Are exclusive games a bad thing?

[mute]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends.

It can be the right game at the right time at the right place and work out great (though some people will inevitably be locked out of trying it).

Other times it just doesn't make sense, or just feels arbitrary, or for the wrong reasons.

 

[Shadout]

This to me is the most sensible, logical answer. Some topics this is seen as defending..

It's not defending. It's reality.

Click to shrink...

Sure. But there certainly are lots of current realities that are bad.

As for Nintendo etc. making great games, that also happens to be exclusives. Afaik, all those beloved Nintendo/Sony etc. exclusives sell great. There is little reason most of them would not continue to be made, if Nintendo or Sony stopped making hardware tomorrow.
They might certainly be less willing to take chances with new IPs if they weren't trying to sell hardware however.

All exclusives are just not the same anyway. It is one thing for a developer choosing to make a game for one platform, because they dont have resources to port the game, or they feel one particular set of hardware features benefit their game the most (like motion control, VR, easy modding on PC etc.). Or 1st party games that primarily exists to sell hardware.
Quite another for games that could perfectly well be released as non-exclusive, where exclusive rights are then bought by someone. It is hard to see any benefits for customers in the latter.

 

[Bede-x]

Is this a joke?
Because that's what first party is.
Copy/pasted popular stuff, Zelda was murdered and became a Ubisoft game.
Sony wiped out all their games and leashed Naughty Dog to cinematic shooty bang.
Remember Jak&Daxter?
Yeah, dead because Sony owns them and they want more popular stuff than 3D platformers. Abandoned their deal with Crash because that was not the new hotness anymore.

Click to shrink...

No, not a joke. Games getting "murdered" (to use your word) happens due to the inherent pull of the popular, but that doesn't mean you still can't feel the difference between a first party and third party game in many cases. To address your Naughty Dog example, it again possibly demonstrates something that would be difficult to do in AAA games today outside of first parties. ND has consistently moved from franchise to franchise - in the early Playstation years probably due to losing Crash - every time abandoning the old one in favor of something new. This is exceedingly rare among blockbuster productions and that they're allowed to do it at the end of a generation like with The Last of Us, while Uncharted 2 and 3 were very popular, is equally so. Most third parties would lock them into a franchise for years on end. Their status as first party is (likely) what allows this and will probably allow them to leave Uncharted behind as well.

Supporting exclusivity literally killed thousands of franchises.

Click to shrink...

And it saved others. Your take on the subject is too reductive. Things are much more nuanced than that and it's not a coincidence, you can easily feel the difference in some first party games (like those I mentioned) with their approach to the business model, in comparison to third parties.

But if your goal is to make an industry where consumers beg their overlords to give them what they want, go for it.
Continue robbing developers of their IPs, force them to make Kinect games, make sure that everything is UbiVision open world approved.

Click to shrink...

Your points would be better made with less aggression. Let's just say we view this differently and leave it at that.

 

[Fadewise]

I understand why they exist, and even why they may be beneficial to the hobby, but for me personally, they're a major annoyance. I say that as somebody with more than enough disposable income to maintain a high-end gaming PC as well as all 3 consoles (well, Xbox has more or less obviated itself nowadays anyway with all MS first-party stuff coming to PC). For me, it comes down to my preferred environment for playing games, which is on a PC with either keypad + mouse for first-person games or an Xbox One Elite controller for most others, making heavy use of Steam Input for button mapping and overlay functionality. Anything that gets in the way of doing that, whether it's a non-Steam launcher on PC that prevents the easy use of of the peripheral programs I want without workarounds, Playstation/Switch games that force me to use adapters to play with my preferred controller, or fragmentation of my friends list, is just a roadblock to my enjoyment that I do my best to work-around for the sake of playing what are almost always high quality games.

 

[Fadewise]

Is this a joke?
Because that's what first party is.
Copy/pasted popular stuff, Zelda was murdered and became a Ubisoft game.
Sony wiped out all their games and leashed Naughty Dog to cinematic shooty bang.
Remember Jak&Daxter?

Click to shrink...

Naughty Dog murdered Jak & Daxter well enough on their own with the edgelord tonal shift in Jak 2.

 

[Acquiescence]

I for one detest exclusives, and wish that every console had the exact same catalogue of games.

 

[olag]

Depends. It's not as black and white as yes or no but more than not I don't see an overall benefit for the industry

 

[Cecil]

Yes, they are .
I want as many options as possible for where and how to buy a game.

That can be in some cases be turned to a secondary concern - if it's because it wouldn't exist at all if not for the funding of a platform holder.

Or if it's because it only fits a certain platform because of hardware specs/control/format issues.

But other then that, it's a negative thing.

I'm not buying into the competitive aspect at all. That's not my concern, and there are always other ways to compete.

 

[hotcyder]

Only benefit is to the developer because usually a publisher will put more money into a product being a system seller.

 

[The Albatross]

Yes, 3rd party exclusives are a bad thing. There's no meaningful technical reason today that a 3rd party game can't work across the two similar consoles (Playstation and Xbox) and PC. A generation ago and beyond, architecture languages were different, and porting a game might have an expense that a publisher couldn't cover, or there were significant technical differences between hardware, different audiences across hardware, and so 3rd party developers might opt to develop for one versus the other (like, for instance, EA generally developing for Sony and the Playstation as opposed to Nintendo on the N64).

But they're also just something that happens as part of doing business. Publishers want money. Occasionally you have an exclusive where one company paying for the exclusivity might be subsidizing development on the title, but more often than not lately, 3rd party exclusives -- especially timed exclusives -- are marketing agreements. THey're bad for consoles gaming in general, it'd be great if there weren't 3rd party exclusives, but it's part of the business and it's bound to happen.

1st party exclusives, obviously not. 2nd party exclusives, no.

 

[Dyle]

In all circumstances? Of course not

In some circumstances? Of course

It's like asking if water is bad but not distinguishing between drinking it or drowning in it.

 

[Line]

No, not a joke. Games getting "murdered" (to use your word) happens due to the inherent pull of the popular, but that doesn't mean you still can't feel the difference between a first party and third party game in many cases. To address your Naughty Dog example, it again possibly demonstrates something that would be difficult to do in AAA games today outside of first parties. ND has consistently moved from franchise to franchise - in the early Playstation years probably due to losing Crash - every time abandoning the old one in favor of something new. This is exceedingly rare among blockbuster productions and that they're allowed to do it at the end of a generation like with The Last of Us, while Uncharted 2 and 3 were very popular, is equally so. Most third parties would lock them into a franchise for years on end. Their status as first party is (likely) what allows this and will probably allow them to leave Uncharted behind as well.

Click to shrink...

Yes, Naughty Dog moved from franchise to franchise... because they lost the rights to the IPs, signing them off to get funding and in doing so making exclusive games.
That's kind of my point.
And they... are completely forced to do more cinematic shooters. They've made Uncharted games for over a decade, they have ultimately very few franchises, and made multiple games of each with insane corporate meddling (Jak 2? The multiplayer in Uncharted? Fighting tooth and nails just to put Ellie on the cover of TLoU?).

They are the perfect example of the developer forced to follow trends by its master, from cutesy platformers with increasingly more edge and side characters, to cinematic shooters with all of the in between phases documented! Jak&Daxter could without a doubt be the poster child of a company being forced to change.

And it saved others. Your take on the subject is too reductive. Things are much more nuanced than that and it's not a coincidence, you can easily feel the difference in some first party games (like those I mentioned) with their approach to the business model, in comparison to third parties.

Click to shrink...

There's no nuance to be found.
For a consumer, the benefits of exclusivity are zero. There's no debate to be had. Games being stuck on other platforms, on dead platforms, never being to be used by anone else ever?
It's purely negative.

And the funding aspect that corporate "fans" like to talk about is nothing more than the reason why we're in a such a state today, with everything being the same and publishers owning all the cards while developers are not even unionized.
Exclusive deals have wrecked havoc on the industry for decades, and nobody should like it.
But humans are tribal, and they identify with a brand and a logo more than the bigger picture. And they fucking love to be told what to like.

 

[dude]

I don't get the "the game wouldn't exist of it wasn't for exclusivity" - the company could still fund it... And then release it on multiple platforms. They DO make money off copies sold from other platforms, and they can emphasize their own platform however they want in advertising or whatever.
The only reason to think exclusivity is a must in those type of deals, and therefore beneficial to the industry, is because that's what corporations have convinced us is the case so it would appear normal. I mean, they could also make worse deals to try and sell more hardware - It's just a matter of what the consumers deem acceptable. If we stop considering exclusives as acceptable, they'll happen less and these games would still be made because some profit is always better than no profit.

 

[Joe White]

Games being more inclusive is the good thing.

 

[hey it's that dog]

Every game should be available in as many places as possible. Of course that's an unrealistic expectation for first party exclusives, but where 3rd parties are concerned, I gain nothing from limited availability based on platform.

 

[Nameless]

Competition, brand identity, increased support for devs in a volatile industry. They're a net positive.

Sure, it's unfortunate when the chips fall in a way that sees a game land exclusively on a platform I don't have access to or one that's not my first choice, but as a consumer I'm not entitled to have the market bend to my situation/preferences at all times — with anything, not just games.

 

[hey it's that dog]

Competition yada-yada

Exclusivity is a means of competitiveness. If you believe that competition is good for the industry, then so is exclusivity.

Click to shrink...

Competition is good because the results of competition benefit the consumer. 3rd party exclusives do not benefit the consumer, therefore they are not a desirable form of competition. Companies fighting to withhold content from each other is not the kind of competition that benefits me in any way.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Exclusives are bad for the consumer. I'd rather everyone has the opportunity to play everything.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Ultimately exclusivity is always granted in exchange for something, and that something is usually a bag of cash from the platform owners. I'm generally ok with exclusivity if it means platforms subsidize the development of third-party titles.

 

[MrH]

It's bad for us, the gamers.

 

[banshee150]

Timed exclusivity is ok. Complete exclusivity is shit

 

[Moltres006]

Exclusives are bad for the consumer. I'd rather everyone has the opportunity to play everything.

Click to shrink...

But splatoon is too childish for PS4/XBOX1 only owners

 

[bane833]

When we look back the generations with the strongest exclusive lineups always were the most exciting. Exclusives define a platform, make it interesting and offer experiences that differ from the rest of the portfolio.

A platform that lacks (quality) exclusive content will always be seen as a joke and rightfully so.

 

[Viceratops]

No. Exclusives are great in enticing people to buy games. And a lot of them are setting the standard either in individual packages for games or in specific areas. It keeps the arms race going. That's good for consumers and people who enjoy games.

 

[Shadout]

When we look back the generations with the strongest exclusive lineups always were the most exciting. Exclusives define a platform, make it interesting and offer experiences that differ from the rest of the portfolio.

A platform that lacks (quality) exclusive content will always be seen as a joke and rightfully so.

Click to shrink...

If there was no exclusives, it wouldn't really matter if the platforms were exciting (or rather,, it would matter for the company selling them, but not for customers).
Surely, the companies would find other ways to differentiate themselves though.

 

[LuckyLocke]

Exclusives are anti-consumer. All of them.

 

[dude]

Competition, brand identity, increased support for devs in a volatile industry. They're a net positive.

Sure, it's unfortunate when the chips fall in a way that sees a game land exclusively on a platform I don't have access to or one that's not my first choice, but as a consumer I'm not entitled to have the market bend to my situation/preferences at all times — with anything, not just games.

Click to shrink...

To who is "brand identity" a net positive?
Publishers can support devs regardless of release platform
Imagine the competition between devs if all games competed across all platforms? Crazy competition!

 

[PlanetSmasher]

If consoles didn't have exclusive games there would be no market. The margins of gaming would contract and contract and contract because there would be very little reason for any consoles to compete with each other and the platforms would start to shrink until all that's left is EA, Activision and Ubisoft. It would not be healthy for the industry at all for every console to have the exact same library.

It also wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE for the industry. A lot of smaller developers survive BECAUSE they don't go overboard porting to every platform under the sun.

 

[xZoneHunter]

In my opinion they are. Nothing sucks more than trying to sell a fantastic game to someone only to come to the conclusion they can't play it since they don't own the right system.

They are console sellers though.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Not in a majority of cases imo.

The only bad exclusives are the games created by a third party publisher owned dev and paid by a storefront to remain off of competitor's platforms

 

[bane833]

If there was no exclusives, it wouldn't really matter if the platforms were exciting (or rather,, it would matter for the company selling them, but not for customers).
Surely, the companies would find other ways to differentiate themselves though.

Click to shrink...

If there weren't exclusives many of these games wouldn't exist in the first place. The difference between an exclusive and a multiplatform game is that an exclusive does not necessarily need to make money on it's own. It can be as much a prestige object for the platform as some niche game that is supposed to pull in a more diverse audience.

 

[Sparks]

Hell no, as a developer I love working on them. Because you basically have a locked off platform where you are trying to squeeze everything out of it and as long as it runs well you can keep pushing it.

Multiplatform is a pain because sometimes even if its running well, you have to drag out things that might be too expensive for lower end PC's or older consoles. Or just in general to be better safe than screwed.

That's why most platform exclusives tend to look better at release, whereas multiplatforms tend to look a bit worse.

 

[Shadout]

If there weren't exclusives many of these games wouldn't exist in the first place. The difference between an exclusive and a multiplatform game is that an exclusive does not necessarily need to make money on it's own. It can be as much a prestige object for the platform as some niche game that is supposed to pull in a more diverse audience.

Click to shrink...

Sure, I wasn't arguing against that. Merely against the idea that exclusives are somehow needed for consoles to exist (or to excite people).

To who is "brand identity" a net positive?

Click to shrink...

Pretty sure the answer is nobody. Just about everywhere we look, the concept of brand identity is unhealthy for everyone involved (and typically also those not involved).

 

[Fadewise]

Competition, brand identity, increased support for devs in a volatile industry. They're a net positive.

Sure, it's unfortunate when the chips fall in a way that sees a game land exclusively on a platform I don't have access to or one that's not my first choice, but as a consumer I'm not entitled to have the market bend to my situation/preferences at all times — with anything, not just games.

Click to shrink...

When we look back the generations with the strongest exclusive lineups always were the most exciting. Exclusives define a platform, make it interesting and offer experiences that differ from the rest of the portfolio.

A platform that lacks (quality) exclusive content will always be seen as a joke and rightfully so.

Click to shrink...

What actual benefit to the consumer, other than for console warriors, does a strong platform identity actually confer though? At the end of the day, the quality of the games are what matters, not some vague notion of "Playstation is cool, Switch is for kids, Xbox is also a console". To the extent that Sony-funded games tend to be high quality, yes, I appreciate the resources that their first-party exclusives afford, but why should I care about Playstation's prestige as a platform?

 

[dancingphlower]

Not inherently, no. Some games wouldn't exist period if it weren't for a first party (Bayonetta 2).

 

[Deleted member 364]

If we ignore Microsoft, exclusive games on average tend to be better than multiplatform games because they are meant to be good or unique enough to sell consoles. Definitely not a bad thing.

Also exclusivity deals can really benefit the studios/publishers going through rough periods. Capcom basically got by on exclusive deals and external funding for a couple of years, which gave them enough time to recoup and become a top publisher again.

 

[bane833]

What actual benefit to the consumer, other than for console warriors, does a strong platform identity actually confer though? At the end of the day, the quality of the games are what matters, not some vague notion of "Playstation is cool, Switch is for kids, Xbox is also a console". To the extent that Sony-funded games tend to be high quality, yes, I appreciate the resources that their first-party exclusives afford, but why should I care about Playstation's prestige as a platform?

Click to shrink...

As I said earlier, many of these games wouldn't even be made if it wasn't to push a platform. So the benefit to the consumer is being able to buy/play these games in the first place.

In my opinion they are. Nothing sucks more than trying to sell a fantastic game to someone only to come to the conclusion they can't play it since they don't own the right system.

They are console sellers though.

Click to shrink...

Everybody is free to buy any platform he wants to. So I don't see the point of that argument.

 

[HighspeedRefleX]

Exclusives are anti-consumer. All of them.

Click to shrink...

And at the same time they're pro consumer and a sign of appreciation for the consumer. Everything got its up and downsides

 

[Ploid 6.0]

On a set hardware it's awesome because it can really develop for that specific hardware's strengths, and use it's features that may get ignored for multiplatforms like PSVR, or the DS4 touch pad for map or whatever buttons or gestures.

 

[SugarNoodles]

This isn't a complicated issue. 95% of the time the only party that benefits from an exclusive title is a console maker. It doesn't help consumers and it doesn't help developers.

 

[Ninja_Hawk]

When you talk about exclusive games, several opinions are stated:

1. This happens in every business, consequently, it is fine. No one is gonna die
2.It is the only way for a platform to get an identity and secure a fanbase .Xbox lacks exclusive games and is behind. Meanwhile PS4 got Bloodborne,Spiderman and other exclusive games.
3.It is bad in general as it prevents people from enjoying a game, or a series that starts on a platform, but continues on another one.
4It encourages competitivity
5It fuels console wars, which are proven to be toxic and pointless.In the word exclusivity, you have the verb exclude, and you might argue shaping identity through what you get and what other people don't get is not a positive thing, even if this is just business and capitalism.A lot of modern capitalism is focused on "look I have this and my neighbor doesn't.
6If you complain about exclusive games you are entitled.

How do you feel about exclusive games? Is this just people feeling entitled, is it legitimate to be against it?

Click to shrink...

I mean, if I could get all my games on one console, i'd totally be for it. But that isn't reality and understanding that reality and the business side of things, i'm totally okay with it. As long as platforms offer strengths I can't find elsewhere, I don't mind buying multiple platforms for games I want. The Xbox One is the only platform in generations that I felt like I could completely miss out on. This is because of games. I'd be on board if it had games I wanted, I couldn't play elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 3196]

First party exclusives are okay, because the platform holder is making an investment in their platform. I still don't like games being locked to platforms I don't own or won't use, but I understand it. I get why Uncharted is only on Sony systems and why Mario is Nintendo only.

In the end, these companies are paying for these games to exist so it's kind of a positive or additive exclusive, inasmuch as it isn't an exclusive that's taking something away from somewhere else.

Third party exclusives are bullshit, though. From the perspective of a consumer, if there's no sensible reason why a game isn't on a platform other than another platform owner threw money around to keep it off someone else's then that's just bad for players.

There was no reason PS4 players couldn't enjoy Rise of the Tomb Raider other than the fact that Microsoft were throwing money around. Likewise, pretty much every EGS exclusive is this. And then there's Sony and MS's respective Call of Duty moneyhats across the last two generations.

I see these exclusives as negative exclusives because they are more about stopping someone else from having something that was gonna get made regardless rather than making something from scratch.

 

[Herb Alpert]

A first party exclusive makes sense to me.

A third party exclusive can make sense too, but for cynical reasons

 

[Älg]

If a thing or concept exists solely for the purpose of redistributing money then imma go ahead and say that its bad, or at least unnecessary.

 

[cakely]

Those of you in the 25%: Halo 3 is a bad thing? Super Mario Brothers is a bad thing? The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a bad thing?

Consoles wouldn't exist without exclusives. There would be absolutely no incentive to make a game platform that only ran mulitplatform games. Such a product would be the equivalent of a PC set-top box for your TV.

 

[Loan Wolf]

Jim Sterling makes a valid argument on the importance of exclusivity: It promotes competition being able to sell a product that stands out over the rest of the competitors

 

[Line]

If consoles didn't have exclusive games there would be no market. The margins of gaming would contract and contract and contract because there would be very little reason for any consoles to compete with each other and the platforms would start to shrink until all that's left is EA, Activision and Ubisoft. It would not be healthy for the industry at all for every console to have the exact same library.

Click to shrink...

I wonder how the computer market flourished for decades alongside consoles, then.
Hell, it was rife with bootlegs, legality wasn't always very present like with the Giana Sisters... and it still had way more games than the consoles of yore. Didn't crash in 1983 either.

As for competition... if it was only AAA and indies left... it wouldn't be so different, wouldn't it? They do represent the immense majority of sales and total number of games released every year.
But then they would have to stand on their own merits like Ubisoft games (which do rate pretty highly), without emotionnal investment in a particular company selling you plastic boxes.

It also wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE for the industry. A lot of smaller developers survive BECAUSE they don't go overboard porting to every platform under the sun.

Click to shrink...

That's pretty weird, because that's literally the opposite of what happens, and what happened since the beginning.
Smaller devs could only publish on the PC because there's no platform owner to tell them to get fucked or pay them royalties while following their guidelines. Since the early days, the "wild west" was the only way to go, not getting a deal with Nintendo or Sega.

And the Japanese scene is fascinating, as doujin could only made on one platform because nobody wanted them. And they started finding large success... when they finally could expand to other platforms, visual novels were a ridiculously small niche, now it's much more popular because it's not only on crazy expensive computers from the 90's.

Without even talking about the "AA" games, that could only survive... with a single uncontested leader. Remember the days of the PS1 and the PS2? It sure as fuck wasn't competition that made smaller devs popular, it was the fact that you'd put your game on it, and the largest number of players would play it.
The few that took a deal or tried to push games on Saturn are not here to talk about it anymore.

Nowadays, it's much easier to port small games on every platform and the indie scene is thriving!
Because exclusivity is death to a small game.
There is zero doubt that Kero Blaster launching on Playism only damaged its potential beyond belief, and that's the follow up of Cave Story, the granddaddy of all indie games.

 

[Deleted member 36086]

Exclusives are perfectly fine. Exclusive features distinguish competitors from each other and stimulate competition.

 

[jroc74]

Sure. But there certainly are lots of current realities that are bad.

As for Nintendo etc. making great games, that also happens to be exclusives. Afaik, all those beloved Nintendo/Sony etc. exclusives sell great. There is little reason most of them would not continue to be made, if Nintendo or Sony stopped making hardware tomorrow.
They might certainly be less willing to take chances with new IPs if they weren't trying to sell hardware however.

All exclusives are just not the same anyway. It is one thing for a developer choosing to make a game for one platform, because they dont have resources to port the game, or they feel one particular set of hardware features benefit their game the most (like motion control, VR, easy modding on PC etc.). Or 1st party games that primarily exists to sell hardware.
Quite another for games that could perfectly well be released as non-exclusive, where exclusive rights are then bought by someone. It is hard to see any benefits for customers in the latter.

Click to shrink...

I forgot to add, like someone said and like your post shows, context does matter.

Bayonetta 2 shouldn't be controversial.
Rise of the Tomb Raider, controversial.

Even tho I didn't care about the timed exclusive of RotTR, I understand the frustration some had with it.

 

[Paul]

It is idiotic having to buy several redundant x86 systems when one would suffice if not for artificial exclusivity, not to mention wasteful

But it is also logical consequence of reality so it is what it is