Console exclusives: are they really necessary?

[Deep Thought]

Console exclusives are one of those things that are deemed extremely necessary now but I envision years from now people will look back on them and laugh and/or feel ashamed. It certainly doesn't really benefit games as an art or even as a medium, and it will severely hurt games from a historical perspective. Case in point, in order to "legally" and "officially" play the ORIGINAL home version of Breakout, you need to frantically search vintage stores and websites until you find a retro video game store/some guy's Ebay auction page and procure both a functional Atari 2600/5200, the proper video/control outputs for these antiquated machines, and a cartridge of the Breakout video game. That is a really atrocious method of preservation when retro games could be procured so easily digitally, but of course in many cases that is illegal, and very few retro console game developers support downloadable systems. Retro game ownership is easy enough for PC gamers, but fairly difficult for console owners. The only system that I can think of that does it remotely right is Nintendo's Virtual Store, but even they fudge it up by having the purchases bound to the console instead of the account, damaging preservation (how many times can you re-buy Super Mario Bros?). Meanwhile Microsoft and Sony ignore backwards compatibility altogether, which will only culminate in further damages; how will one legally be able to play Xbox 360 games 15 or 20 years from now? Console exclusivity was a necessary force about 20 years ago when computational hardware was limited and console developers were game developers, but now, when digital downloads are commonplace, computers are powerful, and console developers aside from Nintendo are essentially no different from publishers like Activision or EA (except that the publishing stipulations that Sony or Microsoft lay out differ in that the only platform for developers are the publishing entity's box of choice)? An unnecessary force that will eventually do massive damage to the history and preservation of games. Mark my words, there WILL be a centralized "gaming box" (whether its PC or a standalone device), and Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will either be out of business or thirds party developers, and really, is the latter option so bad?

 

[Duskflamer]

They are "necessary" because if every game ran on every system, what reason would I have to get a dedicated gaming machine instead of a PC that can play all the games as well as do other things?

 

[TK421]

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.

I have to disagree that they are necessary. The reason you chose a certain console should be because the makers of it worked hard to make it better for you than the other consoles, not because it is the only one that has your favorite series. A lot of games lose out on money they could have because people aren't usually willing to buy a whole console for one franchise, much less one game.

 

[nathan-dts]

First party exclusives are essentially the Hollywood blockbusters of games. The big three, especially Sony, will sink huge piles of money into their games because they get money from console purchases and from game purchases.

They also know how to get the most out of their consoles.

 

[sth1729]

There is also the fact that porting a game takes mountains of time and effort that some studios simply don't have, so some games end up being console exclusive simply because the effort to put it on multiple consoles would require more time and money than the studio simply has at the point of making the games. This doesn't apply to all games but for some games from smaller companies, or games not given a sizable budget, it could be the cause.

For titles with much larger budgets you're probably looking at a company owned by a console manufacturer, like how Sony owns Naughty Dog so The Last of Us and Uncharted are exclusive to the Playstation. Also some game companies end up contractually obligated to certain systems, or they only feel like dealing with the rules for publishing for one of the companies, etc., etc.

 

[TelHybrid]

They aren't necessary, because consoles aren't necessary. But I am glad its not like it used to be.

It used to be you had a Nintendo, or a Sega. And if you had a Sega you were dead inside, or so its been relayed to me.

I mean other than if you were a diehard Sonic fan, you were pretty much fucked if you didn't have a SNES.

My years of enjoying Streets of Rage, Soleil, Comix Zone, Revenge of Shinobi, After Burner II, Ristar, and damn it even Outrun resent your comment.

I probably would have preferred a SNES if I lived in the US. Here in the UK we never got much from Japan, no Chrono Trigger, no Final Fantasy, no Secret of Mana, no Earthbound.

Personally I'd prefer the games I listed and Sonic over Mario, Metroid, Starfox, and Zelda. Admittedly I have been enjoying them retrospectively thanks to emulation in recent years.

OT: Apart from fuelling online debates, the purpose of exclusives is generally marketing. I guarantee that The Last of Us sold so many PS3 consoles, as I'm sure Halo and Gears of War sold so many Xbox 360 consoles.

Another reason is each company have in-house game developing studios that they own. The reason you wont see a Nintendo IP on another console is the same reason you wont see a Naughty Dog game outside of Sony hardware. Having in-house game studios guarantees that their console will have good games on it, even if for some reason 3rd party companies are uninterested.

Whether you like exclusives or hate them, they're here to stay. There's not as many as the 90s due to the fact consoles are more homogenised than ever though. The only 3rd party exclusives you'll ever see are most likely a big expense on the part of the respective console manufacturer, and most likely a timed exclusive only.

 

[shirkbot]

-snip-

There is no faster way to make an argument intractable than to level a personal attack at your opponent. I will thank you to be more polite in the future and will attempt to do the same myself.

You're arguing that monopoly is bad for the consumer, and I'm not disputing that. What I do dispute is that the consumer doesn't make the rules. By default they do because you can't sell a product to no one and still have a successful business. The reason that it doesn't work in practice is, as you have said, because consumers, particularly gamers, buy products even when doing so is against their best interests, and they're doubly likely to purchase if the threat is in the long term. We agree on this. I have proposed that they can simply not purchase. The reason I brought it up is because there appears to be a mentality amongst gamers that rejects that notion. People were constantly saying "Well the Xbone looks awful, I guess I'll buy a PS4," seeming to forget that not buying is an option. It's a terrible option, but it's still an option, albeit one that is just as unlikely as the hypothetical monopoly you have argued against for the reasons you've pointed out.

I'm not disputing that competition is beneficial to the customer, I'm arguing that the competition in this particular case is increasingly artificial. Previously there were hardware and architecture differences keeping exclusives a logical creation, but now, they're basically an artifact. Are they good for the companies? Yes. Are they good for us? Maybe. Are they actually necessary, in the sense that the console will die without them? No, nor have they been historically. If exclusives ensured a console's survival, we'd be discussing the Dreamcast 3 right now. It only works for Nintendo because they've been around so long and have such a large catalog of first party titles. If they started today, no amount of exclusives in the world would save them from Microsoft and Sony.

I'm fine with exclusives, but I don't think they're absolutely essential for a system's success. If I had a problem with them, it would be that they enable this discussion to happen at all. If the companies really got out there and did things that legitimately made every console worth owning, very few people would complain. This thread basically exists because the hardware will be so similar for a second generation in a row that it's more practical to pick a single box. Wii exclusives like No More Heroes are awesome because you can't replicate it on another system. With the Xbox/PS4, even with exclusives, what's going to determine sales more than anything is price, and honestly Call of Duty will probably move more systems than any of the individual exclusives.

In short: I'm not saying remove exclusives, or that it would have no impact, I'm saying they are not essential and in this particular case, and that they've taken on artificial significance because the platforms in question are so similar.

EDIT: Could you please clarify the bit about Origin and Steam? I'm confused by the grammar regarding Steam, and how people have no choice regarding Origin, considering my existing argument.

 

[FourCartridge]

They're the only reason Nintendo's still in business. I suppose that's food for thought.

...They're not really necessary, but they're a bonus. I tend to pick up console based on how cheap they are/amount of support they will get(which is why I haven't picked up a Wii U despite it being the cheapest of the generation's offerings). Some of my favorite series have been console exclusives at one point or another (Sonic, Pokemon, Uncharted, GT, and this old obscure game called Blinx the Time Sweeper for OG Xbox), so I have no qualms with their existence.

In this climate they're more ways to get people onboard their console, though when a multiple series goes exclusive, that doesn't mean people have to like it; no way I'm dumping $300 for a one/two game console especially when it could have been easily ported.

In house stuff though? That's the more interesting debate IMO.

 

[TK421]

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.

I have to disagree that they are necessary. The reason you chose a certain console should be because the makers of it worked hard to make it better for you than the other consoles, not because it is the only one that has your favorite series.

Developing a game is hard work. How does developing an exclusive game therefore not count as hard work on the part of the hardware manufacturer?

Because the hardware manufacturer manufactures hardware. I really can't expound any more on that.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

As much good as it is to say, more for everybody; the simple fact is that in most cases, production is in part funded by the console owner or they own the IP or studio.

In most cases I've found the exclusives to be incredibly polished, using everythingthat system has to offer under the hood. There's also the matter of the PS3 and it's weird architecture.

 

[Yopaz]

-snip-

There is no faster way to make an argument intractable than to level a personal attack at your opponent. I will thank you to be more polite in the future and will attempt to do the same myself.

You're arguing that monopoly is bad for the consumer, and I'm not disputing that. What I do dispute is that the consumer doesn't make the rules. By default they do because you can't sell a product to no one and still have a successful business. The reason that it doesn't work in practice is, as you have said, because consumers, particularly gamers, buy products even when doing so is against their best interests, and they're doubly likely to purchase if the threat is in the long term. We agree on this. I have proposed that they can simply not purchase. The reason I brought it up is because there appears to be a mentality amongst gamers that rejects that notion. People were constantly saying "Well the Xbone looks awful, I guess I'll buy a PS4," seeming to forget that not buying is an option. It's a terrible option, but it's still an option, albeit one that is just as unlikely as the hypothetical monopoly you have argued against for the reasons you've pointed out.

So the consumer makes the rules now? This is a good thought. Now do you got anything to prove it? Even a sliver of evidence? I got evidence against it.

Mass Efffect 3 and Origin. Battlefield 3 and Origin. I have mentioned Origin before. The consumer didn't want to use Origin, but they had to in order to play it. A lot of people ended up getting Origin.

Ubisoft and their always on DRM. The consumer hated this, it prevented a good deal of people from playing their games and it was a real pain in the ass. People bought their games.

Sim City and its always on DRM disguised as as a MMORPG. People hated this too and people bought it and were again screwed over by not being able to play the game. Online passes Day 1 DLC most people I have met do not like these things. Yet they buy the games with them because the option is to not play games.

The consumer doesn't make the rules in the slightest. The competition does. The producer don't aim to please us, they aim to entice us more than their competitors. If you want to argue this you need to bring me some actual examples. I don't argue with ideals, hopes or dreams. I observe how things are and construct a hypothesis.

Also since you didn't understand the part about Steam. Steam is delivering a service of digital distribution. They sell games. Sometimes they sell games at reduced prices, this is called a sale. This is their way of competing against other similar services. This is about earning money, not about pleasing the consumer. Again an example of how the competition makes the rules.

Now considering you Mass Effect and Origin. I have already made my statement on your existing argument. You just ignored my counterpoint. I said that not playing games isn't a valid option. What you're suggesting is that we give up our hobby simply because we don't agree with the terms. If someone says they're tired of AAA games do you really suggest stamp collecting? If you want me to take your argument seriously, offer a solid one.

Now about the last part they I don't get what you're trying to say. You don't think consoles will die without their competitive edge, but you don't think it will have no impact if they lose it? So basically you still want to say that exclusives aren't important for the console, but you've come to the conclusion that removing them will have impact?