-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
All things considered, do you think console exclusivity in games is an overall good or bad thing?
- Thread starter ScOULaris
- Start date
If Nintendo became a third party developer, metroid would either never exist again or if existed, would never receive a good budget ever again.
The idea of first party exclusives allow for what we call "purchase confirmers" which is basically not the game that will make you buy the console, but it is a game that will make your console looks awesome in critical notes, even if don't sell well. Metroid is the perfect example for those type of games.
The console money is what allow them to be more risky with the innovation and it's budget.
Without exclusives, companies like Nintendo and Sony would sell considerably less consoles.
The effect may not be visible immediately, but after a couple years, especially when the switch to a new console generation happens, it will show its negative long term effects on hardware sales. The threat of substitutes simply becomes ginormous.
The effect may not be visible immediately, but after a couple years, especially when the switch to a new console generation happens, it will show its negative long term effects on hardware sales. The threat of substitutes simply becomes ginormous.
Are you seriously telling me that there wouldn't be another twenty or thirty million units sold if a high budget Metroid Prime-style game came out multiplatform vs Switch only?
You guys are arguing against console exclusivity only because you want them on Steam, and you don't really seem to care about "everyone" actually getting them, isn't it?
In a perfect world everything would be perfect so of course having everything available to everyone would be perfect. Hell, in a perfect world there wouldn't be multiple consoles at all, and one machine would do everything we needed and wanted. And it would be free.
But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the only reason Nintendo didn't go the way of Sega is because they have quality exclusives. A world where the only reason some of my favorite games even exist is because platform holders need variety to prop up their libraries and sell their consoles. Without the need for exclusives pikmin 4 wouldn't exist. Hell, pikmin 2 and 3 probably wouldn't exist.
Exclusivity has led to many of the best games ever, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend like it's been a bad thing like some of you. If you want to discuss your hypothetical perfect world then that's fine I guess. But if we want to talk about how things really work, exclusives are not bad, and personally, my desire for certain games to continue to exist easily overwrites my desire for more people to be able to play them.
But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the only reason Nintendo didn't go the way of Sega is because they have quality exclusives. A world where the only reason some of my favorite games even exist is because platform holders need variety to prop up their libraries and sell their consoles. Without the need for exclusives pikmin 4 wouldn't exist. Hell, pikmin 2 and 3 probably wouldn't exist.
Exclusivity has led to many of the best games ever, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend like it's been a bad thing like some of you. If you want to discuss your hypothetical perfect world then that's fine I guess. But if we want to talk about how things really work, exclusives are not bad, and personally, my desire for certain games to continue to exist easily overwrites my desire for more people to be able to play them.
As someone who only only owns a PC and a Switch, its a bad thing because I want to play Bloodborne and Demons Souls natively on something without spending money on a box that will only be used for a couple months and occupy extra space I dont have at home.
Good if the consoles wouldn't be outdated.
Bad in this day and age because consoles are heavily outdated the day they release.
Tears of the Kingdom - one of the greatest games of all time - runs in low res with barely reaching 30fps.
On PC the game was on Day1 4k60 and basically flawless a couple days later.
Probably have to wait for a Switch 3 to get comparable performance and Quality.
1st Party either pump out a console that isn't struggling to reach the bare minimum or should imo release on PC.
And seeing how Nintendo is crazy about Emulators these days makes me kinda annoyed because I simply won't get a Switch 2+ Games if there is no way to play them then on PC.
Its 2024 or 2025 by then and the minimum standard is 4k60.
The same with the PS5 and PS5 Pro.
Rebirth is a serious GOTY Contender and one of the best games in the franchise but stuck(for a while) on hardware that has to sacrifice IQ for the bare minimum FPS or you get a slideshow if you want decent IQ.
And then you get to hear how the PS5 Pro is barely an upgrade.
Give me that 4000€ PS5 Pro that has a 5090 inside + an insane CPU.
That upgrade holds up for 4 years and you have enough power for your exclusives.
And if they are so scared of them losing Hardware Purchases if they would release Day1 on PC then make the games simply more expensive.
I would have paid 200€ for a flawless native port of Tears of the Kingdom or similar juggernauts.
But I know thats just me.
Bad in this day and age because consoles are heavily outdated the day they release.
Tears of the Kingdom - one of the greatest games of all time - runs in low res with barely reaching 30fps.
On PC the game was on Day1 4k60 and basically flawless a couple days later.
Probably have to wait for a Switch 3 to get comparable performance and Quality.
1st Party either pump out a console that isn't struggling to reach the bare minimum or should imo release on PC.
And seeing how Nintendo is crazy about Emulators these days makes me kinda annoyed because I simply won't get a Switch 2+ Games if there is no way to play them then on PC.
Its 2024 or 2025 by then and the minimum standard is 4k60.
The same with the PS5 and PS5 Pro.
Rebirth is a serious GOTY Contender and one of the best games in the franchise but stuck(for a while) on hardware that has to sacrifice IQ for the bare minimum FPS or you get a slideshow if you want decent IQ.
And then you get to hear how the PS5 Pro is barely an upgrade.
Give me that 4000€ PS5 Pro that has a 5090 inside + an insane CPU.
That upgrade holds up for 4 years and you have enough power for your exclusives.
And if they are so scared of them losing Hardware Purchases if they would release Day1 on PC then make the games simply more expensive.
I would have paid 200€ for a flawless native port of Tears of the Kingdom or similar juggernauts.
But I know thats just me.
The answer is: it's complicated. I don't think we'd be getting many of the first party titles we have if exclusivity didn't exist. Many of those games weren't made with massive profitability in mind. In fact, many were subsidized by the console makers knowing full well some wouldn't make money.
Not necessarily. For example, Sega wasn't going to publish Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo was like "we'll do it," to which Sega agreed. The alternative to a Nintendo-exclusive Bayonetta 2 is… nothing. You'd get nothing instead, which some were spitefully okay with sadly.
Now obviously this doesn't apply to every 3rd party exclusive deal — Final Fantasy 16 would have existed either way, but the fact is sometimes a game wouldn't be made (or get cancelled) otherwise, or would be much worse off if they didn't receive that cash injection (see: Street Fighter V compared to Marvel vs Capcom Infinite).
So even 3rd party exclusives aren't always "it's bad 100% period."
Not necessarily. For example, Sega wasn't going to publish Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo was like "we'll do it," to which Sega agreed. The alternative to a Nintendo-exclusive Bayonetta 2 is… nothing. You'd get nothing instead, which some were spitefully okay with sadly.
Now obviously this doesn't apply to every 3rd party exclusive deal — Final Fantasy 16 would have existed either way, but the fact is sometimes a game wouldn't be made (or get cancelled) otherwise, or would be much worse off if they didn't receive that cash injection (see: Street Fighter V compared to Marvel vs Capcom Infinite).
So even 3rd party exclusives aren't always "it's bad 100% period."
Some of your favourite games would not exist or be the same thing you know and love, without them seeking funding in return for exclusivity. I'll forever be in favour of first-party exclusivity in allowing for creative ideas to flourish in ways you wouldn't expect without the backing of platform holders. I'll equally support third-party decisions to offset risk to platform holders in return for exclusivity as well, as long as the terms are well in their favour.
I don't understand those specific situations (Bayonetta 2 and SFV). I would think that A) the preceding games would be successful enough to warrant money being spent on a sequel (especially the SF series), and B) that Sega and Capcom would have more than enough money to fund/publish those sequels. Actually, I would think that that also applies to FFXVI/SE, but I don't exactly keep up with how much money a publisher can or will throw at any given project.
I think they served a positive function for platforms in the past and did fulfill their purpose of creating attractive reasons to own a console and to feel reward for owning a console, as well as showcasing a console's unique capabilities (more on this in a bit).
But I think that the F2P model has become such a huge money maker and audience retainer that has shifted perceived values of games among consumers, mostly the massive amount of casuals or younger players that have expanded the audience for games. Simultaneously, the sheer cost of producing exclusives has skyrocketed with technology becoming far more complex when talking about producing (and sometimes maintaining) games at the AAA level. We also have a historically low level of distinction between console specs, and those specs are based on years-old PC hardware, which makes multiplatform development much easier… but leaves the consumer with a lack of immediate distinction. Sure, DF types can recognize differences, but most folks won't be able to tell much difference between and Xbox and PS release of a game based on the differences that are most common these days.
Then on top of that, there is a larger capitalistic drive for profit that just isn't being satisfied by the levels of revenue that are happening, and a lot of that revenue is cut into by the increased price of development. It is difficult to ignore because it poses an existential threat to some kinds of games and is having sweeping impacts on the humans that work in and love the industry, and it feels like they generally have no representation in determining the fate of the industry and the kinds of games that get made going forward. Honestly, based on this particular reality alone, I'm totally fine with abandoning exclusivity for now so that there's an increased chance of softening the blows being dealt to game creators—opening revenue from other platforms. That said, I also know that that's only a bandaid solution and the way that revenue is controlled is still not up to them (i.e. there does need to be sustained action and change beyond just opening more to multiplatform release).
Also: Nintendo can very away with staying exclusive because the way their hardware functions is in itself pretty exclusive. They are arguably the only console manufacturer with something unique about their hardware IMO. The loud users in enthusiast enclaves like ours might not take advantage of portable play often but I really think that aspect of it is the whole reason for its sustained, massive success. Enthusiasts often lament the Switch's relative lack of capability because of its hybrid form factor but I think they lose sight of how that appeals to broader audiences — and again how those broader audiences generally don't have the experience or tools to perceive and articulate the technical gap. Nintendo gets a broader license to its exclusivity because it is exclusively providing its kind of user experience, I think. I don't necessarily agree that Nintendo should really stay exclusive either, but I think that's the reasoning—it's because they're not actually interested in competing with Xbox and PlayStation and have not actually been maintaining their platform experience from any perspective of competition. Their sales satisfy and exceed their desires so often that they don't even need to think about the existence of PlayStation and Xbox.
But I think that the F2P model has become such a huge money maker and audience retainer that has shifted perceived values of games among consumers, mostly the massive amount of casuals or younger players that have expanded the audience for games. Simultaneously, the sheer cost of producing exclusives has skyrocketed with technology becoming far more complex when talking about producing (and sometimes maintaining) games at the AAA level. We also have a historically low level of distinction between console specs, and those specs are based on years-old PC hardware, which makes multiplatform development much easier… but leaves the consumer with a lack of immediate distinction. Sure, DF types can recognize differences, but most folks won't be able to tell much difference between and Xbox and PS release of a game based on the differences that are most common these days.
Then on top of that, there is a larger capitalistic drive for profit that just isn't being satisfied by the levels of revenue that are happening, and a lot of that revenue is cut into by the increased price of development. It is difficult to ignore because it poses an existential threat to some kinds of games and is having sweeping impacts on the humans that work in and love the industry, and it feels like they generally have no representation in determining the fate of the industry and the kinds of games that get made going forward. Honestly, based on this particular reality alone, I'm totally fine with abandoning exclusivity for now so that there's an increased chance of softening the blows being dealt to game creators—opening revenue from other platforms. That said, I also know that that's only a bandaid solution and the way that revenue is controlled is still not up to them (i.e. there does need to be sustained action and change beyond just opening more to multiplatform release).
Also: Nintendo can very away with staying exclusive because the way their hardware functions is in itself pretty exclusive. They are arguably the only console manufacturer with something unique about their hardware IMO. The loud users in enthusiast enclaves like ours might not take advantage of portable play often but I really think that aspect of it is the whole reason for its sustained, massive success. Enthusiasts often lament the Switch's relative lack of capability because of its hybrid form factor but I think they lose sight of how that appeals to broader audiences — and again how those broader audiences generally don't have the experience or tools to perceive and articulate the technical gap. Nintendo gets a broader license to its exclusivity because it is exclusively providing its kind of user experience, I think. I don't necessarily agree that Nintendo should really stay exclusive either, but I think that's the reasoning—it's because they're not actually interested in competing with Xbox and PlayStation and have not actually been maintaining their platform experience from any perspective of competition. Their sales satisfy and exceed their desires so often that they don't even need to think about the existence of PlayStation and Xbox.
First party exclusives have a dual objective of selling copies of the game (obviously) and convincing people to buy the console to play the game. Sony can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get Naughty Dog to make a 15 hour single player game because it hopes that it will attract players into its ecosystem.
If these games went multi platform this incentive to act as a console seller would go away. I feel like this, along with the inability to target a single platform, would result in lower quality games that have more of a focus on games as a service. I hope first party exclusives continue
If these games went multi platform this incentive to act as a console seller would go away. I feel like this, along with the inability to target a single platform, would result in lower quality games that have more of a focus on games as a service. I hope first party exclusives continue
First party makes sense. Third party I dont really mind as long as it's an exclusivity wwindow. One thing I do take particular issue with though is when a game that is when a game releases later but is asking full price. Sea of Thieves, though not third party, recently lost my interest with this. I wouldn't have minded grabbing it on PS5 but I own it on PC and can buy it there for less than a third of its ps5 price. It's years old, it ain't worth what you're asking now.
I imagine it helps a lot with pushing hardware sales, while multi-platform releases help more with software sales.
I don't really see why I should categorize it as "good" or "bad" beyond that.
I don't really see why I should categorize it as "good" or "bad" beyond that.
I agree, some deals are fine. Like Epic funding Alan Wake 2 for example, I won't complain about that because we wouldn't have got the game otherwise probably. I won't criticize any indie or AA developer for taking an exclusivity deal either. It's hard for them to survive as it is, if you get offered a bag of money you take it since it probably means you get to keep the studio open for a few years.
But deals for big franchises are really dumb. The best example of this is Resident Evil vs Final Fantasy. RE4 Remake set up records for the franchise (I believe it's their best selling game by now), meanwhile FF is not only not growing but declining. I just can't see how Square Enix is making the correct choice here, when even Sony is porting their own games to PC.
Pretty dismissive way of having a discussion. So I won't bother any further *shrug*
First party is whatever, but third party exclusivity sucks
Avatar kinda matching the posts here, needlessly hostile.
With Bayonetta, the situation is easy to understand: Platinum wanted to make another Bayonetta and Sega said no. Nintendo offered to publish the game in their stead. The only thing that's unclear is whether Nintendo reached out to Platinum/Sega or vice versa.
Either way, Platinum has made it repeatedly, abundantly clear that Bayo 2 and 3 wouldn't have happened without Nintendo. Sega and Platinum were pretty done with each other by that point anyway; Platinum's games weren't selling as well as Sega hoped and Sega was pulling back on publishing at the time because of budget concerns.
With SFV, it's a bit more complicated. But the general idea was that Capcom was struggling financially at that point (which is true) and either SF was going to have to wait years and years to get a new entry or would have to release even more barebones than it originally was at launch. Both Ono (the producer of SF at the time) and several others including Maximillion Dood (who has direct contacts within Capcom) have stated this pretty consistently.
If I'm not mistaken, Capcom reached out to both Sony and Microsoft. MS said no because they had KI and that's when Sony stepped in. I think that's part of the reason Sony went in so hard on esports, and fighting games in particular since they didn't have their own, because they were able to get SFV console exclusive.
Exclusives are great because without them some games have no addressable market to exist for.
Very few people would have bought Sonic if they could've bought Mario for Genesis, also fewer people buy Genesis in general which leads to less first party development for the platform.
Very few people would have bought Sonic if they could've bought Mario for Genesis, also fewer people buy Genesis in general which leads to less first party development for the platform.
I think we're just gonna be stuck with the " it has to be like that because that's the way they've always done things" mindset for a few more generations.
I'm too used to it to complain, but I can't really argue who this helps besides the company and players that need to see their fav win.
I'm too used to it to complain, but I can't really argue who this helps besides the company and players that need to see their fav win.
Is there a 2020 example of this argument? 2010s?
ABSOLUTELY I am telling you that.
The best selling metroid prime didn't even reached 3 million on the platform people buy to get metroid games. NO WAY they would sell 17 million or 27 million on other platforms combined.
17 million is the TOTAL COMBINED SALE OF THE METROID SERIES.
I think it's a good thing. Pushes everything from development to tech forward through platform holder competition imo.
Pentiment
Returnal? Arguably. Nobody else wanted to fund it at least.
Edit: Oh actually I think I read the post backwards. I thought it was saying certain games wouldn't have been funded otherwise.
I mean, you're the one getting personal here...
I'm just saying that most of the people making this kind of argument are PC focused and have a completely different view about how the market work or should work.
That all makes sense, I guess. I don't remember the timeline, but I guess SFV was before RE7? Which I believe was when Capcom really hit their stride.
What about FFXVI, though? Is that just SE being their weird selves when it comes to publishing games?
Im mixed. Exclusives allow for platforming pushing games which dont necesarilly make sense to make on their own, but are worth it to move hardware. At the same time, I dont know if that would outweigh the benefit of everyone going multiplatform.
I dont really make the distinction between first party and third party exclusivity. One comes with the other.
I dont really make the distinction between first party and third party exclusivity. One comes with the other.
Yeah, I'd say Nintendo content on a Sony platform would mute the desire for things like Ratchet and Sly.
Sly is already done and Ratchet and Clank aren't really interchangeable with anything Mario does. Especially with one 3D game per system. It's like saying why make Kirby or Donkey Kong.
I'm so used to it since its gone on my entire life that at most I'm not averse to the idea of exclusives.
The only time I got miffed over it was Sega's multi-platform exclusives strategy immediately following the collapse of the Dreamcast. Suddenly you had to buy every multi-hundred dollar console out there to play all the Sega games. Was even more expensive than just having Sega games locked to a single device.
The only time I got miffed over it was Sega's multi-platform exclusives strategy immediately following the collapse of the Dreamcast. Suddenly you had to buy every multi-hundred dollar console out there to play all the Sega games. Was even more expensive than just having Sega games locked to a single device.
Last edited:
Exclusivity is bad. Great games shouldn't be limited to crap hardware. Bloodborne being exclusive doesn't make the PS4 more charming or appealing, it just makes Bloodborne worse than it needed to be.
When consoles all had quite different specs, it made a lot of sense.
That's not so much the case anymore…so it doesn't make nearly as much sense.
That's not so much the case anymore…so it doesn't make nearly as much sense.
The argument against exclusivity is always "in a perfect world"
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about high budget single player games with no micro transactions being able to break even. We wouldn't have to worry about games taking advantage of the unique hardware they are designed for.. and so on.
The reality though, is that when everything is multi platform, then expect more micro transactions, less focus on certain styles of games, and less focus on usage of unique hardware and so on.
If that sounds like your ideal world, so be it, but to act like there isn't a reason why some people might have pause about it, is strange.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about high budget single player games with no micro transactions being able to break even. We wouldn't have to worry about games taking advantage of the unique hardware they are designed for.. and so on.
The reality though, is that when everything is multi platform, then expect more micro transactions, less focus on certain styles of games, and less focus on usage of unique hardware and so on.
If that sounds like your ideal world, so be it, but to act like there isn't a reason why some people might have pause about it, is strange.
With Square Enix, it's harder to say. I'm not as familiar with them and we don't seem to have anyone with more intricate knowledge from the inside now that Kagari is gone.
But they seemingly take every exclusivity deal they can. It's not like Sony is the only one they're doing it with — Nintendo and Epic both have deals with Square as well.
If gaming is to keep growing the way the Sonys and Microfots want, I firmly believe they need to pivot more towards being publishers, with less focus on platform exclusivity. There's just less and less benefit from any angle to keeping games exclusive to one platform, you're leaving money on the table.
Definitely a mixed bag; it's sucks that one could potentially cap your reach but on the other hand exclusives are important to differentiate your console from the competitors. We should know that not every game will be on every console do to a myriad of reasons mostly around money, time, and of some contract negotiations.
It really depends.
If we're talking about 1st party exclusives, then I think it's good. Allows for more unique games and having to optimize for one console clearly has major advantages.
3rd party exclusivity sucks, though. While it does have one shared advantage with 1st party titles - easier optimization, I am not a fan of taking IPs away from other platforms.
If we're talking about 1st party exclusives, then I think it's good. Allows for more unique games and having to optimize for one console clearly has major advantages.
3rd party exclusivity sucks, though. While it does have one shared advantage with 1st party titles - easier optimization, I am not a fan of taking IPs away from other platforms.
Sony and MS make a lot of money through their cut on microtransactions in games like Fortnite, Fifa, Madden etc, if the platform become meaningless they'd lose a huge revenue stream.
Sony and Xbox's exclusives are hardly that nowadays, but without revenue from hardware sales, Nintendo would definitely not be able to finance various B/C-list series. They'd just be doing Mario/Pokemon/Zelda/Splatoon/Smash/Animal Crossing and not much else.
Why would it sell 30 million copies when games like Dead Space can't even sell 5 million?
Its a good thing because otherwise companies like Sony wouldn't be funding these projects, this goes mainly for first party games. In MS case they have a subscription service to sell you, but at the same time they seems more like 3rd party publisher these days, at least it seems like what they want to become in the future.
As for 3rd party exclusives go, I dont like when games are tied to a specific platform, but in some cases these games would not have been made otherwise. In other cases its the publisher trying to reduce risk when it comes to making a AAA game.
MP focus or games as a service makes less sense to have as exclusives.
As for 3rd party exclusives go, I dont like when games are tied to a specific platform, but in some cases these games would not have been made otherwise. In other cases its the publisher trying to reduce risk when it comes to making a AAA game.
MP focus or games as a service makes less sense to have as exclusives.