But why are those market realities though? It's likely because most people outside diehard collectors don't want to have to own more than one gaming device.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.
Cool, now try playing those games on a TV using only a controller, or on a Steam Deck, and see how much you enjoy it then.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.
No exclusives does not equal no consoles. There is more to consoles than exclusivity.It seems like PC players are the ones who are most vocal about hating exclusives. And I get it, but like, you're more or less arguing for a worse gaming landscape. A future with no consoles and everyone going to PC is a net negative for the gaming industry. So many games would cease to exist in that future. Such an outcome would remove choice from consumers, not give them more choices.
Isn't the counterargument to that FF7 Rebirth? Look at Japan where FF7 Rebirth's sales have come in far below expectations in part because the Switch has become such a dominant platform there.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.
that's also part of the second part of my reply since it's a sign of the ever-changing social & economic times. Of course they're going to have to adapt in order to get these games into more people's hands, but seeing as how mainline Final Fantasy games (for example) have always evolved with new technology, there's very little reason for Square Enix to backtrack on their development pipeline because each iteration sets a new precedent and expectation for the new FF to be an even bigger spectacle than the previous.Isn't the counterargument to that FF7 Rebirth? Look at Japan where FF7 Rebirth's sales have come in far below expectations in part because the Switch has become such a dominant platform there.
If a console exclusive isn't on Switch, it might as well not exist for most Japanese gamers.
If we don't see Square make significant changes, new FF mainline games won't be relevant in its home market. That doesn't portend good things for the future of the franchise...
So many people buy Nintendo hardware just to play Nintendo published games.I've always hated console exclusivity and it's even more stupid when a playstation and an xbox are basically the same now in terms of hardware architecture.
No exclusives does not equal no consoles. There is more to consoles than exclusivity.
In fact, if the only thing consoles had were exclusivity, it would be hated even more.
Of course it takes the people who wouldn't buy a console if it wasn't forced on them to play certain games out of the equation, that's the point. But there's still alot of people who will get a console because they don't want to deal with PC gaming, and prefer a specific ecosystem over the others.So many people buy Nintendo hardware just to play Nintendo published games.
Sony gets so much criticism for NOT having enough exclusives/1st party games on Vita/PSVR2. Those machines were well supported by 3rd parties. But their libraries get largely ignored/discounted because you can play most of those games elsewhere. And (partly) as a result they didn't/haven't sold well.
Poor console sales leads to less games leads to poor sales, etc.
The platform holder is responsible for ensuring a viable software ecosystem.
You seem to be looking at exclusives from the perspective of being prevented from accessing them.Of course it takes the people who wouldn't buy a console if it wasn't forced on them to play certain games out of the equation, that's the point. But there's still alot of people who will get a console because they don't want to deal with PC gaming, and prefer a specific ecosystem over the others.
If a system can only stand by limiting certain games to only being able to be played on it, and has nothing else to offer, then the system itself was never a good product in the first place.
That's literally what exclusive means.You seem to be looking at exclusives from the perspective of being prevented from accessing them.
You're not worth arguing with.
I would not say "no way" to the odds of Square putting FF17 on Switch 2.that's also part of the second part of my reply since it's a sign of the ever-changing social & economic times. Of course they're going to have to adapt in order to get these games into more people's hands, but seeing as how mainline Final Fantasy games (for example) have always evolved with new technology, there's very little reason for Square Enix to backtrack on their development pipeline because each iteration sets a new precedent and expectation for the new FF to be an even bigger spectacle than the previous.
It wouldn't make any sense to go from what 10 / 12 looked like on the PS2
to 13 on the PS3,
and then 15 on the PS4,
and now 16 on the PS5,
to then 17 in the future to regress and make the game cross platform on the Switch 2 / PS6? We all know Nintendo's next console will probably equal the PS4 in terms of power and there's no way Square is going to make that compromise to the detriment of their brand and franchise. But if you all want a Mortal Kombat 1 situation again, then by all means go ahead...
Hence why single-player games of franchises that we care about are more of a financial risk then ever before. But who knows, maybe Square will subvert expectations and make mainline Final Fantasy games turned-based again. Who. knows.
Most AAA Japanese games aren't targeting a Japanese audience. Capcom doesn't make RE in order to market towards Japan, they only care about the west. There are some exceptions like Dragon Quest, but the vast majority of games target the western market. FF17 isn't going to be on Switch 2 simply because it would make for a worse product on PS5/PS6 and PC, leading to lower sales in the west. Also, Japan doesn't even like FF that much, it's always been lower key compared to DQ.I would not say "no way" to the odds of Square putting FF17 on Switch 2.
Switch became the de facto jRPG system in Japan this past generation; that's where the Japanese RPG gamers are. If you don't go where the players are, you won't get the sales.
Visions of Mana is probably going to be somewhat instructive; I think it's reasonable to expect a Switch 2 port for that title, and then we have to see what the sales look like relative to its sales on other systems.
If the Switch 2 sales are extremely strong in Japan relative to PS4-5, I think that would at least inform Square's thinking on FF17+.
I still think it's case by case, some 3rd party games like Nioh or Octopath Traveler wouldn't have existed at all without direct 1st party investment and support.I understand 1st party exclusives, but money hatting 3rd party exclusives sucks.
We've kind of already seen a precedent for this when they decided to target the DS for Dragon Quest IX, the Wii for X, and accommodate the 3DS (and eventually Switch) for XI. You can argue that DQ has never really been about pushing the latest hardware with AAA graphics, but the move from the PS2 to the DS going from VIII to IX did turn heads at the time. Whatever they do with XII, I don't see a scenario where that game doesn't support at least one of the Switch consoles.that's also part of the second part of my reply since it's a sign of the ever-changing social & economic times. Of course they're going to have to adapt in order to get these games into more people's hands, but seeing as how mainline Final Fantasy games (for example) have always evolved with new technology, there's very little reason for Square Enix to backtrack on their development pipeline because each iteration sets a new precedent and expectation for the new FF to be an even bigger spectacle than the previous.
It wouldn't make any sense to go from what 10 / 12 looked like on the PS2
to 13 on the PS3,
and then 15 on the PS4,
and now 16 on the PS5,
to then 17 in the future to regress and make the game cross platform on the Switch 2 / PS6? We all know Nintendo's next console will probably equal the PS4 in terms of power and there's no way Square is going to make that compromise to the detriment of their brand and franchise. But if you all want a Mortal Kombat 1 situation again, then by all means go ahead...
Hence why single-player games of franchises that we care about are more of a financial risk then ever before. But who knows, maybe Square will subvert expectations and make mainline Final Fantasy games turned-based again. Who. knows.
definitely. i think it really comes down to direction, executive leadership, and the amount of risk Square is willing to take on. Dragon Quest relied on traditional gameplay elements, a recognizable art style, etc., a rinse-n-repeat situation if you will. Doing so allowed them to be flexible with putting Dragon Quest games effectively on other platforms.We've kind of already seen a precedent for this when they decided to target the DS for Dragon Quest IX, the Wii for X, and accommodate the 3DS (and eventually Switch) for XI. You can argue that DQ has never really been about pushing the latest hardware with AAA graphics, but the move from the PS2 to the DS going from VIII to IX did turn heads at the time. Whatever they do with XII, I don't see a scenario where that game doesn't support at least one of the Switch consoles.
Final Fantasy, meanwhile, is having to struggle with the fact that the Japanese market has been shifting toward handhelds (and mobile) for a long time.
It worked out so well for Sony studios like Studio Liverpool and Japan Studio.From an artistic medium perspective, it's a good thing. Games can be made with a singular focus on one environment on which to play them, they have more financial freedom to develop in the direction they wish. An exclusive game doesn't *necessarily* need to be designed to turn a profit if it instead serves to promote the console brand as a whole.
How did that go for you?as a kid, I hated the fact that I couldn't get an Xbox to play Halo.
but I had to live with the fact that some dev out there would hopefully be able to make something that could COMPETE with Halo at the time.
While I won't argue that DQ isn't the bigger series in Japan, FF has traditionally been a major tentpole in Japan. From 3 to 15, each FF entry reached at least 1+ million sales in Japan (with most entries above 1 million on just physical sales and most of those closer to 2 million in Japan alone).Most AAA Japanese games aren't targeting a Japanese audience. Capcom doesn't make RE in order to market towards Japan, they only care about the west. There are some exceptions like Dragon Quest, but the vast majority of games target the western market. FF17 isn't going to be on Switch 2 simply because it would make for a worse product on PS5/PS6 and PC, leading to lower sales in the west. Also, Japan doesn't even like FF that much, it's always been lower key compared to DQ.
It worked out so well for Sony studios like Studio Liverpool and Japan Studio.
I remember thinking that Xbox owners were so lucky to have a franchise like Halo on their system. It created envy, which is what these big corporations ultimately want out of their young consumers, like me, in selling their consoles - and an 'easy' way to do that is to have a premier game franchise to keep around and make exclusive. In the end, I never had an OG Xbox as I was extremely content with my PS2. However, Microsoft rode that momentum with the X360, Halo 3, among other games, was able to have a great headstart with the launch of that console, and I ended up buying that over the PS3 simply because it had more interesting exclusives that I wanted to play. I also didn't have a PC to play games so that explains my desire in owning consoles.How did that go for you?
And why would a game like Halo being multi-platform affect anyone's desire to compete with it?
I'm kinda surprised that many people seemingly only look at exclusives in terms of how it affects them, even on an enthusiast board like Era. I think it's undeniable that exclusivity leads to better games being made (for several reasons repeated throughout the thread), and that's an easy tradeoff as far as I'm concerned. I'll say it again: most of the commonly accepted best games ever made would not exist if they hadn't been intended to push hardware.
Even 3rd party 'moneyhatted' exclusives are often given levels of support they otherwise would not have had, leading to them being much better games. Especially on the indie or AA side.
With all that said, I have been subscribed to Game Pass for years despite thinking it's very bad for the industry overall, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that value & convenience usually wins out I suppose.