I'll be honest. I know that the topic of console exclusivity is something of a lightning rod these days as it can very easily bleed into console war-style rhetoric. I really hope that doesn't happen in this thread, but I've been thinking about the topic a lot lately and would like to discuss it reasonably if possible.
I feel like I've witnessed a shift in sentiment when it comes to console-exclusive game releases in the last generation or two. While first-party or exclusive second/third-party games have historically played a considerable role in establishing their respective platforms' foothold in the market compared to their peers, we've seen exclusivity give way to multi-platform releases more and more with each generation. Rising development costs have a lot to do with this shift, naturally, as many games are more likely to recoup their dev investments if they release on as many platforms (and to as many potential players) as possible. Even Sony has more recently begun to loosen its grip on its first-party releases, bringing them to PC as a second avenue without ceding them to competing console platforms. And we all know how much Microsoft has been pushing to extend its games to other platforms as it seemingly transitions into a third-party developer role within the industry, although they're the most inclined to do so since their Xbox install base is the smallest.
Sony has been able to expand its reach to more consumers with its PC releases of first/second-party games
So that's where we are now, and I tend to see a lot of anti-exclusivity commentary online these days on enthusiast forums like this one. It makes sense to me that people don't like being locked out of playing certain quality games on platforms they don't own, and I understand that not everyone can afford to buy multiple consoles to cover their bases.
Buuuuut... and please hear me out here. I kind of miss the old model for various reasons.
Modern market realities aside, I think I did actually prefer when all three console manufacturers had their own distinct stable of exclusive games on their respective platforms. It gave them all their own personality and flavor that I feel has eroded slowly over the years as more games have moved toward multi-platform releases as a standard practice. Also, games developed for one specific console have always tended to reflect a noticeable added level of polish and ambition since the developers are able to concentrate on just one version built for a very specific, controlled hardware spec.
Gems like Hi-Fi rush seeing releases on other platforms gives them a second lease on life after their initial release
These days, Nintendo is the only one of the big three that seems to be comfortably operating under the old paradigm, for better or worse. Since I'm fortunate enough to be able to own both a Nintendo console and others, I personally appreciate that Nintendo's approach is old-school in this way. The success of the Switch owes a lot to the dense catalog of exclusive games on the platform, and taken altogether they paint a clear picture of what Nintendo's platform stands for and specializes in compared to other options in the market. I like that, overall. Does that make me a scumbag by today's standards? I'd genuinely like to know. I hope not.
I can't imagine playing a mainline Mario game on non-Nintendo hardware, and I think that's not necessarily a bad thing
Long story short, I recognize the financial incentives for moving away from console exclusives as well as the benefits in terms of consumer choice, but I also miss the old paradigm because it justified the existence of different competing platforms in the first place and gave them all a more distinctive feel.
I feel like I've witnessed a shift in sentiment when it comes to console-exclusive game releases in the last generation or two. While first-party or exclusive second/third-party games have historically played a considerable role in establishing their respective platforms' foothold in the market compared to their peers, we've seen exclusivity give way to multi-platform releases more and more with each generation. Rising development costs have a lot to do with this shift, naturally, as many games are more likely to recoup their dev investments if they release on as many platforms (and to as many potential players) as possible. Even Sony has more recently begun to loosen its grip on its first-party releases, bringing them to PC as a second avenue without ceding them to competing console platforms. And we all know how much Microsoft has been pushing to extend its games to other platforms as it seemingly transitions into a third-party developer role within the industry, although they're the most inclined to do so since their Xbox install base is the smallest.
Sony has been able to expand its reach to more consumers with its PC releases of first/second-party games
So that's where we are now, and I tend to see a lot of anti-exclusivity commentary online these days on enthusiast forums like this one. It makes sense to me that people don't like being locked out of playing certain quality games on platforms they don't own, and I understand that not everyone can afford to buy multiple consoles to cover their bases.
Buuuuut... and please hear me out here. I kind of miss the old model for various reasons.
Modern market realities aside, I think I did actually prefer when all three console manufacturers had their own distinct stable of exclusive games on their respective platforms. It gave them all their own personality and flavor that I feel has eroded slowly over the years as more games have moved toward multi-platform releases as a standard practice. Also, games developed for one specific console have always tended to reflect a noticeable added level of polish and ambition since the developers are able to concentrate on just one version built for a very specific, controlled hardware spec.
Gems like Hi-Fi rush seeing releases on other platforms gives them a second lease on life after their initial release
These days, Nintendo is the only one of the big three that seems to be comfortably operating under the old paradigm, for better or worse. Since I'm fortunate enough to be able to own both a Nintendo console and others, I personally appreciate that Nintendo's approach is old-school in this way. The success of the Switch owes a lot to the dense catalog of exclusive games on the platform, and taken altogether they paint a clear picture of what Nintendo's platform stands for and specializes in compared to other options in the market. I like that, overall. Does that make me a scumbag by today's standards? I'd genuinely like to know. I hope not.
I can't imagine playing a mainline Mario game on non-Nintendo hardware, and I think that's not necessarily a bad thing
Long story short, I recognize the financial incentives for moving away from console exclusives as well as the benefits in terms of consumer choice, but I also miss the old paradigm because it justified the existence of different competing platforms in the first place and gave them all a more distinctive feel.
