-
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
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.
Obviously bad. If you tried to make hardware exclusives a thing in other forms of media, you'd be laughed out of the room. Imagine Spiderman movies only play in a Sony Blu-ray player, or Severance is only viewable on an Apple device.
They exist because gaming has its business roots in the toy industry instead of media industries (where accessories made exclusive to the main toy line were/are common).
They exist because gaming has its business roots in the toy industry instead of media industries (where accessories made exclusive to the main toy line were/are common).
I would own Stellar Blade and Rise of Ronin right now if they were not locked away on a system I don't own.
I think being exclusive to one platform is really annoying and not consumer friendly nor is it good for the industry as a whole. Especially 3rd party exclusives. In all honesty, I am not sure Sony, Nintendo and MS Xbox Division would have been able to create such massive businesses without 1st party exclusives, but in this day and age, single platform releases, 1st and 3rd party can fuck right off.
I think being exclusive to one platform is really annoying and not consumer friendly nor is it good for the industry as a whole. Especially 3rd party exclusives. In all honesty, I am not sure Sony, Nintendo and MS Xbox Division would have been able to create such massive businesses without 1st party exclusives, but in this day and age, single platform releases, 1st and 3rd party can fuck right off.
We win if every game we want to play is available in our format of choice. PC seems like the best option for the most amount of games. Shame on those platforms (Epic, PlayStation, etc.) that spend money for exclusivity. If only for the horrible takes and untrustworthy developers that suggest the game wouldn't have been made otherwise.
If you are paying just to keep others from playing them - not a fan
If you are first party or help dev/fund game - no problems with that, its to be expected
If you are first party or help dev/fund game - no problems with that, its to be expected
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.
You'll quickly find out how much of a pain in the ass pretty much anything other than Steam is when you are not sitting at a desk with a keyboard in reach to get through all the UAC password prompts they throw at you, or having to deal with how unreliable it is to even play EA/Ubisoft games sold on Steam thanks to their launchers.
And that's without going into any of the features Steam provides that the others don't even attempt.
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.
Exclusives are an overall good, but the framing in the poll is pretty narrow and kinda negative. There definitely are positives.
Where would gaming be if Nintendo and Sega never made games? All those early consoles likely wouldn't have existed.
Where would gaming be if Nintendo and Sega never made games? All those early consoles likely wouldn't have existed.
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.
In fact, if the only thing consoles had were exclusivity, it would be hated even more.
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.
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...
I don't think MS,Nintendo,Sony would have invested so much in to gaming if everything they made was going to be multi platform.
Times are changing and it does seem like MS is heading in that direction while keeping its dedicated hardware alive. That's not really something the other 2 could do I think.
Also for MP focus games, it makes sense to have them on any strong platform for the success of the game.
My preferred platform is the PC so I wish everything was available on that, but I rather have games being made even if they dont come to my platform of choice.
Times are changing and it does seem like MS is heading in that direction while keeping its dedicated hardware alive. That's not really something the other 2 could do I think.
Also for MP focus games, it makes sense to have them on any strong platform for the success of the game.
My preferred platform is the PC so I wish everything was available on that, but I rather have games being made even if they dont come to my platform of choice.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
You seem to be looking at exclusives from the perspective of being prevented from accessing them.
I'm curious, who's making the consoles in your preferred reality?
Do you want novel Nintendo hardware but no Nintendo games? Do you want Nintendo to make games for Xbox which is fundamentally identical to last gen hardware just with more power?
Or are you suggesting that Nintendo should be forced to make games for Xbox as well as their own hardware?
I'm mainly PC gamer and I don't give a single damn about 'console distinctiveness'. Just let me play the game on the platform I prefer. I was dreading the possibility of Persona 6 being PS5 time exclusive. I don't have PS5, I don't need PS5.
One exception here could be consoles that have very specific hardware solutions, like 3DS' 3D effect and dual screen or Switch's tilt controls. But some of those could be replicated on PC by having PC-compatible controllers.
One exception here could be consoles that have very specific hardware solutions, like 3DS' 3D effect and dual screen or Switch's tilt controls. But some of those could be replicated on PC by having PC-compatible controllers.
Something I feel gets ignored in this debate is the amount of times a game gets held back by being exclusive to the wrong system. If something is exclusive to a market leader it tends to be fine, it would be fine if on all platforms too but anyway. But so many games I feel didn't get the chance to find thier audience because they released only on unfashionable hardware.
Very few games are actually system sellers, you can have some excellent exclusives and they still won't move the needle much with hardware sales. I look at Sega on the Saturn and Dreamcast, they put out many great games but few people even heard of them because they were exclusive to the wrong systems. Not saying they should have ported them to PS1 or anything but if Saturn and DC hadn't been such an unfashionable consoles maybe some of the IP they pushed would have lasted longer into the future.
Basically I think just as much there are games for whom exclusivity helped thier existence there are those for where the exclusively killed any chance of a future.
Very few games are actually system sellers, you can have some excellent exclusives and they still won't move the needle much with hardware sales. I look at Sega on the Saturn and Dreamcast, they put out many great games but few people even heard of them because they were exclusive to the wrong systems. Not saying they should have ported them to PS1 or anything but if Saturn and DC hadn't been such an unfashionable consoles maybe some of the IP they pushed would have lasted longer into the future.
Basically I think just as much there are games for whom exclusivity helped thier existence there are those for where the exclusively killed any chance of a future.
Third party exclusivity is trash that has no place in the games industry. Developers should strive to reach as many people as possible. I'll always boycott any game under exclusivity deals.
It's almost always a good thing. The framing of the choices is very strange. It makes it sound like it's a matter of greed. Lots of games that we know and love... would never have been made at all had it not been for the money afforded by the platform holder paying for exclusivity.
Also, in some cases, being exclusive is not a matter of the platform holder paying for it but it's because a dev doesn't have the resources to release on two platforms, so they will choose the biggest one/the one easiest to develop for. That means that in a world with no AAA exclusivity, everyone would just buy the same platform (the one in the lead) because that's the one that gets every new title. And a world with only one console is a bad thing for consumers because then there is no impetus to be cutting edge. Resistive triggers and more advanced rumble? 16GB RAM instead of 12GB? Discounts via points programs? Backwards compatibility? Gamepass?
Most of that stuff exists purely to be competitive. In a world with only one console, the jump in power between generations would also be smaller because why bother when you have no competition other than your own 6-7 year old model.
Also, in some cases, being exclusive is not a matter of the platform holder paying for it but it's because a dev doesn't have the resources to release on two platforms, so they will choose the biggest one/the one easiest to develop for. That means that in a world with no AAA exclusivity, everyone would just buy the same platform (the one in the lead) because that's the one that gets every new title. And a world with only one console is a bad thing for consumers because then there is no impetus to be cutting edge. Resistive triggers and more advanced rumble? 16GB RAM instead of 12GB? Discounts via points programs? Backwards compatibility? Gamepass?
Most of that stuff exists purely to be competitive. In a world with only one console, the jump in power between generations would also be smaller because why bother when you have no competition other than your own 6-7 year old model.
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+.
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 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 can agree about major or established 3rd party exclusives that would normally just release multiplatform otherwise. Those invariably suck and honestly, it doesn't materially benefit the game or franchise usually. Especially longer term.
Nintendo has kind of been an exception to the rule where people buy consoles to play specific exclusive versus feeling like consoles are holding certain games hostage. And even then, not really.
People will wait for other console exclusives to eventually get PC ports, but many PC users will just emulate Nintendo games. With the Switch it's gotten to the point where they'll emulate the new Zelda or Metroid near launch day.
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.
People will wait for other console exclusives to eventually get PC ports, but many PC users will just emulate Nintendo games. With the Switch it's gotten to the point where they'll emulate the new Zelda or Metroid near launch day.
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.
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.
mainline Final Fantasy often feels the need to push the envelope that informs the rest of the game:
What will traversal be like? Let's make it a detailed open-world.
What will combat be like? Let's move away from turn-based combat.
How big should we make the world?
What will the story be like and how can we effectively convey that story? How would that inform the gameplay?
What makes the game marketable?
Last edited:
I mean it can make games better, extra funding plus the abilty to focus on one platform at a time, which is kind of marketing to justify it but also is kind of true, if nothing else it makes QA and passing cert easier.
For games. Whole games. Console exclusive levels or gameplay modes or playable characters suck though, all my homies hate that shit.
For games. Whole games. Console exclusive levels or gameplay modes or playable characters suck though, all my homies hate that shit.
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.
exclusives breed competition and these roots were sewn long ago during the Nintendo and Sega era, and continued from there into what we have today.
Vocal gamers may not like it but exclusives ain't goin anywhere. Exclusivity terms may be different and evolve moving forward, but they are necessary for the health of existing billion-dollar companies/publishers.
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.
exclusives breed competition and these roots were sewn long ago during the Nintendo and Sega era, and continued from there into what we have today.
Vocal gamers may not like it but exclusives ain't goin anywhere. Exclusivity terms may be different and evolve moving forward, but they are necessary for the health of existing billion-dollar companies/publishers.
I think each case is different and there's lots to analyze. Xbox is probably going the way of the dodo so there's nothing to discuss there. So you have Nintendo making extremely good games for the Switch, which also innovated so well by hitting that middle point that it offered a lot of added value. Its biggest threat is likely the Steam Deck and variants but since it's hard as hell to get one and that's not likely to change short term, it'll be the same until they do something new.
On the other hand there's PS5 offering a behemoth of a machine, costing and arm and a leg with games to match. Old school exclusives feel like they were more focused, more pick up and play, and that's not really the case now with them being these huge multibillion dollar endeavors that take many years to make and weeks to finish. They're also very few, and everything feels so *big* now that it makes me not want to bother, they've hit a point of diminishing returns it feels like.
The most "videogame fun" I'm having these days (personally) are mostly indies and Nintendo, while I grew up by that being totally a Playstation thing (Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk's, Ratchet & Clank, Kingdom Hearts, old Tales of, Final Fantasies, Guitar Heroes, Katamari Damacy, even some Sega games, etc).
Of small note, this opinion is sponsored by someone who's offended by games that expect you to know acronyms of guns that all look the same, or the difference between auto or semi auto machine guns or whatever the hell they're called. This biases things by a lot.
On the other hand there's PS5 offering a behemoth of a machine, costing and arm and a leg with games to match. Old school exclusives feel like they were more focused, more pick up and play, and that's not really the case now with them being these huge multibillion dollar endeavors that take many years to make and weeks to finish. They're also very few, and everything feels so *big* now that it makes me not want to bother, they've hit a point of diminishing returns it feels like.
The most "videogame fun" I'm having these days (personally) are mostly indies and Nintendo, while I grew up by that being totally a Playstation thing (Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk's, Ratchet & Clank, Kingdom Hearts, old Tales of, Final Fantasies, Guitar Heroes, Katamari Damacy, even some Sega games, etc).
Of small note, this opinion is sponsored by someone who's offended by games that expect you to know acronyms of guns that all look the same, or the difference between auto or semi auto machine guns or whatever the hell they're called. This biases things by a lot.
I think the reason there's disagreement on this is simply because there's two very separate viewpoints on this, and consumers could easily hold either, or a spectrum between them.
From a consumer product perspective, it's a bad thing. Less choice on where to play the games, and they may potentially be restricted by the hardware available to them. Possibly more chance of deep discounts over time? Not sure if that's really A Thing or not.
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.
I lean more to the latter side, but I'm not unsympathetic to the former point of view.
From a consumer product perspective, it's a bad thing. Less choice on where to play the games, and they may potentially be restricted by the hardware available to them. Possibly more chance of deep discounts over time? Not sure if that's really A Thing or not.
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.
I lean more to the latter side, but I'm not unsympathetic to the former point of view.
It worked out so well for Sony studios like Studio Liverpool and Japan Studio.
How did that go for you?
And why would a game like Halo being multi-platform affect anyone's desire to compete with it?
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).
Even 7 Remake was over 700k in its first week of Japan sales.
It's literally only the last 2 entries that can be considered flops in Japan relative to the historical sales of the series, 16 and 7 Rebirth which have seen a complete collapse in sales relative to the history of the franchise there.
Just feels like the series has lost a half (or more) of its Japanese playerbase since 16 and that feels like an important problem when you're talking about sales falling that significantly.
I mean Super Mario RPG is going to end up around 900k sales in Japan. How is that doing so much better than the last 2 FF titles?
Yeah, while what I said is absolutely true in principle, in practice it absolutely does depend on what the exclusivity-purchaser wants from them and what they're willing to nurture.
Exclusives are apart of the console experience they're supposed to be exclusives going back to the NES with Mario.
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.
Halo was pivotal to Microsoft's success, and it made sense because it was rare to see single-family households have more than one console at a time during the 6th gen, so a company like Microsoft needed a crutch that allowed them to compete with Sony and also become the dominant must-play choice for the FPS genre.
See Gamerant's 'Halo-Killer' article:
To put it simply, for it's earlier times, these companies were trying (and are still trying) to put each other out of business in the console market by establishing a customer base that recognizes the kind of games that get put on each respective system and not allowing certain games to show up on other consoles because they carve out an entire niche for themselves. Hell it even goes as far as someone like Sony paying Capcom to have an RE4 Remake trailer shown exclusively on their PS Showcase rather than on Xbox's because that creates a greater likelihood that someone will buy it on their PS5 (that they've already invested in for future entertainment).
Trust and brand awareness go a long way which explains why we had that Xbox exiting the console business and into 3rd party scare. Seems kinda moot to me for Microsoft continuing with consoles, if not for the sake of having Game Pass in the living room, but that seems to be their crutch at this point, as well as making certain games multi-platform. There's no REAL incentive to own an Xbox at this point, and no incentive for a developer to make a game exclusive on Xbox if PS5's clearly outnumber them. Sega knew this.
Last edited:
Exclusivity is annoying. Currently playing FF7 Remake on PC but have no idea when/if part 2 will release on PC. I'm certainly not buying a PS5 for the game, so I'll either have to wait or just not play it (though I'm aware that's it's basically guaranteed to come out at some point).
If everything (third party, at least) was released everywhere on day one, that'd be great.
If everything (third party, at least) was released everywhere on day one, that'd be great.
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.
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.
I think even among enthusiasts you have folks in a variety of different economic levels. Everyone is looking at it based on how it affects them. If you're lucky enough to be able to comfortably afford multiple consoles you might take the slightly better games at the cost of others being able to access them, whereas someone who can't afford multiple consoles would take slightly worse games to be able to play them at all.
Console exclusives are necessary and they help keep consumers engaged on their respective platforms. I don't love them, especially if there's situations with arbitrary moneyhats, but I get it. Better to own more consoles than just one though.