Exclusives suck (unless developed with a specific hardware limitation/use case in mind)

Oct 27, 2017
1,542
True. As a foundation it’s how it all started. But I think many of us see the direction the games industry is headed. An industry with a focus on the business of software, and less on any one dominant platform. Look at Sega. Look at Microsofts approach. Hell, I can even play God of war on my PC. Things that were unheard of decades ago. Is it the norm? No, it’s not. But, you must admit we’re seeing things we would have fainted in the 80’s, 90’s.
Like Nintendo-exclusive Sonic games. Had you told anyone that around the launch of Sonic 2 and 3, no one would believe it.
 

AllChan7

Member
Apr 30, 2019
1,113
With 1st party exclusives, as many have said, it gives publishers greater incentive to invest more money in games than they would otherwise. Thus consumers normally get higher quality products. I mean, nearly all of Sony's and Nintendo's major exclusives have been GoTY contenders, sell well and have great reception. Which forces the competition to do better to compete.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,655
I feel you've missed the point...

There's not a single platform. In Theoryland, this is about the desire to get more games on more platforms, not fewer. Giving consumers more choice.

What does it cost? I'd expect to be paying the cost of a game today plus any uplift that the big three feel is necessary to offset the lack of a console purchase by that buyer over time (maybe more or less depending of games are published day one multi-platform or deeper into the life-cycle). If I was on the spot, for example and for the sake of argument, say Sony makes $50 per console sold. And they have five first party games they expect to sell the average consumer. Does it stand that they sell on other platforms at the cost of game today + $10 "multi-platform" tax?

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I'd certainly pay that gladly if there's a way for me to have fewer but better boxes under the TV. I'm sure that the keen mobile gamer, playing on the bus or the train, would pay a few extra bucks to get a God of War port on the Switch. Or the PC gamer who likes to play BotW at 4K60. Whatever.
Why do you think it's the profit per console that matters to the console makers? Sony has sold more than 1 billion units of software on the PS4 that they get a minimum 30% cut on plus subscriptions to PSN plus accessories. Why would they trade all that to sell a bit more of their own software?

Why would they want to sell less hardware, less subscriptions, less overall software and less accessories to gain a bit more unit sales on their titles? I get people want to own one piece of hardware but the math never checks out. 3rd party exclusives are rare in the West. That mostly only exists in Japan now and even they are slowly changing.
 
Last edited:

bmdubya

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,129
Colorado
Agreed. Exclusives do suck. There is no reason for them. Let people play games on the devices they want to play games on.
 

Wet Jimmy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
102
Why would they trade all that to sell a bit more of their own software?
I still think that's based on the false premise that the console hardware would have to go away. To take Sony as the example - there is am amount of sales, a number higher than zero, that Sony's not going to make because some people just don't want to, or cannot for the sake of one or two tent-pole games, afford their console hardware.

So what's the number / percentage that would reasonably make up for a lost console sale in order to provide a first party title on another platform? It's somewhere between zero and infinity.
 

Wet Jimmy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
102
The idea that Sony selling games on Windows, from their own store, is some how helping MS is like saying letting Xbox hook up to Sony TVs is helping Sony.
As a quick aside - isn't it absolutely bonkers that Sony don't produce a hands-down, absolutely best, gaming monitor or TV? Seems like perfect synergy - but here they are making a concept-car instead....
 

SuperFakerBros

User Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
7,288
Careful, a mod might tell you to "grow up".
You and others were rightfully told to grow up as the OP back tracked on that post almost immediately after making the thread but, hey, some folk here really need to go hard when it comes looking for console wars or defending Sony's honor, even if it's entirely redundant and not even a central point in the OP anymore
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,655
I still think that's based on the false premise that the console hardware would have to go away.
No it's not, it's based on the very real premise that if their exclusive games appeared on other systems, they would absolutely sell less hardware, software, accessories and subscriptions. There is no way any reasonable person does not accept this as true. In addition, you have to include that while they will sell more overall units they would sell less units on their own hardware and that means they would lose publisher cut on those platforms too.

To take Sony as the example - there is am amount of sales, a number higher than zero, that Sony's not going to make because some people just don't want to, or cannot for the sake of one or two tent-pole games, afford their console hardware.

So what's the number / percentage that would reasonably make up for a lost console sale in order to provide a first party title on another platform? It's somewhere between zero and infinity.
If there was actually money to be made as a whole on this strategy you are suggesting, the console makers would have already done it. I get it with third party content but it makes absolutely no sense for Sony or Nintendo to do this. MS putting their titles on Sony hardware would be even more of a "don't buy our hardware or subscribe to our services" white flag.
 

Azerth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
715
I wish everygame was available on every system with in reason but that will never happen
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,240
I don't really understand this thread at all. The entire point of exclusives is to entice you to purchase/use a particular machine. Now, you have the option of of buying multiple systems if that's what you want, but the thing is that you don't need to. If you perceive a frustration, it's because of FOMO kicking in. If exclusives aren't a thing anymore, then what's the point of ever buying a console when I can clearly get a better deal and build my own PC?
 
Mar 10, 2018
2,308
I feel you've missed the point...

There's not a single platform. In Theoryland, this is about the desire to get more games on more platforms, not fewer. Giving consumers more choice.
Then you're not getting the point.

What are going to be the decisive factors that drive you to choose one platform over another, if all platforms have all of the same games available? In the end, it will come down to things like power, pricing, ecosystem, accessibility, customizability, etc. And we all know that PC wins in just about all of those categories. So console manufacturers are forced to ask themselves: How can I make my platform more appealing than that of my competitors? How can I make my platform a "must-buy?" What will make my platform more desirable than the others?

There is nothing anti-consumer about those questions. I really do not see how it doesn't make sense to you that a console manufacturer needs something that makes their platform more attractive than their competition. It will always happen. It's business strategy.

What does it cost? I'd expect to be paying the cost of a game today plus any uplift that the big three feel is necessary to offset the lack of a console purchase by that buyer over time (maybe more or less depending of games are published day one multi-platform or deeper into the life-cycle). If I was on the spot, for example and for the sake of argument, say Sony makes $50 per console sold. And they have five first party games they expect to sell the average consumer. Does it stand that they sell on other platforms at the cost of game today + $10 "multi-platform" tax?
This just... wouldn't be feasible at all. Adding some arbitrary "multi-platform tax" to otherwise exclusive games would not make up for the money lost from consoles not sold. Bro. Put yourself in Sony's/Nintendo's shoes. Why would they go through the wahala of spending billions on producing consoles, in addition to spending money on funding the development of games, just to release said games on their competitors' platforms? If that's the case, why even make a console at all? Because in this hypothetical scenario of yours, there would only be one platform. Nintendo and Sony wouldn't be stupid enough to invest all that time and money into devices from which they aren't guaranteed any sure, significant returns.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I'd certainly pay that gladly if there's a way for me to have fewer but better boxes under the TV. I'm sure that the keen mobile gamer, playing on the bus or the train, would pay a few extra bucks to get a God of War port on the Switch. Or the PC gamer who likes to play BotW at 4K60. Whatever.
In this scenario, God of War and Breath of the Wild never get made. Because it wouldn't make any sense to make them.
 

Amakuni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
98
As much as I would love Bloodborne on PC so it can reach a much larger audience, I respect the fact that it and other exclusives exist in the first place solely because of the funding they receive from platform holders. I suspect many exclusives are loss leaders, and if everything were on PC I doubt we would get games like Breath of the Wild, Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War, ect. Exclusives promote creativity, ambition and risk in the industry. So while I understand that the premise of the video game console (other than the Switch) in 2019 is archaic, that most gamers would rather just play everything on PC, consoles exclusives are beneficial because they breed competition, which results in some great fucking games.
 

Aliand

Member
Oct 28, 2017
89
User warned: Threadwhining; Backseat Moderating
Once again Bloodborne is on PS Now. This thread should be closed.
 

Amakuni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
98
Once again Bloodborne is on PS Now. This thread should be closed.
PS Now is a poor substitute for a PC port. You're just playing a remote laggy stream of a game tied to a console. There is no reason this thread should be closed as it serves to educate PC stans on platform exclusivity.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,609
Exclusives serve a purpose, it may suck if you don't have that device or service, but if you want it you have a way to get it if it's important that you play/consume everything. There's too much out there to experience everything for me. I'm happy with just PC for a while, when PS5 starts showing out I'll grab that for select exclusives that interest me (console exclusives counted since it will be my only console, and some games still never come to PC).

Without exclusives Sony wouldn't be going around grooming developer houses like Naughty Dog and allowing them to make what they want, big games that allow other experimental things to diversify their console's portfolio, making it a bit attractive to others, which in turn make their ecosystem very popular which is good for third parties. Without this synergy there'd be no LBP, no Puppeteer, or Dreams, Knack yes, even Knack, Astro friggin Bot, and PSVR (cheap awesome, easy to setup VR that works very darn well. Fun for the whole family and holiday events to see old people freak out).

Then you have ND's ICE Team helping other developers create games for their systems. I think Guerilla Games and Sony Santa Monica do this too in ways.
 
Last edited:

Wet Jimmy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
102
There is nothing anti-consumer about those questions... It's business strategy.
I’d argue that’s exactly consumer-unfriendly.

To play a game published by two different first-party platform holders today, you have to buy one more (depending on your resources) expensive box that you really should nothave to.

No one (I think) is arguing that the current model doesn’t work for the console makers, and personally I’m not suggesting that I’m going to stop buying multiple platforms because I’m a goose, however I think the valid argument is that this is not what’s best for the consumer.

The argument that good games won’t exist in any other model - we’ll, I figure the fact that games like The Witcher or Red Dead exist suggests this is not a solid starting point.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,156
I’d argue that’s exactly consumer-unfriendly.

To play a game published by two different first-party platform holders today, you have to buy one more (depending on your resources) expensive box that you really should nothave to.

No one (I think) is arguing that the current model doesn’t work for the console makers, and personally I’m not suggesting that I’m going to stop buying multiple platforms because I’m a goose, however I think the valid argument is that this is not what’s best for the consumer.

The argument that good games won’t exist in any other model - we’ll, I figure the fact that games like The Witcher or Red Dead exist suggests this is not a solid starting point.
CDPR is in a slightly different situation than most developers because they have GoG as a permanent revenue stream. And Rockstar is bloody Rockstar.
 

EekumBokum

Member
Oct 25, 2017
759
Exclusives are great because it's an indicator of competitiveness and this is an industry where companies need to be competitive with each other. So you are wrong imo
 

Key222

Member
Dec 11, 2017
81
No one is claiming that good games wouldn't exist, just that there wouldn't be as many. Sony has a much larger output of games than both RockStar and CDPR, this likely wouldn't be the case if they were not trying to push console sales with exclusives.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,063
Yeah, exclusives suck and I think it’s hilarious when people defend them. Like if you had to buy a Sony bluray player to play Sony movies and a Disney bluray player to play Disney movies. I’d much prefer just buying one piece of hardware and getting to play everything. But obviously, fanboys gotta fanboy.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,156
Yeah, exclusives suck and I think it’s hilarious when people defend them. Like if you had to buy a Sony bluray player to play Sony movies and a Disney bluray player to play Disney movies. I’d much prefer just buying one piece of hardware and getting to play everything. But obviously, fanboys gotta fanboy.
You realize that most blu-ray players aren't made by the major movie studios, right? Panasonic doesn't make movies. Samsung doesn't make movies.

Sony and Nintendo providing incentive for potential people to buy their hardware with games you can't get anywhere else is pretty much THE REASON Sony and Nintendo exist in the industry.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,063
You realize that most blu-ray players aren't made by the major movie studios, right? Panasonic doesn't make movies. Samsung doesn't make movies.

Sony and Nintendo providing incentive for potential people to buy their hardware with games you can't get anywhere else is pretty much THE REASON Sony and Nintendo exist in the industry.
I disagree. When Sega and MS stopped making exclusives, they didn’t leave the industry. I see no reason to assume Nintendo and Sony would.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,542
Yeah, exclusives suck and I think it’s hilarious when people defend them. Like if you had to buy a Sony bluray player to play Sony movies and a Disney bluray player to play Disney movies. I’d much prefer just buying one piece of hardware and getting to play everything. But obviously, fanboys gotta fanboy.
You already have to subscribe to Disney+ to watch Disney-exclusive content in the future (unless they release it on DVD/BD further down the line). Welcome to the glorious future of streaming services.
 
Mar 10, 2018
2,308
I’d argue that’s exactly consumer-unfriendly.

To play a game published by two different first-party platform holders today, you have to buy one more (depending on your resources) expensive box that you really should nothave to.
Who says you shouldn't have to? Is there some rule in the consumer electronics world that dictates that? I mean, I agree with the sentiment - I would really love to be able to legally play all video games in existence on a single device. But that simply isn't reality. That isn't how business works. If, say, for example, Sony decides to fund the development of a game, what right does anyone have to tell them that the game shouldn't be exclusive to the hardware which they themselves also spent money to develop? Why wouldn't they make it exclusive? There is a fine line between charity and foolishness. What you're suggesting Sony and Nintendo do is definitely the latter.

No one (I think) is arguing that the current model doesn’t work for the console makers, and personally I’m not suggesting that I’m going to stop buying multiple platforms because I’m a goose, however I think the valid argument is that this is not what’s best for the consumer.
Then that means what would be best for the consumer is that console makers stop making consoles. Because as long as multiple consoles coexist, there will be exclusives. I and others have explained why to you several times.

The argument that good games won’t exist in any other model - we’ll, I figure the fact that games like The Witcher or Red Dead exist suggests this is not a solid starting point.
Again, CD Projekt Red and Rockstar don't have to worry about losing billions of dollars from failing to sell consoles - because they don't make any.

God of War, a game developed by Sony-owned studio Sony Santa Monica, and published by Sony Interactive Entertainment, would not make sense to exist if released for platforms other than the Sony PlayStation 4.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, a game developed by Nintendo EPD, and published by Nintendo, would not make sense to exist if released for platforms other than the Nintendo Wii U and the Nintendo Switch.

From a business standpoint, it would just be foolish.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,156
I disagree. When Sega and MS stopped making exclusives, they didn’t leave the industry. I see no reason to assume Nintendo and Sony would.
Sega almost died, and spent nearly a decade on the verge of shutting down. Their output also shrank considerably when they were no longer taking care of their own platform, and basically became "Sonic and Yakuza and Total War". Sega's catastrophic collapse of output is exactly what would happen if Sony or Nintendo stopped having consoles - most of their games would vanish and only their tentpole franchises would remain.
 

Cyanity

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,093
Exclusives suck in all cases except when the game wouldn't exist otherwise. I'm not gonna buy your console, Sony. Fuck you.

Just barely tolerating Nintendo's BS because their stuff has at least been consistently exclusive forever. Even if it sucks.
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,221
This is like some sort of pseudo port begging argument lol. Ultimately irrespective of the industry or product, businesses aren't a charity, they're only here to provide a product or service to make money, and for Nintendo and Sony that success is dependent on them releasing exclusive games that incentivise purchasing their systems.

It's a bit different for Microsoft as they are also in the business of PC operating systems, and are not doing as well in the console space, hence are trying something a bit different.

This is a luxury hobby at the end of the day, and we as consumers unfortunately don't have some intangible right to play or own whatever we want wherever we want (as much as I'd love if Netflix also had Disney+, Amazon Prime and HBO content lol).

Personally I often appreciate and enjoy exclusives, since they tend to be the bigger platform showcase games. Usually the only multiplatform titles that compete with the top exclusives in terms of competency or tech, are ones that have development team sizes or budgets that are orders of magnitude larger than the one for the said exclusive (eg compare the dev team size of Horizon Zero Dawn vs Red Dead Redemption 2).

If you head to this thread I made about people's all time favourite games and trends among them, you'll notice exclusives inadvertently feature very prominently among them.

And this isn't exactly exclusive to Era members, if you check out Metacritic top rated games on PS4, Switch etc, or those from other outlets, again, exclusives are going to occupy a healthy portion of the top highest rated titles, even though statistically they're less commonly released than multiplatform titles.

I don't really know why this phenomenon exists, but if I had to take a guess I'd imagine it may be because exclusives are permitted a more curated or concentrated development effort, since the studio is only having to focus on a single platform or two (PC), thus the attention to detail or focus can sometimes be greater. Especially if that title is intended to be a platform showpiece, and thus may not be beholden to typical multiplatform development schedules or more ridgid financial or revenue expectations.

Your Top 25 Games of All Time, with a brief analysis of your own list
 

Horned Reaper

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,145
Yeah, exclusives suck and I think it’s hilarious when people defend them. Like if you had to buy a Sony bluray player to play Sony movies and a Disney bluray player to play Disney movies. I’d much prefer just buying one piece of hardware and getting to play everything. But obviously, fanboys gotta fanboy.
Or Netflix to watch Netflix Originals and Disney+ to watch the Mandalorian. Wait...
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,063
Sega almost died, and spent nearly a decade on the verge of shutting down. Their output also shrank considerably when they were no longer taking care of their own platform, and basically became "Sonic and Yakuza and Total War". Sega's catastrophic collapse of output is exactly what would happen if Sony or Nintendo stopped having consoles - most of their games would vanish and only their tentpole franchises would remain.
you left out Atlas which Sega owns. And they didn’t die. And seemingly everyone’s output is down from the 16 and 32 bit era. And you really can’t say what happened to Sega would happen to Nintendo and Sony. That was down to poor management.

MS hasn't stopped making exclusives though.
Haven’t they? What’s the last game they made that wasn’t exclusive or planned to be? I thought they had stopped.
 

Aliand

Member
Oct 28, 2017
89
PS Now is a poor substitute for a PC port. You're just playing a remote laggy stream of a game tied to a console. There is no reason this thread should be closed as it serves to educate PC stans on platform exclusivity.
The thread was about exclusive.

As far as I am concerned the game is available on PC for folks to play.

Now if you want a port that is port begging, open a different thread no ?
 

ElNerdo

Member
Oct 22, 2018
457
Without exclusives, consoles would be a hard sell. They wouldn't disappear, but less people would buy them.

Also makes you wonder how well they'd sell on PC compared to console.
 

Raonak

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,509
Sony make exclusives to sell consoles. Same with nintendo.

I like consoles having exclusives.
 

Decarb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,297
Haven’t they? What’s the last game they made that wasn’t exclusive or planned to be? I thought they had stopped.
Barring couple of exceptions like late ports on Switch (Ori/Cuphead) and Minecraft, all of their first party games are exclusive to their platform. They don't put games on PS4/Switch.
 

daxy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,990


All these folks in here so worried about platform-holders' bottom line. It's not like you're on their payroll. Plenty of products, services, media that thrive without hardware/platform exclusive content.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,156
you left out Atlas which Sega owns. And they didn’t die. And seemingly everyone’s output is down from the 16 and 32 bit era. And you really can’t say what happened to Sega would happen to Nintendo and Sony. That was down to poor management.
We know for a fact that without a platform to support, Nintendo and Sony would not be making the number of games they make per year. No third party publisher has the kind of prolific release catalog of a healthy Nintendo or Sony first party stable.

A lot of stuff would disappear. Especially experimental games.
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,221
All these folks in here so worried about platform-holders' bottom line.
It's not like you're on their payroll smh
But that doesn't matter, we still benefit from exclusives and the more curated, specifically optimised or more concentrated development effort exclusives are afforded.

Presumably there's a reason so many of the best (highest rated) and/or most technically impressive games on these different platforms, are exclusives.
 

Arion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,437
Yeah, exclusives suck and I think it’s hilarious when people defend them. Like if you had to buy a Sony bluray player to play Sony movies and a Disney bluray player to play Disney movies. I’d much prefer just buying one piece of hardware and getting to play everything. But obviously, fanboys gotta fanboy.
Terrible example since Disney is now making all their content exclusive to disney plus. Movie publishers haven't been making their stuff exclusive because up till now they didn't have reliable method to do it. Now that streaming platforms have proved viable we are seeing a bunch of film and tv publishers making their own streaming platform and taking stuff away from netflix.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,063
We know for a fact that without a platform to support, Nintendo and Sony would not be making the number of games they make per year. No third party publisher has the kind of prolific release catalog of a healthy Nintendo or Sony first party stable.

A lot of stuff would disappear. Especially experimental games.
stuff that outright loses Money would go like the Last Guardian would go, but why wouldn’t Sony and Nintendo keep releasing games if they keep generating profits? And as far as I can tell most of their games do generate profits. They have a much larger group of studios than other companies do, why wouldnt they keep them and keep making money? theyd Be selling their games to a larger audience.
 

daxy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,990
But that doesn't matter, we still benefit from exclusives and the more curated, specifically optimised or more concentrated development effort exclusives are afforded.

Presumably there's a reason so many of the best (highest rated) and/or most technically impressive games on these different platforms, are exclusives.
I don't benefit in a way that's really meaningful to me or I can assign a value to.
What you're trying to say doesn't sound like something that really makes much sense. None of my favorite movies or books only released on a certain media player or store. Brilliant games will continue to come out with or without exclusivity.