855 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

While I don't see why markets can't release movies closer to the same time, world-wide, I don't see it as quite the same thing.

 

For one thing, I don't have to spend hundreds of dollars on equipment to see a movie in a theater (though given theater prices these days, that may not be far off    ) only to be told "Sorry, you bought the wrong equipment.  Come back in a couple of months if you want to see the movie"

 

 

You'd just have to pay for a plane ticket to a European country and back, as Sanunes pointed out, outstripping the price of any PC. This is a classic case of moving the goal posts. For one, that shiny new piece of equipment you purchased isn't strictly for playing games. For another, it's a perfect demonstration of producers showing preferential treatment towards a select audience, in this case Europe. But again, equality is only being used when it serves to demonize Bioware, without putting their other practices (and the practices of similar companies Ex: Console Exclusivity) in the same category. 

 

Because the example you cited was not aimed at trying to make exclusive content available to all, but to punish one platform for getting too much stuff.

 

Talk to me about being able to put mods on XBox Skyrim and you'll find I'm all for it.

 

 

Which would be great, assuming that such a thing were practical. But given the resources likely needed to do this, it's not going to be happening. Which re-emphasizes my point regarding Bioware as a business; that their decisions are, to a very large extent, made with profit in mind. Their timed exclusivity falls into the same category as all those deleted scenes/gameplay mechanics that never sees the light of day. 

 

This brings us full circle to that wonderful point that PC releases and console releases have never been equal. And I'm personally okay with that, despite being on the losing end there. At the moment, I don't even have an Xbox One. But there are more than a few examples of preferential treatment, which you have ignored. 

[TMA LIVE]

It definitely means I'm going to have to get the Xbox One version, despite kind of wanting to get the PS4 version.

[Iakus]

 

You'd just have to pay for a plane ticket to a European country and back, as Sanunes pointed out, outstripping the price of any PC. This is a classic case of moving the goal posts. For one, that shiny new piece of equipment you purchased isn't strictly for playing games. For another, it's a perfect demonstration of producers showing preferential treatment towards a select audience, in this case Europe. But again, equality is only being used when it serves to demonize Bioware, without putting their other practices (and the practices of similar companies Ex: Console Exclusivity) in the same category. 

 

 

What does the other capabilities of a PC have to do with anything?  Why is this a PC vs console thing anyway?  It's not like you to be so hung up on something like this   Need I remind you that there are three console platforms getting screwed by this deal too?

 

I don't know why Amazing Spiderman 2 got released in Europe first.  Frankly I wasn't interested in seeing the movie anyway so I didn't care.  But if, a movie I did want to see but was only playing in AMC theaters and my local Regal theater wouldn't be getting it for several week/s months do to "financial consideration" by AMC, you can be sure I'd be angry.  And it would cost a lot less than a plane ticket to get to the nearest AMC theater.

 

 

Which would be great, assuming that such a thing were practical. But given the resources likely needed to do this, it's not going to be happening. Which re-emphasizes my point regarding Bioware as a business; that their decisions are, to a very large extent, made with profit in mind. Their timed exclusivity falls into the same category as all those deleted scenes/gameplay mechanics that never sees the light of day. 

 

This brings us full circle to that wonderful point that PC releases and console releases have never been equal. And I'm personally okay with that, despite being on the losing end there. At the moment, I don't even have an Xbox One. But there are more than a few examples of preferential treatment, which you have ignored. 

 

 And it's when they get too much profit on the brain that we get such terrible customer service.

 

It's not the same as deleted scenes/cut content because this is neither.  It's fully completed content that is available to the audience.  But only certain audience members.

[Il Divo]

I don't know why Amazing Spiderman 2 got released in Europe first.  Frankly I wasn't interested in seeing the movie anyway so I didn't care.  But if, a movie I did want to see but was only playing in AMC theaters and my local Regal theater wouldn't be getting it for several week/s months do to "financial consideration" by AMC, you can be sure I'd be angry.  And it would cost a lot less than a plane ticket to get to the nearest AMC theater.

 

 

But you're still dodging the issue. By your own admission, you'd rather have permanent exclusivity than timed exclusivity. Which means that if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would consider the correct course of action to be for a company to either provide you with a release date that's equal across the board, or to never release the movie to you, period. Avengers being a key example, a movie released a week later in Europe vs. North America. You'd have pretty bad luck selling people on the idea that they're better off never seeing the Avengers at all vs. waiting a week. 

 

In a similar vein, as a consumer, it's nonsensical to prefer permanent exclusives to timed exclusives, from any form of cost/benefit analysis. 

 

And it's when they get too much profit on the brain that we get such terrible customer service.

 

It's not the same as deleted scenes/cut content because this is neither.  It's fully completed content that is available to the audience.  But only certain audience members.

 

 

Let me try a different approach:

 

Microsoft makes Bioware a deal, offering them X amount of money for a timed exclusivity deal, a deal which Bioware believes in the long run will generate profit for them. As a business, this is desirable. You are suggesting that this is wrong. In essence, you're asking that Bioware put your interests above potential profit, which is the point of the whole endeavor.

 

How is this any different from someone demanding that Bioware use their resources/funds, reducing their overall earnings, to complete any of those unfinished ideas which we never see in their final form? How would this be any different from me demanding that Bioware spend insane amounts of time and resources to make mods available to Xbox One and PS4 players?

 

Much like the first example, which you've deemed unacceptable, we have a case of a consumer demanding that a company act against their own interests. 

 

What does the other capabilities of a PC have to do with anything?  Why is this a PC vs console thing anyway? 

 

 

To be clear, it's not. I find PC vs Console is a more straight forward manner to frame the issue, since for a while Xbox and PC were the only platforms supported by Bioware, until ME2 took off. But you're right, it's not an issue of console wars, since everyone but the Xbox One players are getting screwed. 

 

But this still leaves questions on the table. You've expressed that you support mods for the Xbox, something we both know isn't going to happen. And in addition, you are against timed exclusivity as a means to mitigate that advantage. So given that PC games do have an inherent advantage over console versions and given that players pay similar amounts of money for both games, should we not conclude that PC privilege is encouraged over console privilege? 

[dekkerd]

So, if timed DLC made you mad, now xbox one gets the demo exclusive.

http://www.ign.com/a...x-one-ea-access

EDIT: http://forum.bioware...i-early-access/

[Anzer]

All this does is ensure that I will not purchase any DLC. My heart cries, my wallet cheers.

[Exaltation]

I definitely see them making exclusive quests and game features for xbox on next DA title lol,won't be surprised if there will be some exclusive xbox companion/li.

Anything to squeeze more money.

[Iakus]

But you're still dodging the issue. By your own admission, you'd rather have permanent exclusivity than timed exclusivity. Which means that if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would consider the correct course of action to be for a company to either provide you with a release date that's equal across the board, or to never release the movie to you, period. Avengers being a key example, a movie released a week later in Europe vs. North America. You'd have pretty bad luck selling people on the idea that they're better off never seeing the Avengers at all vs. waiting a week. 

 

In a similar vein, as a consumer, it's nonsensical to prefer permanent exclusives to timed exclusives, from any form of cost/benefit analysis. 

 

 

Let me try a different approach:

 

Microsoft makes Bioware a deal, offering them X amount of money for a timed exclusivity deal, a deal which Bioware believes in the long run will generate profit for them. As a business, this is desirable. You are suggesting that this is wrong. In essence, you're asking that Bioware put your interests above potential profit, which is the point of the whole endeavor.

 

How is this any different from someone demanding that Bioware use their resources/funds, reducing their overall earnings, to complete any of those unfinished ideas which we never see in their final form? How would this be any different from me demanding that Bioware spend insane amounts of time and resources to make mods available to Xbox One and PS4 players?

 

Much like the first example, which you've deemed unacceptable, we have a case of a consumer demanding that a company act against their own interests. 

 

 

To be clear, it's not. I find PC vs Console is a more straight forward manner to frame the issue, since for a while Xbox and PC were the only platforms supported by Bioware, until ME2 took off. But you're right, it's not an issue of console wars, since everyone but the Xbox One players are getting screwed. 

 

But this still leaves questions on the table. You've expressed that you support mods for the Xbox, something we both know isn't going to happen. And in addition, you are against timed exclusivity as a means to mitigate that advantage. So given that PC games do have an inherent advantage over console versions and given that players pay similar amounts of money for both games, should we not conclude that PC privilege is encouraged over console privilege? 

To be specific, I'd prefer permanent exclusives because when the time comes to purchase a platform, I have a better idea of what I should and should not expect.  I'm not going to get a PC and expect to play Zelda games, for example.  That would play a factor into what sort of platform to get.  Rather than wondering when X company will get around to serving the customers they string along with their exclusivity deals.  Just tell me which customers you cater to, rather than how your tier system is set up!

 

What I am asking Bioware (or EA, or whatever) to do is put long-term customer service ahead of short-term cash grabs.  EA's reputation is...not very good.  And Bioware's image has been tarnished in recent years.  They could do with some good PR.

 

And fwiw, not being a technologically proficient person, I do not know why modding is not available in some form on the XBox, or the Playstion.  Or why it can't be added.  I think it's something that should seriously be looked into.

 

I am not for "mitigating advantages" That's just a fancy term for punishing others. And besides, that's clearly not what this deal was about.  It's a cash grab at the expense of the customers.  Plain and simple.

[FreshRevenge]

Mike Laidlaw stated that owners of the PC and PS4 versions will miss nothing.

 

1. FreshRevenge ‏@FreshRevenge  2h

   @Mike_Laidlaw Will Playstation and PC owners of the game miss a lot with the Xbox One Premier Content Exclusive deal?

   Details

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite 
   •  More

User Actions

 Following

Mike Laidlaw‏@Mike_Laidlaw

@FreshRevenge They will miss nothing.

 

•  Reply 
•  Retweeted 
•  Favorited 
•  More

 

 

 

• RETWEET1
• FAVORITES2
• 

10:24 AM - 29 Jul 2014

Tweet text

Reply to @Mike_Laidlaw

 

 

 

1. FreshRevenge ‏@FreshRevenge  2h

   @Mike_Laidlaw That's good to hear. I preordered my PS4 Uber Collection at Gamestop. I just don't own a Xbox One at the moment.

   Details

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite 
   •  More

 

• © 2014 Twitter
•  
• About
•  
• Help
•  
• Ads info

[FreshRevenge]

Sorry guys I haven't really figured how to upload pictures on here. I tried doing a screen capture of the my question to Mike but somehow I can't upload it this site?

[Il Divo]

To be specific, I'd prefer permanent exclusives because when the time comes to purchase a platform, I have a better idea of what I should and should not expect.  I'm not going to get a PC and expect to play Zelda games, for example.  That would play a factor into what sort of platform to get.  Rather than wondering when X company will get around to serving the customers they string along with their exclusivity deals.  Just tell me which customers you cater to, rather than how your tier system is set up!

 

 

Where as if there were no console exclusivity or to be more precise, if games were available on all consoles, your choice of console would have less negative consequences to you. 

 

Actually, someone in the Halo thread is going through this exact situation as we speak (User: Heimdall). He purchased a PS4 and now with the unveiling of the Xbox One finds completely torn with his decision, wanting to purchase the Master Chief Collection + Halo 5. I'm in a similar boat, wanting to commit to both the PS4 and Xbox One, but not having the resources to actually do so.

 

With your preference, we'd never get to touch those games, period. But with my preference, which is better for consumers, even after making that decision, I don't have to pay for that choice for the rest of this console generation, especially if completely new franchises start popping up (Blood Born for PS4, again). 

 

And fwiw, not being a technologically proficient person, I do not know why modding is not available in some form on the XBox, or the Playstion.  Or why it can't be added.  I think it's something that should seriously be looked into.

 

 

I suspect it's not an easy thing to work out, in the slightest. But hypothetically-speaking, say that we did know such a thing were impossible, what would your stance be with regard to equality between console and PC players, since there is no means of putting them on equal footing? 

 

I am not for "mitigating advantages" That's just a fancy term for punishing others. And besides, that's clearly not what this deal was about.  It's a cash grab at the expense of the customers.  Plain and simple.

 

 

And while your support for Xbox One modding is commendable, it doesn't make your argument any less logical. Your entire point was regarding favoritism and treating some customers as better than others, hence the objection to timed dlc. 

 

But there are two methods to counter special treatment: give advantages to those who have less, or take the advantages from those who have more. Yet clearly, you find both methods deplorable. Hence why I think your argument amounts to nice words, without any real substance behind them. 

 

It's easy to say "treat your consumers equally" without any effective method of implementation. It's also easy to say "well, just give these consumers access to this feature" when you're not the one who has to suffer the resource cost of implementing said features. Likewise with issues of graphics. Sure, you could tell Bioware "just give Dragon Age: Inquisition better graphics to match the PC", but it's not going to happen, for about a billion different resource problems. 

 

As a result of that and your refusal to give up any of the PC's advantages, the logical conclusion is that you're supporting PC advantages over equality, in contradiction to your earlier point about treating your customers equally. 

[Iakus]

 

And while your support for Xbox One modding is commendable, it doesn't make your argument any less logical. Your entire point was regarding favoritism and treating some customers as better than others, hence the objection to timed dlc. 

 

But there are two methods to counter special treatment: give advantages to those who have less, or take the advantages from those who have more. Yet clearly, you find both methods deplorable. Hence why I think your argument amounts to nice words, without any real substance behind them. 

 

It's easy to say "treat your consumers equally" without any effective method of implementation. It's also easy to say "well, just give these consumers access to this feature" when you're not the one who has to suffer the resource cost of implementing said features. Likewise with issues of graphics. Sure, you could tell Bioware "just give Dragon Age: Inquisition better graphics to match the PC", but it's not going to happen, for about a billion different resource problems. 

 

As a result of that and your refusal to give up any of the PC's advantages, the logical conclusion is that you're supporting PC advantages over equality, in contradiction to your earlier point about treating your customers equally. 

Continuing to harp on PCs being "superior" is making this increasingly difficult to keep from descending into console wars.

 

Especially since comparatively few game actively support modding.  Skyrim being a notable exception.  

 

You are also missing the point:  this exclusivity has absolutely nothing to do with "giving a break to the little guy" and everything to do with $$$.  

 

This situation would be no better if they gave this exclusivity to Origin.

[Dragoonlordz]

@Divo - This reply is to you rather than Iakus as I have not read most of what Iakus has said on the subject so I am not specifically taking his side based on anything he might have said, but you were the one I believe who made the comparison so I will address the comparison you brought up.

 

If both you and a friend pay the same price for a game you expect them to give you both the same treatment and quality of service for that game. The current situation is both you and your friend pay the same price for the game but one is given preferential treatment, advantages that have nothing at all to do with the price of the game, price paid for your platform, technical limitations of your platform or amount of loyalty you have shown to the creator of the game. A third party bribed the company to treat you worse than your friend. It is really simple and easy to grasp in that they are being paid to treat one group of the fan base worse than the other. It would actually be more excusable if was actually linked to price, if you the customer had to pay extra for the preferential treatment much like buying a CE vs SE version of the game but it is not and you are generally expected to pay same price as those who are being treated better than you...even more than that even if you pay more for a non-Xbox One version of their product (which is the game and not the platform it is to be played on) like for example if buy a CE version on PS4 or PC you are still being treated worse in some respects than those who paid less for a standard version on Xbox One because of that bribe.

 

You can list a million things that are not equal in this world but it is not possible to solve them all at the same time, this situation can be solved easily by simply not taking the bribes, equality is possible here even if other situations are harder to resolve and is no easy solution for some of those. With regards to PC vs console you are paying a lot more generally for the added features, options and abilities that the PC offers much like buying a Ferrari over a Ford. In terms of the game however you are both paying generally the same price for the game and as such expect the same quality of service...but someone else paid them to treat you worse, to give you inferior quality treatment and service. The PC aspect you go on about is not the same situation as this or the same in terms of being an equality issue and there are many reasons for this but without having to go into a conversation many pages long as some are quite complex I would rather just list one or two obvious and simple ones.

 

From a hardware perspective a developer in my opinion should produce the best game possible within the limitations of the hardware platform they chose to provide their product on and those platforms with the more limited options and features generally cost less than those with such things as higher specifications, more features and more options. If the game they produce is the best quality possible for the platform it is released on it is not an equality issue as they are getting the best quality for the price they paid buying that platform. So the hardware aspect is irrelevant when comparing to this situation. If you buy a gameboy you do not expect it to be able to have the same quality version of game as a PS4 for example but you do hope the version of the game for it on your gameboy is the best quality that the gameboy can offer...if however two people buy the gameboy version for same price yet one is given extra content and/or better quality game or better service than the other because someone bribed the developer then it does become an equality issue.

 

What you are doing here as far as I can see is applying false equivalence between the equality of PC vs console and the current situation regarding equality issue of timed exclusivity. They are not the same and while one is easily resolvable the other is not without the console makers being willing to allow for modular upgrades to their platforms and allowing for mods by ending their closed gated, walled garden policies which is a bad policy much like timed DLC is a bad policy. If they did that then it may be solvable but they choose not to do so in which case if you feel there is an equality issue there then maybe you should go fight for it but I personally do not believe that issue is equality related for the reasons I stated above plus other reasons and therefore do not consider it something I plan to fight for at this time.

 

In the end the only way to make consoles vs PC equal is to turn consoles into PC's which ironically over time they are becoming more and more alike from a hardware architecture and component standpoint so maybe in time will resolve itself if they also change their policies but it would be like all Ford cars becoming the same as Ferrari's from a technology and price stance and then they become equal at which time the buyers would expect the same quality for the same price but until then you get what you paid for and you would not expect a Ferrari's performance at Ford prices. This situation about the DLC aspect is an obvious equality issue both in terms of the game and the games price though and does have an easy solution for the future so I made a stand here and voiced my hopes for it to be solved in future.

[Il Divo]

Continuing to harp on PCs being "superior" is making this increasingly difficult to keep from descending into console wars.

 

 

In what manner would you suggest that PCs are *not* superior? They carry controller support (like consoles), modding capabilities, higher end graphics abilities, isometric viewpoints (Ex: DA:O), among other things.  

 

As I said, this is not a console war. I am not here saying that we should have access to everything PC players do, quite the opposite (traditionally, I've gamed on both platforms). 

 

My point is that equality, in the form of giving Xbox One players the benefits you suggest, such as modding capabilities, is not going to happen. And the reason, very likely, is related to resources and profits. So if we accept that a game producer in this instance is going to choose profit over making all customers feel equal, which traditionally has affected console players more, why does this not also apply in a scenario that affects PC players, in the form of timed exclusivity?

 

In both scenarios, you have developers choosing profit over making all customers across all platforms feel "equal". If your argument is to have any weight, you need to address how these two scenarios are different. Or provide a practical means for Bioware to achieve the above. Just saying "give Xbox One better graphics", unfortunately doesn't cut it. You opened the door to the equality argument, keep in mind. 

 

You are also missing the point:  this exclusivity has absolutely nothing to do with "giving a break to the little guy" and everything to do with $$$.  

 

 

See above. Achieving equality would likely require substantial resources, in this case. Company says profits>customer equality, in this situation. How is the timed exclusivity any different? I want to know the reason. 

[Il Divo]

If both you and a friend pay the same price for a game you expect them to give you both the same treatment and quality of service for that game. The current situation is both you and your friend pay the same price for the game but one is given preferential treatment, advantages that have nothing at all to do with the price of the game, price paid for your platform or amount of loyalty you have shown to the creator of the game. 

 

 

All of this applies equally to the PC scenario.

 

And personally, I don't place much stalk in loyalty. I loyally purchased Dark Souls, bragged to quite a few people about it, and paid $100 for a black armor edition of Dark Souls II. And From Software went and made a new exclusive franchise with Sony. Sure, I could sit here and hold a grudge, but I recognize that as a business Sony wants to make money (as does From) and they can do that however they please. 

 

Sure, I hate not having access to Bloodborne (it hurts me as a consumer), but I don't believe that I am owed access to it as a condition of my prior loyalty as a customer. If From started making crappy games, I wouldn't stick with them because of their past success either. 

 

ou can list a million things that are not equal in this world but it is not possible to solve them all at the same time, this situation can be solved easily by simply not taking the bribes, equality is possible here even if other situations are harder to resolve and is no easy solution for some of those. 

 

 

Are you sure about that? Because I just provided a method to achieve equality and it's extremely simple to achieve: no more better graphics and modding capabilities for PC players. And they pay the same price as console games. That's certainly an example of equality across the board. An extremely unappealing one (since I also game on PC), but in a technical sense that would satisfy both yours and Iakus' demand for equal treatment. 

 

 

With regards to PC vs console you are paying a lot more generally for the added features, options and abilities that the PC offers much like buying a Ferrari over a Ford. 

 

 

And for exclusivity access. Don't forget that one. It being key here. People pay for exclusivity, in various capacities. The point of these unique capabilities is to create a desire for a purchase, specifically for your consumers. 

 

When I offer Super Smash Bros. exclusively on the Wii U, the idea is that I want people to purchase a Wii U. When I offer a timed exclusivity deal, same basic concept, only the consequences for a lack of purchase are far less severe. You could argue that you are valued less as a customer (and I do believe that's the case), but that's the company's choice, it being their product. Now, alternatively, given Iakus' viewpoint, I would conclude that between the two, he'd rather not have access to Dragon Age: Inquisition at all than be given secondary treatment, something I very much disagree with. 

 

And to be clear, none of what you say, at its core, changes that key preference for one set of gamers over another. The software developer, for equal price from its consumers, chose to give certain gamers more than others. That certainly speaks to valuing them more, in some capacity, which I thought was what we were fighting against, as per timed exclusivity? 

 

n  In terms of the game however you are both paying generally the same price for the game and as such expect the same quality of service...but someone else paid them to treat you worse, to give you inferior quality treatment and service. The PC aspect you go on about is not the same situation as this or the same in terms of being an equality issue and there are many reasons for this but without having to go into a conversation many pages long as some are quite complex I would rather just list one or two obvious and simple ones.

 

 

So, to be clear, should it make console players feel better when they are treated worse, without some third entity paying developers off? Again, going back to modding capabilities, higher graphics, etc. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Are you sure about that? Because I just provided a method to achieve equality and it's extremely simple to achieve: no more better graphics and modding capabilities for PC players. And they pay the same price as console games. That's certainly an example of equality across the board. An extremely unappealing one (since I also game on PC), but in a technical sense that would satisfy both yours and Iakus' demand for equal treatment. 

 

So, to be clear, should it make console players feel better when they are treated worse, without some third entity paying developers off? Again, going back to modding capabilities, higher graphics, etc. 

 

I will address these points, firstly why you have a single mindedness towards forcing a lower quality product across the board as a solution instead of the better solution of raising the bar on the quality of the ones currently under performing against the other quite frankly I believe done to bait a heated console war style argument.

 

I think it would be better if console players had access to better quality game for the same price which means the optional raising the price of consoles in an optional paying for a upgrade component sense to match high spec PC's by using a modular upgrade function for those who wish to take advantage of that or lowering the price of PC components so becomes on par with consoles which is more unlikely. Thus linking price and performance to equality such as you pay same price you get same quality service and product but with a better and more beneficial outcome compared to resorting to lowering the quality across the board which was suggested I believe to bait a console vs PC flame war.

 

I think console players should be treated better in some aspects from removal of the closed gate policies to allow for modding, more sales and discounts on digital games and altering the way in which consoles are designed to allow for upgrading (optional for those who wish to do so just like PC)...but this timed DLC is not one of them, the timed DLC should not be present at all as it has no relevance to price of platform, price of game or anything to do with being a consumer of Bioware or EA's games and everything to do with the bribe EA took to treat you worse than the next guy so that Microsoft might make a few more sales of their own product.

 

It does not matter to Microsoft how badly you are treated as a customer of EA or Bioware on one of the other platforms though, Dragon Age is not their product so they couldn't care less. Bioware and EA should care though as it is their product being used to treat some of their fans worse than others because of the bribe and their customer service and their promise during E3 this year where claimed putting consumers first that is being tarnished but seems they do not care to me based on taking the bribe in the first place and discussions I have had with certain members of the team.

 

Ideally I would love to believe that Bioware spoke to EA and asked them not to do this, having maybe the foresight to realize how badly it could be perceived by a portion of their customers, to stand up for them even if fell on deaf ears at EA but I highly doubt that happened or that they even voiced any concern on our behalf. Though I admit this is assuming they knew about the deal but even if they did not until now, after found out it would be nice if they cared enough to bring up their customers concerns to EA regardless again if falls on deaf ears but once again I highly doubt that happened too.

[Il Divo]

I will address these points, firstly why you have a single mindedness towards forcing a lower quality product across the board as a solution instead of the better solution of raising the bar on the quality of the ones currently under performing against the other is simply weird and quite frankly I believe done to bait a heated console war style argument.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not too concerned about opinions on my motives. I have no bias for or against PC games, having access to modern games on PC and 360. I do not currently have an Xbox One or a PS4, although I'm likely committed to the Xbox One, if that helps my points go down easier.

 

I expressed this same idea to Iakus, when you have two similar products, A and B, which you wish to make equal, you have two options: improve the quality of one product or decrease the quality of the other product. One of these is advantageous to consumers, specifically the former. But just saying "give mods to the Xbox" likely isn't as simple as it sounds. And would require resources, which Bioware may not be willing to devote to the cause. Hence why I bring up the "lower quality product". If we are truly interested in equal treatment and do not want group of consumers to feel inferior or less important because of their purchase, that's where we end up.

 

Edit: Your idea for a modular upgrade is great, but also requires significant more effort in convincing Microsoft (or Sony) to back that sort of development. Or perhaps they already have? But in lieu of that solution being available for DA:I's release, we're still stuck in the above scenario. 

 

but this timed DLC is not one of them, the timed DLC should not be present at all as it has no relevance to price of platform, price of game or anything to do with being a consumer of Bioware or EA's games and everything to do with the bribe EA took to treat you worse than the next guy.

 

 

I addressed this in my last post. What is the purpose of exclusivity, in any form? To generate interest, to generate a sale. You (correctly) point out that PC players pay more money for top of the line platforms, but even taking that into account, consoles do have one benefit PC gaming does not: access to certain exclusives, even if those exclusives are not due to PC limitations, but rather business decisions. 

 

Timed exclusives, much like permanent exclusives, exist because of a desire for profit, primarily. The company is, in effect, saying "buy this console or you'll never see this game". This is why I find Iakus' support for console exclusivity odd. As a consumer, it affects you far more than timed exclusivity, and is fueled by a similar desire, not to mention resulting in more painful consequences. True, you can point out that you're being put second best to some other customer,  but another alternative option is that Bioware could make DA:I an Xbox One exclusive, in keeping with the no timed exclusives rule, which much like the nerfing of PC capabilities likely would not be appealing, but is still consistent with the Permanent exclusives>timed exclusives position. 

 

Even if the scenario were reversed, with PC players receiving the timed exclusivity, I would much prefer that approach to never seeing DA:I on whatever console I end up buying, especially when I'm dealing with more difficult choices like PS4's Bloodborne or Microsoft's Halo. 

[BloodyTalon]

Well at-least they haven't pulled a ubi and delayed the pc release yet way behind consoles.

[Il Divo]

It does not matter to Microsoft how badly you are treated as a customer of EA or Bioware on one of the other platforms though, Dragon Age is not their product so they couldn't care less. Bioware and EA should care though as it is their product being used to treat some of their fans worse than others because of the bribe and their customer service and their promise during E3 this year where claimed putting consumers first that is being tarnished but seems they do not care to me based on taking the bribe in the first place and discussions I have had with certain members of the team.

 

 

But again, in Bioware's position, I could take your words seriously and not offer you DA:I at all, turning it into a console exclusive. But you're likely to tell me I'm single-minded, despite taking such arguments to their logical conlusions? 

 

Perhaps you think console exclusivity is also wrong, in which case I'm cool with your fight against timed exclusivity.

 

But saying timed exclusivity is bad, while supporting another business practice, also born of greed and designed to affect you far more, is completely non-sensical. That's been one of the key points of my argument with Iakus from the beginning. I have absolutely no qualms with the former. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I see nothing wrong with Microsoft gaining access to stuff early if they helped fund the project. 

[Iakus]

In what manner would you suggest that PCs are *not* superior? They carry controller support (like consoles), modding capabilities, higher end graphics abilities, isometric viewpoints (Ex: DA:O), among other things.  

 

As I said, this is not a console war. I am not here saying that we should have access to everything PC players do, quite the opposite (traditionally, I've gamed on both platforms). 

 

My point is that equality, in the form of giving Xbox One players the benefits you suggest, such as modding capabilities, is not going to happen. And the reason, very likely, is related to resources and profits. So if we accept that a game producer in this instance is going to choose profit over making all customers feel equal, which traditionally has affected console players more, why does this not also apply in a scenario that affects PC players, in the form of timed exclusivity?

 

In both scenarios, you have developers choosing profit over making all customers across all platforms feel "equal". If your argument is to have any weight, you need to address how these two scenarios are different. Or provide a practical means for Bioware to achieve the above. Just saying "give Xbox One better graphics", unfortunately doesn't cut it. You opened the door to the equality argument, keep in mind. 

 

Some games carry console support.  Not all games do.  Mass Effect and Dragon Age, for example, have not offered console support until now.  

 

Again, some games have modding capability, but not all.  Not even most.  This is an even smaller number than those with controller support, I bet.

 

Some PCs do have higher end graphic capabilities.  If the player is willing to pay for it.  A high-end gaming computer can cost 2-3 times as much as a console if the player doesn't build it themselves.  And would likely require an upgrade before the end of the console generation to stay that way.  So right there that particular platform has a cost to it.

 

But in any case, you want a substantive difference:  ehre's one.  An exclusivity agreement is not a technical limitation.  These things you keep mentioning, modding, graphics, etc, are the result of tech limits of the console in question.  Timed exclusivity is not.  There is no technological reason why they should not be released simultaneously.  Bioware will be deliberately sitting on dlc because they were paid to.  Not because the PS4 can't handle the graphics .  Not because the 360 lacks modding capabilities.  Not to strike a blow against the PC Master Race.  But because Microsoft wrote a check.

[Schreckstoff]

Some games carry console support. Not all games do. Mass Effect and Dragon Age, for example, have not offered console support until now.

Again, some games have modding capability, but not all. Not even most. This is an even smaller number than those with controller support, I bet.

Some PCs do have higher end graphic capabilities. If the player is willing to pay for it. A high-end gaming computer can cost 2-3 times as much as a console if the player doesn't build it themselves. And would likely require an upgrade before the end of the console generation to stay that way. So right there that particular platform has a cost to it.

But in any case, you want a substantive difference: ehre's one. An exclusivity agreement is not a technical limitation. These things you keep mentioning, modding, graphics, etc, are the result of tech limits of the console in question. Timed exclusivity is not. There is no technological reason why they should not be released simultaneously. Bioware will be deliberately sitting on dlc because they were paid to. Not because the PS4 can't handle the graphics . Not because the 360 lacks modding capabilities. Not to strike a blow against the PC Master Race. But because Microsoft wrote a check.

Not necessarily true. The paycheck could just as well make them prioritize the DLC for the XBO.

DLCs are usually done by a much smaller team, while the mainforce moves on to another project. Having them do DLC for all platforms at once would take considerably more time than prioritizing one platform over the others.

[Dragoonlordz]

What Iakus views are on full exclusivity have no relevance to myself as I am not him and as individuals we all feel differently about different things. I have for years argued against aspects of game exclusivity. I have done so on many sites on many games and platforms though the years. Why I never got into your argument with him on it is because you, Allen and others for example constantly moving the goal posts, if one example of inequality fails to get the right response you or others find another example and I have no desire to get bogged down fighting a million examples or equality or lack of it across all areas of gaming or life which may or may not have any relation to timed exclusivity in games.

 

I will try to find a one of my more recent debate's I can maybe quote on my feelings about the subject but I do not plan to scan through years or arguments and points/counterpoints or get into a long argument yet again over it so will try to quote one of my more recent ones on it and leave it at that just for clarification purpose and letting you know my stance on it. I could probably refine and improve the stance I took in the following quote but I can't be bothered right now as it's 4am and I will just quote it as it stood at the time I wrote it a long time ago instead during a discussion about a exclusive game from Sony. It refers to exclusivity and timed exclusivity from a platform creator and consumer angle mostly not specifically a game developer angle as much though.

 

Exclusivity does not benefit you at all as a gamer. It only benefits the platform maker by luring you away from it's competitor thus being detrimental to the other business and their customers plus being of no benefit to you. What I mean by that is if it was not exclusive you would not be worse off, you would still get the same game on that main platform and yet the other gamers (potentially you if owned the other platform instead) would also get to enjoy it without having to spend between hundreds...thousands even if try to cover all the main platforms, just in case an 'exclusive' comes out you might like for one.

 

Lifetime of platform exclusivity is detrimental to gaming, as a gamer, even as a publisher or developer it is not a good thing outside of the bribe they obtain they make less money by halving or more their potential customer base. If those developers currently owned by Sony or Microsoft were free to release on all platforms they would make more money and therefore better games too in the long run compared to being restricted from potential sales to many, many millions of consumers on the other platforms as it stands now. It is only the platform creator (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) that benefit from such with exclusivity. It is not a good thing for me, you or any other gamer/consumer.

 

Your relying on luck for the most part as to whether or not you buy the right platform if do not have thousands of pounds to spare buying every single major platform when you rely on exclusives if using it to justify your purchase. It's one thing to be glad you was 'lucky' enough that the platform creator managed to bribe a studio to make a game for your platform...however had none of the platform makers bribed them you would probably still have got the game only you would not be depriving everyone else of enjoying it who happened to spend hundreds/thousands on one of the other major platforms. It seems spiteful to be glad of something that's purpose is only to make the console maker more money yet deprive everyone else of money and/or enjoyment.

 

What harm would it have done you as a gamer had that game you love so much been not exclusive and others on the other major platforms got to experience the same game you love without having to buy multiple platforms? What good has it done you to be locked out of buying and enjoying major games that you might love unless you fork out hundreds or more for a secondary, third or fourth platform? The only people with any negative effect are the console makers and they would still exist just fine, it would just take slightly longer for them to rake in as much money as before...I would understand why Sony or Microsoft would defend exclusivity because it's only their profits not having it would hurt slightly, but a gamer supporting and promoting it is just plain spiteful (imho).

 

If exclusivity died off tomorrow, you as a consumer would be no worse off. The game developers would still make as much if not much more money catering to all major platforms while you as a gamer and consumer at same time get to experience more good games than before without having to buy every single console and PC just to access what you could of had anyways had exclusivity not been part of the equation.

 

Here is a piece of information on top from Sony themselves on this issue.

 

"Right now exclusives are just a way for [console makers] to brag louder," said Boyes, as Gamasutra reports. "Nobody gains from exclusivity in perpetuity."

 

In a surprisingly frank talk at the IndieCade Festival in Los Angeles, Sony Computer Entertainment America's VP of publisher and developer relations Adam Boyes accepted that that console exclusivity can drive console sales, but claimed that it does not benefit either party in the long-term.

 

Sony has said that console exclusivity is ultimately unproductive for both console makers and developers.

 

Gamers do not benefit from exclusivity outside of bragging rights regarding how they have something enjoyable that their friends who invested hundreds or thousands on a different platform do not, even though a true friend would want the friend to be able to enjoy the same thing he is regardless of which platform he had and to experience it to the best of that platforms hardware capabilities. What exclusives you get is for the most part down to luck of the draw on your chosen platform in which many such exclusives are released much later in the life cycle of the platform and therefore have no bearing on which console you actually chose to buy.

 

It push comes to shove and had to choose between the worst and second worst outcome then platform creators would not lose out if they dropped lifetime exclusiveness as they could use timed exclusives to equally bolster sales of their platform by the tiny fraction any exclusivity gives them instead of life cycle exclusivity or platform generational exclusivity but even without timed exclusivity they would not lose much.

 

Such a switch would would be less detrimental to the other gamers who like yourself just want to enjoy gaming but happened to roll the dice and pick a different platform costing them on par as much as yours did you because after the weeks, months even a year they too could have a version they could enjoy like you did but ideally they would do away with all exclusivity and timed exclusivity because it is not the only form of competition they could use to bolster and improve sales. Here is the main reason why as platform creators would not lose much on the competitive angle since all forms of exclusives are a small fraction of what bolsters their platform sales...hardware and peripherals, OS/UI and services plus prices are vastly more impactive than exclusivity on games. All these things would become more important which in itself would be an improvement for the consumers while at the same time push the platform creators to actually try harder to improve those services and products without the reliance of falling back on exclusive games to use against the consumers. Boyes himself states in my quote above that the increase in sales because of exclusivity is not of much benefit to them.

 

Most developer studios do not benefit from exclusivity, the large ones lose sales numbering in the millions when restricted to a single platform, most (though not all) small studios and individual developers are not saved by a platform creator taking them on board, they are snapped up quickly to prevent them from being invested in by any one else or are already so successful the platform creator pays a large initial amount to take a bite out of this success which despite the short term gain generally equals long term loss since they are then restricted from millions of additional sales on other platforms. They also become subject to an additional risk of closure and the platform creators whims impacting everything they make. Most of these developers that platform creators purchase are not the small indies, they are medium to large studios or well established ones with track records whom could survive on the merit quality of the titles they created already and in future, only in future they would not have lost out on a truly massive quantity of sales because they are now tied into a studio or IP lifetime exclusivity contract.

 

What they are doing is preventing others from using, selling or playing a game so that they maintain the monopoly of what is created from it is very much 'locking out' people from both gamers who cannot afford to own every platform and not just competitors. If make the assumption that Boyce was being careful how he worded he comment where admits exclusivity benefits no one long term when it is quite reasonable to say he said long term on top of currently and ultimately because he was not taking a narrow minded view on the subject.

 

When take into account the loss of lifetime exclusivity as a bargaining chip they would still have price, hardware, peripherals, services, OS and if resort to second worse case scenario as opposed to biggest worst case scenario of lifetime exclusivity then switching to only timed exclusivity despite my dislike for it in which they get it first but others will get it later...then they have enough incentives and ways to compete that benefits all involved without most of the studios under their wing losing out on vast sales, gamers losing out because of luck which one they went with prior to that title being developed or released and platform creators who have enough alternative methods for competition and yet still retain as they call it 'their only real benefit which is the bragging rights' if they used timed exclusivity not lifetime exclusivity.

 

Ideally however they could ditch lifetime exclusivity and timed exclusivity and instead compete more on service, OS/UI, hardware, features and peripherals, even pricing because exclusivity is such a small increase in potential sales and used as a fall back by platform makers as a form of blackmail against the consumer that if they just focused on the quality of services, hardware performance, peripheral design and user experience through UI or OS then plus cost of product then the consumer would benefit more than any exclusivity deals and the platform maker would have to improve all other areas far more so without the safety net of exclusivity policies. They would still get their bragging rights as they themselves call it but in other areas too.

 

I also dislike PC game platform exclusivity too to be honest, I would love for as many PC games as possible to also to be enjoyed on consoles especially if the studios are capable of producing multi-platform version of their games had they not been tied down to a exclusivity contract. If my current platform of choice was a PS4 or XBone then I would be equally annoyed if a PC game I thought would want to play came out only for PC specifically because it was tied down to an exclusivity contract as opposed to lack of funds to create alternative versions of the other platforms that I or others might own or was those other platforms were too low spec to run it. I consider limitations on how many platforms a developer can afford to put their game on to be a more valid excuse just like if the hardware cannot run the game but a less valid excuse when the only excuse is the exclusivity contract alone.

 

 

It is possible some of my views have changed since then since then and I have not double checked it at the moment since as I said it's 4am and I am tired but since that is quoted from a very old post on another website but even if my view has changed slightly I think it was large enough in context and covered enough to at least give you a general basic idea about my stance on lifetime exclusivity.

 

If there are contradictions and such in it then it would be because it's an old post and my views might have become more refined and/or changed but if there is such I maybe might be willing to clarify my current view or stance on it if I consider the question to be worthwhile of clarification. I will not waste my time or take part in any shotgun argumentation though which is taking sentences or specific parts out of context in order to discredit a previous comment. Keep any question in context, try not to further move the goal posts more than you already have and you'll be more likely to get a reply.

[Il Divo]

 

It is possible some of my views have changed since then since that is quoted from a very old post on another website but even if my view has changed slightly I think it was large enough and covered enough to at least give you a general basic idea about my stance on lifetime exclusivity. If there are contradictions and such in it then it would be because it's an old post and my views might have become more refined and or changed but if there is such I maybe might clarify my current view if I consider the question to be worthwhile of clarification but I will not waste my time or take part in any shotgun argumentation which is taking sentences or specific parts out of context in order to discredit a previous comment. Keep any question in context, try not to further move the goal posts more than you already have and you'll be more likely to get a reply.

 

 

No offense, but I don't consider a reply from you to be the end all-be all of my day. You would have done better to leave off at your dislike of console exclusivity, which is pretty well-written.

 

Regarding my confusion regarding your stance on console exclusivity was entirely on me. 

[DEUGH Man]

So, other people have to wait a week or two. It's not that insulting, in my humble opinion. If a company is willing to dish out the dough for a deal like this, then they deserve to get what they paid for.

 

Free market, baby.