Do you think exclusives are good for the gaming community.

[PapaGreg096]

Don't get me wrong they aren't good for normal people's wallets but do you think they are sort of a necessary evil. They force developers to put in their best efforts to sell not only the games but the system themselves by using the console's gimmicks(mostly Nintendo).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

They sell new hardware, ''tis true, but I figure their main purpose should be to make sure games get made.

Like, Bayonetta 2 and 3 wouldn't even exist/be created if it weren't for Nintendo bankrolling them. So if Nintey doesn't want to share, they don't have to.

 

[Hawki]

In a sense...

I mean, it sucks if I want to play something on a console that I don't own, but on the other hand, it can allow certain games to be created that might not otherwise exist. Funding a developer to make something in exchange for exclusivity - that's a trade I can live with. It arguably might spur competition more, because if you do have an exclusive, you'd want that exclusive to lure people in to your platform of choice.

 

[stroopwafel]

Definitely, yes. With exclusives they usually put their all in a game not only to sell the system but also b/c the platform holder has a stake in the game's development. It's a game that needs to stand out. With non-exclusives there is usually not such an incentive and the game just needs to sell the most amount of copies ie appeal to the lowest common denominator. Exclusives on the other hand spawned entire genres like 'Souls-like' for example. I think exclusives and indie games often approach game development from a different angle and this then has influence on non-exclusive AAA games. The gaming industry is so risk averse that the only innovation seems to come from either exclusives or low-budget indie titles. Not that all exclusives are good but still, atleast they try.

 

[Yoshi178]

Exclusives create market competition. competition in the market is never a bad thing. it gives consumers a reason buy this console over that console which in turn encourage's developers to actually give a shit about the quality of their game and makes devs try harder to have an overall good quality game.

yeah a multi platform game i can play anywhere, but at the end of the day, it's the same shit, different system. devs don't need to try as hard to impress consumers. that's why FIFA and COD is the same shit every year with minor tweaks.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Don't get me wrong they aren't good for normal people's wallets but do you think they are sort of a necessary evil. They force developers to put in their best efforts to sell not only the games but the system themselves by using the console's gimmicks(mostly Nintendo).

You mean to not try anymore. If you don't have competition, you don't have to put in your best effort. Remember how glitchy and barely playable Bloodborne was at launch? Probably would have thought twice if that game was going to launch to twice as many gamers.

Exclusive titles usually have the best ideas behind them, sure, but in execution they're usually as lazy and cheap, if not more so, than cross platform games.

 

[McMarbles]

They're good if they're on my platform of choice. They're bad if they aren't.

 

[immortalfrieza]

No, exclusives are nothing more than monopolies hiding behind technicalities, they KILL competition, not create it. Exclusives are the sole reason anybody even buys any of the consoles at all, rather than that the console has value of it's own, and that's a very bad thing. Exclusives mean that instead of creating systems that are good and sold on their own individual merits, allowing the customer to pick and choose, we've got 3 consoles that are effectively identical and could run and with things like controllers sold separately control all the video games in existence pretty easily. These are prevented from doing so in order to force the customers to buy every single console or go without this games, buying consoles for the sake of the games that exist for said consoles rather than for the value of the console itself.

People don't buy consoles because this one has a unique control method, or this one has a unique viewing mode, or whatever, in fact the attempts to give consoles these abilities have been pathetic precisely because due to exclusives they don't have to put any real effort into these things to sell the console. At least PC will eventually have emulators that will work any given console sooner or later, so I'll give PCs a pass on the issue.

 

[PapaGreg096]

Don't get me wrong they aren't good for normal people's wallets but do you think they are sort of a necessary evil. They force developers to put in their best efforts to sell not only the games but the system themselves by using the console's gimmicks(mostly Nintendo).

You mean to not try anymore. If you don't have competition, you don't have to put in your best effort. Remember how glitchy and barely playable Bloodborne was at launch? Probably would have thought twice if that game was going to launch to twice as many gamers.

The only problem I had during the Bloodborne Launch was the longass loadtimes, other then that the game was fine imo.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Don't get me wrong they aren't good for normal people's wallets but do you think they are sort of a necessary evil. They force developers to put in their best efforts to sell not only the games but the system themselves by using the console's gimmicks(mostly Nintendo).

You mean to not try anymore. If you don't have competition, you don't have to put in your best effort. Remember how glitchy and barely playable Bloodborne was at launch? Probably would have thought twice if that game was going to launch to twice as many gamers.

The only problem I had during the Bloodborne Launch was the longass loadtimes, other then that the game was fine imo.

Fair enough. I didn't get it at launch because I heard of all the glitches and bugs, but I never experienced them first-hand.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Yes, they are. Instead of devs and consoles makers locking themselves in dick measuring contests trying to be the ?most powerful? to play the ?same copy-paste bullshit you can play anywhere,? they can actually focus on making great, unique titles that sell consoles, titles that are the reason you?d pick a PlayStation over an Xbox or vice versa. I can only imagine it takes less effort to develop for a single platform than dividing efforts to make games vanilla enough to be played on all platforms. At the very least, that effort that would have been quartered off is repurposed to the singular focus.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

No, exclusives are nothing more than monopolies hiding behind technicalities, they KILL competition, not create it. Exclusives are the sole reason anybody even buys any of the consoles at all, rather than that the console has value of it's own, and that's a very bad thing. Exclusives mean that instead of creating systems that are good and sold on their own individual merits, allowing the customer to pick and choose, we've got 3 consoles that are effectively identical and could run and with things like controllers sold separately control all the video games in existence pretty easily. These are prevented from doing so in order to force the customers to buy every single console or go without this games, buying consoles for the sake of the games that exist for said consoles rather than for the value of the console itself.

People don't buy consoles because this one has a unique control method, or this one has a unique viewing mode, or whatever, in fact the attempts to give consoles these abilities have been pathetic precisely because due to exclusives they don't have to put any real effort into these things to sell the console. At least PC will eventually have emulators that will work any given console sooner or later, so I'll give PCs a pass on the issue.

Very well said, and entirely true. Exclusives are held hostage, rather than offered as a bonus to buy.

 

[gigastar]

No its shit for the industry.

Consoles arent being defined by how well they perform in technical terms, but only by the games you can only get on them. As a result theres no reason to create a platforms, only create games to market the platform around.

 

[CaitSeith]

It depends. An exclusive that uses the unique platform's features at their full potential in ways that isn't possible anywhere else? Great! An exclusive that required funding and wouldn't exist if the company platform didn't financed it? Good. An exclusive that doesn't take advantage of the hardware in any meaningful way and has no reason to not be on other mainstream console other than marketing? Not so good.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I don't mind really, there are usually only two good ones per system and the rest are a bit niche. Me not owning every system is fine, there will be treasures to be found at a later date when i get round to buying one of the other options cheap

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Probably not, but I can think of much worse things esp. since we're living in the age of microtransactions and lootboxes, Also exclusives have been with us since at least the 3rd console generation so they're not going anywhere.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Let's just say that I don't think studios like Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, or Guerilla would be allowed as much room to show off if they weren't making games exclussively for one platform. And studios like Sucker Punch and Media Molecule probably would've been smothered by the competion if they didn't have Sony backing them 100%. So certain games and certain studios definitely benefit from exclussivity deals.

I can only speak for myself and say that exclussives never bothered me much. Many games that used to be tied to one platform get ported over eventually anyway. The incredibly short shelf life of games due to a lack of backwards compatability is a WAY bigger issue.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I'm going to agree with most of the people in here and say that exclusives are a necessary evil. They provide a ton of unseen benefits to developers that in the end get extended to the customers as well such as more money for development, (generally) more freedom in making a signature game, more willingness on the publisher's part to fund a new IP, more marketing backing, not needing to focus on porting the game to two or even three other consoles (not including the PC), which actually counts for a lot, and having access firsthand to guidance on how to make and optimize their game for a specific console in order to squeeze every last drop of power they can from the console. The exclusivity deal may even come with support for expensive but needed infrastructure to fully realize some games such as the launch of Xbox Live for Halo 2.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Hmmmmmmmmm yes and no.
It's a shame I can't play every game on a single console. But if I could, most of the games I wanted to play probably wouldn't exist.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Depends on who you're referring to when talking about the "community". Developers, publishers, or consumers?

There's really nothing in it for consumers, obviously. Exclusives are as bad as region locking, and serve no purpose whatsoever.

For the developers, YES because it makes it a bit easier to optimize your game for only one platform (although this leads to laziness to I guess? Many exclusives are still buggy as fuck on release), and NO because obviously less crowd to sell it too, thus less profit.

For publishers and console owners I'd say yes, purely in terms of turning a profit. Especially when releases on other platforms are delayed (GTAs PC releases for example). Sucks for the rest of us, but it is what it is. Doesn't bother me half as much as the other dirty tricks and traps they put in fucking games nowadays to suck more money out of you.