Exclusives are not bad

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Deus Ex Human Revolution WiiU exclusive is being handled really badly in my opinion. I get that they want to sell more copies of the WiiU which is why it is an exclusive but it kinda spits in the face of everyone else that bought the game back in 2011.

If it was just the DLC being included that would be fine. It would just be a game of the year edition. From what I have heard they are also fixing the boss fights as well so players can use non-violent ways to take them down.

I think it is wrong they are making it an exclusive. They are denying new content to the people that bought the game in 2011. It's like a slap in the face. They are basically saying thanks for buying our game but to get the true Deus Ex experience you need to buy a WiiU and the WiiU copy of the game.

This is why I love CD Project Red. When The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition came out they didn't force people who bought the original on PC to buy the Enhanced Edition or restrict it only to consoles. They allowed them to upgrade free of charge to the Enhanced Edition. More developers and publishers need to be like CD Projekt Red.

There are two things that are important about exclusivity in gaming on the current market:

- A console without exclusives is not worth buying, period. Why would you bother buying a console if you already have another one who can already play all the games. A console needs exclusivity to show it's value: for the 3ds, it's pokemon or animal crossing, wii was the plethora of nintendo games. For the PC it can be some shooters or indie titles or RPGS. Xbox has halo or GoW, Ps3 has journey, folklore, etc etc....

The thing is, now you're thinking "Well i'm a consumer, then i want to play everygame on one console." Thing is, this market thrives on competition. Exclusivity boosts this competition. If there weren't any, one company could hold a major share of the whole videogame industry and could do pretty much whatever it wants with it, and that is a dangerous thing.

People buy consoles for games, particularily specific one. That's why things like the vita, even though I own one, aren't working, because they don't have exclusive titles, there's no point in owning one. If you don't have exclusives, you just kill the competitive market.

I don't mind exclusive titles. There are PS3 exclusives that I wish came to Xbox but it costs money to make the game cross platform. If the publisher doesn't want to fork out then that's their right.

Hehe, people just don't want to pay more money for one simple game.
I actually have a nice story about this. I few years ago i was still pretty young like 15 or so and i just loved the first Fable Game. In fact i was actually stupid enough in my love to buy a xbox 360 with fable 2 through ebay. Lucky me, the seller was pretty dumb, sorry for that but it's true, leaving his offer with just the words:
Functional Xbox 360 with Controller.
He alse wrote it in capitel letters, we don't want to look professional on ebay, do we?
So i get the game and console, play it like two games, get bored and frustrated, because the game is pretty damn bad, and want to sell the console again. I cleaned it completely, it was quite a bit dirty when i bought it, replaced a broken wire for 1 dollar, made a actually decent foto and wrote a description which in fact wasn't wrote completely in capital letters, making me not look like a moron.
I simply descriped how i bought the console, what i did to it and there you go i went out of it about 50 Euros plus.
The only teenager stupidity that actually got me some money.
Case and point:
You only buy multiple systems for one or two games, when you're either rich or stupid.

Sean951:
I wouldn't really compare Zelda to Halo. Halo was made by an outside company while Zelda is 100% owned by Nintendo.

So? Doesn't stop either of them porting it to whatever they could. Nintendo could make loads of money if they ported the 2D Zeldas to smartphones. They've already made a Pokemon app, so why not expand on that?

Halo as an IP is completely owned by Microsoft too now. Doesn't matter who developed it originally. In fact, it might very well be the case it was always MS's property.

And the fact they're owned and made by companies is exactly what I'm trying to get at. They're doing it to make themselves special and different when they could be making those games for all platforms, instead of just their own.

Well it's obvious why a company would do it and I don't resent them for doing so though I don't like it. Naturally most consumers don't want things to be exclusive to a platform they don't have. It gives us no benefit and unless its a console with a unique control scheme and a game tailor made to fit it I don't think there really is any reason why it needs to be exclusive (other than for the benefit of the company that makes the console).
I don't want nor am I going too buy multiple console for exclusives and it has nothing to do with hating a company. It would be easier and cheaper just to have one. Money does not grow on trees.

I might be good for the company but how is it good for me as a customer? I don't have to put up with this crap from my DVDs. Still they have region codes which are another thing that can piss right off, but I'm getting off topic. It would be better if consoles were like DVD players. You could still make different kinds of controllers for this console. Then it would be the games that matter and not the console.

Busard:
There are two things that are important about exclusivity in gaming on the current market:

- A console without exclusives is not worth buying, period. Why would you bother buying a console if you already have another one who can already play all the games. A console needs exclusivity to show it's value: for the 3ds, it's pokemon or animal crossing, wii was the plethora of nintendo games. For the PC it can be some shooters or indie titles or RPGS. Xbox has halo or GoW, Ps3 has journey, folklore, etc etc....

The thing is, now you're thinking "Well i'm a consumer, then i want to play everygame on one console." Thing is, this market thrives on competition. Exclusivity boosts this competition. If there weren't any, one company could hold a major share of the whole videogame industry and could do pretty much whatever it wants with it, and that is a dangerous thing.

People buy consoles for games, particularily specific one. That's why things like the vita, even though I own one, aren't working, because they don't have exclusive titles, there's no point in owning one. If you don't have exclusives, you just kill the competitive market.

The argument that exclusives are good for competition only holds if the one platform all the games work on is a closed platform that only one company makes. What if different manufacturers could make different designs of that open gaming platform? There would be basic standards to make sure that all designs can run all the games, but other than that, each design would have its own features that would appeal to a certain audience. That would create true competition, since a consumer won't be enslaved to a particular brand because his favorite franchise is exclusive to it. I know that it won't happen, but think of the possibilities!

Busard:
There are two things that are important about exclusivity in gaming on the current market:

- A console without exclusives is not worth buying, period. Why would you bother buying a console if you already have another one who can already play all the games. A console needs exclusivity to show it's value: for the 3ds, it's pokemon or animal crossing, wii was the plethora of nintendo games. For the PC it can be some shooters or indie titles or RPGS. Xbox has halo or GoW, Ps3 has journey, folklore, etc etc....

The thing is, now you're thinking "Well i'm a consumer, then i want to play everygame on one console." Thing is, this market thrives on competition. Exclusivity boosts this competition. If there weren't any, one company could hold a major share of the whole videogame industry and could do pretty much whatever it wants with it, and that is a dangerous thing.

People buy consoles for games, particularily specific one. That's why things like the vita, even though I own one, aren't working, because they don't have exclusive titles, there's no point in owning one. If you don't have exclusives, you just kill the competitive market.

But not having exclusives doesn't kill competition. Look at the PC market, loads of people make PC's, loads of people make PC components, way more than are currently in the console competition. And rather than buying based on the fact that a game you want appears on a Samsung laptop only, you instead have companies competing in value and quality of product. This is a much more consumer friendly option.

Busard:

The thing is, now you're thinking "Well i'm a consumer, then i want to play everygame on one console." Thing is, this market thrives on competition. Exclusivity boosts this competition. If there weren't any, one company could hold a major share of the whole videogame industry and could do pretty much whatever it wants with it, and that is a dangerous thing.

People buy consoles for games, particularily specific one. That's why things like the vita, even though I own one, aren't working, because they don't have exclusive titles, there's no point in owning one. If you don't have exclusives, you just kill the competitive market.

I think you have it backwards, aside from games where the console maker made the game, exclusives are anticompetitive in nature, its the console maker saying 'we want you to buy our console even though our hardware/price/whatever else sucks compared to the other guy"

Well most people have already pointed out that exclusives makes it harder for gamers to get the games they want. Halo and Metal Gear Solid are my two favorite video game franchises, but I admit having to purchase two consoles is a pain in the ass.

Now there is something that has been bugging a little bit. It makes sense that lst party company's would make their own games exclusive since it increases the sales of their own consoles. However, what incentive do third party companies have to makes their own games exclusive?

Generally speaking, having your game be available on multiple consoles increases the audience its available to and therefore increases sales. Now granted there are exceptions to this rule. For instance Bayonetta 2 is Wii U only, because all the funding for the game is from Nintendo since no other company was interested in it. Another example could be some lesser known JRPG titles. I assume that JRPGs are typically designed with the PS3 in mind since it is the dominate console in Japan by far. If a Japanese third party doesn't think their game will appeal at all to a western audience then why waste money and resources making the XB360 and PC versions?

Another possible scenario is that the third party is under contract to make an exclusive title. But why would a company enter an agreement that could net them less profit? Is the third party being offered a larger share of the profits that would somehow be greater than the profits from a multi-console release?

Anyone got any other ideas?

They're bad, they're certainly not good.

I don't own a PS3 or a Wii U, I'm not going to buy one for a single game. I don't have a grudge against nintendo or sony, I just don't have the money to justify such a purchase, and if I did, I'd prefer to spend it on my PC(or a better TV to use my Wii on), in order to improve the libraries I already own.

I'm not gonna buy those games, I would have if they were available for a platform I own, but now those are lost sales. The console manufacturer might sell more PS3's because of this deal, but the game developer and publisher have lost a whole bunch of sales for very little gain(if any).

So to sum up, it's bad for customers and gamers, it's bad for developers and publishers(and their investors). The only people it's good for are the manufacturers. So on average, most people are losing out because of exclusives.

Bat Vader:
More developers and publishers need to be like CD Projekt Red.

You got that right!

But in this day and age, with corporate apologists, brand religion and shitty PR tactics, not very likely.

Busard:

The thing is, now you're thinking "Well i'm a consumer, then i want to play everygame on one console." Thing is, this market thrives on competition. Exclusivity boosts this competition. If there weren't any, one company could hold a major share of the whole videogame industry and could do pretty much whatever it wants with it, and that is a dangerous thing.

How about competition in different fields... like better goddamned services and performance... reliability?

Nah, we need to just make shit exclusive so anyone who is even remotely interested in a game or franchise will not experience it because not everyone is willing to fork out cash for a different platform for every different game.

Anyway, exclusives are bad for us ... you know, who play games and not platforms... but who am I kidding.

Captcha: awesome dude!

No captcha... just... no.

Exclusives are bad.

There's absolutely zero advantage to them for a consumer. It's holding content ransom not for the price of a measly $10 DLC but for a piece of hardware, internally practically the same as your current piece of hardware, worth hundreds of bucks.

Because, the thing is, if it wasn't for this sheer insistence on exclusives by console manufacturers, as they well know that it's a cheap and easy way to compensate for the likely flaws in their product, there could have been an open universal games API.

Like OpenGL which works on your PC, your Mac, your tablet, your smartphone and even your freaking Browser (webGL, it's what Google used for that marble maze).

Imagine if that support was extended to the consoles, because the manufacturers opened up their system. And additional APIs were founded for input, sounds etc.

You could play PS3 games on your PC and enjoy better portability than ever, the input API could easily include automatic support for custom key-bindings, the OpenGL API would make it easier than ever to open up additional graphical options.

Several years later, as technology keeps increasing in power, you could start playing that same PS3 game on your tablet once it gets fast enough. A few years after that you can start playing it on your phone.

I never used to mind exclusives I had a dreamcast xbox and ps2 and plenty of games for each. Didn't even cost me that much to do so either but now days it's just too expensive to own all of them. I got the xbox 360 and the wii and love them both but the ps3 was just too much money for so few actually wanted titles.
Honestly it just leaves me a little sad that I won't get to play those games intill PC emulation catches up to the ps3.

Only exclusive I have ever bought a console for was Golden Eye and I had no console prior but it tipped my decision to N64. Otherwise, can't think anything that would make me buy a modern console, the Uncharted games just seem hyped beyond belief to me, Halo similarly seems bit meh, better shooters on PC, Dark Souls was intriguing but then they ported it without the shameful lag, er what else is there...

Also, this

Bat Vader:
They allowed them to upgrade free of charge to the Enhanced Edition. More developers and publishers need to be like CD Projekt Red.

x 10000

Umm...
What?

image

You kinda missed any and every point that could ever have existed. I have no idea how your stance even makes sense... It kinda works, but its coming from 2 mutually exclusive perspectives and... WTF.

Ok. Here's the thing. I don't own consoles. This is not because I hate Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo. I use Microsoft Windows as my OS, I own a Gameboy Advance, SP, DS, DS Lite but not getting 3DS. I love Planetside 2. Why don't I buy their consoles? THEY'RE 2-300 DOLLARS EACH. I've got that money, and I'll put it into my PC thanks. Much better investment. They want to sell me a console, it'd better be $50 or so at the most, and even then I won't buy it 'cause I don't have the space.

The next point that you've missed is rather more obvious; How in any way does this benefit the consumer? Why would only 1 console existing be a bad thing? It'd still have to compete with PC, which is getting cheaper by the day, so it wouldn't make it ridiculously expensive thanks to no competition, and you could play ALL THE CONSOLE GAMES on it. Preferably on PC too 'cause console exclusives are BS. For the consumer, its a better system. You buy one gaming device, spending 2-300 dollars, and then you buy any game you want for it, rather than buying 3 systems for a total of 6-900 dollars, just so you can play one or two interesting games on each. Saves the consumer money, which is good for the consumer.

Yeah, the companies get the short end of the stick. Big whoop. This is a capitalist society, and the only way that works is if people are intelligent with their money and don't just hand it over willy nilly. If a company sells a product that there is no demand for, they die. Companies exist to serve consumers, not the other way around. We shouldn't care what happens to a company's bottom line because we don't buy from them, we should care about what happens to ours if we do.

TL;DR: Who cares about the companies. I would like to keep my money AND be able to play any game thank you very much.

Yes, you are right. Exclusives are good for console producers. And no one else.

Developers miss out on potential markets.

Customers miss out on games and/or are forced to pay $600 for a $100 game, basically.

also

Zhukov:
If something has no reason to exist, why should a reason be created?

as for your "hate" argument... I like Sony. Especiallly SOE, which gave me games like DC Universe Online or more recently Planetside2 which is just plain awesome. However, $600 = PS3+Uncharted-s, or 12 brand new games on pC. Not to mention potential upgrades I could do to my PC with $600...

Most importantly - I DON'T HAVE $600! I have $50 for a game, and if I can't buy Uncharted, well, fuck you Uncharted, I will play Tomb Raider(2012).

King Aragorn:
A universal console would be bad, in all shapes and forms. Simply put, whoever the hell is producing it will be able to put out a bad/less than outstanding product and we can't say a thing, because it's the only option available.

how about a universal format that would run on all the consoles and you'd just pick yours based on individual merit? just like you do with PCs?

Joccaren:

image

permission to steal this picture..?

no exclusives are crap every game should at least be ported to PC everyone with half a brain can afford a basic PC
i went and bought a PS3 for heavy rain and Gran Turismo it was the most stupid thing i have done in the past 5 years i never use it i have played like 20 hours of each game and now the whole console sits on a shelf waiting for a DVD/Blu-Ray to play which is not often now i just pass on exclusives even though i have a PS3 to play them on

Nintendo have been relying on exclusives ever since 3rd party developers left to go onto PS1. If Nintendo didn't have exclusives at that point, they would have most certainly crashed, especially when releasing 2 consoles in a row (N64 & GCN) that both failed to outsell their competitors. Even when the Wii sold very well, 3rd party devs couldn't be asked because of the terrible graphics. But Nintendo still made exclusives like Mario Galaxy to stay alive. Nintendo have been on life support with their own exclusives for more than a decade now. (and handheld consoles selling very well, but that disproves my point, so i'll ignore it).

With the WiiU, Nintendo seems to be trying to get back what they had in the glory years of the SNES. They also appear to be letting much more 2nd party devs work on more games. But they should make a new IP, apparently Miyamoto is working on a new IP. Fingers crossed for more exclusives.

How can console exclusives not be bad? Ask Linus Torvalds or any other open source pioneer about this crap. They'll shout you a righteous answer from their very heart and send big publishers the fuck away.

Exclusives are merely one of the businesses tools. From a game developer's perspective, they do not serve as motivator - unless the money is very good (which probably is in most cases).

People who buy exclusive console games are idiots who doesn't understand how fucking basic economics work and have no idea they're breaking the industry.

/vomit

I am a PC gamers, if there's a choice between PC, 360 and PS3, I'd buy it on PC. However, I do own a PS3 because of their exclusive titles. So, I guess from a business point of view, it works. Got me buying a console.

Bat Vader:
The Deus Ex Human Revolution WiiU exclusive is being handled really badly in my opinion. I get that they want to sell more copies of the WiiU which is why it is an exclusive but it kinda spits in the face of everyone else that bought the game back in 2011.

Wait what? No. Are you saying that NO fans of the game plan on or have already bought the WiiU?

Forlong:

Bat Vader:
The Deus Ex Human Revolution WiiU exclusive is being handled really badly in my opinion. I get that they want to sell more copies of the WiiU which is why it is an exclusive but it kinda spits in the face of everyone else that bought the game back in 2011.

Wait what? No. Are you saying that NO fans of the game plan on or have already bought the WiiU?

I am sure some have but I have no intention of buying a WiiU or a game I already own just to play it again with different additions. I should not have to. If they respected their fans they would release it as DLC. They would make more money that way too.

Ad I said before in my original post more developers and publishers need to be like CD Projekt Red. They could have very well made The Witcher 2: Extended Edition a consoles exclusive but they didn't. They let PC gamers who bought the game back in 2011 have a free upgrade to the extended edition. Heck, they even let people that provided their serial key get a free copy of the extended edition as a back up.

That is developer that respects their fans and the customer. More developers and publishers need to be like them.

Johny_X2:
permission to steal this picture..?

Its stolen off Tumbler anyway so go for it =P
Been waiting for an opportunity to use it for a while. Now I need to sort through my 300 favourite pages or so and find that other picture I wanted to use sometime and a reason to use it...

Are they bad for players?
Yeah, I'd say that you could argue that they are.
If a game (or a few) you want comes out for a system you don't have, you're going to have to know someone who has it or get one of your own.

Are they bad for business?
Nope, quite good actually. They inspire competition and give purchase incentive.
It's things like them and quality service provision that make the gears of capitalism turn.

If I dare say so myself, it's just about that simple.
Unless you want a single console that will play every game. One day, perhaps.
Or maybe PC will take over. We'll see!

Sorry... I just can't defend exclusives. To me, it seems like a greedy tactic.

For example: Microsoft and the Grand Theft Auto IV's DLC. That should have - in my opinion - been released for both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 at the same time. Unfortunately, we live in a society which feeds off of selfishness. So, Microsoft got the DLC as a 360-only exclusive. Yes, this lasted only a while; the PS3 finally got the DLC. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it still wasn't right.

I can do without exclusives.

Joccaren:

The next point that you've missed is rather more obvious; How in any way does this benefit the consumer? Why would only 1 console existing be a bad thing? It'd still have to compete with PC, which is getting cheaper by the day, so it wouldn't make it ridiculously expensive thanks to no competition, and you could play ALL THE CONSOLE GAMES on it. Preferably on PC too 'cause console exclusives are BS. For the consumer, its a better system. You buy one gaming device, spending 2-300 dollars, and then you buy any game you want for it, rather than buying 3 systems for a total of 6-900 dollars, just so you can play one or two interesting games on each. Saves the consumer money, which is good for the consumer.

It benefits consumers immensely, since the platform will pour out excessive resources to create massive titles that would otherwise be too expensive to generate enough revenue through game sales alone. It gives developers freedom to create something unique exclusive to the brand that cannot or would not have been made otherwise.

The thing I can't stand is that any time someone raises a fuss about things like this, they get shot down in defense of the companies. "Oh, you don't like that Journey is Playstation exclusive? Then buy the console you cheap prick!" As in, I'm not allowed to complain, because that's my lot and I should just go with it?

No, I really don't think I will. Exclusives do NOTHING for consumers, especially ones on a budget. They only perpetuate antiquated ideas of console superiority and force gamers to choose between different companies. Sony wants to make sure you bring them all your business, so they make their console attractive by making it "exclusive".

I'd just like to point out that most, if not all bad business practices being perpetuated by triple A publishers today are recycled business models from a bygone era. For instance, the old-school console wars. Nothing about that makes sense in today's market, so the only reason for them to keep doing it is because they've always done it that way. (Do I sound Sterling yet?)

I digress; the only thing that will separate hardware in this next generation will be a name brand.

Imagine if certain dvds could only be played by certain brands of dvd players. Doesn't make much sense, does it? So why do we insist on keeping our videogames so divided? I bet the market would explode if someone made a universal, hassle-free system. Suddenly one of the biggest alienating factors for new customers would be removed, and more people would start buying videogames. Add in a dash of price reduction (especially for online downloads. Seriously, that's just stupid, paying the same $60 for a game that I won't even have a physical copy of.) and stop screwing around with "anti piracy measures" and you'll have yourself a winner.

chikusho:
It benefits consumers immensely, since the platform will pour out excessive resources to create massive titles that would otherwise be too expensive to generate enough revenue through game sales alone. It gives developers freedom to create something unique exclusive to the brand that cannot or would not have been made otherwise.

You know I have never seen this happen.
Ever.

I'm guessing that's largely because a game will be approved [By the publisher], funded, and then the publisher will go to MS or Sony to ask if they want to pay for it to be exclusive then keep that profit, rather than asking beforehand and making it a joint publishing venture where most of the money goes into the game.

And really, if you need that much money for your game you're doing something wrong. You've got a dev team of 800, or a development schedule of a decade. A publisher can pump a LOT of money into the development of a title, getting money from console manufacturers just increases their profit margin rather than benefit the game.

Easton Dark:
As a consumer, it'd be in your and every other consumer's best interests if exclusives did not exist.

Not only would there be more options, you wouldn't have to buy a console or use a download service you don't want to play a game you do, and the game would actually get more sales if it was not exclusive.

So yes they're bad, for us, not for console companies.

Desert Punk:
I tend to be against exclusivity, except for things that rather NEED a piece of hardware to work, like RTS games on the PC, or Eye of Judgment for the PS3.

For example, there is no god damn reason why those retards at rockstar should have made Red Dead Redemption for consoles and not the PC.

I think all games should work on all systems, like DvDs and Blurays. Hell, would you sit and twiddle your thumbs if DvD X only worked in a Sony machine and not a Panasonic machine? I dont think so. Let each individual console stand on its own merit, not the merit of the games it can artificially lock into its hardware.

One universal console = watered down cheapened product. Why spend more on making a game when your consumers have no other options? This is called a monopoly, and it is illegal for a reason.

Joccaren:

You know I have never seen this happen.
Ever.

I'm guessing that's largely because a game will be approved [By the publisher], funded, and then the publisher will go to MS or Sony to ask if they want to pay for it to be exclusive then keep that profit, rather than asking beforehand and making it a joint publishing venture where most of the money goes into the game.

And really, if you need that much money for your game you're doing something wrong. You've got a dev team of 800, or a development schedule of a decade. A publisher can pump a LOT of money into the development of a title, getting money from console manufacturers just increases their profit margin rather than benefit the game.

Unless, you know, when Sony or Microsoft _IS_ the publisher of the exclusive title, and Sony or Microsoft _OWNS_ the studio creating the game. Which also encourages cooperation and sharing within the studios that operate under the same banner, increasing the potential any given game can achieve.
The point isn't whether or not the game makes back the budget, but that it increases the attractiveness of the device.

Without exclusive platforms, there would be very little incentive to innovate, take risks or trying something new to differentiate yourself from the competition. And when risks are taken outside of that, it will most likely be on a much smaller scale with less market implementation.

A lot of this thread is a bunch of "Why don't they make breaking the law illegal?" comments. In a perfect world, where everyone gets along fine and no one has any problems ever, the idea of eliminating competition and hoping that the game makers won't abuse the living hell out of that would be nice.

Too bad we don't live in that world.

Someone suggested a universal media system, with each company making a different way to use the media system.

What if Company A wants to market to family audiences with a motion control system? That would mean they would give more to support games that use that system.

Company B wants the teenage hardcore gamer crowd, and a parade of ultra violent shooters and fighting games. They want to market towards that.

Now Company B and Company A have a huge problem, since they now have exclusive goals. Company A doesn't want to associated with ultra violent games, Company B doesn't want to use motion controls.

All that happens now is a new brand of exclusive war, just with PC Gamers able to play whatever they want. Which is exactly why this site is in favor of it.

Forlong:
I noticed that a lot of people seem to despise exclusive titles.

"Why does Journey have to be only for the PS3!"
"Why is the special edition of Dues Ex going to be a WiiU exclusive?"

Or, to put it more bluntly:
"HOW DARE THEY GIVE ME A REASON TO BUY THAT CONSOLE!"

That, I assume, is the problem. People don't want to invest in a console because they hate Nintendo or Sony, thus are annoyed by exclusives. This I find rather vexing. The reason I didn't buy the PS3 was because of no outstanding exclusives*, not because of seeded hatred for Sony. I kept asking what the point was in the PS3 existing, if it was just the Xbox 360 with slightly more power. Answer: there was none. It was supposed to be a game console, so exclusive games are the most important incentive to buy it.

Same thing with the WiiU. I haven't bought it yet because not enough games I'm interested in are out for it. Don't be vexed because Nintendo managed to score some actual good games. Why should that bother you?

I also noticed that Nintendo and Sony are the only targets I've seen of this. Why not Microsoft? They suck! Definitely the worst console provider out of the three. I felt bad when Sony lost exclusives, not so much when it happened to Microsoft.

*When the PS3 got good exclusives, I had financial problems that delayed my purchase.

Do you even understand that all exclusives do is creation of artificial market which could not exist at all and whole existence of which harms competitiveness of the industry as a whole? Games for XBOX compete with each other, but not with PS3 games or PC games. There is a minority that will actually get both consoles AND PC, but most people have one console or a PC (like your humble servant). Thus there are in fact 3 markets instead of one. This causes the quality of products to fall down and just makes this soap bubble to exist for a longer period of time. A form of parasitism to continue existence of UNNECESSARY in modern world platforms, nothing more.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked