All things considered, do you think console exclusivity in games is an overall good or bad thing?

[Reflecting Sky]

Exclusives are good, even third party exclusives. In the past, people chose their console based on the exclusives they got. No one got angry because they got a Gamecube and expected to get FFX, or got a PS2 and expected Super Mario Sunshine. Everyone knew what they were getting when they bought in on a console back in those days, and there wasn't such a huge sense of entitlement to getting everything as there is now. The different exclusives on each console led to unique ecosystems between them, and each of these ecosystems built up different audiences that would be continuously fed the type of content that they liked.

Now we have people whining anytime third-party exclusives get announced. We have this strange juxtaposition where people moan the lack of PS5 games and hearken back to the glory days of past generations, but don't want to acknowledge that third-party exclusives built those past generations. There are so many games that wouldn't exist without exclusivity, and so many that won't exist in the future if exclusivity dies.

Exclusives enhance gaming, they do not diminish them.

Click to shrink...

Agree with this post. Used to have a PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube during the era you mentioned. Always went for the best version of a multi-platform game on one of the consoles (i.e. Splinter Cell on Xbox, Resident Evil 4 on GameCube, etc.). Each console had their strengths and weaknesses, and of course exclusives that felt right at home - giving a specific platform a kind of identity. I kinda see exclusives as the face or personality of a platform.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

1st Party exclusives should be a thing, to make the console more appealing and show off what it can do but for 3rd party games, not so much. No issue with 1st Party games going to other systems after a certain time frame though, to make more money when sales slow down.

 

[Terranigma]

First party exclusives are a great thing, we have had decades of classics to think this for. 3rd party titles should not be exclusive IMO, unless it is really the only way for an IP to have another shot. Bayonetta for one would have been resigned to the dustbin without Nintendo's funding and involvement, Final Fantasy is an example of why not. it is a premiere title for the 3rd party publisher, they should be easily able to fund it and release it on any platform.

 

[RoboMagik]

So you think Sony would have happily funded a 300 million spider-man without mtx if it could lead to no PlayStation sales or increased activity in their ecosystem? If that is the case, why didn't Activision do that when they had the license?

In a world where consoles are quite similar to one another, the main difference comes down to software. So therefore I believe that - at least from a single player point of view - there is incentive from platform holders for their game to look great and to run great, to show off the power of the console. Massive big budget single player games are becoming more and more rare, and PlayStation is one of the few who still consistently does it, because they believe in doing so would make people buy a PlayStation.

It's what everyone wants, to get customers into their ecosystem, that's all this is for. And exclusives are one way to do that, and making those exclusives as good as possible is just appealing. It's pretty logical really.

I personally don't think that is a very platform warring take, especially since I don't even own a single console anymore, but you can disagree if you so wish.

Click to shrink...

Oh I do disagree because like I said questions of "what ifs" are hardly verifiable but publishers publish games, devs made them, all the time. Sure, creative reasons are fine but incentive is to make money for most of the time.

I do look around other mediums/things, lack of exlusives platforms never stoped high quality products from being made and sold. So exclusive games might be positive for console/platform owners as an another way to drive console sales (and I have my doubts even about this) but correlation between exclusives and for example high budget single player games? There is many more factors at play to even turn for this.

PS. I mean in other threads people were even urging Sony to start making cheaper games instead of high-budget ones if it is the only way it keep them exclusives to PS ...

 

[dude]

Agree with this post. Used to have a PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube during the era you mentioned. Always went for the best version of a multi-platform game on one of the consoles (i.e. Splinter Cell on Xbox, Resident Evil 4 on GameCube, etc.). Each console had their strengths and weaknesses, and of course exclusives that felt right at home - giving a specific platform a kind of identity. I kinda see exclusives as the face or personality of a platform.

Click to shrink...

I barely had enough money to even buy the games I wanted, let alone extra consoles. Most people didn't have enough money to buy 3 platforms in order to try out each of their "specific personalities".

I HATED how heavily exclusive that era was, it felt super isolating.

 

[Oghuz]

Overall bad.

I have three consoles at home and two of them are mostly collecting dus outside of exclusives. That's just a waste in my opinion.

 

[Reflecting Sky]

I barely had enough money to even buy the games I wanted, let alone extra consoles. Most people didn't have enough money to buy 3 platforms in order to try out each of their "specific personalities".

I HATED how heavily exclusive that era was, it felt super isolating.

Click to shrink...

You could apply that to every era though. Missed out on a lot of great games over the decades, but so what? That happens regardless of how many platforms one owns. People will gravitate towards what they like the most if they have to make a choice, and this was no different in the 16-bit era for example. It's what it ultimately boils down to...choice. There's this platform for this, and the other for that. Platform warring is by nature stupid because it all boils down to personal preference. Things have changed, and I'm not into actively owning numerous systems these days, simply because I have no interest besides the one I've ultimately chosen.

 

[345]

it's a meaningless question. obviously i would like breath of the wild on PS5 but the fact that it isn't is the reason it exists in the first place.

 

[Kenai]

There's good arguments for both, but I'm of the opinion that console manufacturers have much better reasons to maintain exclusivity than 3rd parties do, and most 3rd parties would probably benefit from being on as many machines as possible.

For consumers, it's probably going to depend on what they want to use their device for. My Switch is my most used after PC since it has so many exclusives, and I'm barely touching the PS5 because of the library overlap with my PC. That's fine in the sense that I will be able to consolidate my library more, but if someone wasn't interested in PC gaming and wanted an alternative for one reason or another...not sure where home consoles will be in a few gens if they don't differentiate more from PCs. At least a few games from console manufacturers aren't going to exist if they aren't exclusives (Nintendo especially), but I'm not sure how many in absolute numbers.

 

[MoogleWizard]

Plenty of games wouldn't be made without exclusivity, I don't understand the "exclusivity = less choice" option. If anything, it'd be the opposite.

 

[Fisty]

It gives the first party platforms a good excuse to dump a bunch of money into games, whether it's ones they make or ones they are funding. People complain that games should be everywhere but console prices aren't some insurmountable barrier to entry

 

[Solaris]

I understand why they exist, but exclusives make me completely uninterested in console gaming.

I have absolutely no desire to buy 2-3 pieces of extra hardware to sit there and do nothing 99% of the time outside of 1-2 exclusive games that I'd want to play. So I just don't play them until they come to PC. and if they don't, so be it.

 

[dude]

You could apply that to every era though. Missed out on a lot of great games over the decades, but so what? That happens regardless of how many platforms one owns. People will gravitate towards what they like the most if they have to make a choice, and this was no different in the 16-bit era for example. It's what it ultimately boils down to...choice. There's this platform for this, and the other for that. Platform warring is by nature stupid because it all boils down to personal preference. Things have changed, and I'm not into actively owning numerous systems these days, simply because I have no interest besides the one I've ultimately chosen.

Click to shrink...

It's not actual choice because you don't know which games you'll be missing out on in advance unless you buy the console at the end of its life. Yeah, you'll always miss out on stuff, but it sucks having to miss out on them because of exclusivity and lacking even the choice to try out the game.
Platform warring is an immediate by-product of exclusivity and the idea of platform having "identities" one can project onto themselves (and then you get the "I convinced myself all games not on my platform must suck" type of console-war rhetoric that was everywhere during that era.)

Luckily, there are way less exclusives these days and the trend is for less of them. This is a part of older generation I have 0 nostalgia for.

 

[RPGam3r]

It's good. The companies we have wouldn't be where they are without them. It should also just be expected, exclusives are the main differentiator between platforms. And at the end of the day these are businesses and they should be allowed to do what they want with their IP.

Edit: also it's not less choice. You just have to buy more, your choices are diminished, if anything there are more choices.

 

[Ant_17]

Exclusivity of any consumer product is good, period. Makes it unique and desirable. But on this site people use a follow up question in their head. "I don't like Company A having them so i they should not be exclusive"

 

[vio55555]

Would anybody buy a Switch if not for exclusives?

With options like the Steam Deck out there, the main selling point of the Switch is obviously the software and not the outdated hardware.

 

[Scarecrow]

Exclusives are an old concept that needs to die.

 

[naff]

Definitely not a scumbag OP, exclusivity and innovation are what consoles are all about. Nintendo created an innovative piece of hardware that took a huge risk cannibalizing their handheld market and made it successful with a library of incredible titles to push it.

Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft have converged with two nearly identical boxes, so software has been even more important there. There's something to be said about other aspects of competition; price point, feature set, best platform for third party, hardware capability, but they mean little relatively to having successful exclusives. Not sure what the point to having these various platforms is without exclusives. Not really a question of good or bad, just is what it is.

I expect the first party console ports to continue ramping up from Sony and even Nintendo to make some more serious forays into mobile ports by the end of the Switch 2's lifecycle, especially if growth is relatively flat (expecting it will be incredibly popular but still not reach the financial heights of the Wii era for them).

 

[Genesius]

I think that it made sense back when games were much more of a technology race than they are now. Constant new mediums kind of inherently bred innovation. Now that hardware standards are more of a mainstream concern, it doesn't make sense anymore. I think if anything Nintendo could be even more profitable if they stopped sinking money into hardware and moved those resources over into additional game development. Mario Kart could sell 100 million copies.

 

[naff]

I think that it made sense back when games were much more of a technology race than they are now. Constant new mediums kind of inherently bred innovation. Now that hardware standards are more of a mainstream concern, it doesn't make sense anymore. I think if anything Nintendo could be even more profitable if they stopped sinking money into hardware and moved those resources over into additional game development. Mario Kart could sell 100 million copies.

Click to shrink...

They'd hemorrhage users to other platforms that want to eat their lunch. I'd bet on them doing ports to phones and smart TV's before anything owned by Sony or MS

 

[Vidiot]

If it's a third party bad. If the game company itself is making the game why wouldn't it be exclusive?

 

[Mr. Mug]

Would anybody buy a Switch if not for exclusives?

With options like the Steam Deck out there, the main selling point of the Switch is obviously the software and not the outdated hardware.

Click to shrink...

Probably? It's outdated hardware now but it wasn't always. And you could argue it's still more user friendly (and more accessible) than a steam deck is. Steam deck is amazing but I don't ever expect it to do Switch numbers. With or without exclusives.

I could see a government making a law against 3rd party exclusives but you can't force a company to support a platform. I think banning exclusivity deals between two companies is a somewhat realistic idea but forcing Nintendo to port their games is not.

 

[duckroll]

Would anybody buy a Switch if not for exclusives?

With options like the Steam Deck out there, the main selling point of the Switch is obviously the software and not the outdated hardware.

Click to shrink...

The main selling point of the Switch is that it is affordable and has games people want to play. If the Switch and Steam Deck costs the same as they do now but had the exact same libraries just with graphical quality difference, I'm certain the Switch will still sell much more.

 

[St. Eam the 3rd]

Would anybody buy a Switch if not for exclusives?

With options like the Steam Deck out there, the main selling point of the Switch is obviously the software and not the outdated hardware.

Click to shrink...

Seen this take already, yep i and many more would:). There are many reasons to prefer one or another outside of exclusives.Even outside of the obvious I have almost 1000 games on Steam And for me and SO Steam deck was and is a huge downgrade:).
Even outside of the obvious price accessibility and physical games

 

[Nessus]

I liked console exclusives because they gave me a reason to own more than 1 console, gave each console an identity. I liked owning a GameCube, PS2, and Xbox. And a Wii, PS3, and 360.

Now almost every Sony and MS game is also released on PC, so I still don't have a PS5 or Series X. Switch is the only platform with exclusives I care about.

I get that not everyone wants to/can afford to own multiple consoles, but even having different platforms seems sorta redundant/pointless when the libraries have become so homogenized.

 

[ChrisJSY]

As the end user/consumer whatever, it's a bad thing because I'm going to be playing less stuff if it isn't on the platforms I own or can afford.
Also we've seen time and again how when they release stuff multiplat day and date it just does very well, however we don't have enough of these examples to really put down anything solid in the long term.

I just can't fathom why the people who want to make money want to lose out on a market that will make them more money.

Makes it unique and desirable.

Click to shrink...

The product itself, the game; should speak for itself, by itself, regardless of platform.

I don't think I've ever looked at a game and thought "oh it's more desirable because it's locked here, or "wow so unique I've never seen this before".
It's like I'd be putting on blinkers if I thought that.

 

[ScOULaris]

Exclusives are good, even third party exclusives. In the past, people chose their console based on the exclusives they got. No one got angry because they got a Gamecube and expected to get FFX, or got a PS2 and expected Super Mario Sunshine. Everyone knew what they were getting when they bought in on a console back in those days, and there wasn't such a huge sense of entitlement to getting everything as there is now. The different exclusives on each console led to unique ecosystems between them, and each of these ecosystems built up different audiences that would be continuously fed the type of content that they liked.

Now we have people whining anytime third-party exclusives get announced. We have this strange juxtaposition where people moan the lack of PS5 games and hearken back to the glory days of past generations, but don't want to acknowledge that third-party exclusives built those past generations. There are so many games that wouldn't exist without exclusivity, and so many that won't exist in the future if exclusivity dies.

Exclusives enhance gaming, they do not diminish them.

Click to shrink...

Completely agree with everything in this post.

 

[Jerm]

I think it's a bad thing and that it's contributed to the current state of the industry. The exclusives made me leave the console space and I've owned one since before my memory developed lol.

 

[Jerm]

We've also seen in both Xbox and Epic cases that they don't matter all that much in a world where we're sticking with the services where we've built our libraries.

 

[Son of Sparda]

Third party: bad
First party: necessary

Click to shrink...

This is how I feel as well.

 

[Zeal543]

Exclusives are good, even third party exclusives. In the past, people chose their console based on the exclusives they got. No one got angry because they got a Gamecube and expected to get FFX, or got a PS2 and expected Super Mario Sunshine. Everyone knew what they were getting when they bought in on a console back in those days, and there wasn't such a huge sense of entitlement to getting everything as there is now. The different exclusives on each console led to unique ecosystems between them, and each of these ecosystems built up different audiences that would be continuously fed the type of content that they liked.

Now we have people whining anytime third-party exclusives get announced. We have this strange juxtaposition where people moan the lack of PS5 games and hearken back to the glory days of past generations, but don't want to acknowledge that third-party exclusives built those past generations. There are so many games that wouldn't exist without exclusivity, and so many that won't exist in the future if exclusivity dies.

Exclusives enhance gaming, they do not diminish them.

Click to shrink...

Excellent post

 

[ScOULaris]

We've also seen in both Xbox and Epic cases that they don't matter all that much in a world where we're sticking with the services where we've built our libraries.

Click to shrink...

But we've also seen that exclusives played a large role in getting people to choose one platform over another, and then they've been relatively locked in since then. That's my perception, at least.

 

[Genesius]

They'd hemorrhage users to other platforms that want to eat their lunch. I'd bet on them doing ports to phones and smart TV's before anything owned by Sony or MS

Click to shrink...

Eat their lunch in what way? I was talking about Nintendo ditching hardware all together. Their games wouldn't stop getting made. They'd just be distributed to a vastly wider audience. Do you think that Nintendo is an unsustainable company unless they build hardware?

And if they stayed in hardware, there's definitely a market for child-friendly devices like the Switch that could serve the same function it does now, Nintendo games and whatever else anyone wants to put on it.

 

[Hanzo]

On paper they are... bad?
But the thing is they help differentiate platforms, and also generate 'hype' and awareness because of the exclusivity. It can also mean better optimization and lower costs (money hat and not dedicating dev time to more platforms)

 

[Host Samurai]

Pros and Cons. I'd say it's good that devs don't have to focus on making another sku, but also won't reach max audience

 

[JoelStinty]

Yeah and No. Ultimately I think everyone should be be able to play any given game on any system, but at the same time certain games only exist because of the culture of a studio/company or only exists because of the money put into the development by any given company. Also the nature of exclusives pushes people, companies etc to try and differentiate themselves which creates wonderful things.

Perhaps a middle ground should be all companies not being afraid to release games on other platforms after a time. No reason why Halo MCC, Uncharted Trilogy or Mario Allstars could be on other platforms. As an example.

 

[Mesoian]

I've been on PC for ages, I didn't have time for "individual personalities" of corporate sponsored toys.

Everything on everything. Let performance be the Factor of competition.

 

[mightymonkeyman]

Common, PC players keeping getting mad when they have EGS exclusive... But the game is still on PC, what's the problem?

Click to shrink...

This annoys me no end, Steam, Epic hell itch IO, there is no barrier to entry but PC gamers constantly cry if it isn't on their previous Steam.

I just have the icons lined up, a click a few pixels away is not a hardship.

 

[KENMASTERS1]

Exclusives are good, even third party exclusives. In the past, people chose their console based on the exclusives they got. No one got angry because they got a Gamecube and expected to get FFX, or got a PS2 and expected Super Mario Sunshine. Everyone knew what they were getting when they bought in on a console back in those days, and there wasn't such a huge sense of entitlement to getting everything as there is now. The different exclusives on each console led to unique ecosystems between them, and each of these ecosystems built up different audiences that would be continuously fed the type of content that they liked.

Now we have people whining anytime third-party exclusives get announced. We have this strange juxtaposition where people moan the lack of PS5 games and hearken back to the glory days of past generations, but don't want to acknowledge that third-party exclusives built those past generations. There are so many games that wouldn't exist without exclusivity, and so many that won't exist in the future if exclusivity dies.

Exclusives enhance gaming, they do not diminish them.

Click to shrink...

exactly this, games like FF7 on the PS1 and FFX and Kingdom Hearts on the PS2 are a clear example of this. Without exclusivity ever being a thing, there wouldn't be a symbiotic relationship that benefited both companies, at least for the time in which they came out. And that's also not counting the games that weren't even considered 1st-party until it was officially so (Naughty Dog games, God of War games, etc.)

Now games are more expensive to make than ever, come out less frequently - gamers have PCs, buy less games, play free games with MTX - and people now complain about there being no games / wanting to end exclusivity?

 

[mightymonkeyman]

Exclusives are the way to showcase any given hardware, having developers flexing what they are capable of within a wall garden instead of catering for everything.

I much rather be in this hobby seeing Nintendo push impossible games on their under powered affordable hardware (BOTW and TOTK are absolute masterpieces besides being on essentially an Nvidia Shield) or Sony letting devs like Insomniac pushing and innovating ray tracing which was claimed the PS5 couldn't do and using VRR in interesting ways like 40fps beyond simply hiding poor optimisation or worse screen tearing like it is on PC and Xbox.

Hell even PC is getting path tracing which is unavailable elsewhere at that quality, if you can stomach the price of entry.

This is my problem with the Series X, it's fine at the established tried and true but where is the special about it?

No exclusives as some of you want just leads to the same old shit over an over.

 

[Loud Wrong]

Seems like PS5 exclusives more often than not take advantage of fast loading, haptics, and triggers in better ways than non exclusives on PS5 do.

 

[Calvin]

They are objectively bad - they stifle consumer choice, encourage conflict between people that oddly identify with particular companies, artificially constrain the reach/popularity of games (FF7 Rebirth being PS5 exclusive undoubtedly heavily influenced its reportedly disappointing sales), make cross-play/progression arbitrarily more difficult and rare, and offer nothing of tangible value to you, the consumer.

I dislike them so much I have moved to playing 99% of my games on PC and am considering making it 100%. The only reason I hold on to a PS5 is for the Marvel exclusives and a handful of Sony first party titles but I am so busy and so backlogged I could easily wait for ports. The whole thing really rubs me the wrong way and Sony and Nintendo are the worst offenders.

 

[ghibli99]

This annoys me no end, Steam, Epic hell itch IO, there is no barrier to entry but PC gamers constantly cry if it isn't on their previous Steam.

I just have the icons lined up, a click a few pixels away is not a hardship.

Click to shrink...

And using something like Playnite helps blur those lines even further. I have no loyalties, just preferences... and even those are tame.

As for the topic at hand, I feel like it was more important (and necessary) back when each console had very different architectures, features, and inputs. It's fairly standardized/similar today when you look at those things. Exclusivity deals were much more harsh/restrictive back then too, while third-party deals seem to be for 6 months to a year today. And I don't think we'll ever get to the point where all the first parties don't own studios that only produce content for their platform.

Personally, I think video streaming services are far worse at this in terms of gating/rotating content that you can only find on one platform.

 

[naff]

Eat their lunch in what way? I was talking about Nintendo ditching hardware all together. Their games wouldn't stop getting made. They'd just be distributed to a vastly wider audience. Do you think that Nintendo is an unsustainable company unless they build hardware?

And if they stayed in hardware, there's definitely a market for child-friendly devices like the Switch that could serve the same function it does now, Nintendo games and whatever else anyone wants to put on it.

Click to shrink...

Sony, Nintendo, MS (on Xbox, reduced to 15% on Windows store a few years ago iirc), Steam et al all take 30% commission on sales through their stores. Nintendo has the best selling games in the business.

 

[ScOULaris]

They are objectively bad - they stifle consumer choice, encourage conflict between people that oddly identify with particular companies, artificially constrain the reach/popularity of games (FF7 Rebirth being PS5 exclusive undoubtedly heavily influenced its reportedly disappointing sales), make cross-play/progression arbitrarily more difficult and rare, and offer nothing of tangible value to you, the consumer.

I dislike them so much I have moved to playing 99% of my games on PC and am considering making it 100%. The only reason I hold on to a PS5 is for the Marvel exclusives and a handful of Sony first party titles but I am so busy and so backlogged I could easily wait for ports. The whole thing really rubs me the wrong way and Sony and Nintendo are the worst offenders.

Click to shrink...

You say objectively bad, but I say subjectively good!

I wish we had more exclusives than we do now, in fact. But market realities make that fiscally irresponsible, so it is what it is.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Undecided. I think it's not great when a game was clearly intended as a multiplatform title and gets siloed off to one system for moneyhats, but when it might not have been developed at all otherwise, it's hard to be too bothered.

And then there's companies like Square Enix, who either are getting a great deal from Sony, or just aren't all that worried about multiplatform releases for certain titles. FF7R not being at all on the MS systems this many years later makes me wonder if they don't just take the money because why not, but wouldn't necessarily have ported it anyway.

As an adult with disposable income, something being on one system but not another is generally only a bother to me because it either won't run well on that system (looking at you, many Switch games) or I'm not as much as fan of the controller/UI/etc. And I'll admit I do find myself wondering what the landscape of console gaming would look like if exclusivity was just completely not a thing, but I can't help thinking it'd end up very different if companies had to compete based on the platform, controller, and features of their system alone.

 

[naff]

Why indeed. I'm kinda over this whole concept personally.

Click to shrink...

So we go pc or would you have manufacturers collaborate to create an open platform console? If PC was an agnostic system with a popular storefront that took a smaller cut of sales than console manufacturers I'd say maybe this is the way. As it stands it's not realistic, I can't see Sony and MS working together anytime soon, and there's no ways Nintendo are giving up their keys to the kingdom.

 

[mojo]

Exclusives are important no matter how many people try and tell you otherwise. Consoles don't exist without them.

 

[davepoobond]

i dont agree that it is "less choice for consumers"

consumers have a choice to buy the console.


this is a pretty loaded poll. overall, exclusives are good because they wouldnt be made otherwise.

 

[AppleKid]

I lean more "bad" than "good" but feel closer to mixed than anything. I see value in exclusives and enjoy the ecosystem they can create on a console, but also prefer to buy anything that releases on PC on PC.