MS: Xbox exclusive games, DLC "critical"

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 19 August, 2011

Explains how it secures exclusive content.

Exclusive games and downloadable content are "critical" for the Xbox 360, Microsoft has said.

Exclusive content - even if it's only for a set period of time - is crucial for differentiating the Xbox 360 from the PlayStation 3 and Wii, Microsoft's European boss Chris Lewis told Eurogamer.

"They are important," he said. "DLC windows of exclusivity are critical for us for differentiation. We'll continue to bring those exclusives through our own studio work, Gears and Forza and other titles."

Microsoft has throughout the Xbox 360's six years of life been active in sourcing exclusive games and DLC from third parties.

The exclusivity window of Grand Theft Auto IV expansions and Call of Duty map packs in particular have helped Microsoft generate more money from Xbox Live transactions than subscriptions.

In addition, Microsoft actively works with publishers to try to make multi-platform games better on Xbox 360, Lewis said.

"We're also pretty confident the cross-platform experience is better on Xbox. We enjoy great success with Call of Duty. Live is the oxygen that runs through our business. The experience users have through Xbox Live is a fundamental differentiator for us versus other platforms. FIFA is another one. Certainly here in Europe football is a religion. Our ongoing commitment to experiencing better and playing better on Xbox is partly a function of what we do with Xbox Live.

"So, exclusive IP is critical, of course. You'll see more of that over time. You'll also see us, though, committed to working with people like EA and Activision on their cross-platform consoles to make sure they play better, and they integrate better across PC, phone and the console in a way other people's just simply can't."

Lewis said Microsoft uses the Xbox 360's 55 million installed base and the Xbox Live experience to convince publishers to get on board.

"We have good, healthy partnerships with all the publishers around the globe, now," Lewis said. "Over the last 10 years those have developed and they like the momentum we have. It's hard to trivialise 55 million units out there. Everyone loves the install base. We did grow 20 per cent last year in Europe. We want to grow even more this coming year. If you think where we are in the life cycle that's a fairly unusual ambition at this time.

"Our publishers, they see that, they see that ambition, they know how much money we're going to spend. They know the depth of the partnerships. They love the technology. And they understand we want to differentiate ourselves through DLC or the beauty of the integration across the different device types that we have and are uniquely placed to be able to offer versus our very good quality competition.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (51) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • anthonypappa #1 9 months ago

    exclusive DLC is critical. how sad.

  • MavSkipper #2 9 months ago

    Well, seeing most multiplatform games with "day-one" DLC's aren't really complete games, I'm not surprised it's crucial whether it's on PS3 or 360.

  • IMD1_Pk #3 9 months ago

    I'm surprised to hear they make more from xbl marketplace than subscriptions. I knew it did well but not that well

  • oceanmotion #4 9 months ago

    I find it amazing how exclusive DLC is a selling point. Thanks Microsoft, I can buy DLC a month earlier, your are the greatest. Sad times.

    It's always funnier by the year when they try to list exclusives, Gears and Forza, Fable and Halo. Something new please.

  • arcam #5 9 months ago

    I hate the way MS have come into the console business, using their billions to basically bribe developers into delaying or removing their games from other platforms.

    Instead of spending money to make their platform better, they spend money to make other companies' platforms worse. Gamers wre much better off when companies like Nintendo, Sega and Sony ran the show.

  • frunk #6 9 months ago

    Microsoft are right: Exclusive games Are Critical

    Now Microsoft - go back and write that on a blackboard 1000 times... hopefully it will sink in.

    Timed exclusives, just feels like a cheap trick. Exclusive DLC just feels "unfair". Both activities make me feel a little suspicious. Just a company with a money hat trying to deliberately spoil the fun for others. It is not adding anything to the industry - it is just seeking to "take stuff away".

    The correct approach is to invest in developers, take risks with new game ideas, have more first party developers and bring out exclusive *games*.

    You know like what Sony do!


    - A quick PS...
    Kinda almost regret bring Sony into the argument right at the end there - probably think I am SDF or summat :) I am not - just a realist who likes good, original games.

    I am not saying Sony does not participate in these same odious "moneyhat" practices (AC, Batman, etc) - they do. However they at least seem to have other strategies too. Whereas MS seem to be relying too much on this "buying temporary exclusivity" tactic at the expense of doing some good hard development work themselves.

    Platform holders should invest money to create games - not to stop them being created.
    Edited by frunk at 22/08/11 @ 09:46

  • miiiguel #7 9 months ago

    @arcam : Don't be silly, Xbox success is Live not exclusive DLC, and that wasn't "bribe".

  • Quak #8 9 months ago

    That entire article is just the same 3 points made over and over in different ways.

  • Nazo #9 9 months ago

    Critical in the sense that without it they'd hardly have any exclusive content at all I suppose.

    I'd much prefer they took Nintendo's and Sony's approach and invest in producing new content.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #10 9 months ago

    As others have said, start investing in new IP and studios then, rather than money hatting DLC to make your competitors look bad and overall just damaging the industry and its appeal.

  • Murton #11 9 months ago

    Taking credit for developers lacking the interest or the talent to properly optimise their games for your competitors console is more than a little disingenuous.

    I also don't see MS's so called "investment" in exclusive DLC as adding value for 360 owners as much as I see it as taking value away for PS3 owners, but I don't blame MS for that, it's cheap and it's underhanded, but the publishers could say no and ensure that all fans get the maximum enjoyment regardless of the colour of their hardware. But sadly there are a few who will sell their fans and values to the highest bidder and that's something that MS have introduced to the detriment of this industry.

  • RodHull #12 9 months ago

    Silly MS. You've got bundles of exclusive IP gathering dust at Rare and Lionhead and you make them churn out more Kinect Sports and shoehorn Kinect into Fable.

  • HL706 #13 9 months ago

    "Gears and Forza and other titles."

    Elaborate on 'other' titles because I'm more than a little fed up with your exclusive content. Gears aside there is absolutely no reason for me to own an Xbox anymore.

    /disgruntled xbox owner.

  • HyperTails #14 9 months ago

    Exclusive DLC is wrong and splits the userbase. I couldn't get the Tomb Raider Underworld DLC because I bought it on PS3, and the GTA DLC came so late I never bothered.

    Its Microsoft that's feeding these DLC policies, and anyone who doesn't buy them gets fucked over.

  • ChuckNorris #15 9 months ago

    They spend money to keep other systems from getting games and content at the same time. That's such a negative influence on the industry. I have both consoles, and it makes me hate the 360 a bit. Because instead of this mong approach they could easily pour all of that bribe money into their own origional ip's that I would spend my money on. And at the same time invest in great studio talent, which would secure a healthy number of great exclusive devs for the future. Utter bollocks and it's making gaming less entertaining and interesting. Go fuck yourselves for bleeding out the industry creatively instead of securing it.

    Remedy and Rare are put on the shitlist, while Kinect and stealing games from other platforms (for a limited time) is ftw. It's completely the opposite of what this industry needs from my point of view. I'll bet you that Sony exclusive studios have had their fair share of creative crisises too, but I think that the difference in company culture between ms ans sony makes or breaks a studio.

    There is much insult to be directed at sony, but what they do really well is nurturing developers. And that is a good thing for everybody that likes playing games. Case in point, Insomniac who has gone multiplat.
    Edited by ChuckNorris at 19/08/11 @ 12:15

  • MrFlump #16 9 months ago

    Timed exclusives aren't new and will be around for as long as we pay for games.

    Some of the criticism against Microsoft here is a bit harsh as its not only them that's doing it and to be honest, most of the reason we have DLC is as a result of the publishers. They make the games and can charge for the DLC so they make money off that and companies like Sony and Microsoft then pay them for exclusivity! The publishers are the ones here that are promoting the culture and they get paid by whichever console is pushing for it and then they also get paid again by us, the consumers for the actual item.

    Sure, the console companies get some great publicity points and can say "Only on Xbox" or "Only on PlayStation" on the marketing to get more interest. Sony have got a load of free marketing for the Xperia by making Minecraft mobile exclusive to it for a while.

    With the culture that's been created by the publishers, its sad to say but exclusive DLC is important for attracting customers to your platform. I don't agree with it and to be honest, I am not a fan of DLC anyway unless its free as I think DLC should be used to expand the life of your game not make cheap cash out of it when often, the content is already provided on the disc.

  • ChuckNorris #17 9 months ago

    I'd like to add that my post has very little to do with DLC policies, I mostly avoid it. The only dlc that I've been interested in/bought has been for GTA IV and ME2. DLC is off my radar in general.

  • Triggerhappytel #18 9 months ago

    I love the way MS always talk about Gears like its their property. Do you think they know it belongs to Epic and is not an in-house production at all?

  • GamesConnoisseur #19 9 months ago

    It's funny that there are gamers who think that it's MS who only secures exclusive DLCs? Joker in Batman Arkham say hello and many more.

    MS may be worse of the two, I simply wish all of them to leave DLCs alone and invest in exclusive titles, and retailers buying up DLCs exclusives for weapons, avatars etc are just as sad or worse.

  • Bogie19th #20 9 months ago

    Exclusive does not equate to great gaming experience. Just keep bringing us great games, whether it be exclusive or multiplatform. That is what is important to me.

  • coolbritannia #21 9 months ago

    Thread full of bile I see. The 360 is nearing the end of its life but great exclusives I remember playing were Halo, Mass Effect, Forza, Gears, Viva Pinata etc and many exclusive XBLA titles.

    Sony had a stranglehold on the market last gen, now they are (just) in 3rd place. You can criticise until the cows come home, but m$'s strategy worked.

    One console had no games for the first few years of its life, one has no games for the last years of its life (Halo, Halo 4, Gears 3 and Forza 4 notwithstanding).

    Sour grapes from a bad crowd, that's what this thread is.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #22 9 months ago

    Exclusive Content: Often brilliant and well nurtured, unique games that give people a reason to be envious of the console you sell.

    Timed Exclusive Content: The worse thing ever conceived in gaming that makes you look like a MASSIVE SHOWER OF CUNTS and doesn't have ANY EFFECT on people buying your console.


    God I'm mad.

  • metallicorphan #23 9 months ago

    rather have exclusive games than exclusive DLC,especially as they just seemed focused on(timed) exclusive COD DLC right now


    EDIT:Added the '(timed)'
    Edited by metallicorphan at 19/08/11 @ 13:14

  • Zyklonbzombie #24 9 months ago

    I can't imagine anyone switching to another console just so they can play content a bit earlier. And since most people don't have the luxury of both major consoles, I doubt it even makes MS much money. Making content unnecessarily exclusive just comes across as petty and spiteful.

  • Darren #25 9 months ago

    "In addition, Microsoft actively works with publishers to try to make multi-platform games better on Xbox 360, Lewis said."

    Ah, so why is it then that multi-format games are always better on the PC then...? ;)

  • Darren #26 9 months ago

    The Xbox 360 has so far had an absolutely dire year for exclusive titles IMO. I'm not including Kinect titles because they're just mostly rubbish anyway and don't interest me either. I don't know what happened but whereas the PS3 seems to get more exclusives each year, the Xbox 360 has gotten less. Very puzzling... and I don't consider exclusive DLC a reason to buy multiformat games for one machine over another either.

  • Monkeyspoon #27 9 months ago

    Sony is screwing M$ over badly when it comes to exclusives. M$ aren't even getting exclusive dlc now. Even EA are giving exclusive content to PS3.

  • TheEarlOfZinger #28 9 months ago

    Sony isn't screwing anybody over, most of their exclusives come from partnering with developers (which their relationship with) has existed for years.


  • Gecks #29 9 months ago

    @arcam
    that's a little reductive. sony's methods are to buy up 3rd parties and make them 1st party - MS does it on a 'per-game' basis; two sides of the same coin. and gaming was hardly 'better' when sony ran the show, least of all in europe.

    competition is the only thing that keeps companies doing the good stuff, and to argue for the benefits of anyone 'running the show' is to argue for mediocrity.

  • WinterMute78 #30 9 months ago

    Wow. A lot of Sony fan boys on here today !

  • Snake_2011 #31 9 months ago

    if they keep this weak way of doing things people will see the grass is greener of the other side.

  • NewbieZilla #32 9 months ago

    The sense of entitlement in some gamers is amazing. I refer to hearing people online talk about gaming rather than here on Eurogamer in this instance. And the type of thing I refer to is gamers who expect to get a shit load of exclusive content that can not be gotten on the PS3 or they'll sell their 360 and get a PS3. And any perceived slight may make them do just that. They seem to have a "who gives a fuck if the game is fun? I only care that it is exclusive."

    Edit- Exclusive content on a console to me is more of a "There is this amount of stuff that I want not going to be available to me (about the stuff I do want, obviously) so do I want to pony up the cash for the hardware or not?"
    Edited by NewbieZilla at 19/08/11 @ 17:14

  • Mister-Wario #33 9 months ago

    This article seems blindingly obvious, so much so that I'm wondering why it's an article at all.

  • Shrui #34 9 months ago

    "DLC windows of exclusivity are critical for us..."

    I'm kind of glad at this statement, if he had tried to claim it wasn't a purely selfish measure and that we somehow benefited from this shitty industry wide practice then I'd REALLY think he was a piece of shit and not moderately hate him as I do atm.

  • BuckEntropy #35 9 months ago

    I can remember the feeling when I heard Sony had bought up exclusivity for Tomb Raider 2, even when the Saturn version was reportedly almost complete as well.

    That's right everyone, M$ is the big evil unscrupulous baddie using tactics Sony would just never stoop to...

    But those polarizing goggles are fastened on too good. *shrug*

    And @djronz, that's all well and good, but MS is a product of their own lessons. They tried internalizing a lot of devs, during the XBOX1 period... remember how much flak they caught over the Rare acquisition? The people who want to hate will find their sad excuses to hate no matter what they do. But they also got burned, a LOT, on most of those first party publishing partnerships. Other than Bungie, MS can't seem to find any devs as reliable as the core that Sony have built. And most of the better efforts don't sell or even get marginalized by the press. But it's a different market than when Sony built their empire, and everyone's responding to it in their own way.
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 19/08/11 @ 19:35

  • Calgon #36 9 months ago

    Gecks, So glad somebody old enough to remember Sony are nothing like Nintendo or Sega, Sony owe most of their success to taking 3rd party from Sega(Sega lost out the most since they were percieved as catering for the mature gamer) and Nintendo, "Sony only did this by splashing their cash around whenever they saw a game or studio they wanted... outspending the competition from their profits in electronics industry and spoiling everyone's fun, things were so much better without them"... Notice the quote marks Im just mimicking a no nothing Sony fanboy spouting crap.

    I will never have sympathy for Sony after the tricks they pulled when they entered the market and since MS entered the market its Sony who have suffered like Sega did when they entered, Nintendo seem to be doing more than fine(I don't see many real Nintendo fans with an Axe to grind about MS these days oddly enough), MS have done a lot of good, they've made Sony and Nintendo push harder than they ever would have done before(prices, technology, on-line gaming... you really think PS3 on-line would exist in the form it does now without MS' influence? No way would they have invested so much this soon without it) .

    I just love the hypocrisy of it all though, when you get self righteous Sony fanboys with such an unjust sense of entitlement, like Sony own gaming and Sony winning any little battle fills them with some sort of accomplishment for themselves. I do think MS need more exclusive games but they are only a plus point if they are genuinely good games, I've seen people play some shit over the years and pretend its good just because its exclusive, just because they feel like they are getting something other people aren't. This includes adults who are behaving like this, its all so tedious and childish... the more I see it in people the more I think its maybe time to find another hobby for grown ups(its no wonder none gamers share that view looking at some of the "Adult" gamers here and on the other popular gaming sites) or maybe just stop visiting gaming sites so I can forget how messed up the core audience can be.

  • sourc0r #37 9 months ago

    what he is basically trying to say is 'we make a shit load of money with cod mappacks, so we don't need anything else'
    ignore the other titles he mentions, fillers.

  • king26 #38 9 months ago

    I'd rather new ideas like Heavy Rain and LBP than early access to a few shitty CoD maps!

  • alcides #39 9 months ago

    I'm going to have a little fun here, I don't think I'm being too naughty but if you feel I'm going too far, sorry. It's all in good sport :D

    1)" We'll continue to bring those exclusives through our own studio work, Gears and Forza and other titles." Did they just wedge in a third party game into a series of first party references? No they didn.. they did sort o... OH, that's so sly.

    2) Yeah... what other titles? Will they tell us which ones someday? Is there a chance it won't be a fitness game for Kinect? Stay tuned "over time" but don't hold your breath too long.

    3) They bribe developers not to care the PS3 version look worse is another way of saying it. Or they have no ambition other that to up the ante just above whichever high (or low) the competition offers. Also as of 2008 that's money not well spent.

    4) They do have a great Xbox Live service. They did make me accept that quality is worth paying for.

    5)"...in a way other people's just simply can't." It's 'simply just can't' in proper english and actually, of course they could, they just don't. Good luck finding a user base with all three microsoft platforms. Good luck finding PC gamers anywhere near a Microsoft software overlay... other than the actual OS, I mean.

    6) Our competition is very good, but we're still better.... not.

    7) WHAT other platform DO they have? Windows Phone? Looking good but no install base. Games for Windows? Dead horse.

    General argument : we just throw money at them stupidly so they won't let us down, and even that can only secure two weeks exclusivity on DLC. We can't make games of our own and we need to appropriate third party games to make a list of more than two. We'd like you to believe Xbox isn't our only hardware.


  • Machiavellian #40 9 months ago

    Taking credit for developers lacking the interest or the talent to properly optimise their games for your competitors console is more than a little disingenuous.

    Actually that's not what the quote means and if you know the history of how MS help developers you would understand that this was the main reason why the 360 played better in multiplat games than the PS3. It had nothing to do with talent, interest or properly optimizing a game. It was the simple fact that MS understood that developers need help to get their games out on the budget and time they set so they would send people to studios to help them ramp up on the 360. Sony did not do this until 2 years after the PS3 hit the market. Hell, I remember Epic and some other developers had to beg Sony for help. It's one of the blunders from Sony that they had this ideal that developers should just figure out their hardware instead of helping them to ramp up on their hardware so they can ship their games on time with less bugs and optimize them as much as possible.

    I also don't see MS's so called "investment" in exclusive DLC as adding value for 360 owners as much as I see it as taking value away for PS3 owners, but I don't blame MS for that, it's cheap and it's underhanded, but the publishers could say no and ensure that all fans get the maximum enjoyment regardless of the colour of their hardware. But sadly there are a few who will sell their fans and values to the highest bidder and that's something that MS have introduced to the detriment of this industry.

    Actually paying for DLC is not underhanded at all it's good business. Why is it good business and helps both the developer and MS is that MS PAYS for the content. Less risk for the developer and probably means getting better content because the cost is payed upfront. If Rockstar is the example then you only have to look at the content to see that having the priced payed already produced great results and everyone profited. Making games is a business and gamers always forget this point until a developer goes out of business. It cannot always be about the gamer. Salaries have to be paid, and if you look at the credit for a game, there are a lot of people on that list who needs to get paid.

    Gamers always act like development studios just sit on a pile of money. Instead every game is a risk including DLC. People who produce the content are getting paid weather or not the content sells, having those cost paid for upfront helps the devs risk and reduces the cost for creating the content.

  • BuckEntropy #41 9 months ago

    @alcides - I don't think (or care) you're being too naughty, but I do think you're treating some par-for-the-course PR bluster far too seriously. Pick those nits on any of it, you'll get basically the exact same harvest.

  • alcides #42 9 months ago

    @Gecks

    arcam said that Sony, Sega and Nintendo ran the show, not that ONE company did.
    Besides, even implying that when Sony actually ran the show, the industry was at a low is heresy anywhere gamers are to be found. PSone and PStwo are monuments of videogaming, and never stood between gamers and great systems like Xbox, Gamecube and Dreamcast and matching software, and most importantly they provided a support for innovative, varied, multitudinous titles.

    Mediocrity, PSone and PS2! Zero cred goes to you.

    Yeah, competition keeps the good things comming, fortunately, at that time, we had a THREE contenders generation, then a QUARTET of consoles in a very short span of time, which spewed those two sony consoles, who owned the show and deservedly. You know where there also is competition? Between publishers. An almost-one-console market would still leave room for competition to thrive. I think PS2 is a proof of that.

    And no, it's not two sides of the same coin, SONY BUYS studios and licences, then finances development, hiring of staff, development tools and techniques, not exclusivity on single games.

    It's like saying a moonfish is just like the moon. Microsoft's stystem means they will loose the game to SONY eventually. It's a wonder EPIC didn't backstab them with Gears of War yet, they must be pouring buckets of cash over them constantly and kissing their shanks on top 24/7!

    Also, even though there is competition between Microsoft and Sony (and nintendo, which did actually stir lately on the software front), from what I gather on this thread it's blatent no one is fooled into thinking the cred for innovation is any other than SONY's prerogative.

    edited typos and bad eengliche.
    Edited by alcides at 20/08/11 @ 01:22

  • alcides #43 9 months ago

    @BuckEntropy

    If you were to talk about a 2006 SONY, I'd agree. Right now, Microsoft are the worst. Although I also had a few chuckles at gamescom when SONY said their Move had built incredible momentum (incredibly weak, perhaps?)

    So yeah, you're sort of right, I give you a 1.

  • Machiavellian #44 9 months ago

    @BuckEntropy

    If you were to talk about a 2006 SONY, I'd agree. Right now, Microsoft are the worst. Although I also had a few chuckles at gamescom when SONY said their Move had built incredible momentum (incredibly weak, perhaps?)

    Actually I would say this is something perceived by you. There is nothing changed between the 2006 Sony and today's Sony besides the fact that the 2006 Sony had a lot more free capital. With more money, corporations do what it takes to protect their interest. Sony is no more above this than MS, the only difference is that MS has more money to burn. Probably one of the biggest problem with gamers is that they believe corporation change to some good and saintly person. The real thing that changes a corporation is how much cash they have to dictate their future. There are no hero's between corporations so it would be good if gamers stop trying to champion them.

    It's like people Championing EA because Activision is the new enemy but in reality there is no difference between Activision and EA than who has the most money to dictate their future. Both corporations act the same but the difference is that one has to be more creative because their money is short and they are in the red while the other is the top dog.

  • atrimus #45 9 months ago

    @Gecks

    "that's a little reductive. sony's methods are to buy up 3rd parties and make them 1st party"

    that's not entirely true. Polyphony Digital, San Diego Studio, Japan Studio (Team ICO and Team Siren), London Studio, Cambridge Studio, Santa Monica, and Studio Liverpool are all studios either wholly founded by Sony, or partially made of smaller studios founded by Sony. even still, you statement belays the fact that a lot of studios that Sony HAVE outright bought (such as Naughty Dog and Zipper) are studios they've built near decades long relationships with.
    Edited by atrimus at 20/08/11 @ 06:47

  • BartonFink #46 9 months ago

    Have to laugh at some people on here thinking the money hattery is something exclusive to MS. They simply learned very well from something Sony had been doing for years and still do. You may not like it but it's business and both of them are in it for the money otherwise what's the point.

  • Turbotim3 #47 9 months ago

    so all of the exclusive dlc that he is talking about is just call of duty. wow what a ling article just to say " we are so great we get a timed release dlc" WOW impresive microsoft. you should be thinking about first party releases because Sony is SPANKING your ass in first party releases, also a timed release for any future MW3 dlc will do nothing but hurt activision and that will be why BF3 will win this battle

  • Turbotim3 #48 9 months ago

    I have no respect for Microsoft buying exclusive dlc and early release dates like they have done with GTAIV and COD. Sony has stated that they would not and will not ever pay for those things like Microsoft does. Sony stance is that if a developer wants to do an exclusive its because they WANT to work with them not because they paid more than Microsoft

  • GozuTennai #49 9 months ago

    I remember the days of unlockables within the game you paid for. Take me back to 1998 somebody please, it was better back then.

  • Murton #50 9 months ago

    "I can remember the feeling when I heard Sony had bought up exclusivity for Tomb Raider 2, even when the Saturn version was reportedly almost complete as well.

    That's right everyone, M$ is the big evil unscrupulous baddie using tactics Sony would just never stoop to..."

    You can infer bias with your "polarising glasses" all you like, but you've misrepresented the facts here yourself as well. Buying some exclusives is something that has to be done when you build your first generation console and this is a practice that every hardware manufacturer has engaged in going back to the days of Atari vs Commodore, they all did it when breaking in and they all stopped (or ramped it down considerably) once they became established, but ten years on it's still a core part of MS' strategy, that's why they're getting stick. MS have gone from nowhere to the big time in under a decade, a truly monumental rise, they're at the point where any game that gets made within the third party sector is more than likely going to have a 360 version so this exclusive buying has nothing to do with improving the portfolio and is simply a denial tactic against their competition and to pretend otherwise is simply naivety of the highest order.

    Besides which, as I said previously I'm not angry with MS for doing this, with their limited first party output they need something to patch the gaps between those releases and they see DLC as the best way to promote their brand, I''m angry with the publishers who are all too happy to bring their games to my console but won't offer the full experience because that's been sold to Microsoft. At the end of the day the publisher makes that decision, MS only made an offer, there was no obligation to accept it, doing so only serve to generate badwill for your company as you build a two tier fanbase of those you support (fans) and those you don't (consumers)

  • BuckEntropy #51 9 months ago

    That's disappointing Murton. The general bias I may have inferred you have now volunteered to specifically qualify.

    In the first place I have no idea what "facts" you infer I misrepresented from that, since my original post - that you quote - is inference anyway. Any misrepresentation is all you now buddy:

    "Buying some exclusives is something that has to be done when you build your first generation console and this is a practice that every hardware manufacturer has engaged in going back to the days of Atari vs Commodore, they all did it when breaking in and they all stopped (or ramped it down considerably) once they became established, but ten years on it's still a core part of MS' strategy, that's why they're getting stick."

    You're conveniently presuming that we even have all the facts, but all we really know is that MS is, for the moment, being relatively above board about their business strategy. I don't have any other anecdotes at hand, but perhaps you could tell me, did Sony completely stop the money hatting last gen when they were dominating? Even if they did, is it your own inference that it's some sort of testament to their nobility and enlightenment that they stopped bribing publishers once they had 75% of the set top market? That's such patronizing fucking nonsense, MS is still in a brawl with Sony, and there is no codified etiquette to how these things are supposed to progress.

    "MS have gone from nowhere to the big time in under a decade, a truly monumental rise, they're at the point where any game that gets made within the third party sector is more than likely going to have a 360 version so this exclusive buying has nothing to do with improving the portfolio and is simply a denial tactic against their competition and to pretend otherwise is simply naivety of the highest order."

    Setting aside the absurd misrepresentation of your choice of words, is the 360 market share even half what the PS1 and PS2 achieved at their peak? Way to rephrase history to the immediate convenience there, that's completely specious inference and I'm sure you know it.

    "Besides which, as I said previously I'm not angry with MS for doing this, with their limited first party output they need something to patch the gaps between those releases and they see DLC as the best way to promote their brand, I''m angry with the publishers who are all too happy to bring their games to my console but won't offer the full experience because that's been sold to Microsoft."

    And I would've been content to believe that, until you autonomously rose to the bait of my inference and felt the need to directly reply with such a steaming pile of bullshit.

    But if you choose to swallow Sony's PR inference that their change of tactics is some principled stance independent of self-serving pragmatism, knock yourself out. Machiavellian's post pretty well says anything else I might on the subject.