-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Alex From Digital Foundry calls Silent Hill 2 console exclusivity Pathetic. Gets exposed in comments.
- Thread starter SlimySnake
- Start date
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
How many Silent Hill games were on Xbox?
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
2, 4, HD Collection, Homecoming, and Downpour.
//DEVIL//
Member
TheloniusFabdul
Member
bundylove
Banned
Sadly it is.is this real ? i am about to throw up.
bundylove
Banned
Once alex reveals his huge falos gaf will shut up in shame and jealousy.Why do you even have these?
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
Thanks I could have wiki'd it but I was lazy.
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Because it released on September 25, 2001 — before the launch of the original Xbox.maybe just history repeating?sh2 was only on ps2 then came to xbox later
Last edited:
Coloress_Kafka
Member
Mobilemofo
Member
I don't mind any of them. I bypass their pc wankery, and stick with the console shit. Read their opinions, periodically watch a video, then read other sources. Form my own opinion over time..
Skifi28
Member
You're right here with us
Lunarorbit
Gold Member
The last, oh, 15 years I'd say video game "journalists" and fans have gotten dumber. Being a long time fan it's pathetic when professionals don't understand what a 2nd party game is. Like they don't understand the relationship at all.
I had a pissy attitude when mass effect 2 came out on ps and I was confused why me1 was still gate kept on Xbox. But that was several generations ago even before we had gamergate
So many frauds in this industry. There's so many personalities now that have/are breaking into the industry that just constantly put their foot on their mouth.
VolticArchangel
Member
Do not give this attention whore, even a modicum of that.
He's right in the general sense, but a fucking hypocrite when MS does it with Rise of the Tomb Raider, Stalker 2, The Falconeer, The Ascent, Scorn, and of course, the upcoming Ark 2.
Forget 3rd party timed, 3rd party exclusivity in general should die a horrible death, I hope Square is the start of publishers seeing that. We're in fucking 2024, not 1994.
Final Fantasy, Monster Hunter or Stalker, release your 3rd party game on all platforms, day one. Unless it's some special situation like Bayonetta 2/3/Origins, where the game won't even exist and is fully funded by first party, this fucking dogshit practice has to stop and die.
He's right in the general sense, but a fucking hypocrite when MS does it with Rise of the Tomb Raider, Stalker 2, The Falconeer, The Ascent, Scorn, and of course, the upcoming Ark 2.
Forget 3rd party timed, 3rd party exclusivity in general should die a horrible death, I hope Square is the start of publishers seeing that. We're in fucking 2024, not 1994.
Final Fantasy, Monster Hunter or Stalker, release your 3rd party game on all platforms, day one. Unless it's some special situation like Bayonetta 2/3/Origins, where the game won't even exist and is fully funded by first party, this fucking dogshit practice has to stop and die.
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
I dont mind exclusives, they make sense, they make you chose your console. Timed exclusives is the stupidest thing especially ones that are less than 6 months. No one is going to switch to a different system when they know its coming soon to theirs as well. Either full exclusive or just release it same time as a third party developer. FF7-2 sure could of used some extra sales if they didnt go TIMED exclusive again for no reason. When a game is an exclusive to its system for 3-4 years thats different, what is even the point of 1 year timed exclusive?
Last edited:
Redneckerz
Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Yeah i read the italic as sarcasm, as scathing. As disagreement.
I read the bolded as negative, also as clear disagreement.
So to me it reads both as disagreement, but the Silent Hill 2 one isn't as clear.
tommyleelynn
Member
3 years is enough time to change perspectives on exclusives. Being psyched about it to learning it’s a bad practice for consumers is normal. It would be exposing if he went from hating exclusives to Stanning them for no reason.
There are some benefits to exclusives, such as optimization. Timed exclusives benefit a lot from this by people able to account for a single platform at a time especially if the studio behind the game/port is a smaller or newer team.
The people it tends to harm are often the consumers and the same studios if they do not reach the sales numbers their publishers desires for them. So marketing games as exclusives is that double edged sword.
As we’ve learned with ballooning developing costs and wait time for games, it’s not wonder we don’t gaf as much about exclusivity if the people who wanna play and make them can’t even do that anymore. We live in the future. Console warring is stupid.
I’d love to be able to take my games to any console, PC or handheld like Movies Anywhere, Steam or Play Anywhere. But we’re still stuck on issues like exclusivity and DRM.
There are some benefits to exclusives, such as optimization. Timed exclusives benefit a lot from this by people able to account for a single platform at a time especially if the studio behind the game/port is a smaller or newer team.
The people it tends to harm are often the consumers and the same studios if they do not reach the sales numbers their publishers desires for them. So marketing games as exclusives is that double edged sword.
As we’ve learned with ballooning developing costs and wait time for games, it’s not wonder we don’t gaf as much about exclusivity if the people who wanna play and make them can’t even do that anymore. We live in the future. Console warring is stupid.
I’d love to be able to take my games to any console, PC or handheld like Movies Anywhere, Steam or Play Anywhere. But we’re still stuck on issues like exclusivity and DRM.
Facism
Member
Why Ghost of Tsushima's out of the chart? Didn't fit your narrative perhaps?
They all released full-price, years late and half of them had massive unfinished optimisation issues at launch. Just a huge lack of respect for the PC customer.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Why is 3P exclusivity a bad thing if it ultimately benefits the 3P?
SIE games released with more Day 1 bugs this gen than last gen by far (only game last gen with that problem was Days Gone).
SIE started aggressively porting their games to PC starting this gen.
SIE started porting some of their games to Switch and Xbox this gen.
It's not a coincidence.
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
Case-in-point
the dude definitely picked up Alex's hypocrisy to a tee.
MDSLKTR
Member
SenkiDala
Member
I agree with him. For SH2 it is pathetic because Sony has "no rights" on SH2, it has always been an Xbox title too + even now Sony owns nothing on SH2 Remake, they just gave money to Konami for "hey don't release it on Xbox ok". For me that's bad and to prove you I'm not a fanboy I find the Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusivity, back then, as much pathetic.
For Doom or Bethesda games, well, we can like it or dislike it but MS OWNS Bethesda, Bethesda is MS Studios since they bought them. Having them making Doom exclusive would be rough (they didn't anyway) but would be ok since... Well it is now their game, they own the licence.
If you don't see the difference then it's just a lack of knowledge, that's ok.
For Doom or Bethesda games, well, we can like it or dislike it but MS OWNS Bethesda, Bethesda is MS Studios since they bought them. Having them making Doom exclusive would be rough (they didn't anyway) but would be ok since... Well it is now their game, they own the licence.
If you don't see the difference then it's just a lack of knowledge, that's ok.
Last edited:
solidus12
Member
Something something Stalker 2
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
Please allow me to refer you to clause 6 of the great pledge:
Everyone means Xbox and Xbox means everyone. Exclusives for me, but not for thee.
bender
What time is it?
There is a reason the practice exists in the industry and if it wasn't beneficial to both parties, no one would participate. People like to pretend that the money used to secure exclusives is just pocketed by publishers when it is usually used to do a combination of the following:
-Get a project greenlit in the the first place.
-Get a development project over the finish line.
-Expand the size and scope of the development effort which can result in a better, more polished game.
-Increase marketing efforts that gives a game a better chance of succeeding.
In the case of Silent Hill 2 Remake, and most 3rd party exclusives these days, the exclusivity period is fairly short. You can dislike the practice all you want, but pretending there are no benefits lacks any sort of nuance and puts you in the same ballpark as Alex's tweet that started this thread.
This!
tommib
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
bender
What time is it?
What's your favorite site when you wanna see men being slutty?
solidus12
Member
Resetera
Senua
Member
Cakeboxer
Member
For the publisher it's a good deal, no question. The real question with an almost dead Xbox: Is it's really worth it for Sony? How much is such a deal? 5 million? 10 million? More?
How many people are buying a PlayStation just for this game and more important how many of those keep spending money in the ecosystem?
Silent Hill was never a big seller, the whole franchise sold just a little more since 1999 than the so called flop Days Gone.
bender
What time is it?
I'm sure it wasn't that expensive and the bulk of the deal could be done via marketing (dedicating 14 minutes in a 35 minute State of Play and other promotions). For Sony, it's a beloved game in a franchise largely associated with PlayStation platforms. It's also an easy choice for Konami as most game types don't sell well on Xbox so they get some additional funding and the ability to sell on the two most lucrative platforms it will appear on and maybe in a year, the can work out a Game Pass deal with Microsoft.
Silent Hill 2 sold over a million copies. That doesn't sound like a lot by today's standards, but that's really successful given the era it was released in.
Last edited:
tommib
Banned
He said men.
Senua
Member
They are men! they have their top scars to prove it
Cakeboxer
Member
The problem is that we don't have any numbers on those deals, except the 100 millions on Tomb Raider. Even a small game like Silent Hill won't be cheap and of course Sony will also have to spend money for marketing. Maybe it gets leaked some day, but i don't think it will be any less than 10 million with marketing.
Fess
Member
They get a bag of money. And they get some extra talk online from console warriors.
But sooner or later they’ll realize that they really just sell less copies and get increased negativity from people sitting on the wrong platform highlighting every little flaws as a gamebreaking problem.
GHG
Gold Member
peronmls
Member
I’m talking about substance. Not bugs.
Last edited:
