PS5 Moneyhat Speculation Rumbles On

As someone who is going to be getting a PS5 this is good news! Bring me the games 😁

Here's the thing though, do they need to?

I mean you look at what happened when Xbox got timed exclusives. Where did they sell best in the end? Not on the Xbox.

So as far as Xbox is concerned, unless this is an anti Game Pass measure, it's probably more a waste of money than anything.

@Haruki_NLI arguably in the early days of a generation this is ridiculously important. Yes third party games sell best on the PS4 but being the market leader makes that easy. Early in the generation it very well could be these moves that influence someone to pick their machine over the competitors.

@Haruki_NLI Maybe they would have sold even worse on xb had they not been timed exclusives?

I still don't think it's the best strategy, but perhaps they've seen statistics that paint a different picture.

@get2sammyb someone along the line signed an NDA. You can get sued to oblivion by big corporations.

@TheLoCoRaven If they signed an NDA, they wouldn't even be able to so much as hint at what they know in public. But that's what Imran Khan is doing weekly.

"Hey, I've got something that I cannot say... so DON'T ASK ! But if you KNEW what I KNOW..."
Gosh, looks like a five year old kid completly unable to keep a secret. You want to tell us ? So please, do. But if not, why are you talking ? Are you so desperate to get some attention ? Is it for just being able to say, when it will eventually comes to reality, something like "Ah ! Told you...". Sincerely ?

Anyway... What I'm not sure to even get in all this gibberish was : are we talking TIMED exclusive ? Or DEFINITIVE exclusive ?

Parasites eves.dragon dogma 2.thats will be a crazy deal if it happens.word up son

@Haruki_NLI "So as far as Xbox is concerned, unless this is an anti Game Pass measure, it's probably more a waste of money than anything."

Now that you say it... I didn't think it that way but... maybe this is EXACTLY what this is.

For example, look at Dragon Quest XI S. The game will be like... what ? 40 dollars on Playstation, I don't know ? And in the same time, ON THE GAMEPASS. Giving the sensation that "it's free" on the other side (which is not, cause you're not buying the game, and you're paying a subscription, but the feeling is there anyway).

So maybe that's it : a move to prevent third party games from going too fast on the Microsoft services.

Makes sense, in a way.

@get2sammyb Because it's the only way people like Imran Khan can get attention these days.

total shot in the dark, but Diablo 4?. even for a few months timed exclusivity. sony and activision have been pretty chummy all through this generation. it's massive, but not unaffordably massive like CoD. it's probably a pretty safe bet that, marketing rights for FIFA aside, it's not going to be moneyhatting anything from EA. in fact, except for the fact the FIFA sells about 5 times more on PS4 than anything else, EA probably wouldn't give them marketing rights on that either..

@get2sammyb For the clicks and to feel smug that they either know something we dont, or at least pretend they do. There are a few people out there at the mo doing the same and it has become really annoying.

And again I say: Many of these people seemed to have no issue with it when MS did it extensively during the PS3/360 era, so... f*ck 'em.

People fuming at Sony for this are better off venting their frustration at their own gaming system of choice for not doing this themselves.

They just allowed Sony to go all in with this and i don't blame Sony for taking the oppertunity.

Call it anti consumer all you want at the end of the day,this is still a business. And business can be hard and needs to be played smart to stay on top.

MS bought bankrupt studio's,Sony's aswner is making big deals with 3rd party studio's. it's not pretty,but that's how it has always been and has proven to work more often than not. Also stuff like this can Also raise Some attention towards those games So it's a win win.

Yuck. They should be confident in the merits of their system rather than resorted to underhanded crap.

@get2sammyb hang on Sam.

Did you just announce FF16???

@nessisonett why? This is capitalism, it is rarely about providing the best product, but more about using your market position and fiscal power to ensure others don't get equal access or aren't able to offer as good a product. It's not good practice, but it has proved good business, personally think it sucks, thoughts so when Microsft did it throughout the PS360 and early X1 eras, so I'm not going to change my mind now, but this is the economic reality we live in.

There have been rumblings of moneyhatting from Sony for a few years now, and I'm sure if they have done it, then it'll only cover the first few years of the platforms life, because continuing to do this will ultimately lead to diminishing returns. What will be interesting to see is what games they've secured, because I think we can see Sony has a very good relationship already it seems with the likes of Bethesda and Activision, if we're talking the likes of Elder Scrolls and Diablo IV expect the rage to be big. Still wonder about the Titanfall 3 rumours myself. Heard them 12 months ago.

@Paranoimia And Sony were doing it a lot during the PS3 era too - getting 'extra' content (Assassins Creed for example) and even 'free' games (Assassins Creed and Battlefield both had free games for buying on PS3) and that carried on with Watchdogs getting bonus content on PS4 and of course Destiny too.

Its much easier to remember the 'competition' offering something and disappointing you than it is to remember when your platform of choice gave you something that the others didn't get. Its much easier to remember when you were 'disappointed'. As someone with both a PS3 and 360, I could take advantage of those deals and expect to have both a PS5 and Series X in the future.

However, I do think that NO multi-platform release should offer ANY extra content to one side. I do not agree with any exclusivity, timed or otherwise. I think Sony and MS should be putting that money into developing their own games, their own studio's.

To me, it sounds like Sony doesn't have a lot of 'big games' coming up in the first year or so from their own studio's so are looking at buying up 3rd Party games to bolster a 'weak' line-up. Its understandable having recently released games like Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima and even God of War and Day's Gone. Games take time to create. Its been over 3yrs since H:ZD for example and it looks like a sequel won't be released inside 4yrs so you can't expect Naughty Dog or Sucker Punch to have 'something' big in the next year or two. Short of 're-releasing' games updated for PS5, Sony could be struggling for 1st party 'big' releases for the next 'few' years as a number of their studio's need time to make games for PS5.

@SirAngry And capitalism is disgusting. F*ck billionaires, f*ck corporations and f*ck capitalism.

@nessisonett amen brother, and come the revolution I'll be on the front lines with you. Until then this sort of rubbish will be going on. Don't like it, certainly won't defend it and think it is fundamentally wrong from a consumer choice perspective, but it is going to happen and there is nothing any of us can do about it... yeah guys, it's a myth about us consumers having all the power against global multi-billion and in some cases trillion dollar corporations.

@BAMozzy to be honest I think Microsoft looked worse off for how far away their exclusives are, GT7, Horizon Forbidden West, Ratchet and Clank etc looked to be a lot closer than the likes of Avowed, Fable and Hellblade for example

@nessisonett
Hey nessisonett, you're not really Jeremy Corbyn are you? ;0)

@carlos82 he tries to spin everything as a positive for Xbox for some reason. 🤷‍♂️

@Paranoimia Yep. People just seem to have it out for Sony. Of course, they're the market leader going into the new generation, so it makes sense that people are on their case. Even during the PS3 era, they seemed to get the same treatment. People don't like them I guess because of how they are able to bounce back from even the worst situations. Others hate them because of the whole SNES CD add on that took place many years ago. Some can't get over it.

@BAMozzy Yes, Sony did it too, but to a lesser extent - because prior to PS Plus and with a free network to support, they didn't have the same resources to put into it. Most exclusivity deals on the 'biggest' titles, like CoD DLC, went to MS because they had the deepest pockets. And most people - especially in the games media - didn't seem to have much of an issue with it.

While you or I personally may not like it, the point stands that many of those shouting loudly about it now only seem to be annoyed because it's Sony splashing the cash. What do I base that on? Simply that it's a tactic which has been around for many years, but it only seems to be a "newsworthy issue" when it's Sony doing it. It being "an issue" only seemed to start at the beginning of this generation, when Sony announced that they'd be the ones getting the CoD DLC exclusivity deals for this generation, and it's gradually snowballed from there.

Maybe I missed it (entirely possible, as I read way fewer gaming sites these days than I used to), but I've not seen much mention or 'outrage' about the glaring hypocrisy of Team Green, with Spencer talking about how they dislike exclusivity deals, yet making them anyway. At least Sony have been up-front about it. As long as one side takes this approach, the other has little option but to do the same.

I'm not overly keen on it myself, but I see why it's done, and I'm not going to cry or get angered about it. Swings and roundabouts; some deals will suit me, some won't. If I become that bothered, I could buy an Xbox... though as neither my original nor my 360 ever saw much use, it's highly unlikely.

@carlos82 Of course, but MS also have Halo, Forza, State of Decay, Flight Simulator, Gears Tactics and Everwild all coming 'soon' too. I was not referring to launch, but the first few years and its going to take studio's like Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch at least a few years to bring follow ups to Last of Us 2 and Ghost of Tsushima. I can't imagine Sony Bend or Santa Monica have had enough time yet to follow up on God of War or Days Gone. Most of these games have taken at least 4yrs (or more) to develop. Its going to be at least 4yrs since Horizon Zero Dawn to bring Forbidden West to market for example.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of MS's revealed games - like Avowed or Fable won't release before 2022. Obviously MS has some 3rd Party exclusives lined up too with games like Scorn and the Medium so they are doing the same too BUT as this is a PS website, I focussed purely on Playstation with regards to the 'upcoming' releases - and it seems to me, Sony don't have 'many' games likely to release in the first few years because their studio's have just released big games in the past few years.

I only mentioned MS because they were no more 'guilty' of buying up 3rd Party deals than Sony were. Sony were just as bad in the PS3 era too. Its hypocritical to say MS were 'bad' and Sony are just retaliating, when BOTH are equally as BAD. Its just that if you only have either a PS or XB, then you are only 'upset' by deals the other makes and therefore forget (or choose to ignore) the deals that benefited you. That was the point I was making in the first part.

@MarcG420 Not at all - I just try and point out that the BS spread by PS fanboys is incorrect - just as I do to Xbox fanboys on Pure Xbox when they try and spread BS about PS.

If you read my posts without your blinkered Fanboy glasses on, you would see that I have NO allegiance to either manufacturer and point out that BOTH were as bad as each other for 3rd Party deals - it wasn't one sided!! PS fans benefited from a LOT of 3rd Party deals too but ignorant fanboys only remember the occasions that these 3rd party deals were NOT in their favour and that butthurt leads them to believe the other was worse. MS fanboys could point to extra missions in Assassins Creed, Watchdogs etc and getting Assassins Creed and 1942 free with AC and Battlefield on PS, the fact that they had to pay the same for 'Less' in the past and its still carrying on today...

Of course you don't care because in this instance, as a PS fanboy it benefits you, but you will forget that if/when MS were to do the same in the future and somehow spin it to make out MS are somehow 'worse' on this practice when the reality is both are BAD!!!

@BAMozzy first off, you’re assuming I don’t remember that it is two sided. Secondly, you always come across as overtly negative towards PlayStation to me. You’ve even admitted your bias against them in the past.

As far as your rant against me, I haven’t spun it to be worse from Ms at all. You do have a vivid imagination though.

always makes me chuckle when Xbox did it! Xbox users had a very different energy. so I really do not care.

@Paranoimia MS may have had CoD during the 360 era but Sony had Battlefield. They had deals with Ubisoft too and games that had 'extra' content - an exclusive missions, free games etc so essentially forcing Xbox owners to pay the same for less - just like this deal.

Timed exclusivity is bad, Having to wait a month to get the 'same' content isn't great for ANY gamer and a year or more is absolutely ridiculous. Destiny was a terrible deal for example on Xbox compared to Playstation but like I said, if you were on PS3, the MS deals stick in memory because they didn't benefit you whilst all the Playstation deals that did are forgotten.

As I owned both systems, I could buy Battlefield on Playstation 3 to get 1942 free and access to DLC sooner and buy CoD on Xbox to take advantage of their deal to get DLC sooner for example BUT the point I am trying to make is that I do NOT agree with these deals at all and that BOTH were equally as bad as each other.

Personally, I think BOTH MS and Sony should be investing in their own 1st Party exclusives and NOT buy up exclusive content, exclusivity for a length of time etc at all. I know that MS have 3rd Party Exclusives (timed or otherwise) lined up too BUT that doesn't mean I am giving them a free pass either - BOTH Sony and MS should focus on first Party content and leave 3rd Party content to release the SAME content on BOTH platforms SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Exclusives FTW! Actually I don't care. Just love the gaming community and boot up that game and have fun!! If I couldn't get an exclusive on my console at the game whatever. Heck I love Fire Emblem and I'm not gonna rage or cancel culture the producers. Heck in a world of over a gazillion games can any of us actually play them all?! Less exclusives means more mullah in my wallet and gives me time to actually enjoy a game without being pressure or rushing onto the next one.

@Paranoimia not to mention the series X just announced 22 timed exclusives at their event..these dudes need to keep the same energy

@nessisonett they are confident...but the series x showed 22 timed exclusives.. so yeah..same energy brko

@MarcG420 I have NO Bias at all. I buy both systems and if one is weaker - like the Pro clearly is at the moment compared to the X, then of course I have a Bias to buying multi-platform games on Xbox because currently, that is the platform that is 'best' for the vast majority of gaming experience. If symmetrical thumbsticks in general is NOT the best design, then of course I will say Xbox has the better controller and NOTHING comes close to the build quality of the Elite controllers - that's not 'Bias' that's fact by the way...

At the start of this generation, I was buying most of my games on PS4 because that was the better system - that carried on until MS brought out the X. During that time, you could argue I was Bias in favour of Sony because they had the 'better' system but the reality is that I want to play games at their best and if one is significantly 'better', then I will purchase games for that system. That's not Bias, that's common sense!!

Its fanboys that take every 'negative' thing said about Sony as an indication of Bias but Sony are NOT perfect - neither are MS at all but when fanboys want to make out that MS (or Sony on Pure Xbox for that matter) are somehow much worse, come across as purely hypocritical, then I have pointed that out. Its the fanboys then that get upset and because their 'favourite' can do no wrong despite being just as bad as the other.

Its particularly bad at the moment with the run up to new console releases as the fanboys seem more intent on attacking the other console, their strategy and games instead of focussing on their preferred brand. Criticising MS for practices they did, things Phil Spencer says, their choice in console specs etc instead of focussing on PS - its happening on Pure Xbox too to a lesser extent with people criticising Sony's choices too, their console build/specs, their strategy etc.

Its my lack of Bias that leads me to defend MS on a PS site and defend PS on an Xbox site to try and bring perspective and balance to the argument. I never agreed that MS (for example) were somehow exempt from criticism over their 3rd Party deals either but if you are going to criticise MS for making them, then you also have to criticise Sony too. If MS now retaliate in a big game, buy some exclusive Bonus content, don't criticise them if you don't criticise Sony for buying Spider-Man in this game. That's true bias - forgetting that your preferred platform isn't just as bad or making out the other is somehow worse for doing the exact same thing! Not being bias, as I am, Its equally as bad from BOTH!!

@BAMozzy so in other words, you’re a contrarian which is why I see you bashing Sony all the time?

Edit: also, what’s up with needing a thousand words to get your point across all the time?

Honestly never liked the idea of timed third party exclusives. They sound super redundant and pointless if they're just going to come to other consoles and PC anyway. Either make an exclusive, or make a multiplat. One year exclusives that get ported to literally everything else is a really half assed method to get a version of a game to sell better on one platform compared to all the others. This even goes for games like FFVII Remake, especially since before that game, the last three tentpole games from Square (FFXV, DQXI, KH3) were all multiplatform from day one and sold better on PS4 compared to Xbox One anyway

I plan to buy ps5 day one so more exclusives = more games for me

Also if the games are exclusives to ps5, I'm sure sony will mandate full use of ps5 tech like near instant loading, haptic feedback, and maybe gyro aiming for shooter, normal 3rd party games usually don't implement console specific features.

Ms buys 3rd party studios... not anti consumer. Sony buys timed exclusives... anti consumer....smh. the hypocrisy incoming.

Despite "Gamer" Phil's protests to the contrary about how anti-gamer & paywalling 3rd parties are,they did it with the latest yakuza's XBSX port,& Phantasy Star Online,not to mention the 3rd Party indie studio spending spree,& it wouldn't surprise they'll do so again in future....the WB studios buyout rumour for example.
Nintendo however have engaged in similar tatics & none of the major sites have ever been critical of them...eg: the Bayonetta series,Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 (Another series last gen XB had exclusive characters on),Dragon Quest XI with the extra content over the ps4 version as a timed exclusive, or several indies these days having timed exclusives on Switch with a PS4 version tending to be months/year later if at all. But Ninty always seems to get the golden pass just like their faulty joycons or paywalling Pikman 3 taking it off legacy platforms to push sales on Switch.
Is it great for gamers? Not if you can only largely afford to game on a particular platform,but its no different than the 1001 movie streaming services,or XB's beloved Gamepass etc.,its a reality, always has been & will continue into next gen.
For Sony's sake,hopefully the games they choose are good ones!

@MarcG420 Not at all. I am just pointing out that things are not 'worse' on the other side which may upset Fanboys who want to make out the 'otherside' is worse - which is hypocritical.

I just point out that they are being hypocritical and acting like a fanboy with examples of why. It just so happens that on a 'Sony' site, that often means that I have to point out Sony's behaviour to show they are 'equally' as bad as MS - and vice versa on Xbox based sites.

Its not contrary at all - its showing that neither side is 'better/worse' and that BOTH have demonstrated the same behaviours and that its hypocritical to make out that one is 'worse' than another. That its wrong to accuse one of doing something fundamentally wrong whilst their own preferred brand are doing exactly the same. Its either wrong for BOTH or you accept that its part of the acceptable practice that should continue. I don't expect anyone to criticise MS IF they now buy 'extra' content in game if they are 'happy' with Sony buying extra content in games too.

BOTH MS and Sony will have timed 3rd Party exclusives and whether Phil Spencer likes it or not, doesn't mean that MS shouldn't do the same as Sony, feel they have to do the same - just to keep competitive. As I said, I would much prefer it if BOTH agree not to buy 'exclusivity', timed or otherwise, in the future. Its bad enough that one buys marketing exclusivity...

As I said, how would Sony fanboys feel if MS bought extra content in Cyberpunk for example? Or maybe strike a deal to have an extra playable character in Suicide Squad? Rightly they would be annoyed too - especially if they were told they can buy an Xbox if they want the 'extra' content. I know if I only bought a PS, I would be angered! But I also would realise that this is NOT consumer friendly for gamers and that Sony are equally as bad, perpetuating the issue - even if it does benefit me sometimes...

The reason I type a lot is because A: I can B: It's easier to explain and provide examples to illustrate the points I make C: doesn't leave too much to be misconstrued (although it seems Fanboys still manage to misconstrue, misunderstand and somehow make up their own narrative - but I put that down to their own insecurities and issues).

Anyway, trying to move on - the whole point I was trying to make is that I think this whole process is BAD for gamers on the whole. It obviously benefits Sony/MS and their user base but at the expense of all other gamers - inc those on PC's too. I think that ALL 3rd party deals should be abolished - especially those where games or some content is removed/withheld either permanently or for a period of time. IF any 3rd party deal is acceptable, then having the right to market the game should be ALL that's allowed.

I think Publishers should be fully responsible for publishing games, marketing etc on their own titles, make games entirely playable on ALL hardware capable of running it, release simultaneously and not withholding ANY content from ANY platform regardless.

I know fully well that MS will have timed 3rd party exclusives too and I totally disagree with that as well. I have no doubt that I can benefit from these deals - buy Avengers on PS to play as Spider-Man and buy whatever games MS has 'deals' on to play them first. It doesn't affect me because I can take advantage but that doesn't mean that I agree with it, doesn't mean that I don't think its consumer friendly...

I love how people make Game Pass sound like

But in reality, it's more like

I'll wait for the best version on PC. Too many attrocious console versions due to corporate money. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Sony is buying timed exclusivity, while MS is buying games for us to play free. Personally, I'd much prefer the second option. But I'm seriously intrigued as to how mach is Sony putting into these timed exclusivity. I preferred their approach earlier during current gen, where they'd fund indie studios and publish their games (although alot of them multiplat). Does it cost less to moneyhat than to fund development? I'm intrigued.

@lacerz
Neat, I didn't know you could watch movies on game pass now.

I mean both Sony and Microsoft have tons of money. Either can does and will do this. We could add Nintendo as well.

I usually just buy everything but what is the logic behind this fanboyism? Is it because you can only afford one and that makes you attached to it? I don't get it. They're companies. They don't care about you.

Great for Playstation owners. There are far too many pretentious people in the gaming community right now advocating for equal content or treatment on third party games when Playstation and Xbox are operating on different platform regardless if it is first party or third party games.

We already have exclusive games that can only be play on one console. Time exclusivity and platform exclusive content is the least thing we should worry about.

@Paranoimia ^_^

This is sucky when MS does it, this is sucky when Sony does it.

It's not getting PS owners more games, it's blocking other from playing it. If Sony didn't moneyhat, the PS owners would still be able to play these games on the same day and date as they would otherwise.

It is anti-consumer.

The only reason to for timed or DLC exclusives is to funnel money away from the competition and towards you (the gigantic billion dollar mega corporation). There's zero benefit to the gamer beyond bragging rights and fueling their Fanboy wars. So anyone cheering this (on either side) is just proving their childish fanboyism.

It's funny to see the critics about Sony's doing this or that. Why we don't hear anything about the dozens of console launch exclusive (time exclusive) games showed at the xbox showcase?

I didn't see kinda funny games, ign and others complaining about xbox's "anti-consumer" actions for those console launch exclusive games at all!

I can see why sony is doing this. If they don't do it. Probably MS will do! Well... actually, MS did (they showed in july).

Both companies do, so why all the "anti-consumer" rant is only to Sony Playstation???

I think there are a lot of dirty tactics going on at the moment trying to turn people against Sony and I think M$ are the ones behind it or to be more precise Phil Spencer. What I'd like to know is who is pulling Imran Khan's strings? Who's the puppet master and I'd guess Phil Spencer.

Bottomline, it's a business and these companies have products to sell. I used to get bothered by this, I lost my damn mind over the Rise of the Tomb Raider deal, but given how inconsistent I've seen people, on both the Xbox and PlayStation side, act in regards to these kind of deals, I'm done letting it annoy me. Frankly, it never should've bothered me, these kind of deals have existed since I started gaming and probably before.

I can't see how anyone was greatly surprised by the Spider-Man deal. Sony does have a lot of leverage it seems, based on how well the PS4 did.

I wonder if publishers are seeing an advantage here to still sell well on both platforms vs. putting their games on game pass and having PS4/5 owners then wait for a deep discount or not buy that title in order not to subsidize game pass. I've passed on buying a couple of (minor) games already because they are on game pass but not PSNow.

@Haruki_NLI Long term, Game Pass is unsustainable. Long and short of it, for just first party MS studios, it'll take 5-6 years for the studio to earn what Sony exclusives are in a week. That's assuming EVERY subscriber is on the $15 pass and not the $5 or free/$1 month trial. That also assumes MS takes nothing in this deal. Once you add in third party games, MS would have to pay billions from their own pockets.

Under these assumptions, Game Pass as a whole could make up to $150mil a month. The real number is closer to half that. Still, that $150mil is roughly half of what Sony exclusives are making in a week. It would take decades for them to earn what Sony exclusives are over the games life, before remasters.

That would make signing a timed exclusive w/ Sony for pennies and peanuts a no-brainer. Then, after a year or so, putting their games on GP would likely allow for more stable income than random sales.

People want to cry about crunch and low wages for those in the industry, yet then support Game Pass. As if Game Pass isn't going to lead to more crunch, lower wages and even more microtransactions in an attempt to maintain profits.

Xbox is making huge plays setting up a Netflix model.

Netflix is also roughly 13 billion in debt as they race to diversify content. (Link below.)

Sony can't afford this strategy, they are not Microsoft or Google.

However can Microsoft really afford to bring third party publishers to Game Pass? That's a very expensive proposition.

I think this article is suggesting Sony will take a safer, traditional model. One they can afford, but be aggressive with because it squeezes Microsoft.

It's smart.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/23/netflix-offers-2-billion-more-in-debt-to-fund-its-content-spending/#:~:text=This%20year%2C%20its%20content%20budget,of%20that%20debt%20to%20date.

Disgusting!! 🤮 Why did you use a image of FFXV!? I just got Vietnam flashbacks from playing that ***** incredibly boring game.

As someone who buys all 3 consoles, this is still bullsh*t. I'm all for platform exclusives if its due to publishing rights or first larty developers, but this...no thanks. This doesn't benefit gamers in anyway whatsoever.

@LiamCroft I'd bet the hinters like him isn't the one that signed the NDA but who they got the info from did.

I love money hatting.