Because they're doing EXACTLY what Sony, Nintendo and to a lesser extent MS have been doing. Securing exclusivity aka 'creating value' for their platform and forgoing competition. Sony buys out already formed studios, creates them and/or funds projects for exclusivity.
Not even close to being the same. Epic locks in-development games for limited time exclusivity. It doesn't fund these games, nor does it have a stake in them. The games would've seen the light of day regardless of Epic lending the studio some money. Epic pays to limit their availability for a certain period, which is a bad practice.
Sony has indeed done what Epic is doing for some 3rd-party games this gen (like Nioh, for example, which released later on PC), as has MS, but the practice isn't common nowadays.
Now, as far as Sony/Nintendo's first-party is concerned, that is their own property. Once a studio is formed/bought, it is a part of Sony/Nintendo. The IPs are their own property. This is a valid and highly appreciated practice. It creates value for their platform without affecting games that were announced for release on multiple platforms. Even fully funding 3rd-party games that never would've otherwise happened (e.g. Bayonetta 2 and 3) is great.
Epic is buying out studios/publishers for year long exclusivity deals.
lol buying out means gaining a controllable stake in a company. Epic isn't doing so here. I think we'll need to get some of your definitions in order :hah:
Microsoft did this with Rise of The Tomb Raider.
The only correct example in your post. Microsoft money-hatted a 3rd-party game that was already in development and scheduled to release on the PS4 alongside the Xbox One and PC versions. Moreover, MS doesn't own the IP.
Difference is, first party studios have been money-hatted for life by Sony.
lol this is not at all what money-hat means. Sony/Nintendo can't money-hat what they own. These studios are on their payroll.
Though I'm sure Fortnite money does give Epic the power to outright buy studios and some studios might even see value in that if the funding is generous.
If Epic wishes to acquire a studio, and the latter agrees, it then belongs to the former. There is no question of "funding" from there onward.
But I think it makes little sense for Epic to form new studios for a digital distribution platform.
- Origin exclusively sells EA's games.
- Battle.net exclusively sells Activision Blizzard's games.
- Steam exclusively sells Valve's games.
- Bethesda is looking to exclusively sell their games on their store.
- Oculus funds and sells exclusive VR titles on their store.
- Stadia will have jaded first-party games.
These are all valid practices, as the games are produced by the store owners.
This is the same as what Sony and Nintendo are doing.
Why do you think it makes little sense for Epic to do the same? They're already doing it with Fortnite, and it has worked pretty well for them.
Essentially Epic is bringing the same "console wars" definition of competition to the PC.
I was pointing towards the first-party output from Sony/Nintendo, not the console wars that have been fought over getting exclusive rights over 3rd-party titles. 3rd-party exclusivity is almost non-existent these days anyway.