WB Games/Series X Exclusivity News Thread

[Demi-fiend]

So, while I'm not sure if this is really going to happen, I'm not ignoring the issue either.

I'm gonna feel the pain, knowing the Bat is exclusive to someone else, but much like Epic, I'm going to have to accept it as necessary competition and prevention of a monopoly.

 

[ReaperHunter]

Oh man. If that does happen it'd be like a silly fanboy shenanigans double whammy.

 

[Demi-fiend]

No kidding. Things are heating up already.

Am I angry about it? You bet. But that means I'll also have to be against Spider-Man being PS4 exclusive as well.

Yeah, I'm seriously mad at both. Especially since it was Sony who started this whole ordeal by drawing that particular line in the sand.

I think I just might transfer to SRX (that's what I'm calling the next Xbox - just the "SRX") out of pure rage.

And Batman.

 

[Carlos]

Apparently, EA threw their bid at this... https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/e...QypmAnyVRHY5qJSjr8mvUI3gIJBepHJKS9-05xUrF3dxI

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

I an getting a ps5 and series x so I would have got batman either way , but ea getting WB would not be a prospect I'd be excited for

With ea having such a poor track record the last few years

 

[Carlos]

I an getting a ps5 and series x so I would have got batman either way , but ea getting WB would not be a prospect I'd be excited for

With ea having such a poor track record the last few years

Same here.

I imagine Mortal Kombat and Batman: Arkham series going worse.

 

[Morgan]

SRX sounds like a better name than.... the actual name. I'll start using it myself whenever I want to reference The Console That Needs A Better Name.
I'll wait for the PS5 to drop and just get that. Microsoft is clearly blowing its load on Game Pass and xCloud streaming, those services look sweet, and since they're the ones declaring that they don't want to be held back by hardware specs and hard limitations of a console, might as well have a PC, which I already do. Win-win.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Microsoft is clearly blowing its load on Game Pass and xCloud streaming, those services look sweet, and since they're the ones declaring that they don't want to be held back by hardware specs and hard limitations of a console, might as well have a PC, which I already do. Win-win.

I am in the same situation pretty much, I have instead invested more money into my PC and dont plan on getting a Series X or a PS5 (at least not straight away). I havent actually played any games on my consoles in a very long time and leaned more into PC gaming over last 12-18 months and I think ive actually played MORE Microsoft developed/published games by getting Game Pass for PC and cancelling Xbox Live (which is rumoured to have now been discontinued anyway or merged with Game Pass) on my console and it has saved me money even though I actually now have more games at my disposal.

However overall this is Microsofts marketing plan, that you wont actually need to own an Xbox console (something which they will likely lose money on selling) to play the games. So long as you are paying for Game Pass etc then they are getting your money anyway and by playing on PC you are still using a platform they own. Also by opening up their games to other services like Steam they are making their games more accessible than ever & seems to be paying off.

Most profit is made selling software not hardware where they often sell at a loss so as a business move its one that should net them a tidy profit. Smart move would be to significantly undercut the PS5 console cost knowing that a lot of people will buy the services/games on PC (even streaming on Android devices & maybe iOS in future) instead of buying a Series X and overall they wont sell as many console units but wont lose as much money overall via console manufacturing costs. They know in most peoples opinion Sony has the stronger exclusives lineup but by making their titles much more accessible they can get a larger market share over multiple platforms & by increasing the value of Game Pass and potentially dropping separate Xbox Live charge they will entice even more gamers to it.

Phil Spencer
"I don't want to get into all the numbers, but in aggregate you should think about the hardware part of the console business is not the money-making part of the business. The money-making part is in selling games." ​

The people who want the console will buy it anyway and those that want to play the games but not to fork out for a console can still buy the games/services and play them elsewhere so best of both worlds.

 

[Demi-fiend]

They know in most peoples opinion Sony has the stronger exclusives lineup

 

[Dark Drakan]

From a business standpoint it is common sense, Sony own the rights to Spiderman so are well within their rights to exclude an IP they own from other platforms. Not the first time a game has had varying characters based on platform ownership however it is a business move and an anti consumer one and means the other platforms get 1 less character which means less of a game as Jim said.

In regards to the stronger exclusive lineup its widely considered Sony has stronger lineup of single player IP's under its belt with titles like The Last of Us, Uncharted, God Of War, Ghost of Tsushima etc. Fingers crossed Sony see the profit values that Microsoft is getting from bringing their titles to PC too and they start to port more games to PC (like they did with Horizon Zero Dawn recently).

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

Microsoft leans more towards replayability in game , with coop and multiplayer

And in services that are consumer friendly for the gamer with a budget

Sony have incredible single player cinematic experiences, but In a lot of cases you play those once or twice and then leave them down.I kind of wish sony would change up that formula a bit.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Microsoft wants more towards replayability in game , with coop and multiplayer

And in services that are consumer friendly for the gamer with a budget

Sony have incredible single player cinematic experiences, but In a lot of cases you play those once or twice and then leave them down.I kind of wish sony would change up that formula a bit.

Thats kind of the pattern I have seen, I mean I like the single player epics but the replayability of them isnt great and I have found myself leaning back towards co-op/multiplayer experiences for the first time in many years and more social games. Time and place for the single player games (playing RDR2 currently) but most of the time at the moment ive been playing multiplayer/co-op games. I think the lockdown has pushed a lot of people towards more social games with their lack of personal interactions in life, catching up with friends over a multiplayer game because we cant see them as often in person.

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

It would be great if said single player titles were day one on ps now, as 70 euro on a title you play for 8 to 10 hours only once is a lot of money for some people.

Just needs tweaking of the formula from sony is all

 

[Dark Drakan]

It would be great if said single player titles were day one on ps now, as 70 euro on a title you play for 8 to 10 hours only once is a lot of money for some people.

Again I think the lockdown and redundancies with jobs might factor into a change in peoples spending habits. Its likely to cause people to tighten the belts a little in regards to luxury purchases and paying hundreds of pounds for a handful of games when you could actually spend a fraction of that on a service like Game Pass and have access to hundreds is going to be very appealing.

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

Completely agree, it's a non issue for me to spend full price on ps games

But I know some of my friends lost their jobs over covid and one of them got an xbox one s digital edition and a year of gamepass before his last wage

As he can't afford 70 euro a pop for ps games

Value for money will be very relevant when covid is over and the inevitable recession hits after it

 

[Demi-fiend]

Edit:

 

[Carlos]

From a business standpoint it is common sense, Sony own the rights to Spiderman so are well within their rights to exclude an IP they own from other platforms. Not the first time a game has had varying characters based on platform ownership however it is a business move and an anti consumer one and means the other platforms get 1 less character which means less of a game as Jim said.

In regards to the stronger exclusive lineup its widely considered Sony has stronger lineup of single player IP's under its belt with titles like The Last of Us, Uncharted, God Of War, Ghost of Tsushima etc. Fingers crossed Sony see the profit values that Microsoft is getting from bringing their titles to PC too and they start to port more games to PC (like they did with Horizon Zero Dawn recently).

I think you know this, but for those who don't: Sony doesn't just own the game publishing/game development rights to Spiderman... They own the blanket "Spiderman" rights - minus the comics rights - which they're not really interested in. Sony owns the blanket "Spiderman" film and games rights. Everything else is still owned by Marvel themselves, which is why the "Marvel" name still exists on the game's box art, and film art. Sony works with Marvel just for the sake of story continuity - which was a condition they had with Sony. So, when Sony and Marvel had problems in communicating with each other about how they'd deal with Avengers: End Game trilogy, they have issues on "Who really owns Spiderman?" Because, Marvel still owns the "Spiderman" name, rights, etc. Sony owns the Films & Games rights. Therein lies the issue; Sony still owns the film rights to Spiderman, so theoretically, they can control where Spidermand "appears." Marvel asks Sony to include Spiderman into End Game, the first thing Sony goes is...

"That'll be $1Billion."

You have to remember, people: Sony isn't just a Video Game console and Video Game manufacturer, they are a film maker, distributor, and manufacturer. This means, Sony can push out films far more effective than Marvel or Disney themselves (which is ironic).