Yeah, yeah, I kinda unfairly used a quote against you there. But my saying this situation is unfair is basically the same as you saying it sucks.

Except it's not, and a majority of this thread stands as a testament to how testy a large number of people get when you use distinct terms as though they are fungible. No deal entered into at arms length will full awareness where you get the benefit of your bargain is unfair. I mean this isn't even some Monkey's Paw stuff. You went in with eyes wide open and transforming your disappointment in the deal you made^H^H^H^H agreed to into moral terms is unreasonable.

As for the question of platform exclusive sub-content, well I can't say I like it but I also don't dislike it nearly as much as all of you, it seems. I view it as a softening of platform exclusivity, and thus progress. (though without thinking it through I might claim single console titles have a better average quality than cross-platform titles, so maybe not progress?)

What I want to know is what did Activision/Bungie get out of this? And what would have happened if they just said "No one gets exclusive features"?

That's difficult to say for certain- these contracts are usually confidential. If I had to bet, Sony probably helped fund a significant portion of the advertising campaign, gave them prominent display status at Games Conferences, stuff along those lines.

Hmmm I guess that makes sense. To me, my only thing I could could think of is that Sony was strong arming Bungie into this or else they would pull Playstations as an option for Destiny. Which I not notice is a really extreme case :-)

That's... No. In no way does that make sense, business or otherwise. :)

What I want to know is what did Activision/Bungie get out of this? And what would have happened if they just said "No one gets exclusive features"?

That's difficult to say for certain- these contracts are usually confidential. If I had to bet, Sony probably helped fund a significant portion of the advertising campaign, gave them prominent display status at Games Conferences, stuff along those lines.

Hmmm I guess that makes sense. To me, my only thing I could could think of is that Sony was strong arming Bungie into this or else they would pull Playstations as an option for Destiny. Which I not notice is a really extreme case :-)

What I want to know is what did Activision/Bungie get out of this? And what would have happened if they just said "No one gets exclusive features"?

That's difficult to say for certain- these contracts are usually confidential. If I had to bet, Sony probably helped fund a significant portion of the advertising campaign, gave them prominent display status at Games Conferences, stuff along those lines.

If I'm hypocritical in supporting a business practice I don't like then so is everyone else who bought the game as I haven't seen one person who said they think the timed exclusivity is a good thing. I certainly put Sony consoles on my "never buy" list because of this Destiny decision of theirs though. And I bought a 360 version of Destiny and will buy an Xbone version of Destiny. Do I hurt Sony more by not buying their console or by buying their competitor's because of the crappy deal they (Sony) left me with?

Dude,

Microsoft does this rampantly. I guarantee you that Activision/Bungie was in talks with both console developers over exclusive features, and Sony offered better terms- Heck, Maybe their willingness to eventually allow Xbox players access to these features is what helped them win that battle? I can think of plenty of multi-platform games that have permanent Xbox exclusives.

What I want to know is what did Activision/Bungie get out of this? And what would have happened if they just said "No one gets exclusive features"?

All in all, this has been a fun morning diversion that got me to the 2nd half of my day. :)

The first clearly goes against my pay the same amount for the same content policy.

I think it's this policy I'm having trouble with. Like Kermit mentioned - it's just not a thing that exists. It's a nice ideal, but price/product uniformity is not something that actually exists. In my opinion, nor should it, but that's another kettle of fish so let's just agree to disagree.

From the rest of the reply I think I understand you better now at least. I'm all argued out, so let's just agree that Exclusivity is bad except when it benefits me - then it's even worse because it makes me a hypocrite :p

So I think I speak for some of us when I say that that there was indeed a "decision" but that the factors were so skewed in the direction of XBox that is wasn't even really a decision. The prevalent story I've heard is that people couldn't afford to buy a playstation. So when a person is faced with this "decision" what it feels like is there is content that we don't get to play because we didn't have a choice.

To be clear, I'm talking about next-gen console adopters here. If someone is playing on a 360 because they can't afford to buy a new console yet, then yes they didn't have a choice. They did, however, have a choice regarding purchasing Destiny on the 360. They chose to do so knowing full well that they would be getting less content.

I personally could have got a Playstation, but I have never owned any generation of playstation and I don't plan to. I don't like their controllers, I like Xbox controllers. I could have bought a playstation and suffered through it to play the content, but that would have made Destiny less enjoyable. Was it a decision for me? No. Not in the least bit.

But that IS a decision. You made a choice. I totally understand your choice, and it makes perfect sense... but it is a choice, none the less.

It's kind of unfair to say that people who don't have the money to buy an XBone don't have a choice and a person whose preference to buy an xbone over a playstation does have a choice. When in reality it was still the former persons choice to to not allocate money to gaming (unless their net worth is less than the price of an Xbone, in case they shouldn't be gaming in the first place). Everyone has obligations.

Ultimately, because of my preferences, I was given two choices that would give me lesser player experience than other people playing the game. That is what I think is unfair.

But I get penalized for playing a game I like on a console I enjoy playing on.

Unfortunately, you're butting up against a new industry standard: the "semi exclusive". Remember back in the SNES/Genesis days when every other title that was released was exclusive to one console or another? I have never played any of the original Mario, Metroid, Zelda, or DKC games because I was a Sega guy. That doesn't happen nearly as often anymore, but instead we get games like Destiny, CoD... heck, just about every major 3rd party title from the past 5 years. They all come out on every console, but with 1 version or another being treated as "lead platform".

My first console and console game was Halo CE on the xbox...

Going back to my original point though, at least with Destiny we all knew which side Activision was favoring before any of us had purchased new consoles. None of us were trapped.

I actually had no idea. And I guess you could blame that on my lack of research prior to buying an Xbone and Destiny. But There was no one who told me "did you know you are actually going to get less content if you buy it on Xbox one?" when I went to buy it. So I lived in ignorant bliss until I started playing and discussing the game.

And on the flip side: Consider all the Bungie fans who bought Playstation 4s specifically for Destiny, who don't even have some of the exclusive content yet. Most players don't have Hawkmoon or Monty Carlo,

I understand that people on Xbox will eventually get the content. But that doesn't account for the other piece of content that playstation users received: to play the alpha a full week before anyone on Xbox side.

And this is something that really bothered me when it happened. To have to listen to people who got to play the game that I had been waiting to play, get to play it a week in advance? That is not something that can be given to later on.

Early access is a funny thing... at the time, I was thrilled to have it (who wouldn't be, right?). But looking back, if I could erase my time with the Alpha and Beta, I would. It really sapped the wonder and amazement out of those early missions for me when I finally played the retail release. I would never presume to dismiss your frustrations, but I do feel that in the big picture, missing out on the Alpha may actually have been a good thing.

It's not exactly that it was early access, it was the fact that someone else got to play content that I wasn't allowed to play and I was only allowed to hear about it. It's like getting a hand me down toy after watching a sibling play with it for a long time. All you get to do is what them enjoy it until you get a chance to play with it.

Yes, it kinda is. But I'm not arguing all of those things. I'm arguing specifically for a newly released game that was designed to be identical on four very different platforms with very different capabilities. I recognize and even support the fact that we can't have everything be equal and stay the same price for eternity. But for this specific product at this specific time I feel I am at least somewhat more justified in my arguments. :)

Knowing what I know, the energy expended here seems wasted. I've not gotten any of the exclusive weapons (and one piece of exclusive armor). I've played the exclusive content a handful of times. I can honestly say if I had had to wait for it, it would have affected my enjoyment of Destiny very little. Most of my time has been spent on the Xbox. I've enjoyed the PS version of Destiny mainly for the people it allows me to play with.

The exclusives are hyped because they exist to be hyped, but they ain't all that. The cherry on top is dramatic, but we all know the yummy chocolate syrup sinks to the bottom. :)

If I'm hypocritical in supporting a business practice I don't like then so is everyone else who bought the game as I haven't seen one person who said they think the timed exclusivity is a good thing. I certainly put Sony consoles on my "never buy" list because of this Destiny decision of theirs though. And I bought a 360 version of Destiny and will buy an Xbone version of Destiny. Do I hurt Sony more by not buying their console or by buying their competitor's because of the crappy deal they (Sony) left me with?

Dude,

Microsoft does this rampantly. I guarantee you that Activision/Bungie was in talks with both console developers over exclusive features, and Sony offered better terms- Heck, Maybe their willingness to eventually allow Xbox players access to these features is what helped them win that battle? I can think of plenty of multi-platform games that have permanent Xbox exclusives.

What if the Strikes and guns were a DLC pack? One that Playstation users got for free and Xbox users had to pay for, or wouldn't get until later, or both.

That happens sometimes, and not even for nefarious reasons. Skyrim for the PS3 could not get the DLCs because the PS3 sucks... well and because Skyrim's codebase sucks. (The PS3's low system RAM combined with Skyrim's legacy Fallout 3 based engine caused big game crashing problems even with the base content and adding in the DLC added immensely to those problems) Did PS3 users have a right to grumble about not getting the DLC at the same time. Yes. But it wasn't a corporate deal designed to try and sell a few extra consoles it was bad programming done half a decade earlier so it's not really in the same league.

Now, to your question, if Destiny had come out with its base content and then the "antiRaga DLC" had come out later for free on Playstation and paid for Xbox then sure, I'd still be mad. Same if the Xbox DLC was not delayed for technical reasons but was held back for business reasons like selling a few more consoles. The first clearly goes against my pay the same amount for the same content policy. The 2nd is a bit more nebulous and would depend on if the holding back period was hours or days or weeks or months or years. In Destiny's actual case the timed content is probably, hopefully a year... but we don't even know that for sure yet. Anything more than say a month and I'd start to get miffed.

Similarly: What if when Dragon Age DLC comes out it gets featured in a half price sale on Xbox? Is that unfair? I'd be paying more for the same content because of a deal worked out with the publisher. Is that the same as this? Or different?

If it came out at the same time and cost less on one platform than the other but was identical in game especially for a game specifically meant to play identically on four different platforms, then sure, that's unfair.

That said, sales and eventual discounts and even things like the price of the console new vs the price a year later or during a Black Friday sale are kinda outside the scope of this discussion. I prefer to limit this to the actual initial business decisions... and not try and calculate all the possible total cost of ownerships of the consoles and games at various points in the past present and future. :)

Like others have said - a valid complaint can be made against the business practice as a whole (I'm not a fan, personally), but it's not "unfair". It's frustrating, it fractures the playerbase, and it has the potential to negatively affect the game. But it's not unfair. You knew what you were and weren't getting well in advance, and no one forced you to buy the version you did get (even if it was the only version available to you). No one pulled wool over your eyes, or swept the rug out from under you. They said "This is the thing you can buy. It doesn't come with this though" and you said "Yes please, I'll buy that thing".

So it is fair to charge people on two platforms the same price but to remove (or not add) some content to one of the platforms because of a business deal the player had not part in and no say in? Yes, valid complaints can be made against the practice as a whole, but they can also be made against individual occurrences of that practice. One should go along with the other!

Was I tricked into buy a game with less content? No. But I never claimed that I was. That's you guys bringing up this tricked thing. I said it sucks to be told up front that that you will be getting less content for your money and that is true. And I still think it is fair to say that practice is unfair.

Yes, it's fair. It's the free ice cream cone with purchase on Tuesdays before 4 p.m. It's half off for first-time buyers. It's an incentive to attract specific customers where (or when) they are needed. That is all. Your definition of fairness demands that all businesses charge everyone exactly the same everywhere regardless of any other factors. That's not a free market where people are given choices--that's some kind of totalitarian bullshit.

Would that be better? It wouldn't be paying the same for less content any more.

Similarly: What if when Dragon Age DLC comes out it gets featured in a half price sale on Xbox? Is that unfair? I'd be paying more for the same content because of a deal worked out with the publisher. Is that the same as this? Or different?

Separately, should I have not bought Destiny. Perhaps. But like you, this timed exclusivity thing is not the number one problem on my list. It was never a big enough thing to have me give up the game for a year. It just happens to be the problem this thread is discussing. Making the choice either "you buy the game and support evil or you don't buy the game and support good" is over inflating the issues at stake. I only argue so hard for my position here because we have a zoomed in subset of positions to discuss in this thread. If I had to take issue with Destiny as a whole, for instance, I'd be up in arms about the lack of story!

This idea that telling someone in advance that you plan to offer them a worse deal makes the deal better is silly.

Who said it makes the deal better? No one has said that their disclosing the information makes it less frustrating for you. But it makes the situation fairer. It informs the customer and lets them decide for themself if it's worth it. A decision you and many others made. Better than being left in the dark, no?

Does it help to polish a turd?

Not always, but it's better than treading it into the carpet.

Do I really think it will be exclusive forever... No...

Then that argument is sort of moot, isn't it.

All I want is the same amount of content as people who paid the same amount for a game as I did.

Then you shouldn't support companies that engage in this practice by buying their products.

Yeah, shame on me for taking the only deal offered. Where is the shame on the company that offered the deal?! You're focusing your attention on the one that only had one option if he wanted to play Destiny before "at least Fall of 2015" instead of the companies that gimped their product and made deals to offer him that single option.

Did you buy any version of Destiny? If yes, then who are you to criticize others for doing the same?

I'm not criticizing you for buying Destiny. I'm criticizing you for your apparently hypocritical decision to buy Destiny. You did not take "the only deal offered." You had a choice:

-Buy Destiny, knowing that you were supporting a publisher/developer decision that you claim to disagree with.

-Not Buy Destiny, and show the publisher/developer that as long as they engage in such practices, you won't support them.

As for me:
I don't have any major qualms with platform-exclusive content, as long as I have a method of legally obtaining it. Despite your assertions otherwise, it's a valid and fair business tactic that companies can employ to entice consumers into making specific decisions. Would the world be a better place without it? Sure. But compared to a lot of the other issues the industry is forcing consumer to deal with, it doesn't rank anywhere near the top of my list.
I have a number of publishers that I've decided not to support, based on their business tactics, and so far I haven't strayed.

If I was being a smartass I'd tell you are getting exactly the same as Playstation users - what was advertised to you.

But you really will have the same content eventually. You act like it's been withheld forever. By the end of the year you will have paid the same price and got the same content.

Or so I hope. I don't have a definite answer on that question. Heck, this threadline started because Korny wondered what "at least Fall 2015" actually meant!

Timed exclusives are easily the least painful type of exclusive. It's not like regular exclusives where the choice is "buy a new console or go without". All you have to do is wait. And if waiting is really that unacceptable, don't buy it.

I think it is far better to have complete platform exclusivity. Like I said in postings above, I'm fine with not being able to buy The Last of Us for my platform. I am not fine with Bungie / Activision selling me a copy of Destiny for the same $60 or $150 as someone else but delivering less content to me. Even if they might eventually get the rest to me once some deal maybe expires at some point.