• Light/Dark
  • 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.

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

Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
This whole thread is silly.

If ms puts halo on switch and playstation then we can have the convo of these pubs being actually platform agnostic.

As of right now none of them are
 
Mobyduck

Mobyduck

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,100
Brazil
In a perfect world they wouldn't exist, but it's understandable why they are a thing. People just need to get over it.
 
VanDoughnut

VanDoughnut

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,424
Jim Ryan: "what you are about to see, is a launch title running exclusively on PS5. Enjoy". (smug*)

Sony Interactive Entertainment logo appears*

Bluepoint logo appears*

Crazy graphics* Far future city with neon lights, desolate, war torn*

Narrator in shadowy room: "it's 2020.

A nightmare dystopia full of perpectual war, global unrest, and worst of all: anti-consumer practices like platform holders putting out games I wanna play but not enough to actually go out and buy the console. The consumer is no longer respected in these turbulant times, we've lost all power to megacorps and their twisted habit of funding projects that could diversify their line up... also a mecha Mark Cerney that patrols the skies.

Us pro-consumers, free thinkers, disrupters may be few, may be outnumbered, but unlike the console exclusives that are trapped on one box, we WONT be contained.... "

Narrator comes out the shadows revealing himself to be Keanu Reeves* unreal facial animation of him smirking not possible on current gen*

PS5 Exclusive, THIRD PERSON CINEMATIC ACTION GAME (working title) (launch 2020)
 
itshutton

itshutton

Member
Nov 1, 2017
546
Exclusives exist because platform owners want to bring players to their platform. This is often why Sony for example are able to produce such quality titles as God of War, let them gestate over time, even give studios multiple revisions before release (A previous Santa Monica title was famously cancelled.)

There is no way a regular publisher would have that sort of patience or budget. Great games like this exist BECAUSE of exclusivity.

I'm good with that.
 
Wrapped in Black

Wrapped in Black

Member
Mar 10, 2018
8,738
A TRUE example of an "anti-consumer" practice would be Sony charging us for PSN on PS4. They don't really seem to need to do that.
 

lupinko

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,154
Wrapped in Black said:
A TRUE example of an "anti-consumer" practice would be Sony charging us for PSN on PS4. They don't really seem to need to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure they do, they make easy money off that. Same with Nintendo now and of course Microsoft, the ones who blazed that path. PSN by itself makes more money than the whole entirety of Nintendo. That was in a financial report awhile back.

If Xbox Live never took off, then we wouldn't have to pay for PSN or Switch online.
 
Zen

Zen

The Wise Ones
Member
Nov 1, 2017
9,658
From a purely consumer perspective we should want a variety of hardware choices that run the same OS which all games can be played ubiquitously, inexpensive to access and with no paid online and all DLC purely cosmetic with substantial content either free or sold as an expansion pack. Which is a gaming utopia that goes against the determinism of these companies' drive to make money. Exclusives are here to stay. They also give gaming platforms an identity.
 
Era of not Yakuza

Era of not Yakuza

Banned
Dec 4, 2017
11,481
Brazil
This thread is a mix of PC elitism (less than 60fps is unplayable), with "I have no idea of how business works"/"Sony should go third-party" and port begging. Sensible chuckles reading that Nintendo can do whatever they want. OP, do you known that smartphones and tablets are a thing, right?
 
Unaha-Closp

Unaha-Closp

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,727
Scotland
All I know is I am looking forward to the 5th Playstation I, assuming things stay as they are in my life, will be buying and I will be buying it, in part, to play the Exclusives that Sony makes for it. You want to argue Third Party games shouldn't be Exclusive - you go right ahead. But First Party? Makes no sense. OP has been swayed though so no dunking from me. Entitlement is a bitch though isn't it - makes people say crazy things. It is nice to want things though.
 
Turbo Tu-Tone

Turbo Tu-Tone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,951
Voke said:
People get so angry about Sony's exclusives LMFAO...... they must be fye
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What's funny is that they're almost always downplayed by haters with "better options." Then as soon as there is even a whiff of a wumor that a PS Exclusive is coming to their preferred platform of choice, panties become drenched.
VanDoughnut said:
Jim Ryan: "what you are about to see, is a launch title running exclusively on PS5. Enjoy". (smug*)

Sony Interactive Entertainment logo appears*

Bluepoint logo appears*

Crazy graphics* Far future city with neon lights, desolate, war torn*

Narrator in shadowy room: "it's 2020.

A nightmare dystopia full of perpectual war, global unrest, and worst of all: anti-consumer practices like platform holders putting out games I wanna play but not enough to actually go out and buy the console. The consumer is no longer respected in these turbulant times, we've lost all power to megacorps and their twisted habit of funding projects that could diversify their line up... also a mecha Mark Cerney that patrols the skies.

Us pro-consumers, free thinkers, disrupters may be few, may be outnumbered, but unlike the console exclusives that are trapped on one box, we WONT be contained.... "

Narrator comes out the shadows revealing himself to be Keanu Reeves* unreal facial animation of him smirking not possible on current gen*

PS5 Exclusive, THIRD PERSON CINEMATIC ACTION GAME (working title) (launch 2020)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
GOTG, Citizen Kane, etc.
 
PlanetSmasher

PlanetSmasher

The Abominable Showman
Member
Oct 25, 2017
115,742
Sheev said:
There's no reason not to release something on PC a year or so later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Releasing games late on PC does devalue the platform because it basically renders exclusives nonexistent and allows patient people to completely skip a console due to the expectation that everything will go to PC eventually. Sure, there'll always be the rabid day-one types, but the longer it goes on where every "exclusive" isn't actually exclusive, the less people will support those games and the platform they're originally released on.

Hell, half the reason I never got an XB1 at all this generation was the fact that their games were releasing on PC with alarming frequency, basically rendering every game I was interested in on the platform into an "eh, I'll just play it when I fix my PC" situation instead of an "oh man I should go get that right now".
 
HeroR

HeroR

Banned
Dec 10, 2017
7,450
When I read threads like this, my question remains to be this:

Is any former console maker who went third party better off than they were for it?

History tells us no with Sega and SNK being one of the few companies still alive, and Sega is nowhere near its peak compared to when they had their own console even with their management team burning the company into the ground. Like Sega used to be second only to Nintendo when it came to created risk-taking, off the wall games. There is a reason why people say Splatoon looks like a game Sega would have made in the 90s and early 2000s.

Another none former console maker is Capcom. While Capcom is doing while in the profits with RE, DMC, and Monster Hunter, they have literally made no new IPs this generations. In fact, several of their franchise from just last gen died like Lost Planet and Dead Rising. Ubi's profile also shrunk with Kingdom Battle being their one off the wall game they made this generation, while most of their output have been Assassin Creed. Far Cry, and Just Dance.

In fact, it seems the only third-party still making somewhat experimental games is Square-Enix of all things with stuff like Octopath Traveler and the Dragon Quest Builders series.
 
DevilMayGuy

DevilMayGuy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,577
Texas
HeroR said:
When I read threads like this, my question remains to be this:

Is any former console maker who went third party better off than they were for it?

History tells us no with Sega and SNK being one of the few companies still alive, and Sega is nowhere near its peak compared to when they had their own console even with their management team burning the company into the ground. Like Sega used to be second only to Nintendo when it came to created risk-taking, off the wall games. There is a reason why people say Splatoon looks like a game Sega would have made in the 90s and early 2000s.

Another none former console maker is Capcom. While Capcom is doing while in the profits with RE, DMC, and Monster Hunter, they have literally made no new IPs this generations. In fact, several of their franchise from just last gen died like Lost Planet and Dead Rising. Ubi's profile also shrunk with Kingdom Battle being their one off the wall game they made this generation, while most of their output have been Assassin Creed. Far Cry, and Just Dance.

In fact, it seems the only third-party still making somewhat experimental games is Square-Enix of all things with stuff like Octopath Traveler and the Dragon Quest Builders series.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's actually a very interesting way to frame it.
 
.exe

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,240
HeroR said:
History tells us no with Sega and SNK being one of the few companies still alive, and Sega is nowhere near its peak compared to when they had their own console even with their management team burning the company into the ground. Like Sega used to be second only to Nintendo when it came to created risk-taking, off the wall games. There is a reason why people say Splatoon looks like a game Sega would have made in the 90s and early 2000s.

Another none former console maker is Capcom. While Capcom is doing while in the profits with RE, DMC, and Monster Hunter, they have literally made no new IPs this generations. In fact, several of their franchise from just last gen died like Lost Planet and Dead Rising. Ubi's profile also shrunk with Kingdom Battle being their one off the wall game they made this generation, while most of their output have been Assassin Creed. Far Cry, and Just Dance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, as opposed to Sony, famed for definitely not having a lot of third-person action adventure games this gen; or Nintendo, who definitely do not release sequels for the same franchises on each and every console. I eat those games up like everyone else but come on lol.

As for Sega, at least the Sonic games have only improved since they got out of the hardware business. The whole affair also had its cost. It's not like they decided to just call it when they were at their peak. Since then, they've developed and published a lot of great games. They're doing alright, all things considered.
 
Last edited:
Sheev

Sheev

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,829
PlanetSmasher said:
Releasing games late on PC does devalue the platform because it basically renders exclusives nonexistent and allows patient people to completely skip a console due to the expectation that everything will go to PC eventually. Sure, there'll always be the rabid day-one types, but the longer it goes on where every "exclusive" isn't actually exclusive, the less people will support those games and the platform they're originally released on.

Hell, half the reason I never got an XB1 at all this generation was the fact that their games were releasing on PC with alarming frequency, basically rendering every game I was interested in on the platform into an "eh, I'll just play it when I fix my PC" situation instead of an "oh man I should go get that right now".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are very few people who own both a PC and a console. PC is a much smaller market comparatively, especially when it comes to the casual audience.
 
NLCPRESIDENT

NLCPRESIDENT

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,969
Midwest
Zelas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not all wrong at all, just specific to the titles I were talking about.

The whole point of me saying that was it (BOTW) sold enough for them not to put it on another competing console.

I know there are games that sold better on Switch than the original platform, we all know this. I said Sony knows("has samples") if Gravity Rush, itself, would sell better on another platform and it likely won't sadly. Therefore there's no need to port the game.
 
HeroR

HeroR

Banned
Dec 10, 2017
7,450
daxy said:
Ah, as opposed to Sony, famed for definitely not having a lot of third-person action adventure games this gen; or Nintendo, who definitely do not release sequels for the same franchises on each and every console. I eat those games up like everyone else but come on lol.

As for Sega, at least the Sonic games have only improved since they got out of the hardware business. The whole affair also had its cost. It's not like they decided to just call it when they were at their peak. Since then, they've developed and published a lot of great games. They're doing alright, all things considered.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While Nintendo has released sequels, they also released stuff like Ring Fit Adventure, 1 2 Switch, and Labo. They also funded games like Astral Chain and DxM.

Sony funded Bloodborn and Death Stranding, and made Horizon and Days Gone. we also have Dream and Astro Boy

To say that Sony and Nintendo have just been pumping sequels or in Sony's case 'just third person action' despite them playing nothing alike is showing willful ignorance.

Are you really calling Sonic 06 and Sonic Boom better than Sonic Adventures 1 and 2?
 
Van Bur3n

Van Bur3n

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
26,089
When you own all of the platforms and don't gotta worry about anything:

giphy.gif
 
K Samedi

K Samedi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,990
Exclusives are the best experiences because
1) the dev team is focused on a single machine and they can take advantage of all the features the hardware provides without thinking about limitations of other platforms
2) they usually have small to mid tier budgets that don't need to be blown up. The budget is usually enough to make the best game possible for the concept.

i think the OP doesn't like exclusives for selfish reasons but entertainment doesn't work that way really. devs should make whatever they want.
 
aevanhoe

aevanhoe

Slayer of the Eternal Voidslurper
Member
Aug 28, 2018
7,329
Manmademan said:
Exactly. It's not that difficult a concept. Sony's revenue comes not from selling individual copies of first party games, but from bringing people into the ecosystem and having them spend money on games (first and third party) over time as well as ancillary services.

The best way to do this is by establishing a game library that differentiates you from competitors. Sometimes its a crazy expensive AAA title like God of War, Spiderman, or Gran Turismo but just as frequently its something weirdly niche like Puppeteer, Dreams, Demon's Souls, Until Dawn, Journey, Last Guardian, Starhawk, Astro Bot etc etc.

It's worth it to take risks on titles like that last group even if they only move a million copies or less as long as they're bringing new people into the PlayStation ecosystem, who on average will spend $700 over the lifetime of the system.

If suddenly those titles are no longer exclusive, it breaks the financial incentive to make those games completely. Sony would instead turn into the next EA or Activision and do nothing but pump out annualized titles loaded with microtransactions to maximize profit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yup. I mean, we can speculate all day long, but the facts are that we got some amazing games out of exclusivity. And the reasons for this is usually: they gave us a lot of money, support and said "do your thing".

So I'd say the system works.
 
crpj31

crpj31

Member
Dec 13, 2017
560
In that case there is no need for consoles or handhelds anymore. Just release everything for PC. Only in steam of course. Don't dare to release it on Epic store.
 
OP
OP
Doc Kelso

Doc Kelso

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,157
NYC
HeroR said:
When I read threads like this, my question remains to be this:

Is any former console maker who went third party better off than they were for it?

History tells us no with Sega and SNK being one of the few companies still alive, and Sega is nowhere near its peak compared to when they had their own console even with their management team burning the company into the ground. Like Sega used to be second only to Nintendo when it came to created risk-taking, off the wall games. There is a reason why people say Splatoon looks like a game Sega would have made in the 90s and early 2000s.

Another none former console maker is Capcom. While Capcom is doing while in the profits with RE, DMC, and Monster Hunter, they have literally made no new IPs this generations. In fact, several of their franchise from just last gen died like Lost Planet and Dead Rising. Ubi's profile also shrunk with Kingdom Battle being their one off the wall game they made this generation, while most of their output have been Assassin Creed. Far Cry, and Just Dance.

In fact, it seems the only third-party still making somewhat experimental games is Square-Enix of all things with stuff like Octopath Traveler and the Dragon Quest Builders series.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is an interesting question for sure, but I don't necessarily think their console-making status has much to do with their (relativ) failure. Capcom severely mismanaged it's entire IP portfolio for basically an entire generation and has only recently begun to bounce back.

Meanwhile there could be documentaries about the rise and fall of Sega. Fumbling the Dreamcast was a heavy nail in a coffin that was already being built. I feel like all I really need to do is gesture vehemently at how they've treated Sonic.
 
Swift_Gamer

Swift_Gamer

Banned
Dec 14, 2018
3,701
Rio de Janeiro
Sheev said:
There are very few people who own both a PC and a console. PC is a much smaller market comparatively, especially when it comes to the casual audience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah but Sony and Nintendo want people on their hardware, using their ecosystem. It doesn't make any sense for them to release their games on PC.
Why aren't PC gamers demanding Ms games on Sony and Nintendo platforms, though? Why don't you just admit you want all games on PC and couldn't care less if they're available on other consoles?
 
OP
OP
Doc Kelso

Doc Kelso

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,157
NYC
Swift_Gamer said:
Yeah but Sony and Nintendo want people on their hardware, using their ecosystem. It doesn't make any sense for them to release their games on PC.
Why aren't PC gamers demanding Ms games on Sony and Nintendo platforms, though? Why don't you just admit you want all games on PC and couldn't care less if they're available on other consoles?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's put'em on Sony platforms too. Fuck it. Put everything everywhere!
 
HeroR

HeroR

Banned
Dec 10, 2017
7,450
Doc Kelso said:
This is an interesting question for sure, but I don't necessarily think their console-making status has much to do with their (relativ) failure. Capcom severely mismanaged it's entire IP portfolio for basically an entire generation and has only recently begun to bounce back.

Meanwhile there could be documentaries about the rise and fall of Sega. Fumbling the Dreamcast was a heavy nail in a coffin that was already being built. I feel like all I really need to do is gesture vehemently at how they've treated Sonic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I just named the most well-know companies. Overall, no third-party has matched Nintendo nor Sony's output. So the idea that if either went third-party that we would do just as well as they're doing now doesn't match history nor the current trend.
 
Dyle

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,943
Have fun coming up with some other business model to produce them then. Exclusive titles exist because they are much less risk averse than non-exclusive titles. Most exclusive games would be fundamentally different if they were not exclusive, which more often than not would make them worse games.
 
OP
OP
Doc Kelso

Doc Kelso

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,157
NYC
Swift_Gamer said:
That's not moving goalposts, it's using the same logic with streaming services.
It's never going to happen and there's literally nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, I was addressing your specific point about PC gamers just wanting games on PC and couldn't care less if they're available elsewhere. I do care, I would prefer a world in which you can play any game you want, on any system. Ain't really a world that will exist, but I'm here to say something sucks and I wish it were otherwise. No more, no less.

HeroR said:
I just named the most well-know companies. Overall, no third-party has matched Nintendo nor Sony's output. So the idea that if either went third-party that we would do just as well as they're doing now doesn't match history nor the current trend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Things wax and wane, but I get what you're saying. I don't wholly disagree.

I do feel like a lot of people are ignoring the whole bit about technical limitations--as a game being developed for a specific platform using proprietary hardware is operating under technical limitations. God of War (since we're apparently talking mostly Sony games) likely wouldn't run half as well on PC (without heavy brute force), Xbox, and we all know it wouldn't run well on Switch. Hell, the single shot thing might not have worked at all on anything that wasn't Sony hardware.
 
HeroR

HeroR

Banned
Dec 10, 2017
7,450
Doc Kelso said:
No, I was addressing your specific point about PC gamers just wanting games on PC and couldn't care less if they're available elsewhere. I do care, I would prefer a world in which you can play any game you want, on any system. Ain't really a world that will exist, but I'm here to say something sucks and I wish it were otherwise. No more, no less.


Things wax and wane, but I get what you're saying. I don't wholly disagree.

I do feel like a lot of people are ignoring the whole bit about technical limitations--as a game being developed for a specific platform using proprietary hardware is operating under technical limitations. God of War (since we're apparently talking mostly Sony games) likely wouldn't run half as well on PC (without heavy brute force), Xbox, and we all know it wouldn't run well on Switch. Hell, the single shot thing might not have worked at all on anything that wasn't Sony hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wax and wane really doesn't account for Nintendo and Sony being able to make and fund new franchises and ideas while most third-parties this gen greatly reduced their output and few new franchises.

That and do you really believe something like Ring Fit Adventure would exist if Nintendo was a third-party?
 
Swenhir

Swenhir

Member
Oct 28, 2017
521
Doc Kelso said:
I do feel like a lot of people are ignoring the whole bit about technical limitations--as a game being developed for a specific platform using proprietary hardware is operating under technical limitations. God of War (since we're apparently talking mostly Sony games) likely wouldn't run half as well on PC (without heavy brute force), Xbox, and we all know it wouldn't run well on Switch. Hell, the single shot thing might not have worked at all on anything that wasn't Sony hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If I may interject here, the difference in power between a stock PS4 and a mid-range PC is so wide that custom hardware or no, the answer of whether a PC could run it is automatically yes. From a financial and business standpoint, the engineering required to port is more than covered by the wider audience. The only reason they aren't ported is that exclusives are among the strongest "competitive" edge the platform holders have over their competitors. Walled gardens work like that, and it sucks.

Make no mistake, custom hardware is meaningful and wonderful, the things you can do with it is amazing - strictly speaking from an engineering perspective. However the gap in power we are talking about is almost an order of magnitude at this point.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,911
Calling it anti-consumer (especially if it's from a first party) really shows off a pretty insane level of entitlement.

You aren't entitled to their product. THEY are entitled to do what they want with it. If they want to cancel it, change platforms, redevelop it, scrap it, release it for the damn N-Gage - that's their right. It's your right as a consumer to be sad about any of that, or even criticize them for it, but they don't owe you a fucking thing at any point. They haven't wronged you.
 
aevanhoe

aevanhoe

Slayer of the Eternal Voidslurper
Member
Aug 28, 2018
7,329
NarohDethan said:
I cant wrap my head around of someone enjoying a game just because it is an exclusive
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can you wrap your head around someone enjoying a game because it is great, a game that wouldn't exist if it was not an exclusive?

It's like me saying "can't wrap my head around of someone enjoying a game just because they payed $60 for it".
 
Megatron

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,445
PlanetSmasher said:
Disney+ costs money, though. You're still making the choice to buy into an ecosystem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course Disney plus costs money. Content costs money. You have to pay something to access it. You seem to think it makes a difference if it's subscription or piecemeal but it doesnt, you're just paying for content. What I and other are saying is we'd prefer not to have to buy special hardware just to access that content. Netflix and Disney plus don't do this. You pay to access their content but you don't have to pay for a dedicated device that accesses that content. For a game console you have to spend hundreds of dollars and THEN you have to pay for access to the content on top of that. Buying one thing to access content is fine, having to buy multiple dedicated devices for it is where I and others have an issue.
 
Bigwombat

Bigwombat

Banned
Nov 30, 2018
3,416
Errr. I've got a switch and PS4. Really happy that MS is making everyone's day with their games pass. More power to them. I don't pc game or buy Xbox even though they have had stuff over the years I wish was cross platform. That's just how shit works out,these companies aren't monoliths.

Can't catch em all and that's fine.
 
Joo

Joo

Member
May 25, 2018
3,876
Sheev said:
I see the capitalist/megacorp defense force is out on full display today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's just defending common sense. These "capitalism is bad and needs to go away" type of threads are pretty absurd. Some people are talking like there's this amazing competition-free utopia available and Sony and Nintendo just aren't realising this. This for example:

AHA-Lambda said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

None of these companies will ever make a decision based on "that's just how it goes sometimes" if there's an alternative way to make your business more profitable. MS's debatable "more open policy" is just a result of their place in the market, not benevolence. Naively of course it would be a great thing to not have exclusives, but it wouldn't be the result of "well, less money but that's just how it goes sometimes". This is just a very gullible way to look at things.

There's more money and development time given by a publisher when certain game is exclusive only because it's basically an advert and incentive to get a certain system. In the long run it's more profitable to use games to bind a customer in their ecosystem than to sell them on many platforms. This also results in high quality games which wouldn't be the same without exclusivity.

MS would definitely trade places with Sony as a leading platform and would have those same exclusives to get people in their ecosystem if they had the means to produce the said exclusives atm. This is just how things are and I have no reason to defend exclusives in a sense, but the alternative would be to basically say capitalism is bad and that's just a very silly statement in a discussion like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.