• 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.

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
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.

Or Netflix to watch Netflix Originals and Disney+ to watch the Mandalorian. Wait...

A streaming service and a game aren't the same thing though. You can stream all the services you want from one device. It would be more like having to buy a dedicated streaming box for Disney plus and a dedicated streaming box for Netflix. Of course you still have to individually pay for the specific content you want.
 

Joe White

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,033
Finland
Yes, exclusivity suck especially when used to increases division and toxicity among people enjoying games. It's used as console war ammo for pushing "a brand is the best", "x is not good as y", "there is nothing good on z" and similar narratives, and too often even in places where it was not asked.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,470
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.

I don't give a shit about Sony selling their games to a bigger audience if it means things like Bloodborne and Gravity Rush disappear. That's a shitty trade. The world doesn't need more EAs.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
I don't give a shit about Sony selling their games to a bigger audience if it means things like Bloodborne and Gravity Rush disappear. That's a shitty trade. The world doesn't need more EAs.
bloodborne sold great. It would be fine. Gravity rush sold poorly and I don't believe Sony will ever make another one. So no difference in those two examples.
 

Key222

Member
Dec 11, 2017
148
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.

Again, no one is saying there wouldn't still be good or brilliant games. However, there wouldn't be near as many games from either Sony or Nintendo, which makes up a lot of good and brilliant games. If the loss of Sony or Nintendo games isn't that big of a deal to you then it shouldn't matter to you if they continue to make exclusives for their respective console.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,212
Again, no one is saying there wouldn't still be good or brilliant games. However, there wouldn't be near as many games from either Sony or Nintendo, which makes up a lot of good and brilliant games. If the lost of Sony or Nintendo games isn't that big of a deal to you then it shouldn't matter to you if they continue to make exclusives for their respective console.

I guess I just don't think Nintendo or Sony would suddenly stop making games, make less games or worse games.
 

Wet Jimmy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
809
I think there's another horrible kettle of fish to upend if you start thinking about the possible harm that studio acquisitions by platform holders can cause when it comes to propping up their first party exclusives.

Example: Is there really an argument that old fan favourite RARE wouldn't have been better off NOT being gobbled up and (wasted?) by Microsoft? Would Lionhead still be making interesting games?

Is there a difference between a platform holder conjuring up a studio to produce exclusives vs. them buying a studio, previously free to create for other platforms and restricting their output?
 

dose

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,453
Microsoft publishing games on their own platform - Windows - somehow does not make it exclusive?
 

Arion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,807
A streaming service and a game aren't the same thing though. You can stream all the services you want from one device. It would be more like having to buy a dedicated streaming box for Disney plus and a dedicated streaming box for Netflix. Of course you still have to individually pay for the specific content you want.
It is the same. It's all about creating PLATFORMS that people are invested in and repeatedly spend money one. In the long term people spend more on streaming platforms than they do buying consoles. eg a netflix subsciption for 5 years will cost you the same as a console box and a single console will now last you 7 years. So now we have a bunch of streaming services all competing with each other to make the best exclusive film and tv to make their PLATFORM more enticing. The disadvantage here is people have to subscribe to more streaming platforms to watch everything. But the advantage is we are also seeing really good exclusive shows/movies being made which wouldn't exist otherwise eg Mandalorian, The Irishmen etc.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,498
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.

But there's a good chance those games wouldn't be as good if they had to be multiplatform, or even exist at all.

Exclusives moving multiplatform would mean the devs that were working on the game maximising what they could achieve in terms of content and optimisations around that single platform, would instead have to divide their developers and time between multiple platforms, leaving less devs and/or time to work on actual content or that specific platform.

Personally, as a gaming enthusiast I'll always value quality over accessibility. I don't mind investing in a particular platform so long as it gives me access to incredible exclusives or games. Unfortunately you have to pay to play, irrespective of the product, service or industry.

Like I said, there's a reason the best games on the Switch, PS4 etc are disproportionately exclusives.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,470
I guess I just don't think Nintendo or Sony would suddenly stop making games, make less games or worse games.

They would definitely make less games for sure, because there is no reason to put all that time, money and effort into maintaining a dozen or more IPs and studios when you don't have a platform to take care of.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
It is the same. It's all about creating PLATFORMS that people are invested in and repeatedly spend money one. In the long term people spend more on streaming platforms than they do buying consoles. eg a netflix subsciption for 5 years will cost you the same as a console box and a single console will now last you 7 years. So now we have a bunch of streaming services all competing with each other to make the best exclusive film and tv to make their PLATFORM more enticing. The disadvantage here is people have to subscribe to more streaming platforms to watch everything. But the advantage is we are also seeing really good exclusive shows/movies being made which wouldn't exist otherwise eg Mandalorian, The Irishmen etc.
But you can access all those services from any device you choose. i can watch netflix and Disney plus and Hulu on my apple Tv. I didn't have to buy 3 devices to watch them. I can still choose which services I want to give money to, and cancel them, And switch to another and switch back, and still only have bought one device. How would you feel if you could only watch Netflix by buying a Netflix box? Not on your phone or computer or laptop? Just the box? Having choices is a good thing.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,756
They would definitely make less games for sure, because there is no reason to put all that time, money and effort into maintaining a dozen or more IPs and studios when you don't have a platform to take care of.

Things like the Medievil remake or weird shit like Tokyo Jungle would possibly never exist if Sony didn't have their console sales, their cut from third party devs, accessory sales, digital download sales etc. as a line of income to help fund lesser games and not only the major AAA tentpole games.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,470
But you can access all those services from any device you choose. i can watch netflix and Disney plus and Hulu on my apple Tv. I didn't have to buy 3 devices to watch them. I can still choose which services I want to give money to, and cancel them, And switch to another and switch back, and still only have bought one device.

You have the choice to subscribe to whatever services you want, just like you have the CHOICE to buy whatever consoles you want.
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
You have the choice to subscribe to whatever services you want, just like you have the CHOICE to buy whatever consoles you want.
That's not the same at all. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to buy a console To have access to its games. I didn't have to pay anything to have access to Disney plus. I was able to use the Apple TV I already have.
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,470
That's not the same at all. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to buy a console To have access to its games. I didn't have to pay anything to have access to Disney plus. I was able to use the Apple TV I already have.

Disney+ costs money, though. You're still making the choice to buy into an ecosystem.
 

Bitch Pudding

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,202
Seriously, platform exclusives are what sells the hardware. Sony and Nintendo need to sell consoles. It's pretty basic stuff.

To be fair, only few exclusives actually "move hardware". Those who do are called system sellers for a reason.

But even those who are not system sellers have a purpose since they still influence the purchase decision. Meaning you don't go straight away into the next retailer and buy a PS4 because of Knack. But if you don't have enough resources to buy a PS4 AND a XBOX you probably consider which games are available on the respective platform and not on the other one, even if you end up playing 3rd party games most of the time. Hence, the exclusive library is quite important. There's a reason Booty promised to deliver on the games department this time.

With GamePass involved, MS' has the challenge to deliver said games on a constant base. Because people may buy a PS5 or XBOX Series X in anticipation (!) of exclusives but they probably don't make a subscription until the games are actually there.
 

Arion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,807
But you can access all those services from any device you choose. i can watch netflix and Disney plus and Hulu on my apple Tv. I didn't have to buy 3 devices to watch them. I can still choose which services I want to give money to, and cancel them, And switch to another and switch back, and still only have bought one device. How would you feel if you could only watch Netflix by buying a Netflix box? Not on your phone or computer or laptop? Just the box? Having choices is a good thing.
Buying a device doesn't really matter here if in the long run the money you are spending on all those subscription services is more then the cost of buying single console device. The latter is in fact better since the console and the games I buy on it will last as long as the device lasts. Whereas all your content will disappear as soon you you unsubscribe from a streaming service.
 

Oleander

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,588
As time has gone on, I've come to appreciate exclusives more. You can often immediately recognise the difference in presentation between titles that have been developed for one console, rather than having their limited QA resources spread across multiple to ensure playability across three platforms or more. Inevitably, a baseline is formed that doesn't take advantage of each console's strengths.

For instance, jumping from an open world game like Death Stranding to any other open world game not made by Rockstar makes the difference in presentation and polish very apparent.
 

Fiddler

Member
Oct 27, 2017
380
That's not the same at all. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to buy a console To have access to its games. I didn't have to pay anything to have access to Disney plus. I was able to use the Apple TV I already have.
WIth your Apple TV you paid to have access to the Apple Store and by that to exclusive Apps/Whatever that is available there. Google Play Store ain´t available as far as i know so you miss out on whatever is exclusive there. Sure a Console/Pc is more expensive but that isn´t the point.
 
Mar 10, 2018
8,716
JxL.gif


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.
There's a difference between worrying about something and explaining something.
 

Horned Reaper

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,560
That's not the same at all. You have to pay hundreds of dollars to buy a console To have access to its games. I didn't have to pay anything to have access to Disney plus. I was able to use the Apple TV I already have.
Instead you pay monthly for using their service just like you can pay monthly for PSNow. With a console you simply pay up front and don't worry about monthly streaming costs. What you're saying it is okay to have exclusive games on PSNow but not on the console itself? Basically you're then saying Sony should build a streaming service like Google or Microsoft or otherwise not make any games themselves. Streaming games is not as easy as streaming movies. If Sony could just easily put a top quality streaming service on every platform they likely would.
 

Majukun

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,542
eh, they are an occasion for greatness since the developer can focus on a single hardware and usually gets help and support from the manufacturer.
 

CommodoreKong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,695
I think it's pretty safe to assume that most Steam users are using Windows.

So what? It's not like Microsoft makes money from Steam in any way unless a piece of their software is sold on Steam.

Microsoft owns the most popular PC OS on this planet. If you don't get why they have no problem throwing their games at you for a dollar (they have near infinite resources) and let you play everything on PC (because they own Windows) and why the others would not, and should not ever do that, I can't help you.

If Microsoft was leading in console and software sales, they would never have done any of this by the way. It's ok to applaud them for it, but it's unreasonable to expect the other two to do the same.

I recently bought Gears 5 and Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam at full price because I don't have an Xbox One (and no desire to get one) and I'm not going to use the shitty Windows Store. I'll probably be buying Ori and the Will of the Wisps on Steam when that comes out if it has positive reviews/impressions. Microsoft made money off of me from buying those games that they wouldn't have otherwise, even if it's not quite as much as they would have made on Xbox One or the Windows Store. It's a win for them, they're getting some of my money instead of none of it. It's exactly the same if you buy Cuphead or Ori on Switch, it's a win if that person wouldn't have otherwise bought the game on Xbox because they don't use that platform.

I can't imagine Sony will be unhappy with the extra money they're going to make releasing MLB the Show on other platforms from baseball fans who don't own a Playstation.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,212
They would definitely make less games for sure, because there is no reason to put all that time, money and effort into maintaining a dozen or more IPs and studios when you don't have a platform to take care of.

Plenty of publishers seem to be fine at doing just that. Or maybe if they would have to focus their resources more, the good games would get better.
 

Fiddler

Member
Oct 27, 2017
380
So what? It's not like Microsoft makes money from Steam in any way unless a piece of their software is sold on Steam.



I recently bought Gears 5 and Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam at full price because I don't have an Xbox One (and no desire to get one) and I'm not going to use the shitty Windows Store. I'll probably be buying Ori and the Will of the Wisps on Steam when that comes out if it has positive reviews/impressions. Microsoft made money off of me from buying those games that they wouldn't have otherwise, even if it's not quite as much as they would have made on Xbox One or the Windows Store. It's a win for them, they're getting some of my money instead of none of it. It's exactly the same if you buy Cuphead or Ori on Switch, it's a win if that person wouldn't have otherwise bought the game on Xbox because they don't use that platform.

I can't imagine Sony will be unhappy with the extra money they're going to make releasing MLB the Show on other platforms from baseball fans who don't own a Playstation.

Obviously Sony doesn´t deem that the increase in consumers for their own games sets off the lost revenue due to losing in subscription fees, 3rd party products these consumers might buy from them and the cut they would have to give to the platform holder and that they would definitely sell less hardware. I mean how much does Sony make for example from PlayStation per year? 20 Billion? No big third party Publisher comes even close to that.
 

Key222

Member
Dec 11, 2017
148

Then what do you mean it would force them to focus their resources?

On your claim that plenty of publishers seem to be fine, none of those publishers have near the output of Sony and Nintendo. There also has been a lot of publisher/developers that have struggled this gen.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,212
Then what do you mean it would force them to focus their resources?

On your claim that plenty of publishers seem to be fine, none of those publishers have near the output of Sony and Nintendo. There also has been a lot of publisher/developers that have struggled this gen.

It means what it means, though I hedged that hypothetical a bit more than you seem to have interpreted it. And I didn't say that I think it would be better if Sony or Nintendo made fewer games, did I?
 

Key222

Member
Dec 11, 2017
148
It means what it says. And I didn't say that I think it would be better if Sony or Nintendo made fewer games, did I?

You're arguing that it would be better if Sony/Nintendo didn't make exclusives. One of the responses was that it would result in fewer games from Sony/Nintendo and your argument against this was that it would force them to focus their resources. Maybe that was not your intention, but I don't see how else you can take this other than you being for fewer Sony/Nintendo games.
 
Last edited:

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,470
Plenty of publishers seem to be fine at doing just that. Or maybe if they would have to focus their resources more, the good games would get better.

I don't know if you've noticed, but pretty much all of the major publishers have lowered their output to two, maybe three games a year, tops. That's only going to get worse next gen, too.
 

Gnorman

Banned
Jan 14, 2018
2,945
There are more amazing games than ever, getting upset about games you can't play seems petty and childish to me.

If you want to play Sony games buy their hardware, same for Nintendo. If you want to do your gaming on pc then ignore the exclusives and choose one of other hundreds upon hundreds of fantastic games to play.
 

NLCPRESIDENT

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,969
Midwest
I think there's another horrible kettle of fish to upend if you start thinking about the possible harm that studio acquisitions by platform holders can cause when it comes to propping up their first party exclusives.

Example: Is there really an argument that old fan favourite RARE wouldn't have been better off NOT being gobbled up and (wasted?) by Microsoft? Would Lionhead still be making interesting games?

Is there a difference between a platform holder conjuring up a studio to produce exclusives vs. them buying a studio, previously free to create for other platforms and restricting their output?
Of course. But who's to say they'd be better off without then though? There's no case to be made saying they would've been, the games RARE made with MS backing didn't do so hot. Sea of Thieves is the most successful game they've made so far (probably in the studios history).

Building a studio from the ground up is also risky. They pretty much live or die on that first game if in the wrong hands. There was a weird time where Media Molecule weren't pumping out games at all, amidst the making of Dreams, and they were still put to work assisting other studios in WWS with whatever needed to be done. That's another reason why they are so valuable and can take 9 years to bring out another product. (Imagine if the whole of Sony was this connected they'd be Disney part 2)

I don't like when studios are bought, but like
Tim Schafer said, he'd do whatever it takes to keep the studio together and a buyout from MS made sense. He was tired of traveling the globe to pitch games for the studio. Now all he has to do is make games and MS will distro them as they see fit. It sucks, but if it makes those people's lives better then so be it.

This stuff may seem like cannon fodder on forums, but we can't lose sight of what really matters. I'm in no danger of not playing Double Fine games, PN2 is still coming to PS4 and whatever else they make I'll have an Xbox for.
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,126
What is "unhealthy" about it? It's not my duty, job nor in my interest to buy something from X company to keep them afloat, it's their job to make a product that I'm happy to give them money for.

If I'm not happy with what they're selling, they're not getting my money and if I have the chance to voice that, I will, because a single person voting with wallet is just a single person not buying, they couldn't care less, but if me, and others, voicing our displeasure about exclusivity got a few more onto the boat, then it may change something. Who knows, may be that's why MS went "PC too" this gen.

Do you apply the same set of "healthy" customer attitude when it comes to non-gaming stuffs? Do you schedule a day a week to eat at McDonald's or KFC just to make sure they're opened, even when you don't like their food?
What's unhealthy is asking corporations to take a loss for your convenience. Do you expect McDonald to sell their product in every fast food places? That would be better for you as a consumer.

I didn't asked you to buy something to keep a company afloat, I just pointed out your unrealistic expectations. MS went PC too because it was convenient for them to do so and because it's still on a platform they more or less control. You probably won't see them develop games for Linux and Mac. There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion but don't expect them to be met, and if they're not that doesn't necessarily mean that the company in question is "anti consumer".
 

SharpX68K

Member
Nov 10, 2017
10,511
Chicagoland
I strongly disagree OP.

Exclusives are what define platforms and make them worth owning.

Bloodborne, as mentioned above, is a perfect example.
 

Stillmatic

Member
Oct 28, 2017
511
Melbourne, Australia
This is such a weird thread/topic. Really the point of business is to make money. Your product or business is likely to fail if you can't differentiate yourself from others. Most obvious way to do that is to create products and services for your platform.

The example in the OP doesn't really make sense, those MS games released on PC aren't on Sony and Nintendo consoles so they're still exclusive to that group.
 

Tiago Rodrigues

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Nov 15, 2018
5,244
How dare Sony wants you to buy their own video game consoles to play...you know...THEIR GAMES. From their studios done with their money.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,494
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.

I don't get it. Does Bloodborne suck? How do you know a game wouldn't exist without a first-party involvement that makes it exclusive? That's a weird-ass red line to separate good exclusives from bad exclusives. Unless you can magically peer into all other possible, alternative universes and determine which games exists solely because of first-party exclusivity.

Also "Fuck you" to Sony for not making games that you want to buy. OK...
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,538
Such a narrow-minded, blinkered view.

It's business. Microsoft is taking a different approach because they know they can't compete in hardware sales and the quality of their first party output. Hence they want to target a broader market which they as a company are completely interlinked with anyway! Microsoft are not taking this approach out of some kind of benevelonce, it's a business decision which makes sense for them.

Why are Sony going to release their games on all other platforms? It makes absolutely no sense. They would have no reason to invest so heavily as they do in games and studios. Gaming being where it is today is a direct result of Sony and others investing as they have to expand the medium and bring new experiences. It's supply and demand. If you like the games that a publisher has to offer then buy their system. There's no need to whine and be so entitled.