Talk:Paid exclusivity

Any one have any ideas for a npov general overview? It didn't meet the requirements of number of letters, so I've had to put this comment about PC for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrykq (talk • contribs)
 * A good start would be to strip out the words "shady", "unpleasant art", and other similar phrasing.(or at least, if there are sources for notable people/organizations that state that, to directly quote them) That's just an opinion; others surely see the other side, that such agreements are necessary to ensure the survival of their business and help competition in video game platforms by differentiating their games from each other. You would also need independent, verifiable sources for claims given. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have put a references needed tag as this sort of thing is not limited to video game companies, and other industries where this is done could be added. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the help with the article, I'll try to find some examples of other industries paying for exclusivity, and maybe categorize them later.--Patrykq (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New sections
I added two new sections, History, and Criticism. I did this to add focus to the article. Remember, the idea of the article is to inform. It's not an opinion piece. Remain objective, and don't forget to cite your sources. — InvisusMachina (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisement
"Paid Exclusivity" as a whole might not be uncommon for other markets then video games. I would recommend putting all video game related material under the section "Video Game Market," or similar, with the related History and Criticism sections. It should be noted that Paid Exclusivity also occurs in the hardware market. For example, IBM has given a year royalty for Diablo Memory Channel Technology for exlusive use in its hardware solutions. (http://www.echannelline.com/2014/08/06/diablo-looks-to-revolutionize-memory-with-next-gen-memory-channel-storage/)

The Beginning Paragraph:


 * "Video game console manufacturers (such as Microsoft and Sony) often limit developers to producing games for their particular console only. [1][2] The main goal of this is to promote their platforms, but in the process it can hurt people that cannot afford the platform that the game is exclusive to. "

Is awkward, because the situation is an agreement, not coersion. It must be noted that publishers (Which Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo also are) have known to commission projects with publishers (Ex. Nintendo paided for Metroid: Prime et al with Retro studios, Donkey Kong et al with Rare, etc). Publishers also aquire software devlopers, or become their primary stock holder (Ex. Rare was bought by Microsoft, Sony became the number one stock holder of Square Enix (for a time)).. "Paid Exclusivity" needs to show contrast between these actions and what the article claims. "Or Article needs to be renamed Exclusivity in the Software and/or Videogame industry."

I suggest:


 * "In the software market, specialized hardware manufacturers seek agreements with software publishers for exclusivle publishing rights for their hardware. Both parties of this agreement benifit as the publisher recieves a royality for the right, and software is temporarily or permanetly avialbe only for the specialized hardware. This practice is to encourage sales of its hardware, and by extension, the accessories and other software that is only compadible with the speicalized hardware platform. By locking software to specific hardware, it can benifit the hardware manufacturer at the expense of its compeditors and the software market, as the costs of hardware are high, the consumer is usually incenitised to choose one over the other."

Stradian (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tried to neutralize the article based upon the current version, but I'll try and incorporate some more changes that are similar to yours. arivie (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)