Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

should pc get some exclusive skins?


BloodKitten

Recommended Posts

If you do the math as far as dollar per plat on console.  The 165 plat we spend on console is more then the 6.99 plus tax pc players pay on pc.

Our plat deals suck and we don't get discounts.  Plat is more valuable snd scarce on console. But it has yo be bought by someone with real money to even be in the market.

And your not garunteed to sell stuff when trying in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

Ah yes, falsely claiming that I am once again arguing semantics. Nice explanation.

Then answer this simple question: is "Steam exclusive" or "EGS exclucive" the same thing as "PC exclusive?" Simple yes or no. If "no," we can move on. If "yes," you're either going to need a better point or have to agree to disagree.

Do I really need to say more?

Edit: And just so you have an answer to your semantic argument: Both!

No, "Steam exclusive" is not the same as "PC exclusive" in the way you've defined it. You only consider something to be "PC exclusive" if all PC players can access it regardless of storefront.

Yes, "Steam exclusive" is the same as "PC exclusive" in the way I've defined it. You could not buy a Steam exclusive pack on your Xbox. Only PC players would have access to this pack. It would be exclusively purchasable by PC players, a PC exclusive.

This is an argument over the semantics of the term "PC exclusive".

22 hours ago, Krankbert said:

You guys still circling?

At least I know why now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Do I really need to say more?

Semantics is relating to or study of meaning. You reducing my argument to just that is dishonest. I've already demonstrated how this distinction has real world implications.

Again, you ignored them all just to paint me as arguing semantics.

3 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Edit: And just so you have an answer to your semantic argument: Both!

No, "Steam exclusive" is not the same as "PC exclusive" in the way you've defined it. You only consider something to be "PC exclusive" if all PC players can access it regardless of storefront.

Yes, "Steam exclusive" is the same as "PC exclusive" in the way I've defined it. You could not buy a Steam exclusive pack on your Xbox. Only PC players would have access to this pack. It would be exclusively purchasable by PC players, a PC exclusive.

This is an argument over the semantics of the term "PC exclusive".

I asked for simple yes or no answer because, unfortunately for you, the term "exclusive" is also very well defined, and as I've already demonstrated, has implications beyond semantics, especially when discussing business dealings and strategy.

Also, you have misinterpreted what I said defines a "PC exclusive." To go back to the Crusader Kings III vs Hitman 3 example I illustrated, CKIII is not available to all PC players regardless of storefronts, but is still a "PC exclusive." Yes, I did explore the possibility of storefront-agnostic packs on page 1, but we've moved past this since page 3 when I stated there's actually nothing stopping DE from making one and bypassing the storefronts, and then moving on to explaining why that hasn't happened, and how that relates to the exclusive packs that do exist. Here's a hint; the difference is in the kinds of business decision-making that led to their existence, which is also what shapes the exclusive cosmetic packs that is the original topic of this thread as well, thus demonstrating how this distinction has real world implications.

Your failure to directly answer my question is noted. I look forward to seeing what you'll arbitrarily redefine to suit your position next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Krankbert said:

Have you heard about our Lord and Saviour, Warframe.market?

The interface of console is not smooth enough to really work well with that.

Works well for pc with simple copy past.

And even if you get plat via trade. The person buying your parts still had to get the plat with real money. Point being somewhere in the chain usd is being spent. And pc plat is more codt effective to buy then console.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb (PSN)Kakurine2:

The interface of console is not smooth enough to really work well with that.

Works well for pc with simple copy past.

And even if you get plat via trade. The person buying your parts still had to get the plat with real money. Point being somewhere in the chain usd is being spent. And pc plat is more codt effective to buy then console.

On the other hand console plat is more effective to spend than PC plat. Saying that you don’t get discounts is simply false. We get discounts on plat purchases, you get discounts for market purchases. We both get discounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

Semantics is relating to or study of meaning. You reducing my argument to just that is dishonest. I've already demonstrated how this distinction has real world implications.

Again, you ignored them all just to paint me as arguing semantics.

I asked for simple yes or no answer because, unfortunately for you, the term "exclusive" is also very well defined, and as I've already demonstrated, has implications beyond semantics, especially when discussing business dealings and strategy.

Also, you have misinterpreted what I said defines a "PC exclusive." To go back to the Crusader Kings III vs Hitman 3 example I illustrated, CKIII is not available to all PC players regardless of storefronts, but is still a "PC exclusive." Yes, I did explore the possibility of storefront-agnostic packs on page 1, but we've moved past this since page 3 when I stated there's actually nothing stopping DE from making one and bypassing the storefronts, and then moving on to explaining why that hasn't happened, and how that relates to the exclusive packs that do exist. Here's a hint; the difference is in the kinds of business decision-making that led to their existence, which is also what shapes the exclusive cosmetic packs that is the original topic of this thread as well, thus demonstrating how this distinction has real world implications.

Your failure to directly answer my question is noted. I look forward to seeing what you'll arbitrarily redefine to suit your position next.

🤦‍♂️

Ok, please define exactly what you mean by "PC exclusive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

🤦‍♂️

Ok, please define exactly what you mean by "PC exclusive".

exclusive[ ik-skloo-siv, -ziv ]

adjective:

  1. not admitting of something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive plans of action.
  2. omitting from consideration or account (often followed by of): a profit of ten percent, exclusive of taxes.
  3. limited to the object or objects designated: exclusive attention to business.
  4. shutting out all others from a part or share: an exclusive right to film the novel.

noun

  1. Journalism. a piece of news, or the reporting of a piece of news, obtained by a newspaper or other news organization, along with the privilege of using it first.
  2. an exclusive right or privilege: to have an exclusive on providing fuel oil to the area.

Bits I'm interested in highlighted in bold.

Access to Crusader Kings III is an exclusive right or privilege of PC gamers, shut from all other platforms. However, it is not an exclusive right or privilege of a single storefront; Paradox Interactive do not appear to have signed any exclusive access with any particular storefront, and could launch the game on other storefronts on their own volition, like how they did with Crusader Kings I.

Access to Hitman 3 is available to multiple platforms beyond PC, but access to the PC version is an exclusive right or privilege of Epic Games Store users, and no other storefronts. This is enforced by an explicit business agreement between IO Interactive and Epic Games.

This example demonstrates that storefronts like Epic Games Store and the PC platform are separate and distinct entities and not synonymous, and the process by which the exclusive rights or privilege to these content are derived are very different. This is especially crucial when explaining business incentives and how exclusive deals are negotiated. Apply the same rules to cosmetic packs; universal packs are derived from DE's own business decisions, exclusive packs are interventions by storefronts. It is not just semantics. Equating them is to disregard how business deals work and why PC has so very few of anything exclusive to it in general. It's a logical car pile-up.

The most charitable you can be is to say that these storefront exclusive packs are "storefront exclusive first, PC exclusive second," but even then the storefronts must take priority; to equate them equally is to disregard the additional efforts these storefronts took to secure their exclusive rights and privileges. This is why your suggestion that DE has the initiative to make these deals happen makes no sense, and it also seems to be why you mistook my explanation behind why storefronts have to take the initiative to make these deals happen as them initiating the discussion from scratch. You seem to have a mistaken impression that the efforts and incentives of both DE and the storefronts are equal and equivalent, when in fact they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Krankbert said:

On the other hand console plat is more effective to spend than PC plat. Saying that you don’t get discounts is simply false. We get discounts on plat purchases, you get discounts for market purchases. We both get discounts.

My discount coupons on console are not usable on tennogen or deluxe skins and will be auto used on any transaction including ingame credits.

Consoles don't get plat discounts.

Granted pc plat loses its value faster then console. But console coupons lose their value completely in a few months.

The only really cost effect way for me to get large sums of plat for usd is the pa.

Pc you can not log in to trigger a coupon and get more plat then me for less usd.

Both sides have benefits. But pc benefits more then console easily.

Also the renown ps4 pack skins sre basicslly base models just given s blue/black metallic texture file.  dyandanas sre the same. Once we got an ephemera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, making headway.

2 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

Access to Crusader Kings III is an exclusive right or privilege of PC gamers, shut from all other platforms. However, it is not an exclusive right or privilege of a single storefront; Paradox Interactive do not appear to have signed any exclusive access with any particular storefront, and could launch the game on other storefronts on their own volition, like how they did with Crusader Kings I.

And DE making such a PC exclusive bundle makes no sense, for the reasons you and I have both outlined. It would generate more revenue if made universal since there is no exclusivity deal in place to offset the lost revenue from excluding console players. An exclusivity deal would be nearly impossible to be reached in the first place since no one entity "owns PC", and since the individual parties making up the PC ecosystem wouldn't be likely to collectively bargain nor accept selling the exact same cosmetics. Making a pack like this makes no sense and is very unlikely, so we can safely ignore it as it's unrealistic.

Does this mean PC players can never have exclusive content? No, because of other exclusivity like this:

2 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

Access to Hitman 3 is available to multiple platforms beyond PC, but access to the PC version is an exclusive right or privilege of Epic Games Store users, and no other storefronts. This is enforced by an explicit business agreement between IO Interactive and Epic Games.

Where a company has entered into an exclusivity deal over content only they are allowed to sell. For example, DE couldn't sell the Discord bundle to Xbox players or on the Steam storefront. It was exclusive to Discord's storefront customers. While you call this a "storefront exclusive", it's also a PC exclusive by the definitions you've provided: Discord's marketplace/launcher thing was itself exclusively for PC players: only PC players could buy from it and console players could not. This exclusivity "[shut] out all others from a part or share" in that console players couldn't get it and was "an exclusive right or privilege" both for PC players (only they had the privilege of buying) and Discord (only they had the right to sell). Any PC player could access this offer, since PC players can freely shop from multiple storefronts at the same time, while console players could not. This offer was exclusively available to PC players who purchased through Discord's storefront - a PC exclusive. Maybe we could call this a "de facto PC exclusive".

Or, as you've put it:

2 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

The most charitable you can be is to say that these storefront exclusive packs are "storefront exclusive first, PC exclusive second," but even then the storefronts must take priority; to equate them equally is to disregard the additional efforts these storefronts took to secure their exclusive rights and privileges.

This is exactly what I've been saying. Storefront exclusives only available to PC players are effectively PC exclusive: you cannot buy them from any platform but PC and only PC players can buy them. And since they're exclusive to the storefront, there are no issues like if the storefront hypothetically moves into a console market in the future - as you brought up earlier. The storefronts we're talking about just happen to themselves be available to PC players. This is the only way PC exclusives of this type can realistically exist: as storefront exclusives available to PC players.

We don't need to equate "storefront exclusive" and "PC exclusive" equally either, since the latter has no real value: no one is paying for that PC exclusivity, only storefront exclusivity. The storefront exclusivity is the only part with any value to anyone, while the latter is just happenstance. It just happens to be PC exclusive too. For PC players all that really matters is that they can now buy this kind of content; it doesn't matter where it comes from outside of personal preferences like brand loyalty.

3 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

This is why your suggestion that DE has the initiative to make these deals happen makes no sense, and it also seems to be why you mistook my explanation behind why storefronts have to take the initiative to make these deals happen as them initiating the discussion from scratch. You seem to have a mistaken impression that the efforts and incentives of both DE and the storefronts are equal and equivalent, when in fact they are not.

Since this line of argument is likely based on the above differences regarding the terms we're using, it's probably safe to discard most of it. Though I would still reiterate that a developer also has an incentive to reach out to partners too, just as partners have an incentive to reach out to developers. If you know a partner will pay for something, it doesn't make sense to sit and twiddle your thumbs hoping they'll notice you and ask. Developers can take that initiative if they know it will be profitable in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Cool, making headway.

And DE making such a PC exclusive bundle makes no sense, for the reasons you and I have both outlined. It would generate more revenue if made universal since there is no exclusivity deal in place to offset the lost revenue from excluding console players. An exclusivity deal would be nearly impossible to be reached in the first place since no one entity "owns PC", and since the individual parties making up the PC ecosystem wouldn't be likely to collectively bargain nor accept selling the exact same cosmetics. Making a pack like this makes no sense and is very unlikely, so we can safely ignore it as it's unrealistic.

Essentially, yes, which is why the initiative lies with the storefronts to make these deals happen. I'll come back to the bolded part later.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Does this mean PC players can never have exclusive content? No, because of other exclusivity like this:

Where a company has entered into an exclusivity deal over content only they are allowed to sell. For example, DE couldn't sell the Discord bundle to Xbox players or on the Steam storefront. It was exclusive to Discord's storefront customers. While you call this a "storefront exclusive", it's also a PC exclusive by the definitions you've provided: Discord's marketplace/launcher thing was itself exclusively for PC players: only PC players could buy from it and console players could not. This exclusivity "[shut] out all others from a part or share" in that console players couldn't get it and was "an exclusive right or privilege" both for PC players (only they had the privilege of buying) and Discord (only they had the right to sell). Any PC player could access this offer, since PC players can freely shop from multiple storefronts at the same time, while console players could not. This offer was exclusively available to PC players who purchased through Discord's storefront - a PC exclusive. Maybe we could call this a "de facto PC exclusive".

Again, calling "Discord exclusives" "PC exclusives" is to creep into actual "PC exclusive" content like the aforementioned Crusader Kings III, which work differently and result from a very different business decision making, the latter of which is important in discussing business incentives and negotiations. You are smashing two very different things together for no other reason than because you seem to think one of the elements is irrelevant, which it is not. This is a logical car pile-up.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Or, as you've put it:

This is exactly what I've been saying. Storefront exclusives only available to PC players are effectively PC exclusive: you cannot buy them from any platform but PC and only PC players can buy them. And since they're exclusive to the storefront, there are no issues like if the storefront hypothetically moves into a console market in the future - as you brought up earlier. The storefronts we're talking about just happen to themselves be available to PC players. This is the only way PC exclusives of this type can realistically exist: as storefront exclusives available to PC players.

No you haven't. You've been de-emphasising the role of storefronts by using the blanket term "PC exclusive" which refers to something very different, as I have demonstrated, seemingly just so you can talk up DE's role in these deals, as if it's just how all "PC exclusives" work, when my Crusader Kings III example clearly demonstrates it does not. It is not the only way.

As I said, Discord and PC are two distinct entities, a separation I attempted to illustrate by hypothesising a scenario in which Discord is no longer primarily a PC-based entity, which due to recent partnership with Sony, could actually be just around the corner. You can assume an Xbox exclusive will always be Xbox exclusive, because the Xbox platform and the Xbox storefront are one and the same. You cannot assume a Discord exclusive will always be a PC exclusive, because they are two separate and distinct entities. You can't just mash them together because you think one is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

We don't need to equate "storefront exclusive" and "PC exclusive" equally either, since the latter has no real value: no one is paying for that PC exclusivity, only storefront exclusivity. The storefront exclusivity is the only part with any value to anyone, while the latter is just happenstance. It just happens to be PC exclusive too. For PC players all that really matters is that they can now buy this kind of content; it doesn't matter where it comes from outside of personal preferences like brand loyalty.

And now it's time to address the parts I've bolded. This is another one of my issues with your posts; you are somehow also simultaneously trying to de-emphasise the role of the PC platform in business decision-making, seemingly just because it has no singular owner and is therefore "nonsensical." What I've been trying to say is that the very fact it has no singular owner is an influence. A negative influence is still an influence. It still has value in discussion. "Happenstance" is a hand-wavy explanation for why PC exclusives like CKIII exist, and you'd get thrown out of market research for even suggesting it. You do not get to discard this just so you can appropriate a term to refer to something completely different, i.e. storefront exclusives.

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Since this line of argument is likely based on the above differences regarding the terms we're using, it's probably safe to discard most of it. Though I would still reiterate that a developer also has an incentive to reach out to partners too, just as partners have an incentive to reach out to developers. If you know a partner will pay for something, it doesn't make sense to sit and twiddle your thumbs hoping they'll notice you and ask. Developers can take that initiative if they know it will be profitable in the end.

"Reaching out" is not the same as making something actually happen. As I've already explained, businesses "reach out" to each other continuously all the time, over a multitude of things, most of which do not come into fruition. What I've been explaining is why these deals are so centred around storefronts and platform owners; it's because it's up to them to put up their own stakes in the deal, otherwise developers will gravitate towards reverting back to their baseline incentives. You've just misinterpreted this process as somehow starting from scratch. I have said no such thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:
10 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Does this mean PC players can never have exclusive content? No, because of other exclusivity like this:

Where a company has entered into an exclusivity deal over content only they are allowed to sell. For example, DE couldn't sell the Discord bundle to Xbox players or on the Steam storefront. It was exclusive to Discord's storefront customers. While you call this a "storefront exclusive", it's also a PC exclusive by the definitions you've provided: Discord's marketplace/launcher thing was itself exclusively for PC players: only PC players could buy from it and console players could not. This exclusivity "[shut] out all others from a part or share" in that console players couldn't get it and was "an exclusive right or privilege" both for PC players (only they had the privilege of buying) and Discord (only they had the right to sell). Any PC player could access this offer, since PC players can freely shop from multiple storefronts at the same time, while console players could not. This offer was exclusively available to PC players who purchased through Discord's storefront - a PC exclusive. Maybe we could call this a "de facto PC exclusive".

Expand  

Again, calling "Discord exclusives" "PC exclusives" is to creep into actual "PC exclusive" content like the aforementioned Crusader Kings III, which work differently and result from a very different business decision making, the latter of which is important in discussing business incentives and negotiations. You are smashing two very different things together for no other reason than because you seem to think one of the elements is irrelevant, which it is not. This is a logical car pile-up.

10 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Or, as you've put it:

This is exactly what I've been saying. Storefront exclusives only available to PC players are effectively PC exclusive: you cannot buy them from any platform but PC and only PC players can buy them. And since they're exclusive to the storefront, there are no issues like if the storefront hypothetically moves into a console market in the future - as you brought up earlier. The storefronts we're talking about just happen to themselves be available to PC players. This is the only way PC exclusives of this type can realistically exist: as storefront exclusives available to PC players.

No you haven't. You've been de-emphasising the role of storefronts by using the blanket term "PC exclusive" which refers to something very different, as I have demonstrated, seemingly just so you can talk up DE's role in these deals, as if it's just how all "PC exclusives" work, when my Crusader Kings III example clearly demonstrates it does not. It is not the only way.

And this, friend, is why I've been saying this is a semantic argument. You're taking offense not to the idea I'm presenting (providing exclusives to PC players through storefronts - what you call "storefront exclusive"), but to the words I'm using ("PC exclusive" being used to refer to things which are exclusive to PC players and not, for example, console players). This is semantics: we are arguing over words not ideas. You're not opposed to the idea of "storefront exclusives", you're opposed to using the term "PC exclusive" to include "storefront exclusives exclusively available to PC players".

9 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

As I said, Discord and PC are two distinct entities, a separation I attempted to illustrate by hypothesising a scenario in which Discord is no longer primarily a PC-based entity, which due to recent partnership with Sony, could actually be just around the corner. You can assume an Xbox exclusive will always be Xbox exclusive, because the Xbox platform and the Xbox storefront are one and the same. You cannot assume a Discord exclusive will always be a PC exclusive, because they are two separate and distinct entities. You can't just mash them together because you think one is irrelevant.

And yet despite this, a Discord exclusive was created. This kind of distinction and hypothetical scenario didn't matter before, so why would it matter now? And keep in mind, we're not talking about Discord the voice service, we're talking Discord the PC gaming marketplace/launcher that they dropped. Unless you think Sony would allow Discord to resurrect that service and bypass Sony's storefront to sell and launch games for Playstation players, this hypothetical doesn't matter. And even if it did somehow come to pass, Discord's bundle no longer being PC exclusive would run afoul of exactly zero entities, since it's a Discord exclusive first and foremost and a PC exclusive only by circumstance. Similarly, it wouldn't matter if Microsoft tried to bridge Windows and Xbox gaming like they did once with Windows Live Gaming. The Xbox exclusives could either remain exclusive to the Xbox storefront or they could be rebranded as Live exclusives available on all Live storefronts. It being made available to PC players would run afoul of exactly zero entities, since it's an exclusive obtained by Microsoft and not "console".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And this, friend, is why I've been saying this is a semantic argument. You're taking offense not to the idea I'm presenting (providing exclusives to PC players through storefronts - what you call "storefront exclusive"), but to the words I'm using ("PC exclusive" being used to refer to things which are exclusive to PC players and not, for example, console players). This is semantics: we are arguing over words not ideas. You're not opposed to the idea of "storefront exclusives", you're opposed to using the term "PC exclusive" to include "storefront exclusives exclusively available to PC players".

On 2021-05-08 at 10:06 AM, PublikDomain said:

Well yeah no S#&$... No one is saying otherwise, my dude. PC is a generic term, just like "consoles". When someone says "Warframe on consoles", who do you think of? Xbox, Playstation, and Switch. Duh. When someone says "Warframe on PC", who do you think of? Steam and maybe EGS or the standalone launcher if you're weird. Duh. Heck, OP's example was Nvidia. There is no Mr. PC DE can call up and talk to, you've said this yourself. That's nonsense and no one is saying otherwise. There are however major PC gaming storefronts like Steam and EGS which fill the exact same role as their counterparts in console gaming. For example, Discord's PC-exclusive marketplace offered *the exact same kind of skins we're talking about*.

On 2021-05-09 at 5:25 AM, PublikDomain said:

And my point, since page 1, has been that this distinction is nonsensical. There is no one entity representing the PC platform as a whole, so the entire premise that one entity would need to represent the entire PC platform as a whole to negotiate PC exclusives is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. What does makes sense is talking about the various PC-based software platforms like Steam/EGS/etc. So we could continue to fixate on and argue over this overly-narrow, unworkable definition, or we could step back use our common sense and look at all the examples we already have for how an equivalent themed exclusive would look on PC. On PC software platforms they'd look just like this:

21 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

We don't need to equate "storefront exclusive" and "PC exclusive" equally either, since the latter has no real value: no one is paying for that PC exclusivity, only storefront exclusivity. The storefront exclusivity is the only part with any value to anyone, while the latter is just happenstance. It just happens to be PC exclusive too. For PC players all that really matters is that they can now buy this kind of content; it doesn't matter where it comes from outside of personal preferences like brand loyalty.

I am opposed to your idea that the PC platform is just a "generic term," the distinction as an entity of which is "nonsensical," whose exclusives, which do exist as a separate and distinct entity to storefront exclusives has "no value," and is "just happenstance." Difference in terminology is simply a summation of that idea. I have insisted on using a separate term because I've always been aware from the very beginning of this thread that PC exclusives exist, they matter, and I didn't want to get caught in the exhaustive details of "well, they're different kinds of 'PC exclusives' because such and such," so I opted for a simple and fair solution. I am opposed to your alternative solution, which is to simply arbitrarily discard them and pretend they don't matter.

I look forward to you cropping out or ignoring most of this entire post so you can say I'm arguing semantics again. I have already prepared the bits of this post I believe you're going to leave out which I'm about to bold in my subsequent reply.

11 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And yet despite this, a Discord exclusive was created. This kind of distinction and hypothetical scenario didn't matter before, so why would it matter now? And keep in mind, we're not talking about Discord the voice service, we're talking Discord the PC gaming marketplace/launcher that they dropped. Unless you think Sony would allow Discord to resurrect that service and bypass Sony's storefront to sell and launch games for Playstation players, this hypothetical doesn't matter. And even if it did somehow come to pass, Discord's bundle no longer being PC exclusive would run afoul of exactly zero entities, since it's a Discord exclusive first and foremost and a PC exclusive only by circumstance. Similarly, it wouldn't matter if Microsoft tried to bridge Windows and Xbox gaming like they did once with Windows Live Gaming. The Xbox exclusives could either remain exclusive to the Xbox storefront or they could be rebranded as Live exclusives available on all Live storefronts. It being made available to PC players would run afoul of exactly zero entities, since it's an exclusive obtained by Microsoft and not "console".

I used your Discord example for your benefit. Every time you brought up Discord to make a point, I rolled with it so we don't have to get into the technicalities of what kind of Discord we're talking about. Every time I initiated my own point, I've always preferred to talk about Steam and EGS instead. It was always up to you when to drop the Discord example.

The hypothetical still stands as an illustration of my point, for it can apply just as well to any other storefronts. Gabe Newell recently coyly hinted at Steam's non-PC plans, while Epic's court documents reveal they consider Xbox Game Pass to be a competitor, both of which could hint at some kind of platform-agnostic scaling, something Valve attempted before and Microsoft is pursuing aggressively. Whether they actually come into fruition is irrelevant to the point my hypothetical attempted to illustrate.

It's not about running afoul of anyone, but about business decision-making, and what matters to that regard. As I said above, the distinction has always mattered. It mattered to Paradox Interactive. It mattered to Creative Assembly. It mattered to Firaxis Games. You just arbitrarily didn't want it to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 12.5.2021 um 03:55 schrieb (PSN)Kakurine2:

My discount coupons on console are not usable on tennogen or deluxe skins

As far as I know they are usable on deluxe skins, they just aren't usable on bundles. PC doesn't get tennogen for plat at all, so the fact that you have to pay the full plat price for Tennogen isn't the point in your favor that you think it is.

Am 12.5.2021 um 03:55 schrieb (PSN)Kakurine2:

Pc you can not log in to trigger a coupon and get more plat then me for less usd.

That's a myth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

I am opposed to your idea that the PC platform is just a "generic term," the distinction as an entity of which is "nonsensical," whose exclusives, which do exist as a separate and distinct entity to storefront exclusives has "no value," and is "just happenstance."

Ok, so who owns PC to negotiate for these exclusives?

17 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

It was always up to you when to drop the Discord example.

Why would I drop a real-world example of these types of bundles when it was actually made and sold to players? If you're gonna talk about the Prestige/Renown/Esteem bundles, then you can't leave out or ignore the Reverence bundle sold by Discord. Or, as I just rediscovered, the two Prominence bundles sold by Twitch. These bundles have already been made and have already jumped over every excuse you've given.

17 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

The hypothetical still stands as an illustration of my point, for it can apply just as well to any other storefronts. Gabe Newell recently coyly hinted at Steam's non-PC plans, while Epic's court documents reveal they consider Xbox Game Pass to be a competitor, both of which could hint at some kind of platform-agnostic scaling, something Valve attempted before and Microsoft is pursuing aggressively. Whether they actually come into fruition is irrelevant to the point my hypothetical attempted to illustrate.

And none of this matters. If Steam gets a line of Sapphire skins in their Glory Bundle I-V sets, and then Gaben decides to make the SteamBox... It's still Valve's* exclusive. They can keep selling it on Steam, and/or also sell it on their non-PC platform as long as DE agrees. Same with EGS: if they get a line of Onyx skins in their Honor Bundle I-IX sets, and Epic decides to make EpicPass... It's still Epic's exclusive. They can keep selling it on EGS, and/or also give it away to their EpicPass subscribers as long as DE agrees. Discord's bundle already did this: it was available for purchase from their storefront and given away as a Discord Nitro perk. This was fine because it was their exclusive and not "PC's".

17 hours ago, KnossosTNC said:

It's not about running afoul of anyone, but about business decision-making, and what matters to that regard. As I said above, the distinction has always mattered. It mattered to Paradox Interactive. It mattered to Creative Assembly. It mattered to Firaxis Games.

These are all companies who make or publish multi-platform games...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb PublikDomain:

Ok, so who owns PC to negotiate for these exclusives?

Okay, this is getting hilarious.

vor einer Stunde schrieb PublikDomain:

These are all companies who make or publish multi-platform games...?

If you don't know what a company makes and is known for there's no shame in asking. It also makes you look less like a troll who's calling the makers of the Total War series "a company who makes multi-platform games" because they also did that one shooter years ago and you're counting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Krankbert said:

As far as I know they are usable on deluxe skins, they just aren't usable on bundles. PC doesn't get tennogen for plat at all, so the fact that you have to pay the full plat price for Tennogen isn't the point in your favor that you think it is.

That's a myth.

 

 

I have a pc account as well.

In terms of plat per penny. Console tennogen skins at 165 plat is more then pcs 6.99 plus tax.

I can't use the coupon on bundles. And most of the time the deluxes require console to buy the whole bundles.  We get stuff at a slower rate.

Pc gets better deals with their plat.  And well i get way more coupons on pc then console. So i don't think its a myth as you say.  I don't constantly log into pc.

The reason tennogen eorks differently has mostly to due with the artists.  When i buy a skin on pc for 7 usd plus random cents the artist gets part of that profit.

When i buy a skin on console for plat sony and sony alone gets profit from the plat i would have bought from them.  They select the most populer slins and pay the artist a lump sum based on how many sales they can make.

Sony pays bob 1k for his skin.  Thinking theyll sell at least 1ks worth of plat. If people buy the skin enough times for a value of 2k. Sony has made a 1k profit. The artist is already been payed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Krankbert said:

If you don't know what a company makes and is known for there's no shame in asking. It also makes you look less like a troll who's calling the makers of the Total War series "a company who makes multi-platform games" because they also did that one shooter years ago and you're counting that.

You know Paradox is a publisher, too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Ok, so who owns PC to negotiate for these exclusives?

A flimsy attempt to use my own words against me, which fails because I've already demonstrated via the existence of PC exclusives that the lack of a platform owner to negotiate exclusivity deals does not equate to having "no value" and is "just happenstance," relegating the PC platform to a "generic term," the distinction as an entity of which is "nonsensical." They just come by through a different means. Here's a hint from one of my earlier posts:

On 2021-05-12 at 1:05 PM, KnossosTNC said:

"Happenstance" is a hand-wavy explanation for why PC exclusives like CKIII exist, and you'd get thrown out of market research for even suggesting it.

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

Why would I drop a real-world example of these types of bundles when it was actually made and sold to players? If you're gonna talk about the Prestige/Renown/Esteem bundles, then you can't leave out or ignore the Reverence bundle sold by Discord. Or, as I just rediscovered, the two Prominence bundles sold by Twitch. These bundles have already been made and have already jumped over every excuse you've given.

*Shrugs* Then we go on. As I said, it was always for your benefit.

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

And none of this matters. If Steam gets a line of Sapphire skins in their Glory Bundle I-V sets, and then Gaben decides to make the SteamBox... It's still Valve's* exclusive. They can keep selling it on Steam, and/or also sell it on their non-PC platform as long as DE agrees. Same with EGS: if they get a line of Onyx skins in their Honor Bundle I-IX sets, and Epic decides to make EpicPass... It's still Epic's exclusive. They can keep selling it on EGS, and/or also give it away to their EpicPass subscribers as long as DE agrees. Discord's bundle already did this: it was available for purchase from their storefront and given away as a Discord Nitro perk. This was fine because it was their exclusive and not "PC's".

They would no longer be PC exclusives, while still remaining storefront exclusives, thus proving my point that they are two separate and distinct entities. You can't just discard one of them and appropriate the term just because you arbitrarily decided it "has no value." As I've already demonstrated, it most certainly still does.

4 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

These are all companies who make or publish multi-platform games...?

Now you're being intentionally obtuse. They make PC exclusives as well. I know, mind blown, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

They would no longer be PC exclusives, while still remaining storefront exclusives, thus proving my point that they are two separate and distinct entities.

Yes, I know you've defined PC exclusive and storefront exclusive as different things. My question has always been who tf cares about PC exclusivity in the way you've defined it? There is no owner of all PCs to step in and say "no", so who cares if a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becomes just a storefront exclusive?

19 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

Now you're being intentionally obtuse. They make PC exclusives as well. I know, mind blown, right?

Yes, the company that calls itself "a world leading PC games publisher" makes PC games. Who would have guessed? But there's no big bad Mr. PC not letting them make console games, they just don't make console games. Maybe their engines don't port well, maybe the gameplay isn't a match, maybe the genres aren't a good fit, maybe they just don't care about consoles all that much and want to keep making games for computers. By whatever circumstance, that's the kind of game they make. Paradox making PC games is no different than Bethesda Game Studios making RPGs. But even then Stellaris is multi-platform and Paradox has published many multi-platform games made by other studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, I know you've defined PC exclusive and storefront exclusive as different things. My question has always been who tf cares about PC exclusivity in the way you've defined it? There is no owner of all PCs to step in and say "no", so who cares if a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becomes just a storefront exclusive?

And this is the issue I take with your posts; "who tf cares about PC exclusivity" is an arbitrary and unjustified reason for ignoring the distinction. You just like to arbitrarily redefine the frame of discussion seemingly just because you say so and it suits your points, like your earlier arbitrary qualifiers for the cosmetic packs.

You clearly understand this distinction. You could have rolled with it. You could have agreed to disagree. You could have come up with better justifications. Instead, you doubled down on trying to devalue my point into "just semantics," and the best you could come up with is the nebulous "who tf cares about PC exclusivity."

19 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes, the company that calls itself "a world leading PC games publisher" makes PC games. Who would have guessed? But there's no big bad Mr. PC not letting them make console games, they just don't make console games. Maybe their engines don't port well, maybe the gameplay isn't a match, maybe the genres aren't a good fit, maybe they just don't care about consoles all that much and want to keep making games for computers. By whatever circumstance, that's the kind of game they make. Paradox making PC games is no different than Bethesda Game Studios making RPGs. But even then Stellaris is multi-platform and Paradox has published many multi-platform games made by other studios.

And I've already explained, the lack of a singular platform owner just means these exclusivity comes by through different means. Again, hand-wavy explanations like "circumstance" and "happenstance" would get you thrown out market research. They exist for very good reasons.

And they publish PC exclusives like Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron and Imperator: Rome as well. Whoa, amazing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

And this is the issue I take with your posts; "who tf cares about PC exclusivity" is an arbitrary and unjustified reason for ignoring the distinction. You just like to arbitrarily redefine the frame of discussion seemingly just because you say so and it suits your points, like your earlier arbitrary qualifiers for the cosmetic packs.

Got an answer or no? What does it matter and to who if a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becomes just a storefront exclusive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Got an answer or no? What does it matter and to who if a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becomes just a storefront exclusive?

Yet again, you're trying to arbitrarily narrow and reframe the discussion to a single narrow qualifier just because you think it would validate and/or invalidate a broader point in your favour.

I've already answered this. Such a shift is merely a demonstration that the PC platform and the storefronts are distinct entities, which matter in the context of business decision-making. The demonstration is in service to the broader point, which is that the distinction exists, and it matters. "Who cares" is an arbitrary and hand-wavy justification to discard this distinction, a distinction which you clearly acknowledged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KnossosTNC said:

Such a shift is merely a demonstration that the PC platform and the storefronts are distinct entities, which matter in the context of business decision-making. The demonstration is in service to the broader point, which is that the distinction exists, and it matters.

What difference does a PC exclusive storefront exclusive becoming just a storefront exclusive make in business decision-making, and for which business? Who does this distinction matter to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...