to be honest, I am more excited that the game is finally releasing. I hope all that effort paid off in the end. Sure we would like to see games on all platforms, but it is also a way to set yourself apart from the competition.

If Microsoft doesn't own the intellectual property then I'm not sure what you're talking about

how much money would somebody actually pay to own the right to something while also not owning the thing itself?

It doesn't really make any sense.

Also isn't this still releasing for PC?

@_-EDMIX-_ - this is also releasing on PC, which we cover. As for owning IP, companies do it all the time, they are mostly considered 2nd party games at that point. Studio MDHR can own the rights to the IP and still make a deal to ONLY release that game on the Xbox One. That means that Sequels, or "Definitive Editions" or something like that, could in fact come to other platforms. Unless, of course, the deal they signed with Microsoft clearly states that it can't.

This is probably the most important part. The Devs are in charge of their creation. If they feel they are being compensated properly, then nothing else really matters.

Absolutely agreed

Many people don't realize that multi-platform is a luxury it is not something that every single developer can actually afford to pull off.

I mean of course they're missing sales but the game has to be made first before they can even miss a sale but what's the point if they can't even afford to get it off the ground on one or two systems?

Many people that are opposed to exclusivity rarely ever think about this.

If Microsoft is giving them funding to allow this game to exist in return for timed exclusivity, it's something the team must do for the time being. I mean it makes more sense to finish the game and worry about multiple platforms later.

The devs are self publishing the game on Steam. Microsoft have nothing to do with it there. The devs will get 70% of the profits after Valve take their 30% cut.

It should sell pretty sell. I know a few people that have been looking forward to Cuphead for quite a while.

I've had the game on my Steam wishlist for several months now. It's looking like a great game.

Can you also say that developers like Guerrilla Games, Naughty Dog, Turn 10 and etc. are in a safer place as a company in an industry that has developer disband left and right? Of course, those first party developers can still be scrapped of course, just look at Zipper. If I got a job working for Naughty Dog I would feel like I am in a good position to keep my job. Also, most first party developers are top notch and hire top notch developers/artists. As a first party developer you only need to worry about one system and not 2 or 3. You also have money coming in from your publisher as well which can take a load off because we all know people work best when there isn't a lot of stress around. Once again, since your game is an exclusive, your game won't get as many eyes on it just who ever has that particular platform. I will say that exclusives get way more attention compared to games that are multi-platform. Just on this site and IGN, I have seen a lot of Crackdown 3 articles, GT Sport, Motorsport Cuphead (lol), Mario Kart, Spiderman, Sea of Thieves to name a few. Of course, you see a lot of multi-platform as well. We can all agree that Quantum Break was a decent game but not a system seller for MS. That game alone got so much attention because it was exclusive to MS. As a gamer I should have most of the consoles because I want to play all the cool games that come out and I am not a troll. Why would an exclusive hurt a gamer (budget could be an issue)? This is only a hobby to 99% of us and it is an expensive one. We have MS Sony and Nintendo who put THEIR own money into these first party developers who are super talented AND create more jobs in these fields. The 3rd party exclusive deals are a different story and I will agree with you there.

1st party studios will always be seen as totally acceptable to sell hardware. Another acceptable practice would be something like Bayonetta 2 where somone like Nintendo helped fund the project but I would only accept such practice if the game would never be made otherwise. This is something we as consumers are never privy to. We have no idea if Capcom could make Dead Rising 4 without the help of Microsoft or Street Fighter 5 without the help of Sony. I personally think those tactics stink. They are self-serving. If Capcom can't make games without hardware makers getting involved then maybe they should sell their IP's and do soemthing else.

With indie games they often need the backing of a big publisher.

The biggest joke has to be exclusive content, timed or full.

? how is it not good for the Developers? If the publisher is paying for the game to exist because the team could not properly fund the game then the trade-off is rewarding the team with funding.

They're not forced to accept any publishing deal they don't want.

I would also say that developers working exclusively on a platform allows them to fully 100% focused on making the best game possible as opposed to worrying about multi-platform issues.

Making a game multi-platform is technically a luxury it is not something by default that every developer can afford to do.

I would argue that there are many games that would never even exist at all to even be worrying about being rubbed in your face if it wasn't for first-party Publishers taking a chance and funding.

You assume that the cost to make games for multiple systems is static. Without outside funding a bunch of Games wouldn't get made, there are multiple examples of this throughout gaming history.

Seriously it's simple math.
Product A doesnt get made= $0

Product B gets released s to less people= upside$$$

I enjoyed well paced informative and entertaining

Well you could also lose your pc at the same time, than you would be screwed.

I don't disagree with you from that perspective but you have to consider there's lots of people that might own both platforms and originally purchased an Xbox one with the belief that there would be content only to be found on Xbox One

I mean that's like me getting a streaming service because I believe there would be exclusive content only for the majority of the content to windup on Netflix another service I own

I'm sorry but I just don't have reasons to own two services for the same content.

I mean people sort of have their own right to complain about the sort of being misled about the content.

So you picked it just because you personally think MS is the devil. CLASSY.

Here's how it seems to go around these parts.
"Oh that game looks cool, I wish it was on PlayStation, but instead of openly admitting I'm jealous of MS having this particular exclusive (which all platforms have a blend of 1st party, 3rd party, or timed exclusives, or timed or exclusive DLC, etc... nobody is doing anything wrong here) I'm gonna come up with yet another conspiracy theory, or at least spout rehashed phrases I use to convince myself that the devs of this game are 'poor pawns' who were 'mind controlled' by EVIL MS overlords, and act like MS is the only entity capable of evil in the gaming industry simply to have an outlet for my jealousy and pettiness."

"Oh and I'll also pretend to have a killer gaming PC"

DAE ELSE THINK M$ IS THE DEVIL XDDD SO EDGY

So, MS needs to have exclusive, but they aren't allowed to have 2nd or 3rd party exclusives?

I'm not quite sure i understand the point