Are Bribed Exclusives Anticompetitive?

[jrinck]

It all certainly seems like Microsoft has a habit of paying off developers to release their games on the 360 before the PS3, and even though I'm not a lawyer, this smells a lot like something artificially designed to hurt the competition. And coming from Microsoft, is this any sort of surprise?

I am very surprised that no attorneys have looked in to this practice. If something like this is perfectly legal, then it's the new 21st century way to destroy competition by buying off developers. It's very sad that Harmonix can be swept up in something like this.

A strong case can most certainly be made that the development times and efforts for the two platforms (PS3 and 360) are remarkably similar for many games, so the delayed releases have nothing to do with R&D but EVERYTHING to do with payoffs.

I would be VERY surprised to find that this practice is legal, and that if it isn't, that Sony hasn't flexed any of their legal muscle to put an end to it.

But in any event, you have to blame the developers, too. Aren't Harmonix and EA in the business to make money off of their products and NOT via bribes from sleazy hardware corporations?

This whole concept is completely sick. Is it a requirement now for an MBA to remove their conscience and soul?

[Touwe]

developers dont have to release their games any where or anytime they dont want to so if someone pays them for exclusivity its their business to do so or not

you are absurd

[hmxhenry]

There are more than enough threads discussing the timed exclusive release of RB2, so I've closed this thread to cut down on repeats. Feel free to redirect discussion to one of the other many threads concerning RB2 or the launch on PS3.