Exclusives suck (unless developed with a specific hardware limitation/use case in mind)

SpaceCrystal · Jan 12, 2020

And honestly, I don't even know why most people such as OP wants Nintendo to go 3rd party or to even be out of the industry entirely, not just from this forum.

PlayStation & Xbox themselves wouldn't even have existed without Nintendo & Sega. It's not all about having the best graphics, etc. OP seems to think that having Nintendo games on PlayStation & Xbox would have the exact same great quality. Nope. That's just selfishness & arrogance.

Look at what had happened to Sega the moment that they became a 3rd party company after Dreamcast. They became a shadow of their former selves & most of their games have suffered in quality because of that.

Decarb · Jan 12, 2020

I'm glad they exist so I could play sequels to Bayonetta despite original publisher deciding to pull the plug. And funding games like Demon Souls and SFV.

cakely · Jan 12, 2020

bishoptl said:
Stop being poor and buy more money, OP.

Get a money to make more jobs!

Wrapped in Black · Jan 12, 2020

CommodoreKong said:
I applaud Microsoft for putting games on Steam

I think it's pretty safe to assume that most Steam users are using Windows.

Swift_Gamer · Jan 12, 2020

Why isn't OP asking for MS games on PlayStation and Switch?

Mansa Mufasa · Jan 12, 2020

I like the different identity in different products and exclusives play a part in that. What would be the point of multiple entries into the gaming landscape if everything was available everywhere?

Mass_Pincup · Jan 12, 2020

Ganransu said:
I would like to know what benefit it brings for me, as a customer.

That's not a reasonable prism to see any decision coming from a corporation. Like at this point with that reasoning you're supposed to criticize every decision that isn't made for you.

That's not particularly healthy.

JohnnyMoses · Jan 12, 2020

I like exclusives because they can make or break a system and the developers and console makers know that. Games like God of War, Breath of the Wild, etc., have to be amazing because they're designed to not only make a person want to spend $60 for the game, but hundreds for the console.

Jave · Jan 12, 2020

What's funny about all this is that a while ago people were complaining that there were too many games on the Switch.

The Adder · Jan 12, 2020

Nintendo makes good games because they're able to afford keeping everyone on between projects and shifting them around to other projects as needed. Which means they develop talent instead of cutting people loose after projects wrap. A third party can't afford to do this.

Deleted member 7373 · Jan 12, 2020

Exclusives are part of gaming now for better or for worse but I always find it annoying that people believe quality games wouldn't be made if gaming had matured on a neutral platform (not sure what that would be, just imagine I guess). It is kind of insane to believe that all these talented people would have sat around and done nothing. I don't understand how someone could have such a hyper corporate vision of the world to believe that none of this stuff would have happened without proprietary boxes. I like to think of a world where companies all compete on a standard neutral open platform and where years of man hours aren't wasted making identical versions of games for different platforms. A world more friendly to custom engine development since the benefits of being able to export to 20 different platforms wouldn't be as strong.

This is never going to happen though but it is a fun thought.

xxracerxx · Jan 12, 2020

Forsaken Falcon said:
Exclusives are part of gaming now for better or for worse

Now? This has always been the case.

Wet Jimmy · Jan 12, 2020

NLCPRESIDENT said:
Not going to happen. So what do you do? Not play Mario Kart? 😆

Well, speaking only for me - I buy the Switch. I don't like it, but I do it!

freeradical · Jan 12, 2020

JohnnyMoses said:
I like exclusives because they can make or break a system and the developers and console makers know that. Games like God of War, Breath of the Wild, etc., have to be amazing because they're designed to not only make a person want to spend $60 for the game, but hundreds for the console.

WiiU had some "amazing" exclusive games. People still didnt buy the console.

SuperFakerBros · Jan 12, 2020

freeradical said:
WiiU had some "amazing" exclusive games. People still didnt buy the console.

The Wii U had other issues that some 1st party exclusives couldn't fix. Like a LOT

ExoExplorer · Jan 12, 2020

freeradical said:
WiiU had some "amazing" exclusive games. People still didnt buy the console.

To be fair the WiiU had some amazing marketing and design flaws that put people off from buying into the system.

ManOfWar · Jan 12, 2020

I like exclusives. They push companies into investing large amounts of money in games that maybe wouldn't get made in the first place.

And, ya know, if their "obsession" (others may call it strategy) is driving you to drop $400 into one of their machines, it's kinda working great.

PlanetSmasher · Jan 12, 2020

Forsaken Falcon said:
Exclusives are part of gaming now for better or for worse but I always find it annoying that people believe quality games wouldn't be made if gaming had matured on a neutral platform (not sure what that would be, just imagine I guess). It is kind of insane to believe that all these talented people would have sat around and done nothing. I don't understand how someone could have such a hyper corporate vision of the world to believe that none of this stuff would have happened without proprietary boxes. I like to think of a world where companies all compete on a standard neutral open platform and where years of man hours aren't wasted making identical versions of games for different platforms. A world more friendly to custom engine development since the benefits of being able to export to 20 different platforms wouldn't be as strong.

This is never going to happen though but it is a fun thought.

Like you said, there's no way in hell gaming would move to an open platform. Microsoft has a vested interest in keeping people tethered to Windows, so even PC isn't a safe haven for that. Linux will never reach the kind of mass market acceptance or popularity that would allow the whole industry to move there.

But regardless, there's a simple truth to it: if Sony and Nintendo were third party studios that did not have a vested interest in selling hardware, they would not be making as many games as they make now. Their output would staggeringly shrink and only key profit-driving titles would continue to exist. You wouldn't get experimental games out of Nintendo or dream third party collaborations like Bloodborne out of Sony because there would be no reason to spend the money making those kinds of games.

Platform holders make shit like that to diversify their platforms, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

aevanhoe · Jan 12, 2020

Brokenlynx said:
Yet you think gaming falls apart if you don't have exclusives?

No, I think we don't get games like God of War or Horizon without exclusives.

Wet Jimmy · Jan 12, 2020

Wrapped in Black said:
They need. To sell. Their hardware.

I mean, this entire discussion is theory-crafting on all sides - but my premise is simply that I don't know that they can't actually do both, and over time the market may dictate the right balance.

In Nintendo's case - continue to sell hardware if it makes sense. They clearly have the handheld gaming market [outside of phones] on absolute lock-down after all (and the un-dockable Switch Lite suggests they intend to continue that focus?). Other brands don't seem overly interested in competing at all. Microsoft don't have a handheld. Sony abandoned theirs. Nintendo can keep servicing that hardware corner of the market AND still offer software at whatever premium makes sense across more platforms.

(It would be amazing to have insight into how Mario Kart sold on iOS. I reckon it's a bonkers amount. I bought it out of enthusiasm, and never played it more than once...)

If a response to the above scenario is - "well no one would buy the hardware if I could get the games elsewhere...." well then that's a good example of why exclusives are not good for the consumer. Consumers (console warriors aside?) want the game, not the plastic box - so why is it preferable to have to buy both? The one benefiting the most is the hardware merchant.

I certainly wouldn't have four cases of gaming hardware sitting under my TV if I could avoid it. I'd happily make up the difference in spend on software, rather than hardware. This isn't about spending less money. It's about spending on the right thing.

PlanetSmasher · Jan 12, 2020

Wet Jimmy said:
I mean, this entire discussion is theory-crafting on all sides - but my premise is simply that I don't know that they can't actually do both, and over time the market may dictate the right balance.

In Nintendo's case - continue to sell hardware if it makes sense. They clearly have the handheld gaming market [outside of phones] on absolute lock-down after all (and the un-dockable Switch Lite suggests they intend to continue that focus?). Other brands don't seem overly interested in competing at all. Microsoft don't have a handheld. Sony abandoned theirs. Nintendo can keep servicing that hardware corner of the market AND still offer software at whatever premium makes sense across more platforms.

(It would be amazing to have insight into how Mario Kart sold on iOS. I reckon it's a bonkers amount. I bought it out of enthusiasm, and never played it more than once...)

If a response to the above scenario is - "well no one would buy the hardware if I could get the games elsewhere...." well then that's a good example of why exclusives are not good for the consumer. Consumers (console warriors aside?) want the game, not the plastic box - so why is it preferable to have to buy both? The one benefiting the most is the hardware merchant.

I certainly wouldn't have four cases of gaming hardware sitting under my TV if I could avoid it. I'd happily make up the difference in spend on software, rather than hardware. This isn't about spending less money. It's about spending on the right thing.

Mario Kart Tour isn't a paid game. It's a free to play gacha game. Most people downloaded it, spent no money, and deleted it.

Heraldic · Jan 12, 2020

Way ahead of your time OP. Might as well give up. Your over here talking about talking about gravity when the common folk like, "But the Devil pulls the apples down, do you deny that!"

Wet Jimmy · Jan 12, 2020

PlanetSmasher said:
Mario Kart Tour isn't a paid game. It's a free to play gacha game.

Ah, my apologies - it must have been Super Mario Run that I dropped ten buckaroo's on...

PlanetSmasher · Jan 12, 2020

Heraldic said:
Way ahead of your time OP. Might as well give up. Your over here talking about talking about gravity when the common folk like, "But the Devil pulls the apples down, do you deny that!"

It's not naive to admit that a LOT of the games he's port begging for would not exist without a platform to drive interest in. It's a fact. Sony and Nintendo are not charities.

Deleted member 1003 · Jan 12, 2020

PlanetSmasher said:
It's not naive to admit that a LOT of the games he's port begging for would not exist without a platform to drive interest in. It's a fact. Sony and Nintendo are not charities.

This is true.

Heraldic · Jan 12, 2020

PlanetSmasher said:
It's not naive to admit that a LOT of the games he's port begging for would not exist without a platform to drive interest in. It's a fact. Sony and Nintendo are not charities.

True. As a foundation it's how it all started. But I think many of us see the direction the games industry is headed. An industry with a focus on the business of software, and less on any one dominant platform. Look at Sega. Look at Microsofts approach. Hell, I can even play God of war on my PC. Things that were unheard of decades ago. Is it the norm? No, it's not. But, you must admit we're seeing things we would have fainted in the 80's, 90's.

Merv · Jan 12, 2020

ILikeFeet said:
Microsoft makes PC OSs

Sony doesn't

it's not that hard

Sony could port to Linux, which wouldn't be to difficult really.

Swift_Gamer said:
Why isn't OP asking for MS games on PlayStation and Switch?

If they were purchased from the Microsoft store on PS or Switch Microsoft would do it.

Sony could have their own PC store and sell games on it. They could have their own OS.

The idea that Sony selling games on Windows, from their own store, is some how helping MS is like saying letting Xbox hook up to Sony TVs is helping Sony.

PlanetSmasher · Jan 12, 2020

Heraldic said:
True. As a foundation it's how it all started. But I think many of us see the direction the games industry is headed. An industry with a focus on the business of software, and less on any one dominant platform. Look at Sega. Look at Microsofts approach. Hell, I can even play God of war on my PC. Things that were unheard of decades ago. Is it the norm? No, it's not. But, you must admit we're seeing things we would have fainted in the 80's, 90's.

Again, I really need to point out: Microsoft is desperate to generate positive marketshare and mindshare after a generation where they were essentially the "And Peggy!" console. And they're ALSO not actually being all that pro-consumer. They're putting their games...on other platforms that they still own and control. They're playing the "play anywhere" card while adding a (that we can still profit off of) to the fine print. They're not putting Halo on Playstation any time soon, and everyone knows that.

Yes, things are changing. But expecting Sony and Nintendo to completely shift gears and go third party would lead to a catastrophic drop in the output those companies are putting out, because as I keep saying: Sony and Nintendo make the kinds of games they make to push their platforms. Without those platforms, there is no reason for them to waste money on a Bloodborne or an Astral Chain or a Gravity Rush. There's no reason for Sony to keep all their Worldwide Studios teams and keep paying those employees. It's needless expense and those games typically aren't successful enough to justify the overhead without a larger goal in mind.

You might see little things like marquee Sony titles popping up on PS Now, but that's AFTER their platforms are selling and AFTER the games have made the lion's share of their money.

Wrapped in Black · Jan 12, 2020

Wet Jimmy said:
If a response to the above scenario is - "well no one would buy the hardware if I could get the games elsewhere...." well then that's a good example of why exclusives are not good for the consumer. Consumers (console warriors aside?) want the game, not the plastic box - so why is it preferable to have to buy both? The one benefiting the most is the hardware merchant.

So, in this hypothetical situation of yours, what is this single platform on which all games are available? How much does it cost? Who is the publisher?

Key222 · Jan 12, 2020

Merv said:
Sony could have their own PC store and sell games on it. They could have their own OS.

The idea that Sony selling games on Windows, from their own store, is some how helping MS is like saying letting Xbox hook up to Sony TVs is helping Sony.

Because there isn't as much, if not more, complaining about games being exclusive to certain storefronts on PC or every time a new one starts up.

lupinko · Jan 12, 2020

ILikeFeet said:
Microsoft makes PC OSs

Sony doesn't

it's not that hard

First post got it right.

Ganransu · Jan 12, 2020

Mass_Pincup said:
That's not a reasonable prism to see any decision coming from a corporation. Like at this point with that reasoning you're supposed to criticize every decision that isn't made for you.

That's not particularly healthy.

What is "unhealthy" about it? It's not my duty, job nor in my interest to buy something from X company to keep them afloat, it's their job to make a product that I'm happy to give them money for.

If I'm not happy with what they're selling, they're not getting my money and if I have the chance to voice that, I will, because a single person voting with wallet is just a single person not buying, they couldn't care less, but if me, and others, voicing our displeasure about exclusivity got a few more onto the boat, then it may change something. Who knows, may be that's why MS went "PC too" this gen.

Do you apply the same set of "healthy" customer attitude when it comes to non-gaming stuffs? Do you schedule a day a week to eat at McDonald's or KFC just to make sure they're opened, even when you don't like their food?

Manmademan · Jan 12, 2020

aevanhoe said:
No, I think we don't get games like God of War or Horizon without exclusives.

Exactly. It's not that difficult a concept. Sony's revenue comes not from selling individual copies of first party games, but from bringing people into the ecosystem and having them spend money on games (first and third party) over time as well as ancillary services.

The best way to do this is by establishing a game library that differentiates you from competitors. Sometimes its a crazy expensive AAA title like God of War, Spiderman, or Gran Turismo but just as frequently its something weirdly niche like Puppeteer, Dreams, Demon's Souls, Until Dawn, Journey, Last Guardian, Starhawk, Astro Bot etc etc.

It's worth it to take risks on titles like that last group even if they only move a million copies or less as long as they're bringing new people into the PlayStation ecosystem, who on average will spend $700 over the lifetime of the system.

If suddenly those titles are no longer exclusive, it breaks the financial incentive to make those games completely. Sony would instead turn into the next EA or Activision and do nothing but pump out annualized titles loaded with microtransactions to maximize profit.

Wamb0wneD · Jan 12, 2020

Ganransu said:
"X game wouldn't have existed if X company didn't do exclusive!" Has too much ifs in it that I don't think it's valid as an argument for exclusives, I could just as well argue that "Y game didn't exist because of exclusive nonsense" and it should just be as valid.

How is that just as valid? You act like both of thjose are vague hypotheticals. For one we have plenty of evidence though, for the other we don't.

Franco_Tech · Jan 12, 2020

Love exclusives that what incentive and make the your favorite console healthy.

Callibretto · Jan 12, 2020

Wet Jimmy said:
I mean, this entire discussion is theory-crafting on all sides - but my premise is simply that I don't know that they can't actually do both, and over time the market may dictate the right balance.

In Nintendo's case - continue to sell hardware if it makes sense. They clearly have the handheld gaming market [outside of phones] on absolute lock-down after all (and the un-dockable Switch Lite suggests they intend to continue that focus?). Other brands don't seem overly interested in competing at all. Microsoft don't have a handheld. Sony abandoned theirs. Nintendo can keep servicing that hardware corner of the market AND still offer software at whatever premium makes sense across more platforms.

(It would be amazing to have insight into how Mario Kart sold on iOS. I reckon it's a bonkers amount. I bought it out of enthusiasm, and never played it more than once...)

If a response to the above scenario is - "well no one would buy the hardware if I could get the games elsewhere...." well then that's a good example of why exclusives are not good for the consumer. Consumers (console warriors aside?) want the game, not the plastic box - so why is it preferable to have to buy both? The one benefiting the most is the hardware merchant.

I certainly wouldn't have four cases of gaming hardware sitting under my TV if I could avoid it. I'd happily make up the difference in spend on software, rather than hardware. This isn't about spending less money. It's about spending on the right thing.

The big money maker in console business if from 3rd party licensing. How many copies did CoD and GTA sold on ps4? Sony got 30% of that revenue, sure Spider-man and GoW will sold a lot more copies if it's multiplatform, but that mean people may play those games on other platform, which is not what Sony want. They're willing to lose multiplatform sales to push console sales hoping that will lead to more people buying games on playstation.

And they're actually doing both now, MLB will be multiplatform in 2021, Sony already said some multiplayer game may warrant multiplatform release etc. But they will always have exclusive games to attract people toward their platform

j7vikes · Jan 12, 2020

So you don't like competition and don't believe console makers should try to make more money than their competitors?

ok. I'm sure that will happen.

starblue · Jan 12, 2020

Videogames are "luxury", companies dont owe you anything. Stop complaining about exclusives, If you dont agree is so easy: dont buy.

the32BitPlayers · Jan 12, 2020

Wet Jimmy said:
Why do you need a console to be valued? Isn't it about the game you're after, on the most preferred hardware? Sounds like you're picking a console and then hoping to justify it with games you want.

Exclusive are important for consoles, its true.

PS4, SWITCH and XBOXONE,
PS4 have its exclusive
SWITCH have its exclusive
XBOXONE Doesn't

who's selling more console? exactly PS4 and Switch and You have to take in mind that the Switch was released 4 Years after the XBOX ONE, and it has outsold the XBOX ONE.
Is not hard to understand that Exclusive might be not important for You, but the true is Exclusive adds value to the specific console, the same thing works with streaming service like Netflix, Amazon, HULU, Disney +, all these service have their own exclusive programming.

If in the future consoles won't have any exclusive games, what's the point on buying PlayStation over Xbox, or Nintendo over PlayStation? if I can play all games on a specific console? in the business stand point doesn't make sense, instead Sony makes sure to invest on PlayStation, makes more exclusives games and automatically PlayStation will sell like cupcakes.

Deleted member 27315 · Jan 12, 2020

Exclusives are usually polished specifically for my personal console of my living room. They look and play amazing. I want more exclusives.
I don't like timed exclusives though.

EloKa · Jan 12, 2020

Whew. This thread has probably some of the worst console warrior replies I've seen in a while.

DevilMayGuy · Jan 12, 2020

This thread rules. From the initial "of course Nintendo exclusives are okay" which was inevitably going to be in there like clockwork to the general console warz shitposts ranging from veiled to blatant, this has been a truly thrilling read.

Iron Eddie · Jan 12, 2020

Wrapped in Black said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that most Steam users are using Windows.

I think it's also safe to say that most PC users prefer using Steam over the Windows Store.

Gotdatmoney · Jan 12, 2020

Platform owner are not in the business simply to sell their own software. They get a cut of revenue of any game sold in their ecosystem. That alone is the reason why it's important to them to sell their box to consumer. And to sell their box they need content you can't get anywhere but on their system. That's why they invest in exclusives and their own IPs in the first place. Not only to sell their own software but to sell other software that they get a margin off of.

Also, these different platforms have different demographics that don't just get plugged in instantly by the competition. The type of software strong in Nintendo's ecosystem doesn't necessarily just explode in other ecosystems. Look at how much better indie content has been performing on the Switch than the other boxes. One platform can no longer be everything to every demographic so these different hardwares serve a purpose from a consumer end as well.

It would be great to not have to buy multiple hardware but it's not going to be a reality for a long ass time if ever. Exclusives have never been about selling the absolute most software in theory. They have been about either enhancing a library, or appealing to a specific demographic. As hardware becomes less specialized we've seen them really die off from third parties. It makes sense since they don't get revenue from every game sold on a system.

DeathyG · Jan 12, 2020

Yeah, hopefully we can play Nintendo and Microsoft published games on the PS5.

(Gets laughed out of the room)

Afrikan · Jan 12, 2020

Swift_Gamer said:
Why isn't OP asking for MS games on PlayStation and Switch?

Would love for Forza Horizon to make it to my PS4/5.

Sony can lend back an exclusive.... like say... MLB The Show? Even trade.

Ganransu · Jan 12, 2020

Wamb0wneD said:
How is that just as valid? You act like both of thjose are vague hypotheticals. For one we have plenty of evidence though, for the other we don't.

For "X only exists because exclusivity" to be true, "X cannot exist if there's no exclusivity" must also be true, however, there is no evidence that proves the second statement.

X exists because of exclusivity, but it can also exist in a world without exclusivity. Is my argument against it.

Sure, Horizon, Mario, Bloodborne or Daemon X Machina may not existed as the way we know them in this alternative universe without exclusivity, but we wouldn't have a point to compare unless we could look into another universe.

Imagine a world where Horizon(for example) didn't exist, and all other exclusives too, and then you try to convince everyone about how this game with a red haired woman hunting robot dinosaurs in a sci-fi snowland is only possible if X company pays for exclusive. You'd be seen as insane.

Decarb · Jan 12, 2020

PlanetSmasher said:
It's not naive to admit that a LOT of the games he's port begging for would not exist without a platform to drive interest in. It's a fact. Sony and Nintendo are not charities.

A lot of people tend to forget that fact. This is why Kamiya's reply to Bayo 2 port begging is always "go ask Nintendo".

Wet Jimmy · Jan 12, 2020

Wrapped in Black said:
So, in this hypothetical situation of yours, what is this single platform on which all games are available? How much does it cost? Who is the publisher?

I feel you've missed the point...

There's not a single platform. In Theoryland, this is about the desire to get more games on more platforms, not fewer. Giving consumers more choice.

What does it cost? I'd expect to be paying the cost of a game today plus any uplift that the big three feel is necessary to offset the lack of a console purchase by that buyer over time (maybe more or less depending of games are published day one multi-platform or deeper into the life-cycle). If I was on the spot, for example and for the sake of argument, say Sony makes $50 per console sold. And they have five first party games they expect to sell the average consumer. Does it stand that they sell on other platforms at the cost of game today + $10 "multi-platform" tax?

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I'd certainly pay that gladly if there's a way for me to have fewer but better boxes under the TV. I'm sure that the keen mobile gamer, playing on the bus or the train, would pay a few extra bucks to get a God of War port on the Switch. Or the PC gamer who likes to play BotW at 4K60. Whatever.

Wet Jimmy · Jan 12, 2020

DeathyG said:
Yeah, hopefully we can play Nintendo and Microsoft published games on the PS5.

Would you be willing to pay a few bucks more to play on the "non-native" platform? If so, I really don't see why this is considered to be such an implausible scenario.

Exclusives suck (unless developed with a specific hardware limitation/use case in mind)

Deleted member 7373

Guest

The Abominable Showman

Slayer of the Eternal Voidslurper

The Abominable Showman

Prophet of Regret

The Abominable Showman

User requested account closure

Prophet of Regret

The Abominable Showman

Election Thread Watcher

Definitely not shooting blanks

User requested account closure

GSP