I think the ‘true exclusive’ talking point is just marketing BS in the same way that once ‘1080p/60fps’ was all that mattered, oh wait, now it’s about supporting indies, oh wait now it’s about number of exclusives. It’s the constant shifting of the goal posts to try to show one product off in a positive way.
Doesn’t resolution and frames matter like it did at the start of the gen? Why not?
What about support for indies?
When MS buys even more studios and starts pushing out 1st party games will exclusives suddenly not matter as much anymore?
Why do these things only matter when it’s to the advantage of Sony but then suddenly not matter anymore when that advantage is lost?
Example from what I’ve seen from articles and comments over the last few days – “Single player games are all that matter right, no one cares for mutliplayer anymore. Days Gone multiplayer mode was never green-lit – good we don’t need it! ”
Both Sony and MS charge for online play, and somehow we’ve ended up with a media narrative that NOT supporting the service you expect gamers to pay for with your 1st party studios is somehow a good thing? What, why?
As for the article:
Anyone with half a brain can tell that buying/playing a game (example FH4) on either Xbox1/PC or on the upcoming Xcloud streaming service will benefit MS.
Just like playing Bloodborne on PS4/PC via PSNow still benefits Sony.
Not being restricted to one piece of hardware does not in anyway make the games in question bad, not does it make them unprofitable. People are just looking for excuses to put them down.
“B b b but people have less reason to buy that specific piece of hardware” you say, – well that’s called giving people options.