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.
To be fair, that was a move borne of desperation. Sony and Nintendo aren't anywhere close to Sega's post-Dreamcast desperation days.
This thread rules. From the initial "of course Nintendo exclusives are okay" which was inevitably going to be in there like clockwork to the general console warz shitposts ranging from veiled to blatant, this has been a truly thrilling read.
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.
Like... a web browser?a neutral platform (not sure what that would be, just imagine I guess)
Why would they trade all that to sell a bit more of their own software?
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.
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
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.
Then you're not getting the point.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?
In this scenario, God of War and Breath of the Wild never get made. Because it wouldn't make any sense to make them.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.
Once again Bloodborne is on PS Now. This thread should be closed.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
MS hasn't stopped making exclusives though.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.
Or Netflix to watch Netflix Originals and Disney+ to watch the Mandalorian. Wait...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...
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.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.
Haven't they? What's the last game they made that wasn't exclusive or planned to be? I thought they had stopped.
The thread was about exclusive.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.
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.Haven't they? What's the last game they made that wasn't exclusive or planned to be? I thought they had stopped.
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.
All these folks in here so worried about platform-holders' bottom line.
It's not like you're on their payroll smh
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.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.
So you like spending more money than would otherwise be necessary.
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.
but the games aren't built around that. like what do the exclusive games on the switch do with portability that the multiplatform games don't?
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.