FFXVI only PS5?

[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.