Jimquisition: Rise Of The Exclusivity Wars
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
All valid things ... but a platform need not have good specs but good games, but rather it's the games that will make it sell. The (3)DS outsold everything else (together ... adding every console and handhelsds of the last two generations put together) precisely because it had features and incentives for its uptake.MrBrightside919 said:
But it's the games that make a console.
Which is problematic for nintendo. Has always been the case. You can have lower specs ... but you have to make 3rd Party devs interested. Wii had some fantastic games, just not enough of them. No More Heroes, Okami Remake (And it is a case where motion controls make the game so much better an experience ... barring the nunchuk dodge. Gah ... pointless trying to use the dodge rolls. Red Steel 2 was a fun game, but it was hampened by having a shocking first release game that was, being charitable, a piece of shit.
Monster Hunter Tri, The Last Story, Xenoblade Chronicles, Pandora's Tower ... noticing a trend? They were all games released at the brink of this current generation, back when the Wii was economically unviable a product. One of the saving graces for the Wii U is that it is entirely backwards compatible, but that didn't stop them from importing over some REALLY stupid things, like limiting the disc region playback options.
That being said, given that it's merely been a year (which is bad, horrible in fact, but still better than the Wii game release schedules) and the WiiU is getting the big hitter games. Now whether Nintendo will continue this path of helping middling dev teams with console devkits and helping bring 3rd Party games to the light of day in exchange for exclusivity, we may end up seeing some really good titles.
The problem with this, of course, is that none of these options are convertable into launch titles for the next generation of Nintendo home console. Arguably Nintendo may decide to do the Sega thing And merely pump out games, or perhaps refrain and stick to portable platforms where they have NEVER been challenged.
Nintendo have dominated handheld gaming for nearly 25 years. Let that sink in.... 25 years, they have been uncontested as the single most successful console producer of all time SOLELY for their handheld systems. In that space of time Sony have released four home consoles, and none of them, put together, have matched the combined sales of gameboys or the DS.
Nintendo handheld hardware did not even slump with the advent of consumer accessible smartphone technologies. People still faithfully slip their DS into their purse, or backpack when going to uni, or at high school ... It doesn't matter if you're 4 or 40, it seems like everyone has love for the DS. When they first came out (when I was a lowly post grad) I saw doctorate holding lecturers hazardly navigating the steps of University Mall playing the DS. To say they were selling like hotcakes was an understatement.
They weren't that powerful, but they were marketed well and had a plethora of great titles of which the experience of playing is still leagues beyond even the best of mobile gaming has to offer.
The Nintendo DS also benefitted from the fact that Japanese mobile phone networks, of the time, were still only basic CDMA networks ... and Japanese mass produced phones were 8 years behind what we had in the West. I still have my Softbank prepaid phone when I had to spend an extended stay there, and I've been told that all I need is a new SIM and it will still work even ten years later.
Point is, Nintendo can be successful regardless of the tech specifications ... they are the most successful electronic entertainment company of all time. Sometimes experience and good marketing, of which we both know Nintendo are capable of, is all you really need to create a successful product. Not necessarily the best hardware.
Just look at iPhones ... they lag behind in specs to the Samsung Galaxy and Note series of mobile phones, but I'd much rather have a cut of the market share of Apple's iPhone over the Samsung Galaxy and Note mobile phone market uptake. People are willing to pay more money, for technology that is easily observable as to be inferior in quality.
Which is why I think the DS was a success. The DS was the closest thing to 'chic' that the electronic entertainment industry has ever had ... it was also the reason why the original Wii did so well, it had that chic quality to it. It had chic marketing, inexpensive but catered to the modern lifestyles of even the most busiest people. That level of elegant sophistication. With soft lines, and consumer friendly titles.
After all,it was only 5 years ago every gamer (casual or otherwise) was eating out of their hands. It would be foolish to write Nintendo off slowly ecause they left a bad taste in our mouths with the original Wii.
But I am far more forgiving of Nintendo than I am Sony or Microsoft ... Nintendo has heart, and that was easy to see with the brilliant 32 years of gaming joy they have brought to us. After 32 years of entering the home console race, Nintendo has given us the very definition of modern gaming in all aspects and elements. They are the first to innovate, but never compromise on the tradition of excellence (as plain to see in all their 1st Party games).
Question is, after 32 years do you think either Sony or Microsoft will be as consumer friendly as Nintendo have been all these years?
Wait... This game is another reboot?!?daxterx2005 said:
That means Lara Croft has like 4 origin stories now! Out of 11 games! (The original plane crash story, the Last Revelation Verner Von Croy retcon, the Tomb Raider 2013 ship crash reboot and now this new one)
Not to mention one of the 11 games was a straight up remake of her first game (Anniversary)
Aside from the already mentioned situation with Nintendo allowing Bayonetta 2 to exist, there's very little reason for games to be platform exclusive these days.
Most electronics these days use the same architecture of computer hardware, specifically x86_64, and GAPI's such as OpenGL are cross platform compatible. The only real reason I can see for not bring a game to is financial constraints or, what I suppose I'll call, "Star Citizening it". By that, I mean that the shear scope and size of the game demands a processing power requirement that would be far too great for a proprietary, non modifiable system such as the current gen of consoles.
Even the financial constraints argument is a bit iffy to me, since a dev could make their money on an initial release for one or two platforms, then work on releasing it for others while they have a steady income. Some devs have been doing that with Linux and I've been nothing but grateful that there are devs that are helping me get close and closer to nuking my Windows installation.
OpenGL not only has the benefit of being cross platform, but it's also open to people to use. It's had features, such as tesselation and mutli threaded rendering, long before Microsofts Direct X, which is proprietary and restricted to one platform (And by that, I mean Windows. I'm aware that the Xbox likely uses it too).
I don't understand why anyone would intentionally wish for a game to not come to a persons preferred platform. Are people so insecure that they have to keep people from having nice things and lead them to make anti consumer arguments like the "Journalist" from Polygon? I want people enjoy a game I enjoy, and it would be so much better if I didn't have to say "oh well, you need a PS4...".
The more people who can enjoy the game, the better it is for everyone regardless of whether you play on the WiiU, PS4, XB1, Linux, Windows or Mac (Unfortunately for Mac though, Apple has a tendency to lag way behind with OpenGL versions, so that fact might cause some issues).
tl;dr As technology grows and changes, we need to get out of this mindset of exclusivity and into one of inclusiveness.
Most electronics these days use the same architecture of computer hardware, specifically x86_64, and GAPI's such as OpenGL are cross platform compatible. The only real reason I can see for not bring a game to is financial constraints or, what I suppose I'll call, "Star Citizening it". By that, I mean that the shear scope and size of the game demands a processing power requirement that would be far too great for a proprietary, non modifiable system such as the current gen of consoles.
Even the financial constraints argument is a bit iffy to me, since a dev could make their money on an initial release for one or two platforms, then work on releasing it for others while they have a steady income. Some devs have been doing that with Linux and I've been nothing but grateful that there are devs that are helping me get close and closer to nuking my Windows installation.
OpenGL not only has the benefit of being cross platform, but it's also open to people to use. It's had features, such as tesselation and mutli threaded rendering, long before Microsofts Direct X, which is proprietary and restricted to one platform (And by that, I mean Windows. I'm aware that the Xbox likely uses it too).
I don't understand why anyone would intentionally wish for a game to not come to a persons preferred platform. Are people so insecure that they have to keep people from having nice things and lead them to make anti consumer arguments like the "Journalist" from Polygon? I want people enjoy a game I enjoy, and it would be so much better if I didn't have to say "oh well, you need a PS4...".
The more people who can enjoy the game, the better it is for everyone regardless of whether you play on the WiiU, PS4, XB1, Linux, Windows or Mac (Unfortunately for Mac though, Apple has a tendency to lag way behind with OpenGL versions, so that fact might cause some issues).
tl;dr As technology grows and changes, we need to get out of this mindset of exclusivity and into one of inclusiveness.
Jim has one chance. He can either tow the same line he always does, blaming the internet and gamers in general and ignoring the issue, or he can actually acknowledge the facts and for once speak out against the corruption and the whitewashing.achicoria3 said:
Don't mess this up Jim. It's going to be ugly either way.
i read a Youtube comment the other day where a guy cancelled his pre order on Aliens Isolation when he saw the pre order bonuses. I congratulated him but there was a worrying amount of people giving it the "why would you do that? you get more content!" That just makes me sad, and it makes me wonder... I just don't think the message that these people aren't getting more content but rather are getting content that was there in the first place but later cut to force you to pre order is getting out to enough people. then you have the coming issues of distributors offering exclusive content (it has actually already started and been going for a while, but it's getting serious now)...
Also I saw a video of someone saying that Microsoft were stupid to tell everyone TR was only a timed exclusive they should have said it was exclusive... yeah cause that would have gone down well.
Also I saw a video of someone saying that Microsoft were stupid to tell everyone TR was only a timed exclusive they should have said it was exclusive... yeah cause that would have gone down well.
Unfortunately you misunderstood.Hero in a half shell said:Wait... This game is another reboot?!?daxterx2005 said:
That means Lara Croft has like 4 origin stories now! Out of 11 games! (The original plane crash story, the Last Revelation Verner Von Croy retcon, the Tomb Raider 2013 ship crash reboot and now this new one)
Not to mention one of the 11 games was a straight up remake of her first game (Anniversary)
I said "RE Reboot" as in "Resident Evil Reboot"
which I was wrong about anyway, its' a re-remake of the first game, not a reboot of the series.
Ah.daxterx2005 said:
In that case I retract the amazement of Ron Burgundy and will save it for another time. Still, I hope this one will actually have ancient evils and actual mummies and curses and stuff, so far we've seen a bear and a cliff. Not exactly Raiders of the Lost Ark (Not even Temple of Doom, although better than Crystal Skull - but that doesn't take much)
So you'd rather it not be made at all (example: Gravity Rush) rather than have it exist as exclusive to a console manufacturer...Strazdas said:
You'd rather small devs (From Japan mainly) exhaust their money reserves in porting their games to other platforms where a grand total of 2 people will buy their game, and go out of business thereby not making any more games...instead of being exclusive to a console/handheld.
I already knew your response before you made it but I had to ask to be fair. What you've confirmed is that you merely don't want console exclusives, PC exclusives are dandy however because you're exclusively a PC guy (and yes I read your other post with the excuses for that crack in your worldview).
Its akin to a Nintendo fan saying they hate exclusives, but Nintendo exclusives are special and should always be exclusive.
Your (and you are not alone yes) argument of hostage taking simply doesn't pass muster. First party aren't hostages as they wouldn't exist otherwise in most cases, and third party exclusives (example: Drakengard 3) don't have contracts preventing their release anywhere else so how are they hostages? The devs simply don't release it elsewhere because there is no financial benefit in doing so.
Aren't you one who talks about bloated development? Why would you support bloated development in this case that would ruin countless companies?
You feel a little off-base here Jim. Microsoft is adding value to the Xbone by delivering a quality game to its userbase ahead of when everyone else will get it. Xbone users will be able to talk about the game before anyone else, and revel in their let's play videos and inside knowledge and whatnot. Meanwhile, the plot of the game will be spoiled for anyone who does not have an Xbone. This all adds value to the smug, smarmy Xpeasants. It might even get a few people to buy Xbones.
And, yes, it does not benefit the rest of the industry. But, why does Microsoft have the obligation to only do things that benefit the industry and not its shareholders? It's how capitalism works.
And, yes, it does not benefit the rest of the industry. But, why does Microsoft have the obligation to only do things that benefit the industry and not its shareholders? It's how capitalism works.
No, i would rather that the company make the game for all platforms that can run it.Rozalia1 said:
Like i said in my second exception, if the company cannot afford to port, i can understand them not porting the game, so your Japanese developers example is unfit here.
Of course you knew my response, we have already discussed this extensively. I want PC exclusives to be ported to consoles where possible as well. If you followed the recent anouncements of games like Goat Simulator, DayZ and Space Engineers coming to Xbox you would notice that i have not been among the people who badmouthed developers for that. I believe that if a game can be ported without sacrificing its integrity - it should. whether from console to PC or from PC to console. So please dont make things up that i didnt say.
I did not say that first party companies are hostages. I said that they hold games hostage. They require a ransom of us buying their specific platform to get them.
I rarely talk about bloated developement actually, but i do believe there is some bloated development in a form of advertisement budgets exeeding developement budgets. I for one dont have a problem with large development budgets IF they are used properly and not simply wasting money. im in favor for effective budgets, not necessarily small budgets.
It appears that you have made a lot of guesses of things i havent said in this post. I dont remmeber you doing that in the past, what gives?
Maybe Jim really is the second coming of Christ. The sloppy second coming.
All this exclusivity is easy to explain. The game companies think they can make even more money if they act just like cable TV companies. Can it get more simple than that? The word for this century is monopoly. It's back and it's here to stay because the government has been neutered. And we let it happen. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
All this exclusivity is easy to explain. The game companies think they can make even more money if they act just like cable TV companies. Can it get more simple than that? The word for this century is monopoly. It's back and it's here to stay because the government has been neutered. And we let it happen. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Great vid Jim and spot-on once again. I find myself agreeing with you too many times it seems...
Fuck the douchebaggery of the gaming industry, they continually shoot themselves in the feet in my case as my game purchasing has dropped a staggering amount in the past couple years.
I used to actually pay attention to this industry, reserving, and pre-ordering a lot of games every year. Now I reserve none of them, I can barely stomach it for all the lies and bullshit publishers and console makers spout over and over. Screw them all! It's a sad day when the only devs I actually have faith in are the indie devs, smaller companies, and a tiny selection of larger devs (see CDProjekt).
Stop buying their shit people!
Fuck the douchebaggery of the gaming industry, they continually shoot themselves in the feet in my case as my game purchasing has dropped a staggering amount in the past couple years.
I used to actually pay attention to this industry, reserving, and pre-ordering a lot of games every year. Now I reserve none of them, I can barely stomach it for all the lies and bullshit publishers and console makers spout over and over. Screw them all! It's a sad day when the only devs I actually have faith in are the indie devs, smaller companies, and a tiny selection of larger devs (see CDProjekt).
Stop buying their shit people!
So you can than say there is no reason to buy the product they make exclusives for you to buy? You know how the business works.Strazdas said:
And you know that I've told you what my views on porting is, if a PC game is too "advanced" it doesn't mean it can't be ported. Look at Minecraft on consoles, how well they've done and folk said it'd never work.
Basically your excuses for why some PC games shouldn't be ported are just that, excuses. Lack of money and audience is fine reasons, but not possible to port? Nope, in the past companies have built different versions of their games entirely to get their game on a platform and today isn't any different.
Now as for what I "guessed". I asked you questions which you answered:
ME: So a first party studio making an exclusive, and a company that knows where its audience is and would be losing money porting their game aren't accepted by you?
YOU: No, a company holding a game ransom just because "first party" nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me.
I was never referring to you thinking first party companies were hostages, I was refering to the games that wouldn't get made without their benefactors support (not to mention the benefactors own personal studios that wouldn't exist if they weren't in the business). Maybe we misunderstood each other there.
Now for Japanese games being ported. It was that "nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me" comment you made that made my next response on that. You say you think it right for them not to port due to costs, however you also stated how you don't accept them being "blind" to outside audiences.
Putting your comments together I don't think they mesh.
