Console exclusives: are they really necessary?

[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.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I hate console exclusives. Missed out on a lot of good games thx to them. I guess they are necessary but i still hate it.

Agreed. I'm still hoping to get a cheap PS3 someday to get MGS4, Valkyria Chronicles, and the tales of symphonia pack (among others). Luckily, there are many more exclusive games to handhelds and the PC than for anything else.

 

[shirkbot]

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.

I'll absolutely concede to you that it's a terrible option, but you have to concede that the reason it's not viable is that your average consumer is an idiot. We're basically on the same side here. I don't think any of this is a likely scenario, neither of us wants to see a monopoly, and I don't think that if it did happen people would have the will to actually make the stand required to affect change. The fact is that it's the average consumer that makes the rules, and we just get to hope they don't screw it up. I'm of the mentality that Microsoft didn't recant on the Xbone because Sony was taking the gaming community by storm, but because Jimmy Falon pointed out to mainstream consumers that it was full of rubbish.

Like I said, I'm fairly neutral on the subject. They exist, and they move consoles, but as the consoles become increasingly similar technologically, the number of console exclusives will likely also dwindle until strictly first party titles are left. The only reason I care is that I'd love to see more hardware side variation because hardware makes games possible and is directly responsible for limiting what games can do. I think that exclusives reduce hardware innovation because the companies can just hold them to a given console. That's my take on current trends anyway.

 

[TrevHead]

Yes exclusives are necessary, ppl wouldn't buy the gaming machine otherwise. Consoles aren't some out-dated thing that should die, they are and will continue for quite some time to be more popular than PC gaming (EDIT if consoles are outdated so are desktop PC since they been replaced by laptops & handhelds). Consoles are a good thing since the competition and money in them fuels our whole hobby. And besides it's not as if each machine is a carbon copy of each other, each has their own particular strengths, control types, genres and community. Exclusive titles are built with those strengths in mind, therefore giving gamers a better gaming experience.

As I mentioned each platform has it's own community that likes certain genres and one type of game might be a flop on another platform. That includes the PC where even though there are plenty of niches, there still is an archetypal PC gamer who uses M&K instead of a pad, you only have to look at the type of games that are most popular on Steam's Greenlight to see that in effect. EG the total lack of arcade style 2D run and gun games while indie M&k 2D run & gunners are ten a penny and good luck playing a MP FPS with a pad on PC.

Also PC has more exclusives than consoles do, or do they not count?

While PC is great and all, I bought a 360 to play all the exclusive shmups plus 3rd person shooters and hack and slashers. I also enjoy the SRPGs and Dungeon Crawlers on the PSP / DS.

There is alot of games that are on the PS3 / Wii/U & 3DS that I'd love to play but don't have the time or money to buy them, (getting a WiiU near Xmas though) that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist and they along with consoles certainly aren't out of date (as if popularity should have such a pull on any hobby of mine)

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Do they need to exist? Depends on who you ask. If you ask Sony, Microsoft, and especially Nintendo(who has a HUGE amount of exclusives), they'll say hell yes. If you ask me, they just serve the interests of those three companies. People who didn't choose them get shafted out of potentially great experiences they would really enjoy. The developers, if the games aren't first party developed, get screwed out of a significant portion of the market, which is especially bad now that it should be easier to port from system to system... with the exception of the WiiU because, lol motion controls.

It's the only sadness I had when I switched to PC more or less exclusively. Not that I don't like certain PC exclusives, but some games are just impossible/difficult to play with a controller, most RTSs for instance. That being said, playing a racing game on keyboard is not something to be recommended. I'd like to be able to choose slightly left and slightly right rather than LEFT or RIGHT.

I wouldn't mind an idea of timed exclusivity. Like the game was out a few months early for one console and then came out for the rest. Xbox 360 has this for a lot of DLC packs, but outright exclusivity annoys me.

Finally, if anyone wants to say I have no right to be annoyed, kindly keep it to yourselves. I'm willing to give the game developer money for a product, but a third party is saying no so they can make their product look more appealing. Essentially two of us miss out on what we want so some prick can have an easier time marketing.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Well yeah, they kind of are necessary. Why would anyone feel compelled to buy anything if they had another device that could do the same thing? Also, console exclusives are tend to be very good, or at least extremely well made. I don't know if this is just coincidence, but my suspicion is that developers are generally given a larger budget for console exclusives, because if the game is good, that console now has another selling point. I'm not saying that is the case or that I as a consumer wouldn't love to be able to play the new halo or uncharted without buying a 500 dollar console, but I totally understand why exclusives are a thing and they're pretty necessary to keep market competition.

 

[suitepee7]

they're totally necessary, because otherwise how i know who to hate?

seriously, fuck console exclusives, there have been quite a few games i have missed out on because they weren't released on PC. its annoying because the devs/publishers could potentially make profit from it (or at least, wouldn't lose money), and i would get another great gaming experience

 

[Yopaz]

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.

I'll absolutely concede to you that it's a terrible option, but you have to concede that the reason it's not viable is that your average consumer is an idiot. We're basically on the same side here. I don't think any of this is a likely scenario, neither of us wants to see a monopoly, and I don't think that if it did happen people would have the will to actually make the stand required to affect change. The fact is that it's the average consumer that makes the rules, and we just get to hope they don't screw it up. I'm of the mentality that Microsoft didn't recant on the Xbone because Sony was taking the gaming community by storm, but because Jimmy Falon pointed out to mainstream consumers that it was full of rubbish.

Like I said, I'm fairly neutral on the subject. They exist, and they move consoles, but as the consoles become increasingly similar technologically, the number of console exclusives will likely also dwindle until strictly first party titles are left. The only reason I care is that I'd love to see more hardware side variation because hardware makes games possible and is directly responsible for limiting what games can do. I think that exclusives reduce hardware innovation because the companies can just hold them to a given console. That's my take on current trends anyway.

If consumers are smart enough to vote with their wallet why is it that people keep buying an Xbox 360 when their first 2 or 3 consoles failed? This happens, I have seen this a lot more than once.

Also it's not the consumer who makes the rules. It's the competition. The Xbox One didn't drop DRM because the consumer were against it. They dropped it ebcause the consumers were likely to buy from their competitor. Just look at pricing models between competing companies. They don't lower prices because consumers think the prices are too high. They lower them so they will buy from them rather than from the competition.

Remove the elements that facilitate competition and you'll eventually see the competition disappear altogether. Once the competition is gone there's no need to be consumer friendly. This is what happens with the medicine prices in USA. They can pick their price because there's no-one to take it from them.

Steam sales is an example of how one of the competing elements.
Origin is an example of us buying into monopoly because we don't have a choice.
Massive companies who sells at cheaper prices in order to rid themselves of less resourceful competitors is one of the means to monopoly.

I can actually find examples of things that build up under my hypothesis. While the result in monopoly isn't very plausible it is possible. The first step is to lose the competing elements which are exclusives. You have ignored all the examples I made and basically posted your first post again. It isn't about the consumer being stupid. It's about the consumer not thinking that buying an Xbox 360 over a PS3 will have any kind of consequence over the next 20 years. I know I don't make weighted decisions like that. I pick by games or price. If one got enough resources to sell at a massive loss thinking that they will eventually make that money back once they've got monopoly then it might actually eliminate competitors. This is far fetched and I don't think that anyone would take that risk.

However if you really think that removing perhaps the strongest competitive element won't have any consequence for the future of consoles then I'm not sure what to tell you. However it doesn't matter what I tell you. You'll just ignore it and repeat the same thing you said the last time.

Edit: Another example is how Microsoft tried to compete with the PS3 in terms of price which in turn caused them to cut corners. That's why the Xbox 360 had the issue of ruining discs. That's what caused the red ring of death. That's why they didn't push a new storage medium which actually lost them some deals with developers who wanted to make games too big for a standard DVD.

 

[vIRL Nightmare]

If the producer of a game is SONY they don't want their competition to have it. Same thing with microsoft. It's just standard marketing.

 

[elvor0]

Edit: bleh nevermind, wrong post, forget it >< delete or whatever.

 

[kasperbbs]

I feel as though I've missed out on some pretty spectacular games because of my lack of PS3 ownership.?

Well then you wouldn't have any reason to buy a ps3 would you? Pretty much the only reason why exclusives exist. I'm not saying that i like it, but thats just the way it is.

 

[Atmos Duality]

They're necessary in the sense that a proprietary game system needs them to distinguish itself in a way that actually matters.
A game system without games is a useless computer.
A game system that cannot offer distinct or superior experiences (or for cheaper) is just another computer.

 

[ace_of_something]

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.

Maybe in 1995, but now they have a lot of different features and interface type stuff. For example I would gladly pay the fee for Playstation Plus with it's free games, early demos, and reduced prices of DLC over the same priced privilege of playing multiplayer xbone games.

 

[Bocaj2000]

The PS4 and Xbone are identical in nearly every way, and no longer have any reason to have exclusives. The industry doesn't "need" them; they are just sticking to old habits.

EDIT: If you want to distinguish yourself from the competition, then have features that don't suck. If you can't handle that, then you have no right to exist. People have been saying this throughout the thread and I'll repeat it: "I don't want them to hold my games hostage."

 

[Flaery]

I don't think console exclusives are an ideal that's supposed to be liked by the consumer. They're just a means to get you to support one console over the others. While a world without exclusives would be a much better one, asking that is simply too unreasonable.

 

[balladbird]

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.

this actually hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.

I hear a lot of people saying that exclusives are just "games held hostage" and that "consoles should sink or swim on their own merits" While I don't disagree with the spirit of these claims, necessarily, they're missing a very obvious truth.

Video games are designed to appeal to an enormous market. they want to push to kids, casuals, and hardcore gamers of every stripe and genre. This is where the idea of abolishing exclusives and making only technical merit falls on its head: to the vast, VAST majority of people games are marketed toward, these merits are NOTHING but technobable

If the only people console manufacturers were interested in courting were the college-age hardcore group who held passionate opinions about processing power and actually know what RAM is, then there wouldn't be a problem. But at the end of the day when the holiday season rolls around and you're making your pitch: claiming to be the console with the greatest state of the art graphics card and complete Linux support won't gain you even a fraction of the attention that simply saying "I'm the console for mario games!" will.

As a result, the merits of the consoles still wouldn't matter much, even if you did away with exclusive games. you'd just see more and more needless bells and whistles tacked on, like the Xbone.