developers. These complaints can then be rectified, and make the new version of the game better overall.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
However, you brought up the reason that I think timed exclusives are a good thing. Timed exclusives essentially give the developers a large-scale beta in which people buy, and play through the entire game, then give their complaints to the developers. These complaints can then be rectified, and make the new version of the game better overall.
Click to expand...

Aren't there ways of achieving this without screwing over large segments of the gaming population? :lol

When a game comes out early on the gaming platform I own I don't want to be told that I'm part of a "large-scale beta" that will ensure a version of the game I can't play will be better. Especially when both versions cost the same $60.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Agreed completely. Alone in the Dark wasn't even published by Microsoft so they certainly weren't rushing anyone to get the game onto store shelves.

However, you brought up the reason that I think timed exclusives are a good thing. Timed exclusives essentially give the developers a large-scale beta in which people buy, and play through the entire game, then give their complaints to the developers. These complaints can then be rectified, and make the new version of the game better overall.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Published by Microsoft, correct. They paid to have the game as a timed exclusive however. And nobody knows whether or not if Microsoft wanted it out by the date it came, like they tried with a couple other games.
 
stealth toilet said:
Aren't there ways of achieving this without screwing over large segments of the gaming population? :lol
Click to expand...
Not when Atari is publishing the game. They barely have enough money to stay open. XD
stealth toilet said:
When a game comes out early on the gaming platform I own I don't want to be told that I'm part of a "large-scale beta" that will ensure a version of the game I can't play will be better. Especially when both versions cost the same $60.
Click to expand...
I can see why that might anger someone, but it isn't as though the version of the game you are picking up would be better without it being a timed exclusive. A timed exclusive makes one version of the game better, without making the other worse. I understand that some would complain about how unfair it is, but the end result is a better game.
Strubes said:
It wasn't Published by Microsoft, correct. They paid to have the game as a timed exclusive however. And nobody knows whether or not if Microsoft wanted it out by the date it came, like they tried with a couple other games.
Click to expand...
Microsoft paid Atari to delay the PS3 version of the game. That doesn't give Microsoft any pull when it comes to the game's development or release date. Even if Microsoft was screaming for the release date to be pushed forward, Atari would ignore them.

And for the record, every publisher in existence sets release dates for developers. It isn't a Microsoft specific thing.
 
i think timed-exclusives are a weird idea, instead of delaying the release date of a game for another console, (which in the end might end up having better/more content) why not just ask for DLC content and/or a patch of the game, instead of making people regret they bought the original version of the game but not making worth the new version because it might not have enough good features to make it worth 50/60 bucks
 
Zidart said:
why not just ask for DLC content and/or a patch of the game, instead of making people regret they bought the original version of the game but not making worth the new version because it might not have enough good features to make it worth 50/60 bucks
Click to expand...
Because companies could care less once people have already bought it.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Microsoft paid Atari to delay the PS3 version of the game. That doesn't give Microsoft any pull when it comes to the game's development or release date. Even if Microsoft was screaming for the release date to be pushed forward, Atari would ignore them.

And for the record, every publisher in existence sets release dates for developers. It isn't a Microsoft specific thing.
Click to expand...

But money sure does talk.
 
fhqwhgads said:
Because companies could care less once people have already bought it.
Click to expand...

indeed, oh well the important thing i guess is to play the core of the game, a couple of new features characters are not really that important, (but at least i am happy i got the WII version of Okami and only played a little bit of the ps2 version XD)
 
Strubes said:
But money sure does talk.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, but if Atari has even a shred of intelligence, they got Microsoft to sign a contract, guaranteeing them the money if they met the conditions of the contract (in this case, releasing the 360 version of Alone in the Dark several months before the PS3 version). If this is the case, they are already guaranteed Microsoft's money, so they still have no pull at Atari.
 
Strubes said:
What you say is true, but we've all seen some crazy and just downright stupid things happen in the gaming industry before.
Click to expand...
Okay, true, but if there is a perfectly logical explanation for the PS3 version of Alone in the Dark being better than the 360 version, why believe an illogical explanation, based upon the fact that people do stupid things? More to the point, even if the second explanation was somehow true in this case, Atari and Microsoft are the ones at fault, not timed exclusives on the whole.
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
More to the point, even if the second explanation was somehow true in this case, Atari and Microsoft are the ones at fault, not timed exclusives on the whole.
Click to expand...

Nobody's blaming timed exclusives. Like you said, Atari and Microsoft would be at fault if this were the case.
 
Atari? Heck, they do it to themselves in these kind of case scenarios. Alone in the Dark being fixed on PS3, then later being updated via a patch on 360 is pretty sad. Since it feels like the 360 edition was a gienne pig to begin with.

Are they a good idea? No, it makes me upset, because it's playing favortism. One edition has this and the other one is the "SUPA HELLA COOL DIRECTOR'S CUT WITH GARLIC BUTTER!" I mean yeesh, if I ordered a pizza with extra cheese, I better get that extra cheese! Yet, how would I know that cheese was there, when a pizza is legally done.

Same with a game, the game is finished, it's perfect. Yet, wait, the PS3 edition gets BONUS goodies and extra modes and a PIECE OF BACON!? Sign me up!

I'm getting sick of it to be honest. It's confusing the public and causing fanboi wars against the hardcore fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top