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

DigSCCP

Member
Nov 16, 2017
1,659
User warned: Thread whining; Backseat moderating
This port begging thread still open ? What the hell is going on here ?
 

Jade1962

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,459
No one is actually against exclusives. What they always mean to say is they are against games not coming to the platform they own. So many exclusives come out everyday or games skip platforms. It's not until it's a game that skips their platform that exclusives become bad.
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
4,241
No one is actually against exclusives. What they always mean to say is they are against games not coming to the platform they own. So many exclusives come out everyday or games skip platforms. It's not until it's a game that skips their platform that exclusives become bad.
You just need to look at OP, MS releasing games on their platform (Windows) is somehow special and good because that's where he play games.
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,874
I don't have any issues with exclusives, other than being disappointed if its something I wouldn't be able to play but thats how it roles. with lots of things in life.
 

SpaceCrystal

Member
Apr 1, 2019
1,841
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.
You need to go back & read my last post here on this thread. Post #501.
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
2,507
England,UK
Sony make exclusives to sell their consoles...the more consoles they sell the more money they make...the more money they make the more they have to invest in more exclusive games...it's called running a business and they have been very successful at it.

If you boil this thread down to it's core it's basically 'capitalism is bad'......which tbh is where a lot of threads on this site end up.
 

unicornKnight

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,608
Athens, Greece
Nintendo should be the only company allowed to have exclusives because their survival depends on that. Law should enforce Microsoft and Sony to release their games on all platforms. OP is onto something.
 

Golden

Member
Dec 9, 2018
749
You are basically asking Sony and Microsoft to act like a 3rd party publisher. You only have to look at the diversity of games released by the biggest publishers (Activision, EA, ubi) to see what a bad thing for consumers this would be.

Exclusives are a understandable and logical business decision, that taken as a whole actually benefit gamers. Sure you may miss out on a few cool games, but that is a fair tradeoff.

This gen (PlayStation +Nintendo pretty much had you covered, throw in a pc, which most have and you are nearly fully covered)
 

NLCPRESIDENT

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,093
Midwest
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.
They don’t need to sell to a larger audience. BOTW is pushing 20 million sold. There’s no need. People find it easier to just buy a Switch or PS4 and play what they want instead of going on a forum and port praying for a game to come to Xbox.

You mention Gravity Rush earlier and how it could’ve benefited from being multiplat. That’s not true either Sony has internal samples of how much a game would sell on another platform. If it can’t do well on a platform of 100 million no need to waste resources releasing on platform of 30-40 million...


Nintendo should be the only company allowed to have exclusives because their survival depends on that. Law should enforce Microsoft and Sony to release their games on all platforms. OP is onto something.
Xbox and PlayStation don’t depend on their games.. noted. Can someone lock this insane thread?😆
 

Macross

Member
Nov 5, 2017
206
All games should be everywhere. Stanning for megacorps who only want your money rather than wanting the art to be as widely available as possible is inhuman.
I almost left before this one, my morning just got so much more laugh filled.

Inhuman -
lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
 
Oct 28, 2017
533
What a rant. Do you also think all Netflix shows should be available on Prime? What about Whoppers at McDonalds? What is a brand anyway?

Also what about ms games on Mac? Or are you just concerned about pc?
 

Walken

Member
Nov 25, 2019
454
What a rant. Do you also think all Netflix shows should be available on Prime? What about Whoppers at McDonalds? What is a brand anyway?
To be fair those aren't really comparabale because it really boils down to how much to invest to get into those ecosystems. I can just go across the street to get a Whopper if I am at McDonalds. I don't need special hardware to watch Netflix Originals. Having exclusives on consoles could be hundreds of dollars just to get started.

That's why to me third party exclusives suck. I know when buying a Playstation I expect to play God of War or Gran Turismo, I don't expect to play Mario Kart or Halo on it. With someone like Capcom or Square-Enix it's a crapshoot and it shouldn't be.
 

Swenhir

Member
Oct 28, 2017
518
Business dictates that exclusives exist, but they suck for normal people as well as for what the games themselves can be on better hardware.

On the hardware front, it's the reason why the PC crowd has been so irritated by what console exclusives have meant for the medium in general. Restraints are good creatively, but there's something to be said for what can be done when you design for better CPUs and HDDs than what you have been stuck with half-way though the current gen. Static hardware also dictates the way the game is developed and it's not always a boon for the players down the line. Thankfully, that has started to change with mid-gen refreshes.

On a service and competition front, exclusives are pretty much the crappiest way to compete : make your product unavailable everywhere else. It doesn't lead to a better platform, it doesn't drive improvements, it only forces people to use your hardware instead of making them choose it on its own merits.

TL;DR : I agree with you OP, and I hope that others come to realize that locking Halo or Uncharted to their respective platforms doesn't benefit anybody else than the companies.
 

HotHamBoy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
13,371
User banned (3 days): hostility, accumulated infractions
Lol there’s so many little babies in this thread

first party exclusives make absolute sense and targeting a single platform leads to better-optimized games you dinks

also, if you are bringing “corporate greed” into this argument you sound like a dingus. Think about what you’re implying.


To be fair those aren't really comparabale because it really boils down to how much to invest to get into those ecosystems. I can just go across the street to get a Whopper if I am at McDonalds. I don't need special hardware to watch Netflix Originals. Having exclusives on consoles could be hundreds of dollars just to get started.
that’s funny because I’m pretty sure there’s hundreds of pages of posts on this forum about how Epic Game Store exclusives are inherently vile despite not needing different hardware to play them
 
Last edited:

Absolute

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,037
No!!!! You can’t just decide to put a game you financed the development of on a console that you manufactured exclusively in order to make money! That’s AnTi-CoNsUmEr!
 

HotHamBoy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
13,371
No!!!! You can’t just decide to put a game you financed the development of on a console that you manufactured exclusively in order to make money! That’s AnTi-CoNsUmEr!
And everyone knows that every third party developer has the resources to target and make ports for every platform available for every game they make.
 

Tobor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,050
Richmond, VA
Microsoft games are still exclusive. They are released on Xbox and Windows, two Microsoft platforms I don’t own.

Outside of Minecraft which was grandfathered in, I can’t play an MS game. So can we shut up about them not being exclusive?
 

HotHamBoy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
13,371
Microsoft games are still exclusive. They are released on Xbox and Windows, two Microsoft platforms I don’t own.

Outside of Minecraft which was grandfathered in, I can’t play an MS game. So can we shut up about them not being exclusive?
tbf i got dat Cuphead on Switch

For some reason PC people think everyone has a PC by default so if every game released on PC all would be right with the world
 

T-Rex.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,644
I'm genuinely curious what makes PC gamers so special that they're entitled to everything without buying into the ecosystems like everyone else? You don't see Nintendo only guys expecting Sony games on their platforms or vice versa yet for some reason PC should get everything because? I guess you can argue they're not competing platforms, although if Sony/Nintendo were to release their games on PC I'd buy them there and not on their own platforms so I think that argument falls short as well.
 

Line

Member
Oct 29, 2017
71
They're not bad, can't you think of the poor corporations? How else would we have more than three machines at a time?
What do you mean "companies making parts"? Never heard of it.

And don't forget to buy your daily lootboxes, we want Ubisoft and EA to be as rich as possible to make new games too!
What do you mean "it doesn't apply to Ubisoft and EA because they don't make my PrEcIoUs brand"?
 
Nov 15, 2018
550
I'm sorry but what's next? "Nexflix should have their financed content on HBO and all streaming services cause art should be available to everyone"?
Were we saying 10 years ago stuff like: "Target shouldn't have CD's with exclusive tracks cause everyone deserves everything?"

Companies WANT you to buy their products. For that you need incentives. Sony doesn't need to have their content, games FINANCED by them available everywhere just because you can't have all platforms. They want to sell their hardware as well.

It's that simple.

About this specific case...imagine wanting Sony to be stuck with 2013 hardware when they can actually customize all their content to unreleased 2020 brand new hardware.
This isn't just a graphical jump we are witnessing every time a new generation begins you know? There's design decisions that need to be made and compromises to be made when you have games released for old hardware.
By releasing only on PS5, i'm sure not only does it make it easier for them (and cheaper)., they won't need as many people to release this game.
 

AHA-Lambda

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,246
Wider availability of titles to the most people is the better thing to do. Might not be the best business sense in some ways but that's just how it goes sometimes. I really appreciate MS' more open and agnostic policy though, it's a great thing to see.

Nevertheless there are plenty of regular consumers who defend this and that I'll never understand.
 

Japanmanx3

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,626
Atlanta, GA
This is the dumbest argument. Every major market is competitive. Automotive, Entertainment, Food, Financial, etc. The gaming industry is still an industry. These companies will always compete. You are not owed one monopolistic hardware device that developers will all attune to and create for just so you can play every game without buying the respective console it was crafted for. Suck it up.
 

Wamb0wneD

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,150
For "X only exists because exclusivity" to be true, "X cannot exist if there's no exclusivity" must also be true, however, there is no evidence that proves the second statement.

X exists because of exclusivity, but it can also exist in a world without exclusivity. Is my argument against it.

Sure, Horizon, Mario, Bloodborne or Daemon X Machina may not existed as the way we know them in this alternative universe without exclusivity, but we wouldn't have a point to compare unless we could look into another universe.

Imagine a world where Horizon(for example) didn't exist, and all other exclusives too, and then you try to convince everyone about how this game with a red haired woman hunting robot dinosaurs in a sci-fi snowland is only possible if X company pays for exclusive. You'd be seen as insane.
But why would I imagine a world where they don't exist when we live in one where they do? It's practically impossible we would've gotten the 3D Mario games in their current form if it wasn't for exclusivity. It would be even more impossible to get Bayonetta 2 at all.

There is no point comparing an existing reality with a hypothetical one. You have a clear, real incentive from these companies to broaden their portfolio for their platforms. That's something I can indeed base my opinion on, rather than trying to convince people of games that never existed. One is not like othe other, therefore I would be seen as far more insane trying to do the latter.
 

Bönthö

Member
May 25, 2018
33
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.
It's like some people think exclusives exist just to annoy them. Yes, it would be great to have one single company from which you could get every possible piece of entertainment and media as you have now from different sources, but that's not how any of this works. The biggest reason why Sony and Nintendo exclusives stand out and are of such high quality compared to games in general is because these companies understand that they need to invest big in these games to have people buy in their ecosystem. Sony and Nintendo also have the studios to produce these top quality games. If you like their games, buy the console and don't act so entitled.

This may change but MS isn't in the same position yet and is therefore targeting a larger market. That's a sensible business decision, not goodwill or kindness towards consumers. Of course it's good for them if you iterpret it as such, that's just basic marketing. If an exclusive gets a person to buy a console, that's +1 customer in that certain ecosystem and a way bigger monetary value for the publisher in the long run than a bunch of people buying the game on a different platform. This is a proven, working method for Sony and Nintendo so why change it?
 

Zelas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,574
They don’t need to sell to a larger audience. BOTW is pushing 20 million sold. There’s no need. People find it easier to just buy a Switch or PS4 and play what they want instead of going on a forum and port praying for a game to come to Xbox.

You mention Gravity Rush earlier and how it could’ve benefited from being multiplat. That’s not true either Sony has internal samples of how much a game would sell on another platform. If it can’t do well on a platform of 100 million no need to waste resources releasing on platform of 30-40 million...
This is just all wrong. None of these companies are saying we’ve made enough money. They’re not releasing their exclusives elsewhere because the long term gains will be more beneficial than the short term gain.

We’ve also seen multiple instances of certain audiences having specific platform preferences. Plenty of indie titles have released later on Switch and yet had better success than platforms with larger install bases. Certain PS3 games often outsold their 360 counterpart. Console versions of games regularly outsell the PC version’s massive audience. It’s never been as simple as the install base is smaller so its not worth it.
 

CosmicGP

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,698
I see the capitalist/megacorp defense force is out on full display today.
I don't think anyone is defending them, just saying how things work. You're welcome to try and do something about it (maybe shout "Exclusives suck, capitalism sucks" in the streets or something).

I'd love to play all games on my PC and buy iphones and macbooks at what they're really worth, not grossly inflated prices.
 

Footos22

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,072
Why the fuck can't i play halo on my PS4. It boggles my tiny mind....

Fucking exclusives.
Inject them into my veins
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,655
The words corportate shill, defense force and anti consumer are so meaningless on this forum. Anything someone doesn't like is automatically anti consumer lol. Any explanation is now a defense force.

As a consumer wanting to spend less to get more is a given. But just fucking use common sense, if it was your money, would you do the things you're proposing?
 

Fonst

Member
Nov 16, 2017
2,583
What are you inferring? It's a peripheral that could be sold for just about any platform if there was the demand for it?

----

Not that it matters, but personally, I had a VR setup for awhile and it just wasn't delivering the sort of gaming experiences I wanted, with the quality I wanted.

I sold it and haven't missed it since.

I'm not sure what it will take for me to dip back in, but certainly the resolution per eye will need to skyrocket (and with it hopefully the distracting "screen door" effect).
VR exclusive games. Games exclusively to VR and VR games exclusive to certain platforms.
 

immortal-joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
796
This thread is like a marker for how unbearably frustrating this place is going to be through the launch of next gen.

How we didn't see a thread-lock by page 2 is beyond me.
 

CaptainDreads

Member
Nov 7, 2017
135
As a consumer I hate exclusives. I don't want to have to splash out for multiple consoles which have been drifting into branded PCs for a long time now. Back in the 16 bit era and earlier, it made a lot more sense because coding was much closer to the metal and there were fundamental differences between how they worked.

A long as there's competition it is absolutely an inevitable evil though. business is business and you need to do what you can to get a leg up on your opponent.
Arguably, it does also produce better games. When a game is being made as effectively a giant advert for your platform you care more about quality then raking in every last penny for that one game. Ever notice the lack of aggressive MTX in most first party games?

This practice of just buying exclusive rights for almost finished games can go die in a fire though.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,707
Its baffling to me how people are saying that having new games for your new console is anti-consumer. How did we get to this point
 

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,156
Wider availability of titles to the most people is the better thing to do. Might not be the best business sense in some ways but that's just how it goes sometimes. I really appreciate MS' more open and agnostic policy though, it's a great thing to see.

Nevertheless there are plenty of regular consumers who defend this and that I'll never understand.
Microsoft isn’t being agnostic. Their games are still overwhelmingly limited to platforms THEY own. You’re not seeing them put Halo on Playstation, are you?
 

Puru

Member
Oct 28, 2017
572
I only dislike them when it's a serie i did follow and enjoy, but ultimately doesn't even release on one of the platform i used to play it. Looking at Granblue Fantasy which pretty much has a PC/mobile history, not PS.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,597
Washington
Sony and Nintendo’s motivation to pay the developers to make games is so they can have reasons you should buy their console. If they didn’t want to sell their consoles they wouldn’t have the games made. Microsoft first of all owns windows as well so they have motivation either way for the games to support it. Plus they want to sell subscription services.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,597
Washington
exclusives are consumer unfriendly in 99% of situations and the 1% where it's debatable are the ones that wouldn't exist without funding

the way people go to bat for a consumer unfriendly practice is beyond me
Companies have to make money or they won’t do it. Sony and nintendo’s Reasons for putting money into games is to sell their devices. It’s reasonable to accept that a company also has to have a motivation to put money into something. At some point you have to accept that they have to get something out of making something too.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,597
Washington
Honestly? The breakdown is that I don't have to buy a machine specifically for gaming/media consumption in order to play MS games. My PC is used for a massive variety of things and I don't need to buy a special machine just to experience whatever they put out.
But you do have to buy windows... which is owned by who? I don’t see Microsoft bringing their games to the platforms they don’t own (other than games already having been promised before they bought the developer and Minecraft which already was popular on all platforms and ms would probably have gotten hugely bad pr if they had tried to reverse that).