This exclusivity thing is starting to annoy me

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'm watching some E3 footage and almost all of it is 'hey our console is so brilliant because it's amazing and we have stuff that no-one else has.' Seriously, they can hardly get through one presentation without saying 'you'll have it first on our console' like that makes the game better somehow. Are we really so juvenile that playing a game a couple of days before people with other consoles can is a major selling point?

... ... ...

How long have you followed even slightly anything involving consoles? Why does this jump out at you exactly?

I know they've been doing the exclusivity thing since... always, but it seems like it's getting worse. Maybe it's because they're doing it so blatantly at E3, maybe it just sticks out because there's no reason for exclusivity to exist anymore. There's hardly any reason for consoles to exist anymore. Don't take this as an anti-console rant though. I'm seriously considering getting a console, but this exclusivity BS is really off-putting.

Floppertje:
I know they've been doing the exclusivity thing since... always, but it seems like it's getting worse. Maybe it's because they're doing it so blatantly at E3, maybe it just sticks out because there's no reason for exclusivity to exist anymore. There's hardly any reason for consoles to exist anymore. Don't take this as an anti-console rant though. I'm seriously considering getting a console, but this exclusivity BS is really off-putting.

Money, money, money is a fine enough reason for them to exist. As you say they have done it since forever and you're talking like it's now really hit some new plateau...which is frankly ridiculous considering the jackhammering on timed DLC that has already gone on.

Don't take it as anti-console yet there is hardly any reason for them to exist anymore? Yeah you're not selling me your honestly too well.
Sounds like one of those "I'm not racist, but..." lines people are so fond of mocking.

Just because something has no reason for existing doesn't mean I'm bothered by the fact it exists. Yeah, consoles are pretty much obsolete now because pc's can do pretty much anything consoles do better. But people are still buying consoles, from which I conclude people still WANT consoles, so... yeah. That does not bother me, people can have fun in whatever way they like. What bothers me is the publisher attitude around the whole thing.

I know it's not a new thing, it's probably not even worse now than it was, say, half a year ago, but it just jumped out at me because of the E3 presentations. I know it's about money. It's always about money.

I'm still wondering if I should get one... on the one hand I'm no fan of the exclusivity, and by getting a console I would be supporting that business model. On the other hand, they do have some pretty sweet looking games...

Floppertje:
Just because something has no reason for existing doesn't mean I'm bothered by the fact it exists. Yeah, consoles are pretty much obsolete now because pc's can do pretty much anything consoles do better. But people are still buying consoles, from which I conclude people still WANT consoles, so... yeah. That does not bother me, people can have fun in whatever way they like. What bothers me is the publisher attitude around the whole thing.

I know it's not a new thing, it's probably not even worse now than it was, say, half a year ago, but it just jumped out at me because of the E3 presentations. I know it's about money. It's always about money.

I'm still wondering if I should get one... on the one hand I'm no fan of the exclusivity, and by getting a console I would be supporting that business model. On the other hand, they do have some pretty sweet looking games...

PCs have always ultimately rendered a console obsolete outside the fact they didn't have console exclusives...until at least PCs became powerful enough to pirate them by means of emulation (though PS3 games seem like they'll buck that trend for some time).

If you know its all about money, than you should know this isn't in anyway noteworthy. Were this thread made 10 years...alright, but today?

If you don't support exclusivity...or more to the point you don't understand it, or do but outright reject it out your hate of companies making money, and promoting their product...than just don't get the product. Plenty of games on PC, so unless you're a fan of the genres that don't get that much love on PC than you can safely just fulfill yourself with them.

Floppertje:
I know they've been doing the exclusivity thing since... always, but it seems like it's getting worse. Maybe it's because they're doing it so blatantly at E3, maybe it just sticks out because there's no reason for exclusivity to exist anymore. There's hardly any reason for consoles to exist anymore. Don't take this as an anti-console rant though. I'm seriously considering getting a console, but this exclusivity BS is really off-putting.

I wouldn't say it's getting worse, it's just that until things like E3 and PAX and such the only place you saw game advertisements was game stores, game magazines, and sometimes TV ads. Now that games have grown so much, their marketing has as well.

Honestly, I think now that PCs and consoles are now on the same playing field performance-wise (or at least CAN be roughly on the same playing field without too much of a performance difference), we're seeing less exclusivity than ever. The games that don't have exclusive deals end up getting ported to PC more often than not, if not other consoles themselves eventually. Most of the games that are exclusive to consoles are the ones that have always been exclusive to consoles in the first place, or if it happens to be on one of the newer Nintendo consoles they don't get ported just because no other console can offer the same experience (like the 3DS).

I have the pretty much the same feelings regarding this subject.

I am not a person that cares for exclusivity and absolutely no game they show will force me to buy a console. So it's either on PC as well or they can simply fo.

I hate the times we are living in where the games industry cares more about exclusivity than it's consumers.

Lilani:

Floppertje:
I know they've been doing the exclusivity thing since... always, but it seems like it's getting worse. Maybe it's because they're doing it so blatantly at E3, maybe it just sticks out because there's no reason for exclusivity to exist anymore. There's hardly any reason for consoles to exist anymore. Don't take this as an anti-console rant though. I'm seriously considering getting a console, but this exclusivity BS is really off-putting.

I wouldn't say it's getting worse, it's just that until things like E3 and PAX and such the only place you saw game advertisements was game stores, game magazines, and sometimes TV ads. Now that games have grown so much, their marketing has as well.

Honestly, I think now that PCs and consoles are now on the same playing field performance-wise (or at least CAN be roughly on the same playing field without too much of a performance difference), we're seeing less exclusivity than ever. The games that don't have exclusive deals end up getting ported to PC more often than not, if not other consoles themselves eventually. Most of the games that are exclusive to consoles are the ones that have always been exclusive to consoles in the first place, or if it happens to be on one of the newer Nintendo consoles they don't get ported just because no other console can offer the same experience (like the 3DS).

I suppose you're right. It just feels a bit more greedy now that there's no more need for exclusives, at least between xbox one, ps4 and pc. though I guess things like strategy games will be exclusive to pc because of controller issues (though with m&k support for consoles it doesn't have to be) and Nintendo has always been very exclusive with it's property. It's just that most of their properties really don't interest me at all. exclusivity on handheld is something completely different again, because they're so different from consoles and pc's that direct ports don't even work.

What I'm wondering is... how does this exclusivity make sense from a publisher/developer point of view? I can see how Sony and Microsoft are all over it, but wouldn't developing for more consoles mean more copies shipped?

another random thought: wouldn't it be cool if they released those motion control things as USB pc-packs or something? so you could just choose your input method and use MC on your pc? modders would have a ball with that.

Exclusives are the only things consoles have left. Of course they're going to brag and showcase them off as a selling point, because that's all they have at this point.

There's a good chance the titles will end up multiplat anyways, if the Dead Rising 3 PC port, and Titanfall 2 coming to PS4 are any indications. There aren't enough next gen consoles sold to justify exclusives on one console.

Or just wait a decade for emulation.

Whitbane:
There's a good chance the titles will end up multiplat anyways, if the Dead Rising 3 PC port, and Titanfall 2 coming to PS4 are any indications. There aren't enough next gen consoles sold to justify exclusives on one console.

Or just wait a decade for emulation.

Third party exclusives that are either timed, or have some other conditions in place to stack the agreement in the favour of the third party. Simply put, it doesn't prove anything and plenty of games can sell fine on a single platform.

That is advocating piracy right there. Don't buy games now, wait a decade and than pirate them all.

Floppertje:

I suppose you're right. It just feels a bit more greedy now that there's no more need for exclusives, at least between xbox one, ps4 and pc. though I guess things like strategy games will be exclusive to pc because of controller issues (though with m&k support for consoles it doesn't have to be) and Nintendo has always been very exclusive with it's property. It's just that most of their properties really don't interest me at all. exclusivity on handheld is something completely different again, because they're so different from consoles and pc's that direct ports don't even work.

What I'm wondering is... how does this exclusivity make sense from a publisher/developer point of view? I can see how Sony and Microsoft are all over it, but wouldn't developing for more consoles mean more copies shipped?

Exclusivity used to be a big thing because Nintendo, and later Sony were complete juggernauts you simply couldn't cross if you wanted to make the serious money. As that is no longer the case third party exclusives have been reduced in number, but Nintendo and Sony still enjoy many third party exclusives from Japan that they don't have to cut any deals on (plus their own personally owned properties).

These days they are either getting something out of it, or in the case of many Japanese devs its simply not worth the hassle, and time to get it on another platform. A lot of them are niche makers that attempt to pump out yearly releases, and with a small team they aren't pumping them out for every platform out there.
Exclusivity isn't based solely on "evil" reasons like people like to bang on about, there are also logical reasons for why it happens.

Not a big fan of it either.

I understand why they do it though and I can't really blame them for it. After all, I decided to buy a PS3 over a 360 purely because of some exclusive games it had available on it. So I'm basically living proof as to why console exclusives work for the console producer.

I don't care in the slightest about timed releases though. I can wait a month or two or however long. And I've never seen an exclusive DLC worth worrying about.

if consoles didn't have exclusives the only reason to buy one over building a gaming pc would be convenience, and there'd be absolutely no reason pick one console over the other except maybe some delusional sense of brand loyalty

It's not always evil, but when console manufacturers proudly declare that they'll have it first, like they're giving you a present, it just pisses me off. I don't even care if I have to wait longer (I pledged for star citizen, I can be patient) but it seems so anti-consumer when they're making special deals to get it for their own system first. It's a little insulting that the only way we could enjoy it, is if we got it before anyone else. On reflection it also shows lack of faith in your own system. Can't you sell it on its own merits?

Well look at it this way, Game development, licensing and all that jazz, cost money, a lot of money. When a company "buys" an exclusive title, sometimes it's it's case with bayonetta where the game would never had been made unless nintendo gave them the money for it for their console only. OR sometimes with sunset overdrive the devs had the "audacity" to want to keep their IP

At that point the company invested in the product so they are "advertising their investment" to make their money back off it.

Floppertje:
Are we really so juvenile that playing a game a couple of days before people with other consoles can is a major selling point?

Considering how the majority of people don't care about the actual technical differences between the consoles most people pick due to minor differences like exclusives, release dates, etc.

Of course it's incredibly obnoxious and anti-consumer, but that's business unfortunately. It's also why I'm going PC-only this gen.

Ya cause it's just consoles that are very anti-consumer. Which brand of video card you getting?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/nvidia-vs-amd-watchdogs/

Floppertje:
It's not always evil, but when console manufacturers proudly declare that they'll have it first, like they're giving you a present, it just pisses me off. I don't even care if I have to wait longer (I pledged for star citizen, I can be patient) but it seems so anti-consumer when they're making special deals to get it for their own system first. It's a little insulting that the only way we could enjoy it, is if we got it before anyone else. On reflection it also shows lack of faith in your own system. Can't you sell it on its own merits?

I'm with this guy on this exclusivity thing.
I understand the business reason for Sony, MS, or Nintendo to have exclusives but they do sell it to gamers like it's some sort of personal benefit to them that fewer people will be able to play that game. The thing that really saddens me is how many gamers fall for this... or maybe schadenfreude is their only pathos and they revel in it, which is just as sad.

DarkhoIlow:

I hate the times we are living in where the games industry cares more about exclusivity than it's consumers.

Yeah, why can't we go back to the good old days when it wasn't all about exclusivity.

OT:
I really can't get worked up about exclusivity. Is it my preference? No, there are plenty of times I see a game on a console I don't have and just sigh by how I'm missing it. And trust me, there were a lot of games during the 7th generation that I wanted but couldn't play because they were PS3 exclusive, and some games had PS3 exclusive content that could negatively affect the experience on Xbox 360 if you didn't buy the content as DLC.[1]

However, as far as "anti-consumer practices" (however vague that term is) go, exclusivity is incredibly mild. It doesn't negatively affect game quality, like some practices can do, and if it has any affect on quality whatsoever, I would expect it to have a positive affect due to spending fewer resources on porting and in ensuring your system seller doesn't turn out to be a flop that does more to harm the system than sell it. I'm not saying that it will have a positive affect, but it seems more likely than having a negative effect. Also, it doesn't seek to siphon money from consumers in any malicious way. It basically is just a way to encourage consumers to spend money on their product versus a competitor, which, as far as business practices are concerned, is the equivalent of a grocery store trying to get you through their door as opposed to their competitor's door.

[1] In L.A. Noire's case, conversations would reference events that were only in DLC on the 360 version but came with the game on PS3.

MysticSlayer:

DarkhoIlow:

I hate the times we are living in where the games industry cares more about exclusivity than it's consumers.

Yeah, why can't we go back to the good old days when it wasn't all about exclusivity.

OT:
I really can't get worked up about exclusivity. Is it my preference? No, there are plenty of times I see a game on a console I don't have and just sigh by how I'm missing it. And trust me, there were a lot of games during the 7th generation that I wanted but couldn't play because they were PS3 exclusive, and some games had PS3 exclusive content that could negatively affect the experience on Xbox 360 if you didn't buy the content as DLC.[1]

However, as far as "anti-consumer practices" (however vague that term is) go, exclusivity is incredibly mild. It doesn't negatively affect game quality, like some practices can do, and if it has any affect on quality whatsoever, I would expect it to have a positive affect due to spending fewer resources on porting and in ensuring your system seller doesn't turn out to be a flop that does more to harm the system than sell it. I'm not saying that it will have a positive affect, but it seems more likely than having a negative effect. Also, it doesn't seek to siphon money from consumers in any malicious way. It basically is just a way to encourage consumers to spend money on their product versus a competitor, which, as far as business practices are concerned, is the equivalent of a grocery store trying to get you through their door as opposed to their competitor's door.

The difference is that you can get the exact same (or at least exteremely similar) fruit at both stores. when you buy a dvd player from philips instead of form sony, it still plays the same dvd's. Games are the only industry where the system you buy now determines the content you get later. and that includes stuff that hasn't been announced yet, isn't that just a little weird?

[1] In L.A. Noire's case, conversations would reference events that were only in DLC on the 360 version but came with the game on PS3.

Well, you can't really blame companies for trying to differentiate their products from the competition's. I like choosing one thing over another because reasons. However, I get that it can get annoying when an exclusive is announced for another console other than yours and you'd be interested in playiing it. It just hasn't happened to me that often. Most times it involves a game suddenly being postponed "for next gen". That's what annoys me the most rather than exclusivity.

It annoys me too. I think it annoys a lot of people... we have to buy all the consoles if we want to play all the games, but who has the money to do that? Well, I guess a lot of people do, but I don't, dangit!

A-A console, having... Exclusive games? That serve as killer apps, bolster game lineups and differentiate the consoles from each other? Shock. Horror. Stop the presses.

In all seriousness, how is an exclusive a bad thing? It's hardly "anti-consumer" (A phrase thrown about more and more I think) It encourages companies to try to secure the best games for their consoles and differentiates the consoles from each other. After Microsoft's E3 Conference (A massive comeback, by the way) Xbox One suddenly looks more appealing thanks to the presence of games like Forza Horizon 2, the new Halo collection, and Sunset Overdrive. You can't buy those games on PS4. I have no current-gen console, and am unsure about getting one, but whereas before PS4 was the preferred choice, I'm not so certain anymore. I'm not swung, by any stretch, but I'm intrigued. And you shouldn't complain about your choice of console restricting your choice of games, I mean, buyer beware. Each company is different. You wouldn't buy a Wii U and then complain that the library is the likes of Donkey Kong and Mario, and that your favourite generic shooter isn't getting the attention on that console. Healthy competition in the market is keeping console gaming going, even if it's on shaky ground at the minute.

(Oh, and for any members of the master race reading: I am aware of the fact that PCs exist. I would also like to point out that I do not value your input in my personal opinions.)

Phrozenflame500:

Floppertje:
Are we really so juvenile that playing a game a couple of days before people with other consoles can is a major selling point?

Considering how the majority of people don't care about the actual technical differences between the consoles most people pick due to minor differences like exclusives, release dates, etc.

Of course it's incredibly obnoxious and anti-consumer, but that's business unfortunately. It's also why I'm going PC-only this gen.

Please tell me you have the same feelings about PC exclusives. Or, do you have no problem when PC exclusives pull the exact same stunts? I will say his if you have no problem with the PC doing that, then you are a hypocrite.

Floppertje:

The difference is that you can get the exact same (or at least exteremely similar) fruit at both stores. when you buy a dvd player from philips instead of form sony, it still plays the same dvd's. Games are the only industry where the system you buy now determines the content you get later. and that includes stuff that hasn't been announced yet, isn't that just a little weird?

For starters, fruit is a horrible way to look at the store comparison, though I will admit I sort of limited it with talking specifically about grocery stores when I shouldn't have. In general, though, stores don't sell themselves just on existing. They generally try to offer something their competitors don't. This can be better service, higher quality goods, or lower prices. The clothing selection can offer a slightly different style selection. The computers, TVs, general electronics, and accessories available to consumers can change among stores. If you want a really extreme example, choosing a phone carrier can change what phones are available for purchase, and wanting to switch carriers in a couple years for a different phone can come with certain fees depending on the contract and who the carriers involved are. Even things such as sales, coupons, and deals are designed to convince you to choose one store over another. Overall, one way to get people to choose your product or service over another is by offering things your competitors don't.

But as for game consoles specifically, no, I don't find it weird the way they operate. Like all other companies, they are attempting to offer something that a competitor doesn't, and considering they aren't about to just let their competitor have a clear hardware advantage, there isn't a whole lot of other area to go than by securing exclusives. You could say to use a different control scheme, but then you have to deal with how gamers have consistently complained when Nintendo and Microsoft have tried to push alternative control schemes. You could say to add new features, but how do you add new features a competitor can't just get itself? Furthermore, part of the complaints about Xbox One, and to a lesser extent Playstation 4, was how they were too focused on offering features outside of games. The only weird thing is the fact that these companies can't do anything to help differentiate their product, which is something every company does, without gamers complaining about how it is "anti-consumer" or how it is pointless or just downright damaging.

To me, the only thing that could justify anger against exclusives is if Sony and Microsoft hindered consumers from making informed decisions, and as of right now, they don't do that. Yes, exclusives can come a few years down the line, but neither Sony nor Microsoft attempt to hide that fact, and it is a well-known risk in purchasing one console over another. However, it isn't like they stop making their consoles available prematurely (ex. they end selling consoles three years into a seven year cycle) and don't give you the option to wait for a few more years if that's a risk you feel like minimizing. At the same time, they often make demos of their products available at different stores and don't go into shady dealings to prevent their competitor from showcasing their own demos. This at least allows you to try out the consoles if you don't have friends to rely on for that. They also make you well aware of what is available on their console without attempting to prevent their competitor from showing what is on their console. Really, they give gamers the freedom to research and make as informed a decision as they are comfortable with making, no matter how long it takes to make that decision, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the most we should expect from a company trying to sell a product.

MysticSlayer:

For starters, fruit is a horrible way to look at the store comparison, though I will admit I sort of limited it with talking specifically about grocery stores when I shouldn't have. In general, though, stores don't sell themselves just on existing. They generally try to offer something their competitors don't. This can be better service, higher quality goods, or lower prices. The clothing selection can offer a slightly different style selection. The computers, TVs, general electronics, and accessories available to consumers can change among stores. If you want a really extreme example, choosing a phone carrier can change what phones are available for purchase, and wanting to switch carriers in a couple years for a different phone can come with certain fees depending on the contract and who the carriers involved are. Even things such as sales, coupons, and deals are designed to convince you to choose one store over another. Overall, one way to get people to choose your product or service over another is by offering things your competitors don't.

But as for game consoles specifically, no, I don't find it weird the way they operate. Like all other companies, they are attempting to offer something that a competitor doesn't, and considering they aren't about to just let their competitor have a clear hardware advantage, there isn't a whole lot of other area to go than by securing exclusives. You could say to use a different control scheme, but then you have to deal with how gamers have consistently complained when Nintendo and Microsoft have tried to push alternative control schemes. You could say to add new features, but how do you add new features a competitor can't just get itself? Furthermore, part of the complaints about Xbox One, and to a lesser extent Playstation 4, was how they were too focused on offering features outside of games. The only weird thing is the fact that these companies can't do anything to help differentiate their product, which is something every company does, without gamers complaining about how it is "anti-consumer" or how it is pointless or just downright damaging.

To me, the only thing that could justify anger against exclusives is if Sony and Microsoft hindered consumers from making informed decisions, and as of right now, they don't do that. Yes, exclusives can come a few years down the line, but neither Sony nor Microsoft attempt to hide that fact, and it is a well-known risk in purchasing one console over another. However, it isn't like they stop making their consoles available prematurely (ex. they end selling consoles three years into a seven year cycle) and don't give you the option to wait for a few more years if that's a risk you feel like minimizing. At the same time, they often make demos of their products available at different stores and don't go into shady dealings to prevent their competitor from showcasing their own demos. This at least allows you to try out the consoles if you don't have friends to rely on for that. They also make you well aware of what is available on their console without attempting to prevent their competitor from showing what is on their console. Really, they give gamers the freedom to research and make as informed a decision as they are comfortable with making, no matter how long it takes to make that decision, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the most we should expect from a company trying to sell a product.

Hey, you were the one who started with the grocery stores ;)
It's true, fruit is a bad comparison. phones are a bad comparison too, because the phone you choose hardly determines what you can do with it there are no major telephone features that one brand has that another doesn't. videogames ARE the extreme example.
The problem isn't that they offer things their competitors don't, it's that they ensure their competitors CAN'T offer those things. Imagine if apple made the facebook app exclusive to the iphone. I think the problem is that the same people who sell us the consoles sell these exclusives. Wouldn't it be better for the consumer, from a comptetition standpoint, to allow third-party machines to run playstation and xbox games? That's how it works for film, I don't see why it wouldn't work for games.

Floppertje:
I know they've been doing the exclusivity thing since... always, but it seems like it's getting worse.

How is it getting worse? If anything it was worse during the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox gen.

MysticSlayer:

Floppertje:

The difference is that you can get the exact same (or at least exteremely similar) fruit at both stores. when you buy a dvd player from philips instead of form sony, it still plays the same dvd's. Games are the only industry where the system you buy now determines the content you get later. and that includes stuff that hasn't been announced yet, isn't that just a little weird?

If you want a really extreme example, choosing a phone carrier can change what phones are available for purchase, and wanting to switch carriers in a couple years for a different phone can come with certain fees depending on the contract and who the carriers involved are. Even things such as sales, coupons, and deals are designed to convince you to choose one store over another. Overall, one way to get people to choose your product or service over another is by offering things your competitors don't.

Phone carriers is an excellent example. My wife and I use T-Mobile and our phones are getting a bit old and we will need to upgrade soon. For work, I received a Droid Mini through Verizon and like it very much. It's fast, responsive, and just works well. I'd love to be able to pick one up as my new personal phone...but to do that, I'd need to switch to Verizon. The Droid is a cell phone exclusive to Verizon. So consoles are hardly the only place exclusivity exists.

Is having games being exclusive to one console annoying? Yes. But overall I'm okay with it. I know that no matter my platform of choice, I'm going to have great games to play. I may miss some, but I'll have plenty of others that I can enjoy. I don't really have the time to play every single game that interests me these days anyway, so having some be exclusive to a console I don't own just allows me to focus more on the games I CAN play.

I don't think it's anti-consumer at all. Sure, it is more to the companies' benefit than the consumers, but it does not lessen the quality of the product, which in my mind WOULD be anti-consumer. Hell, sometimes companies trying to release a game for all consoles ultimately releases an inferior product simply because they wanted to put out all the versions at the same time when some of them weren't ready yet. Looking at you Skyrim for PS3. Exclusives can be good in that you SHOULD be able to expect a product that is fully polished and using the console (or PC) to its utmost.

Floppertje:

It's true, fruit is a bad comparison. phones are a bad comparison too, because the phone you choose hardly determines what you can do with it there are no major telephone features that one brand has that another doesn't. videogames ARE the extreme example.
The problem isn't that they offer things their competitors don't, it's that they ensure their competitors CAN'T offer those things. Imagine if apple made the facebook app exclusive to the iphone. I think the problem is that the same people who sell us the consoles sell these exclusives. Wouldn't it be better for the consumer, from a comptetition standpoint, to allow third-party machines to run playstation and xbox games? That's how it works for film, I don't see why it wouldn't work for games.

Actually phones are a good example. There are plenty of apps that only exist on Apple's App Store and not on Google Play, for example. So your Facebook app example would just be a third party that released on all platforms. But there is still exclusive content to the iPhone, and I'm sure there are exclusives on Google Play as well.

Don't worry, it's always been annoying.

Buckshaft:
A-A console, having... Exclusive games? That serve as killer apps, bolster game lineups and differentiate the consoles from each other? Shock. Horror. Stop the presses.

In all seriousness, how is an exclusive a bad thing? It's hardly "anti-consumer" (A phrase thrown about more and more I think) It encourages companies to try to secure the best games for their consoles and differentiates the consoles from each other. After Microsoft's E3 Conference (A massive comeback, by the way) Xbox One suddenly looks more appealing thanks to the presence of games like Forza Horizon 2, the new Halo collection, and Sunset Overdrive. You can't buy those games on PS4. I have no current-gen console, and am unsure about getting one, but whereas before PS4 was the preferred choice, I'm not so certain anymore. I'm not swung, by any stretch, but I'm intrigued. And you shouldn't complain about your choice of console restricting your choice of games, I mean, buyer beware. Each company is different. You wouldn't buy a Wii U and then complain that the library is the likes of Donkey Kong and Mario, and that your favourite generic shooter isn't getting the attention on that console. Healthy competition in the market is keeping console gaming going, even if it's on shaky ground at the minute.

(Oh, and for any members of the master race reading: I am aware of the fact that PCs exist. I would also like to point out that I do not value your input in my personal opinions.)

Yeah but...what he's saying is that they're being incredibly blatant about the fact that they have exclusives. We know they do. They've been doing it for years. Maybe he would like to hear about up and coming games (regardless of exclusives), how the technology is keeping up with modern gamers' demands and maybe how their console makes gaming more fun. This could be a break down of the operating system and its features, improved motion controls, improved graphics, better hardware for more immersive games, and heck, maybe even the odd freebie thrown the consumer's way. Maybe he wants to know about what they offer that is different to everyone else aside from the exclusives. If they can't prove their product is different or better, then the exclusives argument is not really that strong because many titles these days are cross platform ones.

The exclusives shouldn't be the only thing they're riding on to get people to buy their product. It's an okay reason, yes, but I think gamers want a little more than just "we have all these toys in our yard but they don't!" and the others saying "we have different toys here that are better than theirs" when they're most likely going to get similar toys anyway. Again, there's nothing wrong with buying a console for your favourite games - it's the reason I stuck with Playstation over the years (although I was tempted by Microsoft because of Bayonetta - then again, I had God of War). But I remember better graphics, gameplay and multiplayer being key parts of selling previous generation consoles. Also, while it benefits Sony or Microsoft to have exclusives, I don't think developers are necessarily going to say no to have their products on multiple platforms because it opens it to a wider audience.

This includes...

PCs!!! (which, ironically, have more exclusives than the consoles do)

Sorry, man. I couldn't resist slotting that in XD

You shouldnt care because the exclusive stuff really isnt worth that much. Look at Watch Dogs on the PS, an exclusive 60 minute mission- as long as its not something that integral to the game/story, its a non issue.

Now exclusive games are also no that much of a big deal these days. I remember the PS2 that had a ton of awesome exclusive titles: Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, GTA, MGS, to name a few. A lot of games people just except are multi platform.

Buckshaft:
A-A console, having... Exclusive games? That serve as killer apps, bolster game lineups and differentiate the consoles from each other? Shock. Horror. Stop the presses.

In all seriousness, how is an exclusive a bad thing? It's hardly "anti-consumer" (A phrase thrown about more and more I think) It encourages companies to try to secure the best games for their consoles and differentiates the consoles from each other. After Microsoft's E3 Conference (A massive comeback, by the way) Xbox One suddenly looks more appealing thanks to the presence of games like Forza Horizon 2, the new Halo collection, and Sunset Overdrive. You can't buy those games on PS4. I have no current-gen console, and am unsure about getting one, but whereas before PS4 was the preferred choice, I'm not so certain anymore. I'm not swung, by any stretch, but I'm intrigued. And you shouldn't complain about your choice of console restricting your choice of games, I mean, buyer beware. Each company is different. You wouldn't buy a Wii U and then complain that the library is the likes of Donkey Kong and Mario, and that your favourite generic shooter isn't getting the attention on that console. Healthy competition in the market is keeping console gaming going, even if it's on shaky ground at the minute.

(Oh, and for any members of the master race reading: I am aware of the fact that PCs exist. I would also like to point out that I do not value your input in my personal opinions.)

Except it's not really competition when it's prohibitively expensive to switch between consoles, is it? competition requires transparancy and choice. you have a choice of which console you buy, but once you have one you're pretty much stuck with it, not a lot of people can afford (or justify) to own two consoles. and transparency might as well be a dirty word in this industry, devs and pubs are notoriously tight-lipped and have been known to radically change their policies. so the criteria you base your choice on might have completely changed six months down the line. I wouldn't really call that fair competition.

You do realize that since the ass crack of consoles being an actual thing that exists, exclusivity has been the their biggest marketing factor in making sales right?

Dragonbums:
You do realize that since the ass crack of consoles being an actual thing that exists, exclusivity has been the their biggest marketing factor in making sales right?

Yes, I do. that was kind of my point... exclusives exist because they're the only thing that keeps consoles in the market.

kiri2tsubasa:

Please tell me you have the same feelings about PC exclusives. Or, do you have no problem when PC exclusives pull the exact same stunts? I will say his if you have no problem with the PC doing that, then you are a hypocrite.

Except PC exclusives mostly do it out of necessity (i.e. indie devs that can't afford to port, or genres that wouldn't work well on consoles like ARTS). I haven't seen any company force their games to be PC only when it could easily work as well on consoles. If there is though, I would disprove of it like I disapprove of console exclusives.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked