Sounds very similar to trickle-down economics to me. Call me dubious to promises for "bigger and better" games via this excuse.
Developers making games for a larger user base is far more straightforward than "trickle down economics". Wow -- can't believe this comparison was made.
Exactly. I bought the Wii U on Bayonetta 2 alone (nearly anyway; waiting on the promise of Zelda Wii U). I bought the Wii on Zelda alone, and afterwards it collected dust.
And tell me -- how is the Wii U selling as the oldest current gen console out of the three?
So why did Phil Spencer put money down for timed-exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider for Xbox One?
1. Exactly -- It was timed, not full. Therefore backing up the point that paying for full wouldn't have been worth it.
2. We are talking about console exclusives going to PC. The majority of console gamers only care about console gaming and therefore these games will continue on being seen as exclusives to them.
Exclusives still matter but they definitely don't as much as they used to. The previous gen (360/PS3) caused a heavy rise in third party games being just as, if not, more important that exclusives and it also caused a rise in game budgets.
Hence why we are seeing far more "console exclusive" games this gen. Exclusives mean less now, and games are more expensive so moves like this are killing to birds with one stone -- continuing on making games look exclusive to the console gamers that care about exclusives while at the same getting more users to buy & play these games via bringing them over to PC.
Yup. "Microsoft wants to support PC gamers! Great!" But if you were a PC gamer and supported the Xbox One by purchasing one for it's exclusives (Ryse, Dead Rising 3, Forza and more promised games on the way e.g. Halo, Gears) then "sorry but not sorry" your Xbox One is now redundant.
If you feel that way then sell it and use the money to buy the Xbox games that will be coming to PC looking far better than they would on the console.