FFXVI only PS5?

[Absimiliard]

Because you said so?

Like ... these days I'm definitely one of those PCmaster race dude, but I still find it hilarious the language some of you are using. Do you think including these "soul-crushing-monstrosity-words" into your sentence will lend them weight or something? Industry destroying? Like ... yo, I don't know how long you've been gaming, but let me tell you as someone who have been gaming since the mid 90': the industry have been getting stronger every year. And it's not even a linear, but more like exponential growth. If after almost 30 years and there still no sight of the industry being destroyed you mentioned, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your evaluation? Or you just really want to play a false prophet?


Seriously, just be honest and say you just want everything on one platform to save yourself some money, that's all there is to it, that's the real and only reason. Not because you care about the state of the industry or whatever grandstanding reason you are window-dressing your argument. Like ... it's not even a bad thing so why pretend? It's normal for all of us to have more while paying less, myself included.

I've been gaming since before most of the players on FFXIV were even born. You missed the first game crash, which occurred around 83 and lasted until 85. The crash almost did destroy the industry. It was caused by a combination of over-saturation and the shady business practices of several (then) leading companies. Exclusivity is as old as the industry itself, but it is well known to be harmful - it always has been. It was largely unavoidable in the old days given hardware differences, of course.

Gaming companies are now far larger than they were before, boasting greater reach and much deeper pockets than at any point prior. Society as a whole is also more connected than ever before; entire communities exist online, and friend groups spiderweb out through the world in ways we could never even have conceived of even twenty years ago. Companies like Sony and Microsoft like to abuse this reach to the fullest extent possible, and gamers are the ones that pay for it. Exclusiviity deals are just one of several things holding back smaller companies that might like to get a leg up in the industry. Without fresh blood, you get stagnation. We saw stagnation in the 80s, and we're seeing it again now. We're also seeing a lot of larger companies going out of their way to snuff out smaller ones, oft times through underhanded means, before they have the chance to get anywhere.

I've no need to reevaluate anything. Economists have been predicting another game crash for a while now, and much of what they've predicted would happen leading up to it has already come to pass. It may be next year, it may be a decade from now, but there very little chance the gaming industry won't experience another crash. And yes, exclusivity deals are a contributing factor.

The above aside, I must ask, why are you so often disingenuous in your posts? You frequently go out of your way to imply malice and/or dishonesty where there is none simply because you happen to disagree with a poster. Is it a lack of confidence in the merit of your own posts, or do you just genuinely believe everyone you disagree with is acting in bad faith?

Oh, and for the record, I already own nearly every console released in the last 45 or so years. Yes, including a PS5. I do care about the industry, because it's this industry that keeps a roof over my head. Another game crash means I either go hungry or find a new line of work, and I'd prefer neither of those.

[Raven2014]

...

I fail to see if this has anything to do with the point you're saying at all. And you made it sound like the PC space doesn't share similar issue.The shenanigan with the GPU on the PC market that had lasted for 3 years, and still have shown a sign of correcting itself is making console a lot more attractive option ATM. I put together a brand new PC last year, and still running a 6 years old card because it replacement will cost as much as the PS5 itself even without being the latest option.

I've no need to reevaluate anything. Economists have been predicting another game crash for a while now, and much of what they've predicted would happen leading up to it has already come to pass. It may be next year, it may be a decade from now, but there very little chance the gaming industry won't experience another crash. And yes, exclusivity deals are a contributing factor.

Like ... if it happens, then everything is a contributing factor. Whether it's actually the factor or not is everyone guess. That's the whole concept behind "false prophet". Like people who keep complaining and predicting FF14 will eventually fail are not wrong, because it probably will, nothing last forever. Could be in 5 years, or 10 years, but that doesn't mean the false prophet is right.

The above aside, I must ask, why are you so often disingenuous in your posts? You frequently go out of your way to imply malice and/or dishonesty where there is none simply because you happen to disagree with a poster. Is it a lack of confidence in the merit of your own posts, or do you just genuinely believe everyone you disagree with is acting in bad faith?

Being on a forum where every other complain is coupled with the usual "if SE don't listen to me then it's certainly doom" can do that for you. Hyperbolic statement just trigger me. Also, did you miss the very last part of the post where I said "including myself"? So let strike a deal: you stop using hyperbolic grand statements, and I'll stop poking at you for it, deal?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, the last 30 has always been filled with constant hyperbolic assumption.

- At the peak of the console popularity (PS2/Xbox 1 and early 360 era + Wii) people claimed PC gaming was numbered. Remember those day when you go to gamestop and 90% of the estate are console game with some deformed PC box share a lonely sad corner? Then Steam happened.

- In the hayday of WoW, everyone wanted their own slice. Many SP developers jumped ship including some of the most famous one like Bioware, Bethesa and even Square. Again, people were herald the day of single player was limited because everything is MP driven. And really, after the majority of those projects fail, these days single player option are still as strong as it ever was, if not even stronger.


The point here is you're literally contradicting yourself in your 2nd paragraph. It's because the market is so vast right now that many company won't live or die with after one failure. And any attempt to create a hole that can destabilize the market will eventually be plugged by competitors and there is nothing you can do about it, regardless of how big you are. Competition and diversity is not an "industrial-destroyer", it's what make the market healthy. And competition means company will try to one up each others, time exclusive is just one of way to do that.

And it's exactly because the market is so strong today that you know most time exclusive is just that, time exclusive. In the end, good thing comes to those who wait, better thing even.

[Absimiliard]

Being on a forum where every other complain is coupled with the usual "if SE don't listen to me then it's certainly doom" can do that for you. Hyperbolic statement just trigger me. Also, did you miss the very last part of the post where I said "including myself"? So let strike a deal: you stop using hyperbolic grand statements, and I'll stop poking at you for it, deal?

Except nothing I said was hyperbolic or an assumption. I meant exactly what I said as I said it. You may claim it's hyperbolic if you wish, but that does not alter my own intent in the least. As I said before, I in fact have a vested interest in the gaming industry. It is my source of stability.

So, allow me to reiterate one more time, noting there is no hyperbole at play: timed exclusives are bad for the industry. This isn't exactly a new and shocking concept, given how many economists, gaming companies, and even governments have been and will continue saying the same thing for who knows how long. It is far from the only poor business practice currently widely employed, and it's not going to cause any kind of market crash by itself. Lots of things go into making a market crash. No market, no matter how large or strong, is immune to experiencing a crash. And no, you don't need a global catastrophe for this to occur.

Now, if you wish to question my use of the phrase "industry-destroying," that had no hyperbolic intent either. I firmly believe there will be long term consequences from the continued use of predatory exclusivity practices. There are ways to go about it that work, that I won't try to dispute, but the majority of companies engaging in it do so in a manner that is just outright predatory at this point. It's proven the death knell of many a small company, and it will doubtless consume many others along the way.

Incidentally, you could probably even call timed exclusivity self-defeating in some cases. I'm not sure how familiar you are with how those things work, but there's rarely a clause in the contract for if sales exceed what was initially projected. I.e. the entity holding the rights to sell or platform the game is in no way required to compensate the IP-holder in the event this occurs. It's a practice typically engaged in by those looking to ensure they'll still turn a profit even if a product bombs. SE's frequent contracts with Sony indicate this is not necessarily their purpose, but smaller companies are often taken for everything they're worth in these deals just to be able to get their product on a platform at all. Then you've got platforms like Epic, which I am pretty sure even you won't try to argue don't engage in excessively predatory practices.

I feel like the notion of another crash in today's environment is ludicrous.

The gaming industry in those days was much smaller. Gaming since then has been very digitalized, and far more accessible (not to mention that it's now far more socially acceptable to be playing games too). After seeing how the gaming industry basically escaped unscathed in terms of revenue during COVID lockdowns (though actual development took a hit for reasons we all know), the so-called economists predicting another gaming crash sound more and more like doomposters trying to will one into existence because reasons.

The only way a gaming crash is happening at this point is if a society-altering event happens at a level far worse than what COVID did, and at that point, we have far worse things to worry about.

Larger markets have crashed than this one, and a lot of them didn't require a society-altering event for it to happen.

[SaitoHikari]

So, allow me to reiterate one more time, noting there is no hyperbole at play: timed exclusives are bad for the industry.

I don't think anyone is actually arguing this point, the hand-wringing is about exactly -how bad- it is. One of the major reasons people are paying close attention to the Activision/Blizzard acquisition is because people are wondering if such a public event may lead to the regulatory bodies taking a MUCH closer look at the inner workings of the gaming industry in the aftermath, because quite frankly, a lot of the more abhorrent practices that the tech industry as a whole employs only exists due to sheer ignorance among the regulatory courts. Rumor has it that Sony was supposed to have a State of Play last October showcasing their own exclusives, but canceled it because they didn't want to give Microsoft any ammo for the court proceedings. Even now, it seems that Sony has been much more quiet about exclusives ever since.

Larger markets have crashed than this one, and a lot of them didn't require a society-altering event for it to happen.

Alright. Which ones?

[Absimiliard]

I don't think anyone is actually arguing this point, the hand-wringing is about exactly -how bad- it is. One of the major reasons people are paying close attention to the Activision/Blizzard acquisition is because people are wondering if such a public event may lead to the regulatory bodies taking a MUCH closer look at the inner workings of the gaming industry in the aftermath, because quite frankly, a lot of the more abhorrent practices that the tech industry as a whole employs only exists due to sheer ignorance among the regulatory courts. Rumor has it that Sony was supposed to have a State of Play last October showcasing their own exclusives, but canceled it because they didn't want to give Microsoft any ammo for the court proceedings. Even now, it seems that Sony has been much more quiet about exclusives ever since.

See, this I agree with. What I'm even bothering to argue over is the weird assertion the business practice is fine, which some people appear to believe. I hope people do start taking a closer look at both the gaming industry and information technologies as a whole. It would probably fix a lot of problems. As you say, a lot of it is only able to go on because people are ignorant of it.

Alright. Which ones?

Are you familiar with the dotcom bubble crash? Even eBay and Amazon barely survived it. Lotta companies rose up without a plan, fueled by tons of investors. They burned through their capital far too quickly and ultimately went under. The fallout from the dotcom crash was in turn directly responsible for the stock market crash of 2000. The damage wrought by the dotcom bubble crash was, like that of most crashes, temporary. The online market and information technology industries recovered in relatively short order, not unlike the gaming industry before them.

Even if there was a gaming crash, it wouldn't be the end. It would just be incredibly inconvenient. Well, inconvenient for consumers. It would absolutely suck for people in the business.

[SaitoHikari]

Are you familiar with the dotcom bubble crash? Even eBay and Amazon barely survived it. Lotta companies rose up without a plan, fueled by tons of investors. They burned through their capital far too quickly and ultimately went under. The fallout from the dotcom crash was in turn directly responsible for the stock market crash of 2000. The damage wrought by the dotcom bubble crash was, like that of most crashes, temporary. The online market and information technology industries recovered in relatively short order, not unlike the gaming industry before it.

Even if there was a gaming crash, it wouldn't be the end. It would just be incredibly inconvenient.

Ah. I see where you're getting at now.

I suppose I am in agreement, sort of. I have been thinking that there might be some sort of crash happening among the AAA-level of developers already, at least on the Western side. But instead of companies going under as what we normally expect from crashes, we're just seeing mass acquisitions and then layoffs instead.

[Absimiliard]

Ah. I see where you're getting at now.

I suppose I am in agreement, sort of. I have been thinking that there might be some sort of crash happening among the AAA-level of developers already, at least on the Western side. But instead of companies going under as what we normally expect from crashes, we're just seeing mass acquisitions and then layoffs instead.

Precisely. It's honestly probably worse in a way. At least with a crash pretty much everybody gets the same or similar amounts of screwing, but the current way of doing things skirts around that. Instead you have a bunch of large companies eating smaller ones en masse, laying off or firing most of the people from those companies, and turning whatever useful IPs they had into even more capital to keep the hungry machine going. What most fail to realize is that a company can really only get so big before it starts to collapse under its own weight. Whether it spreads itself too thin, its executives become arrogant/complacent, or whatever, something will always go wrong. Even a giant like Microsoft got slapped squarely in the face by its own hubris on multiple occasions, and it looks like it might be headed that way again. Sony isn't far behind.

[Raven2014]

See, this I agree with. What I'm even bothering to argue over is the weird assertion the business practice is fine

It IS fine. Do I like it? No. But it is fine.

Are you familiar with the dotcom bubble crash? Even eBay and Amazon barely survived it.

And how is that even remotely relate to this. You're basically stringing a whole bunch of random event together to make yourunrelated point. Timed exclusive if anything benefit studios, while the console maker use it to advance their market share. This is unlike when a big company try to bully a smaller one like in other fields, in fact, exclusivity is how some of the key player manage to survive. For example:

- Epic Vs Steam: how is this exclusivity is bad? Predatory practice? Predatory practice against who? Steam? Developers are offered extra guarantee income while losing very little from sale. Anyone who toke the Epic's offer is not being coerced or force into, but had calculate the move benefit them. (SEGA made out like a bandit with TW:Troy). In the end, the move isn't about Epic trying to unseat Steam, but just push to be relevant enough as an alternative, which is good. Do I like Epic and its time exclusive? Heck no. But that's just the selfish in me talking. The reasonable side of me understand that have a few alternative to Steam dominance can only be a good thing in the long run. Some company like Ubisoft try to give their own platform a timed exclusive before going to Steam, is it a predatory practice for wanting to have a bigger share of what you made in house before third party.

- Sony vs MS: again, the competition is between them, and the game developers only benefit in between. Either one of the company offer you enough (guarantee) money to stay with them, or you're free to release on any platform. Note that gaming is not even the only or major part of these companies. Even if Sony somehow take out the Xbox, that will hardly affect MS. If there is a day MS gives up, it won't be because of Sony overpower them, but more like they can't be arse to try anymore.

- Nintendo: is a perfect example of the underdog. It's much smaller than Sony and MS, and the only way it could have stay relevant and maintain an iron-grip on its exclusive. The moment Nintendo lose its first party/in house exclusive, it will not last for even one console generation.

PC vs everyone else: like ... how can you even compete against the PC market? It will always be there, completely decentralize. Even if Sony and MS team up and kill Steam, it has proven to be such an effective model that many will try to fill its shoe. This is why I said the market is too big for anyone to control. And killing Steam is a laugh, Steam sale isn't driven or affected by the kind of game that are console exclusive, it's driven by the games that you can not put on console to begin with!



Yes there have been a lot of acquisition and cannibalism in the gaming industry, but that has been mostly between publishers and developers (like EA) and have absolutely nothing to do with console makers or time exclusive. If anything, the Western-PC space is far more volatile in this regard comparing to the Eastern console space. You're just throwing word out without any substance here. This is bad, that is worse, this is destroying the industry.etc. All I see here is doom saying without explanation about the how and why. And no, citing a bunch of random examples don't qualify.

At least, explain:

- when you say "predator practice", who is supposed to be the "prey"?
- Who are these "economist" you keep claiming? Name? Research paper? Area of expertise? Are they talking about gaming specifically? How does time exclusive quantified as a factor in those research?

Like I said, I'm not saying there won't be a crash (never say never), but without the specific it's completely pointless and irrelevant. Again, anyone can claim FF14 will be destroyed eventually ... and sure. Just repeat that claim every year and one day you will be right ... eventually. But you would understand why I contest such claim as having no substance.

[SaitoHikari]

-snip-

I feel like the notion of another crash in today's environment is ludicrous.

The gaming industry in those days was much smaller. Gaming since then has been very digitalized, and far more accessible (not to mention that it's now far more socially acceptable to be playing games too). After seeing how the gaming industry basically escaped unscathed in terms of revenue during COVID lockdowns (though actual development took a hit for reasons we all know), the so-called economists predicting another gaming crash sound more and more like doomposters trying to will one into existence because reasons.

The only way a gaming crash is happening at this point is if a society-altering event happens at a level far worse than what COVID did, to the point where even the indie sector of the gaming industry is unable to make games, and at that point, we have far worse things to worry about.

- At the peak of the console popularity (PS2/Xbox 1 and early 360 era + Wii) people claimed PC gaming was numbered. Remember those day when you go to gamestop and 90% of the estate are console game with some deformed PC box share a lonely sad corner? Then Steam happened.

- In the hayday of WoW, everyone wanted their own slice. Many SP developers jumped ship including some of the most famous one like Bioware, Bethesa and even Square. Again, people were herald the day of single player was limited because everything is MP driven. And really, after the majority of those projects fail, these days single player option are still as strong as it ever was, if not even stronger.


The point here is you're literally contradicting yourself in your 2nd paragraph. It's because the market is so vast right now that many company won't live or die with after one failure. And any attempt to create a hole that can destabilize the market will eventually be plugged by competitors and there is nothing you can do about it, regardless of how big you are. Competition and diversity is not an "industrial-destroyer", it's what make the market healthy. And competition means company will try to one up each others, time exclusive is just one of way to do that.

And it's exactly because the market is so strong today that you know most time exclusive is just that, time exclusive. In the end, good thing comes to those who wait, better thing even.

I am in full agreement with these points too. There have been so many attempts by 'market analysts' to predict trends in the gaming industry that simply didn't pan out, to the point where people really shouldn't be paying much attention to them anymore. The entire past two decades seem to have been a massive cycle of 'someone makes breakout hit -> a bunch of publishers try to claim a piece of the pie -> most of those attempts crash and burn -> someone makes another unique breakout hit -> rinse and repeat'.

On a side tangent, Yoshi-P's recent comments about the JRPG label stem from a time where the big western publishers and the western gaming media during 2005-2015 seemed to be making an effort to push more traditional non-AAA RPGs out of existence, and were also simultaneously trying to push handheld gaming as inherently inferior. It's so fitting that the western publishers and gaming journalist outlets that perpetuated that bullshit the most have been force fed shit pie for the past five or so years. It wasn't a coincidence that Bioware, Bethesda, and the formerly thought to be untouchable 'we'll leave greed to other publishers' CDPR got so high on their own bullshit that they got punished by their own fanbases for pivoting their focus towards live service games that were broken on release (when, you know, they could have looked at FFXIV 1.0 to see the consequences ahead of time, but that would have meant being able to see past their massive ego due to the constant praise that the gaming press and analysts showered upon them at the time). And now, their dev teams have experienced so much burnout from the widely reported crunch conditions that much of their lead talent has left them, and their reputations are now so shot to hell that there's an uncertain air around any sequels. Even the upcoming Starfield feels like it has barely any hype, compared to what Bethesda games once enjoyed a decade ago.

There is another consequence that people seem to overlook too - I've observed that there are a lot of lapsed former western game developers sharing horror stories meant to tell new programmers to stay the hell away from game development, dissuading new talent from entering the industry through the major western publishers at least. I am not sure this mentality exists among Japanese game development.

You know what? If we are headed towards a crash, maybe we are in right now. Just not an industry-wide crash - we're in one localized within the live service sector of the gaming industry, which I suppose does represent a 'gaming crash' to the bean counters in the industry. It sure feels like there's a lot less of them releasing nowadays, with already established franchises seemingly only able to stay in for now. That's the primary reason Sony is fighting so hard to break the Activision/Blizzard acquisition, after all - they know nobody today can make a shooter that can even compete anywhere close to the level of monetization that Call of Duty has.