Whats with the one console DLC?

[LoopyDood]

Seriously is XBOX doing that bad that they have their game designers sign contracts allowing XBOX to have the exclusive DLC? What about all the PS3 players that want to play the new side missions to GTA IV? Just really irks me that now if I want to play all those fun side quests I have tp purcahse a 360 and all the games again.

Bioshock cough cough some other xbox only games cough cough that came to ps3 cough cough jeez you think you have it bad? what if we got games like killzone and heavenly sword with 20 hours of new gameplay would you be happy?

Hey, Bioshock was on the PC at the same time as the Xbox, too.

 

[JediMB]

Welcome to the business model of Microsoft: Only we should make technology and no one else.

Actually, it's the business model of Nintendo. Part of the reason the NES was so successful was because Nintendo would force Devs to sign exclusivity contracts in order to publish a game on the NES.

Actually, it was pretty much the other way around...

The NES was so hugely successful, that third party developers were actually willing to sign exclusivity agreements just for the right to develop games for the system. And that's also very different from the "here's some money, now give us an exclusive" strategy both Microsoft and Sony have utilized a lot in recent years.

Those deals Nintendo made have earned them quite some profit in later days, though, as it left them with the rights to re-publish those third party games during more recent console generations.

 

[hippo24]

Exclusive contract outweighed potential profit.

Simple.


Like so:
-Analyst says PS3 has less success with DLC
and packaged product sold less on system.
-Dev team says port will cost considerable overhead.
-Projected profit shrinks.
-Microsoft offers exclusive deal.
-Willing to pay them reparations.
-Would cut production costs/time, and make
percent yield go up.
-Exclusive DLC released.


also the PC has been getting exclusive and free DLC for years...I mean MODs anyone?

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I'm a Xbox360 owner, and I was sad that I didn't get LittleBigPlanet, but hey! If WE ain't gonna give them OUR exclusive titles, why should they give us theirs? And like wise and so-on and so forth.

It's not about console exclusive titles, It's about the DLC for cross platform titles, I read somewhere recently that the PS3 version of Arkham Asylum was getting DLC for the joker as a playable character. Now if this is exclusive (don't know that it is yet) I'm sure a lot of 360 fans will be annoyed that they can't get that little extra bit of awesome out of the game.

The problem is with GTAIV specifically it was a Sony exclusive till that last few iterations, (vice city and San Andreas were ported after the games release on ps2) now I'm all for R* to make more money by going cross platform, but to then release DLC for one console, and not even the console that made the game what it is is just embarrassing, thousands of PS3 owners would gladly pay the 10 bucks for the DLC, but because Microsoft payed them off they won't. Microsoft is denying additional content to the people who didn't pick THEIR system. Which is why people are up in arms about this. Almost half of the owners of this game have it for a PS3, and to deny them the content because Microsoft wants their version to be superior is ridiculous.

everyone makes a big point about say, fallout 3 for the xbox having exclusive DLC, but yet no one seems to mention Bishock on the PS3 having exclusive DLC, why is this?

Don't think anyone really knows about it TBH. Personally didn't realize it was exclusive. But now i can't help but think that the 360 and PC owners are being left out now.

 

[hippo24]

everyone makes a big point about say, fallout 3 for the xbox having exclusive DLC, but yet no one seems to mention Bishock on the PS3 having exclusive DLC, why is this?

Didn't that DLC come out well over a year after the original xbox release?
You really think the majority of players were going to come running back after that long for a puzzle pack?

Regardless it is worth mentioning that the PS3 has its share exclusive DLC, Unreal tournament anyone?

 

[Remleiz]

everyone makes a big point about say, fallout 3 for the xbox having exclusive DLC, but yet no one seems to mention Bishock on the PS3 having exclusive DLC, why is this?

Didn't that DLC come out well over a year after the original xbox release?
You really think the majority of players were going to come running back after that long for a puzzle pack?

Regardless it is worth mentioning that the PS3 has its share exclusive DLC, Unreal tournament anyone?

Yes it did, but the ps3 version of bioshock also came out a year after the xbox version

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Sony recently took a pop at Microsoft over this, which in turn sparked a long debate about it in the news room. Your perception of this issue will largely depend on which console you favour. If you prefer the PS3, you're likely to see this as Microsoft paying developers to make the PS3 less attractive, while if you prefer the 360, you'll see it as Microsoft paying developers to make the 360 more attractive.

Personally, I don't really see the problem with it. The money that Microsoft pays goes, at least in part, towards developing the extra content. While I feel for PS3 owners, I don't think it's really that different from any other console exclusive.

And yes, I own a 360.

It isn't really so much as making a console more or less attractive. It has more to do with the money. MS pays R* to make DLC exclusive to that system, whereas say releasing it for both versions means it's free. Take into account that programming that stuff for the PS3 is an absolute nightmare for developers, it seems to me more like them trying to cut corners.

In some, weird way, Console DLC is the new Console Exclusive.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Yeah, luckily Sony NEVER makes games exclusives, amirite?

Lots of companies use the same tactics. Doesn't make them good tactics and I have a hate/hate/melinda is okay/hate thing for MS for some damn good reasons.

Welcome to the business model of Microsoft: Only we should make technology and no one else.

Welcome to the business model of every business in the world. The main goal of your business: make money. The secondary goal of your business: make money. Other concerns are marginal, if they exist at all.

That is absolutely not true. I have worked at business after business that does not follow such a model. Yes, all businesses need to make money but not every business takes it to an imperialistic no one else should make money extreme. Furthermore plenty of businesses and organizations make the money they need to focus on their real goals of any number of things. Providing for community needs, working in a specific field, working towards expression. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft was a business model first (and I particularly ruthless one at that) and a software company second. Or third. Sometimes it's fourth or fifth on the list.

Are you actually going to try and argue that businesses aren't going to try to do better than they're competitors? If they don't they won't be in the industry very long. There's two sides to it, there's creating the product or providing the service and then there's running the business, when it comes to the latter people want to destroy the competition.

Doing better than competitors and destroying them are two vastly different things. Furthermore, yes I AM going to argue that some businesses don't try to outdo the "competition". Some examples:

Educational models that rely on co-operative efforts and sharing of techniques. The goal is to help the students and teach, not have an exclusive method so you can get all the students (especially since this is impractical and stupid in every educational system in existence)

Freeware and shareware (remember them folks?) developers who shared concepts and code.

Doctors organizations where they share not only education and ideas but the very source of revenue, the patients! My dad traded patients with other docs in town because it was about helping them, not being the only doctor in town.

When you're goals are not unfettered greed you can explore healthy business models that encourage cooperation over competition, but it does require looking beyond ones own greed.