Console exclusives: are they really necessary?

[Doom972]

It only serves the console makers and screws the consumers.

yes they are necessary . why? because if not whats your incentive to buy a console over the other ? i mean if ps4 and xbone had the same games , there no reason to buy one over the other of both.

There would be a reason, because the console makers would then have to compete over the best price/hardware/service/etc. Consumers would then be able to choose a console based on its own merits, rather than the games it holds hostage.

 

[Asclepion]

I'm entirely PC. I'll just have to wait a few years and then play Halo on a cloud emulator streaming terabyte per second bandwidth into computerized contact lenses.

 

[LaochEire]

I switched from PC gaming to console and went back on my PS3 and all I can say is exclusive have made it the machine I game on at all times.

The Last of Us
Infamous
Killzone
Uncharted
Journey
Demon's Souls
Heavy Rain
Ico/Shadow of the Colossus HD Collection
Little Big Planet
Flower
God of War
Valkyria Chronicles

I can't get these on PC and they are fantastic games/series. Best decision I ever made really. Probably a good few more I'm forgetting.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Necessary? No. Beneficial to gamers? Yes.

If consoles didn't have exclusives, the only thing they would have to differentiate themselves from their competition would be to pile on more and more non-gaming features. Frankly, I think we have about enough of that.

 

[MetalDooley]

I don't understand why developers fuck us around with them though. PS3 owners had the original Dead Rising port cancelled but were given Dead Rising 2, now 3 is a Xbox One exclusive? Or how Bayonetta 2 became a Wii exclusive after the first was 360/PS3 only. I don't understand why that happens.

Well I don't know about Dead Rising but the reason Bayonetta 2 is a Wii U exclusive is pretty simple.Sega cancelled the game and no other publisher showed any interest in it until Nintendo picked it up

 

[IceForce]

The reason I like exclusives is that they really kick the system up to 11 and squeeze's everything it can out of the system.

For example, a game like "The Last of Us" is a game that I'm not certain the 360 could handle. That's not to say that graphics are everything but LoU is a VERY purty game. If it was developed on both systems, I don't think it would be nearly as good as it was.

Except, when you factor in the PC platform, your argument starts to fall apart, and your point becomes moot.

Is there actually a technical reason why "The Last of Us" won't run on PC? (or "Red Dead Redemption", or any other console exclusive game you care to mention)

 

[Dectomax]

As much as I'm deeply saddened at missing out on some of the exclusives, none of them really make me want to go back to my console. The Last of Us made me consider getting a PS3 and State of Decay gave me about 3 days worth of playtime on the Xbox. Other than that, my console just sits there gathering dust as I game on PC 98% of the time now.

Whilst I would prefer to 'play' the game, there are so many great lets players about now, that really, I don't have to. Would I enjoy the experience more if I, personally, played it? Probably. Am I going to dish out the cost for the game and the console? Nope.

 

[shirkbot]

I'm going to ape a couple other posters here and say that they're just the hostages of the console wars. They don't serve any consumer benefit and generally exist to move hardware. Getting into specifics:

They focus on the best parts of that console. With Halo? Its multiplayer on Xbox Live. With Ratchet And Clank/Uncharted/The Last of Us? The focus on the singleplayer with great fun stories. With Mario/Zelda? Childish Glee and Nostalgia with amazing gameplay.

Of everything you've mentioned, only Xbox Live was a feature that couldn't be immediately replicated. Now though? Every console has online, and the rest of your case is based on design decisions that are specific to the companies in question. There's no reason an Xbox game couldn't focus on single player and story, or a PS4 couldn't focus on nostalgia and mechanics. They just hold them as exclusives because they also make the consoles the games are being sold on.

Well what will happen on the console market? Consoles can't compete with exclusives anymore and no console with have an edge simply because of games. One console is likely to become dominant either for price or convenience. While the others might fail one will come out on top. We will be reduced to having one console. No competition, no reason no impress us because we don't have a choice.

I want to pay a bit of special attention to this because it gets into something that bothered me at the height of the "PS4 v. Xbone" frenzy: people always seem to forget that you can simple not purchase anything at all. If the company still wants to make money they really will have to keep impressing people on a regular basis because this is the entertainment industry and if people aren't entertained, they won't buy. It's actually been a large part of why the Wii U has been having a hard time (the other part being the lack of games). People can't see a reason to upgrade because the Wii U doesn't offer a visible enough change from the Wii to justify the expenditure.

All in all, no, exclusives are not "necessary." I don't know that they do any actual harm, but it doesn't do any good to anyone but the guys building the consoles at this point.

 

[tippy2k2]

The reason I like exclusives is that they really kick the system up to 11 and squeeze's everything it can out of the system.

For example, a game like "The Last of Us" is a game that I'm not certain the 360 could handle. That's not to say that graphics are everything but LoU is a VERY purty game. If it was developed on both systems, I don't think it would be nearly as good as it was.

Except, when you factor in the PC platform, your argument starts to fall apart, and your point becomes moot.

Is there actually a technical reason why "The Last of Us" won't run on PC? (or "Red Dead Redemption", or any other console exclusive game you care to mention)

Because I don't like playing games on my PC

I don't think there is a technical reason (maybe against the PS3 using that cell architecture thingy and that would be incredibly difficult to move over). Although there must be SOME differences for companies seem to be botching PC ports left and right so there must be some technical differences between the way consoles work and the way PCs work.

Either way, until you can get every hardware creator to agree to create one unified system, I stand by my "exclusives are good" stance. Having one super system would be ideal but this is not an ideal world.

 

[Bluestorm83]

They're not necessary nor are they superfluous. They're not good nor are they bad. It just comes down to the fact that it's a different thing to make a game for the A Unit and for the B System. Not only do they have different components, they think in different ways. Sure, lots of stuff carries over, but you then need to make a system to translate A Unit language into B System Language, or vice versa, for the second console to understand it without any game breaking bugs. It always annoys me when I set out to the store to drop 600 dollars on a console that so far had only one game I wanted (Metal Gear Solid 4) but sometimes a developer just isn't interested in the time, work, and cost in porting to a second format. God, I wish I had that 600 bucks back and this brick of a broken PS3 wasn't sitting on my trunk right now...

But that said, I can divide that console cost for the other exclusives that I really enjoyed, the Infamous games, the Uncharted games, the God of War series that I'd never gotten into in the PS2 days, etc, and when I do that it only comes out to me having spent like 30 dollars more per game to cover the console. And fortunately for me they gave away two games after they leaked all that credit card info (whoops) so that cuts it down to near 25 extra per game. That's not CHEAP, but it helps me think about it with less fury.

Now I need to go and start collecting pennies to save up for a Wii U for the next Smash Bros, because Nintendo won't just give up on their current trend of underpowered consoles and annoying "make me sweat" controls and just make their famous lines of games for Sony. I'd love to see those two merge and just DESTROY Microsoft. I'd even buy a Nintendo/Sony OS for my PC, if they called it "Warp Pipe" or "Fire Flower" or something.

 

[Hero of Lime]

As annoying as the console war is, yes I like exclusives. I know one of the most common arguments against exclusives is that the console itself should stand on its own merit. True as that may be, I lump a consoles exclusives in with its merits too. Don't forget that each console manufacturer wants people to play games only playable on their system, which is why the big three have their own first party development studios.

In the end it's all about competition, if you have some good products you will want to attract customers away from the competition, who in turn are creating their own means to stand out and look better. Besides, I would say a lot the of best console games are exclusives, if only because the big three understand they must make the best first party games possible to get people to buy their console.

 

[laggyteabag]

In the perfect world every game would be released for every platform, hell i'd love to play Halo or The Last of Us on my PC, but the industry just doesn't work like that.

Aside from system specs, exclusive games are really the only factor that would make someone buy one platform over another, the gaming industry is a competitive market, especially since the whole thing is worth a hell of a lot of money. So whilst it may suck that you cannot play a game that you're interested in due to your choice of platform (*cough* Destiny *cough*) exclusive games are essential to the industry so that there wont just be one dominant platform.

 

[Something Amyss]

I feel as though I've missed out on some pretty spectacular games because of my lack of PS3 ownership. It seems crazy to me that if an individual wants to have the opportunity to play all of the current generations best titles they have purchase something like 5 different gaming systems and upgrade the crud out of their PC, I'm all for a little competition in the market between companies (at least it's a buffer against a gaming monopoly) but our current system seems pretty flawed. What do you guys think?

So you feel like you need to buy their console to get a complete gaming experience.

Isn't that exactly the point? Where's the flaw?

Its also the reason we see so many anti consumer practices in consoles. Simply because we let them hold games hostage.

That didn't work out for the Xbone!

...But seriously, anti-consumer practices exist regardless of platform because gamers can't say 'no' in general.

 

[shrekfan246]

It's funny how only one person has recognized that exclusives are often a fair bit cheaper to develop and produce than cross-platform titles... well, it'd be funny if it weren't so disappointing.

While certainly not as many as we have today, there were TONS of crossplatform titles in the SNES/Genesis era. There were also a few "almost" crossplatform titles, like Turtles in Time/Hyperstone Heist. There weren't as many on the NES/SMS, but that was due to Nintendo's third party policies.

A lot of the cross-platform titles for the SNES/Genesis were made by entirely different companies, and occasionally had entirely different gameplay from their other-platform counterpart. Which was arguably more interesting and probably less expensive than how it's done today, but, you know.

but they also essentially alienate them from ~75%~ (in theory, how many people own every type of console + PC?) of the marketplace.

Considering the install bases the Xbox 360, PS3, and/or Wii have, I imagine the number of people who own at least one console and a PC is much higher than you'd give them credit for.

Funny enough, gaming isn't "PC or nothing" for many, many people. And they don't have to own "every type of console" to not be alienated when a developer is making a game exclusive to a system; They only have to own that one console. Sure, it still means people who don't own it are being excluded, but part of the point of exclusives is to sell systems, and it's a lot more vital than people in this thread seem to realize, though I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Economics and business don't seem to be strong points for the greater gaming community.

Of course, people also seem to believe that "console wars" would go away if none of the games were exclusive. Really? You don't think that people will just go back to the 90's ad campaigns of "Well, my system is so much faster than yours, so mine is better! Suck it, loser!"? And in this day and age of the new consoles being so similar, what exactly would make the decision for you? Just buying the cheaper one, or what your friends are all buying?

Does it suck for the consumer if you really want to play that one game, but just can't because it's on a console you don't own? Sure. It also sucks that I really want to have a private concert held on a yacht in Venice. That's the way of life sometimes, especially when it comes to entertainment and luxuries.

 

[GonzoGamer]

They are becoming more necessary as consoles gain more of the bad parts of the pc gaming experience and none of the good parts. People are going to need Some reason to buy a console other than to play the same game with an added fee to play online.

 

[Bellvedere]

From an idealist technical perspective no. Even with specific requirements, it seems to me that it would be possible to offer a similarly enjoyable experience on all platforms provided the time and funding was available. There's a reason console exclusives exist though and there'd need to be a massive shift in the gaming environment for that to change.

Exclusives are by far the least risky (especially when talking established series) and probably more cost efficient means for a platform to gain users. Developing for only one specific platform (or only a couple of platforms) lowers production costs for devs and allows them to finely tune the experience if they are so inclined.

Considering that currently there's no money to be made from selling consoles (even Nintendo has started to sell their home console for a loss with WiiU), the only way a console standard (like with DVD players) is going to happen without radical change in either the cost of making a console or the cost of consoles to consumers is with a monopoly which as MS has recently demonstrated could be very very bad.

I wouldn't say that I like title exclusivity, though complaining endlessly about it without offering a solution seems pointless. The fact that it sucks not being able to play every game anyone feels the least bit inclined to try on a single machine is not a startling revelation.

 

[Vegosiux]

Games are like toothpaste. Okay, so maybe I miss out on the exact aroma on my breath by not buying my toothpaste in that one particular store I don't want to have anything to do with, but I sure as hell can get an equivalent in the store I frequent.

So that's my take on the exclusives. I might not get to play all them exclusives, but, the day only has 24 hours and there are games, even great games, I am going to miss out on anyway because I spend a third of my life working and another third of my life sleeping. And time is something you can't take a loan for, nor can you hoard it to use it later. It's the most ruthless of all the possible budgets.

 

[tardcore]

yes they are necessary . why? because if not whats your incentive to buy a console over the other ? i mean if ps4 and xbone had the same games , there no reason to buy one over the other of both.

This is pretty much the answer right here. Sadly though I feel it also points out just how pointless these console devices actually are. If the only real distinction between your device and another is maybe the controller design and what game titles are released for them, why should people bother.

And before anyone jumps in here and says the lower cost of a console justifies the purchase of one over that of a higher cost PC, just how the hell are you saving any money if to play every game you want to you have to buy one of each FUCKING machine?

To me this whole three way tug of war (yes three way, fuck off Wii U nobody loves you) between the PC market, Microsoft and Sony is exactly what has gone wrong with gaming today. The market has stagnated due to these console companies holding everyone back with their lesser systems (not to say consoles are incredibly less powerful, just that you won't see a tech upgrade until the next console gen) and their focus on marketing over substance. I fault them almost entirely for the multimillion dollar selling AAA game titles still being considered failures.

So yes console exclusives are necessary for the CONSOLE MAKERS. For the consumer they are just another slippery bar of soap in the prison showers these companies can use as an excuse to rape their customers for every penny they have.

 

[Yopaz]

I want to pay a bit of special attention to this because it gets into something that bothered me at the height of the "PS4 v. Xbone" frenzy: people always seem to forget that you can simple not purchase anything at all. If the company still wants to make money they really will have to keep impressing people on a regular basis because this is the entertainment industry and if people aren't entertained, they won't buy. It's actually been a large part of why the Wii U has been having a hard time (the other part being the lack of games). People can't see a reason to upgrade because the Wii U doesn't offer a visible enough change from the Wii to justify the expenditure.

All in all, no, exclusives are not "necessary." I don't know that they do any actual harm, but it doesn't do any good to anyone but the guys building the consoles at this point.

Sure, you can choose not to buy anything at all. You can get another hobby. You can start collecting stamps, but when you really want to play games that really isn't an actual option. The majority of consumers won't simply not buy the only game console that is available. Just like people interested in Mass Effect 3 bought it despite that Origin was in an even more sad state back then than it is now people bought it. Why? Because it was either that or not playing it. You hear people cursing Microsoft for making a shoddy product as they buy their 5th Xbox 360 when their 4th has broken down.

If one company gets monopoly over all the consoles then a potential newcomer will have to do more than impress the consumers. He has to impress developers who actually benefit from the monopoly and have no reason to switch sides and join the underdog. Monopoly might not happen, I'll admit it's a stretch, but the truth is that people are too unwilling to switch just to get a more consumer friendly option with less support. Just look at the distribution between Windows and Linux.

I can't imagine a scenario where monopoly is good. I'm not naïve enough to believe it's easy to gain any kind of influence when your opponent got monopoly to begin with.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well I think it limits the company's potential for profit since they're only reaching the audience of that particular console/platform as opposed to the audiences of all the consoles/platforms, and as we all know these companies seem to place profit above all else so I do find the system rather odd.