>Implying exclusivity was unfair... (Destiny)

by CruelLEGACEY , Toronto, Thursday, May 07, 2015, 15:35 (3733 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

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.

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".

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.

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,

At least they have the chance to get the weapons now. That doesn't suck, that's called playing Destiny.

We know that NOW, but we didn't know at the time. None of us had any idea how RNG-dependant all these weapons would be.

and the Dying Mind strike hardly ever gets played to completion in matchmaking. That ALSO sucks.

So does the fact that people get disconnected from PvP, but what does that have to do with content? This has to do with devotion to completing the strike.

My point is that people made a decision based on access to more content, but our access to that extra content comes with more caveats than anyone could ever have guessed.

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.