: If exclusives are expressly stated as timed-exclusives then I am obviously
: made aware of that up front. Whereas if something says it's exclusive to a
: retailer, exclusive to people that make it to an event or exclusive to
: early-adopters then I expect it to be exclusive to those circumstances as
: a reward to the participants. It's not a detriment to those that chose not
: to participate, were unaware or unable to obtain the exclusive, but a
: reward to those that were.

: Same thing with LIMITED (def: restricted in size, amount, or extent; few,
: small, or short.) content. It's a reward for those who wish to obtain it,
: not a slap in the face to those who are unable to. If someone were to feel
: entitled to limited content, that would be pretty silly for them to wish
: for it if they didn't meet the criteria (early-adopters, additional costs,
: etc).

This.

Also, it becomes perception and reputation for the developer. Not only does it dilute the label "exclusive" if it can't be trusted to be exclusive in perpetuity, but if it changes, then who can trust "exclusive" in the future? If something is sold based on being "exclusive", people won't buy it if they think it'll be cheap/free in time. Plus the developer/publisher's word will lose its reputation; lose trust in the eyes of the community.

Keeping something exclusive exclusive is 1) good for the company 2) builds customer loyalty 3) shows integrity. Even if it upsets people who "want it anyway" down the line. Time-limited exclusive content is what it is. Name it that if that's what you intend it to be. If it's "exclusive" or "limited", keep it exclusive or limited. As customers, we choose our actions accordingly (based on trustworthy intel, like whether the word means what it means), and should accept the consequences of those, often time-sensitive, decisions. Our culture has become weak to that sort of attitude. But that's treading on a whole other topic... :P