This exclusivity thing is starting to annoy me

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Floppertje:

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.

True enough, you are stuck with what you choose (Unless, unlike me, you have an unhealthy amount of disposable income) And yes, Developers and Publishers are tight-lipped. When you buy a console, you are making an investment in your gaming hobby. Sometimes those investments go well, sometimes not. This is why I feel buying a console at launch is a little silly, I'd rather wait until it has a backlog of games I really want to play and it's a little bit cheaper. I bought an Xbox 360 a few years after it launched, because until then, I'd been perfectly happy to plod along on my old PS2. I was aware of the fact that I wouldn't be able to play PS3 games (Though I recently picked one up on the cheap) And I was fine with that. 360 had fantastic exclusives, and there were a lot of multiplatform games I loved. Actually, most of them were multiplatform.

True, more transparency is needed, but how can you expect a console manufacturer to predict the future? They are obligated to keep a flow of decent exclusives coming so they can keep giving their console more selling points, but they don't decide what third party Developers do.

Buy the console you feel is right for you. One that meets your needs, has interesting features and games you want to play.

MeTalHeD:

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

I'm gonna forget that last comment, because... You're nice.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that console manufacturers are trumpeting the fact that they have all the exclusives up to high heaven. And I totally agree with you that they should be pushing the other features of their consoles. But, not like they haven't been doing that anyway. I think Microsft's press conference this year was so much better than the last one, for lack of "AW YEAH SKYPE SPORTS AND TV" (Most of which isn't even available in my country) Did they go too far the other way? Maybe, but it's an improvement nonetheless.

And Sony have pushed the shit out of that Share button, for what it's worth. You can argue till the cows come home about how it's restricting footage, and it's annoying, and blah woof, but people seem to like it. The Wii U is unique... Though I wouldn't necessarily say in a good way. I haven't seen any examples of how the big-ass screen controller is doing something that simply couldn't be done any other way, but fair play to them for trying to innovate. It's a dong-measuring contest, for sure, but when you're trying to outsell the competition, that happens. It's shit, but there you go.

Hey, you're right! Down with exclusives! Every game should be released on PCs, PS4s, and Xbox Ones... That should end this "exclusive" depravity... (Oh wait...)

But seriously, not having exclusives may seem like the "perfect" solution for both publishers and, especially, consumers since everybody would be on equal terms technology-wise... But, then, without exclusives, how would a publisher be able to test their limits on the hardware they're given, or worse, why would they have to do that in the first place? I mean, that's almost leading to a monopoly-like state, where sure you can get X game on any system you want, but don't be surprised that it looks like they're barely doing anything different than Y or Z game... and don't get me started on that Q game, thinking that it's "better" than T game when they both look EXACTLY THE SAME! Glob! It's like they're not even trying anymore! *flips table*

*ahem* Anyway, exclusives keep the competition fresh, the innovations coming, and all that other jazz like graphic and stuff constantly improving... It's unfortunate that consoles [that are not Nintendo] seem to think they have to be more like PCs nowadays, but whatever... It's not like it's causing people to rethink these "console exclusives" or anything like that... (Oh wait...)

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.

I have a problem with it if they do it for no reason. For instance, the Total War series not being on consoles makes perfect sense, controlling that with a dualstick would be a nightmare. Other times it's small-budget things that just can't afford to develop for multiple consoles at once, which I can understand. But take minecraft: started out as pc exclusive, then ported to xbox when it got rich.
Another dimension we shouldn't forget is that there is no one company that owns PC. Microsoft owns Xbox and sony owns playstation, and the exclusives are mostly published by them. nobody is really pushing PC exclusivity because the people who make pc parts aren't in the publishing business.

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?

Yes.

I'm not being snarky, either. Look at how much people will pay to play a game a couple days before street date. But it's not just consoles, it's not just games, it's not just entertainment. It's us.

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?

Unless you count electronic media, I guess. And, I mean, they're the only industry at the moment. And even that's sort of arguable.

Buckshaft:
It's hardly "anti-consumer"

You say that, but....

It encourages companies to try to secure the best games for their consoles and differentiates the consoles from each other.

These benefit the manufacturer, not the consumer. Having a new Halo on the Xbone doesn't benefit the consumer in any discernable way that it existing on PC and Playstation as well wouldn't. How do we, as consumers, benefit from having various games cordoned off behind various platforms? With a universal standard, one can buy a single console based on features, knowing their products will work. Are you really going to argue that things would have been better if HD DVD was still competing with BD? That we'd be better off for each format having exclusive movies? I doubt it.

Dexterity:

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.

And it was even worse before that. Maybe I'm just old, but I find the idea of exclusives to be something I just can't get angry about. I grew into gaming during the NES and Master System days where the only way you saw the same game on multiple systems was if it was an absolutely huge hit. It was the exception and often it wasn't even the same game anyway but a port of varying similarity. When Mortal Kombat was released on both SNES and Genesis on the same day (though totally different in actual play) or the Genesis actually got it's own version of Street Fighter 2 it was a massively huge deal. I'm not saying that day was better or worse than today, but for those crying about how many exclusives there are now as if it's never been this bad need to give their head a shake. And I also do find it funny when people neglect to mention Nintendo's consoles when it comes to exclusivity given that the entire console is built on it having exclusive content or when a PC game gets an exclusive release. In fact, when it comes to PCs everyone is absolutely just fine when they get the "better" version of a game and actually get mad when they get a version of a game that's exactly the same as the console versions.

Floppertje:

I have a problem with it if they do it for no reason. For instance, the Total War series not being on consoles makes perfect sense, controlling that with a dualstick would be a nightmare. Other times it's small-budget things that just can't afford to develop for multiple consoles at once, which I can understand. But take minecraft: started out as pc exclusive, then ported to xbox when it got rich.

Fine. What about exclusives that wouldn't be made if not for their exclusive status? What if, as with Boobonetta 2, the choice is exclusive or no game at all?

Try being a PC gamer and having to deal with "DRM Client Required" exclusivity (IE Steam, Origin, Uplay, GFWL when it still existed, etc) Then we can talk about exclusivity annoyance.

StriderShinryu:

And it was even worse before that. Maybe I'm just old, but I find the idea of exclusives to be something I just can't get angry about. I grew into gaming during the NES and Master System days where the only way you saw the same game on multiple systems was if it was an absolutely huge hit.

And quite often, you'd get radically different games. I think Mortal Kombat is underselling it.

Floppertje:

Hey, you were the one who started with the grocery stores ;)

I know, and I apologized for being too limiting. :)

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.

Well, for starters, I have absolutely no problem with a company making first-party games for their specific platforms. That's part of the motivation behind making consoles anyways. Sure, having consoles made by a third-party would be ideal, but at the same time, I don't see many third parties rushing to develop new consoles, and those that are either have failed (Ouya) or are still unproven (Steam Machine). Until third party consoles can catch on, I'd rather Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo actually have motivation to make their own consoles, especially for people who can't afford to build and maintain a gaming PC.

As for third-party games being exclusive, I really think that needs to be look at on a case-by-case. Sometimes a company simply has no choice but to go with one of the console manufacturers (Bayonetta 2), or the market is divided in such a way that it would be unprofitable to release it for more than a platform that specializes in the audience being targeted (Nintendo is good at this). It can also be good for testing a new IP before spending too much money on making it multiplatform. I can certainly understand how third-party exclusivity can be a bad thing. Like I hinted at earlier, I wasn't particularly fond of Rockstar releasing L.A. Noire in an incomplete state on Xbox 360. However, at the same time, I don't think exclusivity is automatically bad for the consumer. To some extent, it can help us get games we wouldn't otherwise get and help in making new IPs financially viable. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I don't think it is all bad.

It is consumer unfriendly practice, that only exists in the non-mobile game sector because we have a redundant console gen which is basically PCs with worse service, price and possibilities all around.

StriderShinryu:

Dexterity:

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.

And it was even worse before that. Maybe I'm just old, but I find the idea of exclusives to be something I just can't get angry about. I grew into gaming during the NES and Master System days where the only way you saw the same game on multiple systems was if it was an absolutely huge hit. It was the exception and often it wasn't even the same game anyway but a port of varying similarity. When Mortal Kombat was released on both SNES and Genesis on the same day (though totally different in actual play) or the Genesis actually got it's own version of Street Fighter 2 it was a massively huge deal. I'm not saying that day was better or worse than today, but for those crying about how many exclusives there are now as if it's never been this bad need to give their head a shake. And I also do find it funny when people neglect to mention Nintendo's consoles when it comes to exclusivity given that the entire console is built on it having exclusive content or when a PC game gets an exclusive release. In fact, when it comes to PCs everyone is absolutely just fine when they get the "better" version of a game and actually get mad when they get a version of a game that's exactly the same as the console versions.

If the Escapist had a "Like" button, I'd be pressing it like a madman.

This man is telling it like it is. If anything, there is so little distinction these days that the lines are more and more blurry. Used to be, each console had VERY different games on offer and very little was multiplat. These days, almost everything is multiplat and a few choice titles get exclusive treatment.

And yet, you get WAY more people complaining about it these days than in my childhood.
We were too busy arguing about whose selection was "better" than the other. Trust me, it was even there in the Colecovision VS Atari days.

With all the complaining these days though, it kind of says something about the younger generation of gamers. I won't define what it says - I'll let others fill in those blanks.

StriderShinryu:

Dexterity:

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.

And it was even worse before that. Maybe I'm just old, but I find the idea of exclusives to be something I just can't get angry about. I grew into gaming during the NES and Master System days where the only way you saw the same game on multiple systems was if it was an absolutely huge hit. It was the exception and often it wasn't even the same game anyway but a port of varying similarity. When Mortal Kombat was released on both SNES and Genesis on the same day (though totally different in actual play) or the Genesis actually got it's own version of Street Fighter 2 it was a massively huge deal. I'm not saying that day was better or worse than today, but for those crying about how many exclusives there are now as if it's never been this bad need to give their head a shake. And I also do find it funny when people neglect to mention Nintendo's consoles when it comes to exclusivity given that the entire console is built on it having exclusive content or when a PC game gets an exclusive release. In fact, when it comes to PCs everyone is absolutely just fine when they get the "better" version of a game and actually get mad when they get a version of a game that's exactly the same as the console versions.

The annoyment doesn't stem from the exclusivity itself. It used to be that it wasn't possible or at least much harder to port to other consoles. The annoyment comes from the fact that they're rubbing it in our faces like they're doing us a favor, while what they're really doinng is keeping these exclusives on their own system, so people will buy the system based on the games and not on the system itself. And once you've invested, switching is prohibitvely expensive.
As for PC's, like I said before, I don't mind it when there's a reason for exclusivity, such as when the controller is completely unsuited for a game (such as when you port a strategy game to a console). But yeah, that's a one-way street, because you can plug in an xbox controller into your pc. I suppose I am neglecting nintendo somewhat, but... I don't really care about nintendo. Can't help it. I guess I'm just not the target audience.

Console Exclusivity is actually dying. It's always been the major selling point of any console for me, I could care less about the hardware really. I do a 10 game test on every console I buy. There must be 10 games exclusive to that console I can't play on any other system. Obviously I prefer playing games on my Gaming PC when available, but when the PS3 hit over 10 games exclusive to it I wanted to play I bought one, this took several years. I expect it to take longer for PS4 to entice me such. I can't reasonably justify purchasing a new console for only 2-3 games.

Early on the library of console games were somewhere around 80-90% exclusive titles, now it's likely the opposite with maybe 10-20% exclusivity. I understand it can be frustrating that there may be a game you really want to play on a console you don't own or previously were even interested in owning, but overall I'd prefer console exclusive games as they are by and large (for me at least) the most major factor in my purchasing decision (that and backwards compatibility with everyone but Nintendo forgot was important).

Multi-platform releases should inherit most of the blame of being "money hungry", console makers want exclusive games because that's what ultimately drives the sales of many of their consoles. I guess some people care about hardware but I would wager a larger number care about GAMES.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked