Jimquisition: Rise Of The Exclusivity Wars

[Strazdas]

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?

No, a company holding a game ransom just because "first party" nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

this was the first I'd heard of the RE reboot.

Wasn't six also billed as a reboot initially?

I'll believe it when it comes out.

-edit-

Seems I was confused, just googled it and they're remaking the gamecube remake not rebooting the series, nvm then.

Wait... This game is another reboot?!?

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)

Unfortunately you misunderstood.

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.

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)

 

[Rozalia1]

No, a company holding a game ransom just because "first party" nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me.

So you'd rather it not be made at all (example: Gravity Rush) rather than have it exist as exclusive to a console manufacturer...
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?

 

[90sgamer]

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.

 

[doomed89]

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.

No actually he's not and no Microsoft is not. They are paying to remove value from ps4 to make Xbone look better by comparison they are adding nothing. The game isn't coming out earlier for Xbone it's coming out later for ps4.

 

[Strazdas]

No, a company holding a game ransom just because "first party" nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me.

So you'd rather it not be made at all (example: Gravity Rush) rather than have it exist as exclusive to a console manufacturer...
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?

No, i would rather that the company make the game for all platforms that can run it.

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?

 

[gridsleep]

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.

 

[jpoon]

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!

 

[Rozalia1]

No, i would rather that the company make the game for all platforms that can run it.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Magmarock]

O was very eega to see Jim's take on this. After watching RTU and Boogie2988 make videos about this I was interested to hear Jim's side. I'm a PC gamer myself and don't really care for Tomb Raider but I thought this was a great video for putting into context just about everything wrong with exclusivity.

Microsoft has always been about buying out the competition instead of competing themselves but it's good to see their not getting away with it like they used to.

I haven't watched Boogie2988's video. But I have been subscribed to RTU for a while, and let me tell you. I have never seen so many dislikes in one of his videos since the last time he badmouthed Minecraft.

OT: I agree with Rich (RTU) that the XB1 needs something that gives to the consumer a good reason to get one. However holding a multiplatform hostage is a cheap move... figuratelly. Microsoft must have offered a really nice deal to Crystal Dynamics for them to pospone their PC and PS4 ports sales for God (and Jim) knows how long.

yeah I know what you mean, I wish MS would focus less on xbox and more on Win9. Imagine if they just released Halo all in one on win9 that would be awesome.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

It may be that its 8 Am in the morning, but i dont understand what you mean by this question.

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.

Yes, we already had this discussion and our views disagree on the matter. Your minecraft example though - you do know that Console version of minecraft is vastly inferior, unupdated mess that even mobile version outdoes? im sure you were aware of that, right?

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.

You have misunderstood me there then. What i meant is it is acceptable for them not to port if they cannot afford it, not acceptable not to port because they are unaware of potential audience (think there arent buyers).

 

[Rozalia1]

It may be that its 8 Am in the morning, but i dont understand what you mean by this question.

What I got from that was you saying that even the first parties should put their games on every platform, that is how it read to me.

Yes, we already had this discussion and our views disagree on the matter. Your minecraft example though - you do know that Console version of minecraft is vastly inferior, unupdated mess that even mobile version outdoes? im sure you were aware of that, right?

And yet it sold fine, more than fine in fact. Just because a platform can't run the top version doesn't mean its impossible to port the thing.

You have misunderstood me there then. What i meant is it is acceptable for them not to port if they cannot afford it, not acceptable not to port because they are unaware of potential audience (think there arent buyers).

Well there isn't a potential audience elsewhere they are niche after all (more so today). Porting say Yakuza to even the 360 isn't done because they can hardly even justify bringing the series over to the West (Japan is the primary market for them, and everyone knows the Xbox's standing there).

 

[Strazdas]

What I got from that was you saying that even the first parties should put their games on every platform, that is how it read to me.

Yes they should. Being a first party studio is not an excuse to be exclusive.

And yet it sold fine, more than fine in fact. Just because a platform can't run the top version doesn't mean its impossible to port the thing.

Which only shows how bare the platform is of good content if it jums in with money at even a promise of such.

Xbox minecraft is a joke. You can hardly call it minecraft as it cant even give you the main concept - freedom of exploration and building.

Well there isn't a potential audience elsewhere they are niche after all (more so today). Porting say Yakuza to even the 360 isn't done because they can hardly even justify bringing the series over to the West (Japan is the primary market for them, and everyone knows the Xbox's standing there).

Just because you dont know of an audience does not mean there is none. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Rozalia1]

Yes they should. Being a first party studio is not an excuse to be exclusive.

Which only shows how bare the platform is of good content if it jums in with money at even a promise of such.

(Xbox minecraft is a joke. You can hardly call it minecraft as it cant even give you the main concept - freedom of exploration and building. Not addressing this part but the above)

Just because you dont know of an audience does not mean there is none. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Its not an excuse and them being exclusive is correct thing for the company to do. They want consoles sold so they can make money off the games that are brought, exclusives by virtue of being exclusive drive console sales up which has the effect of driving games sales up overall. I'm sure you know all this so why you're here telling me a company should just straight up harm their business for your pleasure (someone who doesn't even buy their consoles+games) is just baffling. There is a reason whenever an Xbox "exclusive" is found not to be that most posters spend the thread calling Microsoft stupid.

Oh my. Bloody hell I guess I know why you were so slow to respond now, that is quite something else.
You legitimately made me laugh at that one. I mean no rudeness but that has to be one of the worse remarks I've heard on here.

Poppycock. You can say that to justify porting to anything. The Niche JRPG scene on the PC/Xbox is actually on fire, its just nobody knows it.

 

[Strazdas]

Its not an excuse and them being exclusive is correct thing for the company to do. They want consoles sold so they can make money off the games that are brought, exclusives by virtue of being exclusive drive console sales up which has the effect of driving games sales up overall. I'm sure you know all this so why you're here telling me a company should just straight up harm their business for your pleasure (someone who doesn't even buy their consoles+games) is just baffling. There is a reason whenever an Xbox "exclusive" is found not to be that most posters spend the thread calling Microsoft stupid.

Oh my. Bloody hell I guess I know why you were so slow to respond now, that is quite something else.
You legitimately made me laugh at that one. I mean no rudeness but that has to be one of the worse remarks I've heard on here.

Poppycock. You can say that to justify porting to anything. The Niche JRPG scene on the PC/Xbox is actually on fire, its just nobody knows it.

No. Correct thing for company to do is to provide the best service possible. What you mean is likely the most profitable thing for company, which granted some people may mistake for the correct thing because its capitalism gone wild nowadays. However you would once again be wrong, as there is no profitability by restricting your userbase significantly. What they are doing is a selfish thing. they want their console to be used and try to force people onto it not by making it better, but by holding games hostage.

Consoles should compete on being better than the other device, not by holding games you want to play hostage.

And, like i previously stated, where possible it should be ported to all platforms.

 

[Rozalia1]

No. Correct thing for company to do is to provide the best service possible. What you mean is likely the most profitable thing for company, which granted some people may mistake for the correct thing because its capitalism gone wild nowadays. However you would once again be wrong, as there is no profitability by restricting your userbase significantly. What they are doing is a selfish thing. they want their console to be used and try to force people onto it not by making it better, but by holding games hostage.

Consoles should compete on being better than the other device, not by holding games you want to play hostage.

And, like i previously stated, where possible it should be ported to all platforms.

Yes there is and you know it. Look at the battle between Infamous and Prototype. Which is still alive today? Which has had a bigger impact? Infamous quite easily. True they may be able to sell more copies if it was a multiplat however the loss in reputation for the platform holder, and the less consoles sold (which brings less game sales which is where the big money is) mean that their short term gains will quickly be obliterated.
You rag and rag on consoles yet don't know how the business operates? Come now, practically everyone knows these simple facts.
As for bringing the best service possible...you aren't their customer so why should they cater to you?

Better than the other device? So they should be top of the line PCs now? You know consoles have fixed hardware so however pricey and expensive you make them it won't matter.
So they should make all their exclusives multiplats, price their consoles at insane prices...so you can have the pleasure of coming on the internet and say their device sucks and you should stick to just a PC? Any guesses why they won't do that?

Yet you are against putting different versions of games on weaker systems and hide behind excuses. Minecraft alone blows your viewpoint to pieces and you can't counter that hence your earlier remark.
Don't make a claim you hold X view, while holding Y view that goes completely against the X view.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes there is and you know it. Look at the battle between Infamous and Prototype. Which is still alive today? Which has had a bigger impact? Infamous quite easily. True they may be able to sell more copies if it was a multiplat however the loss in reputation for the platform holder, and the less consoles sold (which brings less game sales which is where the big money is) mean that their short term gains will quickly be obliterated.
You rag and rag on consoles yet don't know how the business operates? Come now, practically everyone knows these simple facts.
As for bringing the best service possible...you aren't their customer so why should they cater to you?

Better than the other device? So they should be top of the line PCs now? You know consoles have fixed hardware so however pricey and expensive you make them it won't matter.
So they should make all their exclusives multiplats, price their consoles at insane prices...so you can have the pleasure of coming on the internet and say their device sucks and you should stick to just a PC? Any guesses why they won't do that?

Yet you are against putting different versions of games on weaker systems and hide behind excuses. Minecraft alone blows your viewpoint to pieces and you can't counter that hence your earlier remark.
Don't make a claim you hold X view, while holding Y view that goes completely against the X view.

Uh, what? Prototype was always multiplay. It is still "alive". The reason it really isnt heard about is that beyond the first game, the sequels were shit. Your talking about Impact and are using Infamous? Seriuosly? The game known best for its terrible texture popins? Thats the inpact you want to have - we have the worst graphics? And if we go for Single Plat vs Multiplay shooter inpact lets compare something better for for that - COD and Halo. Halo started on PC, but went console exclusive. CoD started on PC and went multiplat. CoD is much more known and inpactful on the market, sells more copes, what have you.

As far as business operating, it looks like you did not get my nod in previuos post - i dont support business operation based on capitalism. I am a socialist. Business first repsonsibility should be to provide best service possible. if it is not, then such business is broken. Sadly, our current economic model is based on business being broken.

As far as me being a costumer, lets take TLOU as an example. I was not a costumer because the game was not available. Had they released it for all platforms - i would have been a costumer.

What i meant by b etter than other devices is that consoles should compete by being the best console (the physical machine itself) rather than holding most games hostage. Competing with PCs sounds unreasonable to you? well they managed to BEAT them in power last generation launch. Back in 2005, consoles were stronger than PCs, now they are weak at launch.

Currently consoles are sold at very small loss, and its amazing how they manage that consider they use almost all stnadard parts and these parts dont cost 400 dollars. there is no reason for consoles to go expensive. the reaosn for that last generation was because they were unique costum built machines, and we all suffered that through.

I have plenty of guesses why they wont do that, ranging from stupidity to outright malice, but guesses are guesses.

I am not aginast putting games on weaker systems (after all like i said i am FOR porting PC games to consoles as well), merely agianst putting them on systems that are unable to run them. And seriuosly your still sticking to minecraft being proof of console porting? yeah i dont even know what to say without insulting you there.

My views are internally consistent, meanwhile you keep moving your goalposts.

 

[Rozalia1]

Uh, what? Prototype was always multiplay. It is still "alive". The reason it really isnt heard about is that beyond the first game, the sequels were shit. Your talking about Impact and are using Infamous? Seriuosly? The game known best for its terrible texture popins? Thats the inpact you want to have - we have the worst graphics? And if we go for Single Plat vs Multiplay shooter inpact lets compare something better for for that - COD and Halo. Halo started on PC, but went console exclusive. CoD started on PC and went multiplat. CoD is much more known and inpactful on the market, sells more copes, what have you.

As far as business operating, it looks like you did not get my nod in previuos post - i dont support business operation based on capitalism. I am a socialist. Business first repsonsibility should be to provide best service possible. if it is not, then such business is broken. Sadly, our current economic model is based on business being broken.

As far as me being a costumer, lets take TLOU as an example. I was not a costumer because the game was not available. Had they released it for all platforms - i would have been a costumer.

What i meant by b etter than other devices is that consoles should compete by being the best console (the physical machine itself) rather than holding most games hostage. Competing with PCs sounds unreasonable to you? well they managed to BEAT them in power last generation launch. Back in 2005, consoles were stronger than PCs, now they are weak at launch.

Currently consoles are sold at very small loss, and its amazing how they manage that consider they use almost all stnadard parts and these parts dont cost 400 dollars. there is no reason for consoles to go expensive. the reaosn for that last generation was because they were unique costum built machines, and we all suffered that through.

I have plenty of guesses why they wont do that, ranging from stupidity to outright malice, but guesses are guesses.

I am not aginast putting games on weaker systems (after all like i said i am FOR porting PC games to consoles as well), merely agianst putting them on systems that are unable to run them. And seriuosly your still sticking to minecraft being proof of console porting? yeah i dont even know what to say without insulting you there.

My views are internally consistent, meanwhile you keep moving your goalposts.

First of all Prototype got a single sequel, and second the studio that did it is dead and is one of those series thrown under the bus for not selling enough. Infamous on the other hand is alive and whatever you think of it has a good reputation. Prototype was multiplat and failed, Infamous has succeeded as an exclusive.
Halo being originally developed for the PC (and Mac) doesn't matter, it was an exclusive from the get go. Your call of duty example is meaningless, we are talking about first party exclusives not third party. The money you get from first party exclusives extends past the mere sale of the game which you fail to understand.

Can't play TLOU and the other games because you're not a customer? Well there is an incentive to become a customer.
Such a thing is why exclusives have value beyond their mere sale.

And the point of that is what? I know that you know that I know that you know that such a thing is pointless. So they release a 1000 pound console, or absorb massive costs to put the price down to be as good as a PC at launch for like a year for what? To go out of business?
Consoles are static, being better than top of the line PCs especially in this day and age isn't possible, nor is needed which pisses a lot of people off yes.
So yes it is unreasonable and again it isn't a bloody hostage. Those games wouldn't exist if not for the platform holder having a stake in the matter. Third party exclusives (e.g Drakengard) are also not held hostage as nothing is stopping them porting their game, they just don't because they don't see the worth in doing so.

Fine to play your game, if the PS4 was 1000 pounds and had hardware to match the tag what do you think would be the result. Heck not just you, anyone can join in the game if they like.

Minecraft is what I use because it stings you that it is a success. Its not possible, it'll be crap...all pointless chatter. The game was ported and whatever you think of the console version is sold incredibly well. It proves that just because the port is downgraded it doesn't mean it won't sell, or that people will be happy with it.

Shift the goalposts? My goalposts are where they've always been, yours seem to be on Mars at this point. You can't directly address Minecraft as it exposes you're hiding behind an invalid excuse in "its not possible/port would be crap", and this "consoles should be massively expensive to be better than PCs" business is all very odd.
I know that you know that I know where your current arguments are coming from, and my helpful advice to you would be to dial it back as you'll only embarrass yourself if you keep saying such hogwash.

 

[Strazdas]

First of all Prototype got a single sequel, and second the studio that did it is dead and is one of those series thrown under the bus for not selling enough. Infamous on the other hand is alive and whatever you think of it has a good reputation. Prototype was multiplat and failed, Infamous has succeeded as an exclusive.
Halo being originally developed for the PC (and Mac) doesn't matter, it was an exclusive from the get go. Your call of duty example is meaningless, we are talking about first party exclusives not third party. The money you get from first party exclusives extends past the mere sale of the game which you fail to understand.

Can't play TLOU and the other games because you're not a customer? Well there is an incentive to become a customer.
Such a thing is why exclusives have value beyond their mere sale.

And the point of that is what? I know that you know that I know that you know that such a thing is pointless. So they release a 1000 pound console, or absorb massive costs to put the price down to be as good as a PC at launch for like a year for what? To go out of business?
Consoles are static, being better than top of the line PCs especially in this day and age isn't possible, nor is needed which pisses a lot of people off yes.
So yes it is unreasonable and again it isn't a bloody hostage. Those games wouldn't exist if not for the platform holder having a stake in the matter. Third party exclusives (e.g Drakengard) are also not held hostage as nothing is stopping them porting their game, they just don't because they don't see the worth in doing so.

Fine to play your game, if the PS4 was 1000 pounds and had hardware to match the tag what do you think would be the result. Heck not just you, anyone can join in the game if they like.

Minecraft is what I use because it stings you that it is a success. Its not possible, it'll be crap...all pointless chatter. The game was ported and whatever you think of the console version is sold incredibly well. It proves that just because the port is downgraded it doesn't mean it won't sell, or that people will be happy with it.

Shift the goalposts? My goalposts are where they've always been, yours seem to be on Mars at this point. You can't directly address Minecraft as it exposes you're hiding behind an invalid excuse in "its not possible/port would be crap", and this "consoles should be massively expensive to be better than PCs" business is all very odd.
I know that you know that I know where your current arguments are coming from, and my helpful advice to you would be to dial it back as you'll only embarrass yourself if you keep saying such hogwash.

so your cherry picked bad example is somehow legit and my picked Exclusive vs exclusive gone multiplat (becuase you claim that going multiplat ruins them) is somehow "meaningless". Ignoring what does not support your argument does not actually win them.

No, there is incentive, its ont possible to become a costumer as they are not selling a copy of my platform of choice. they are intentionally cutting off part of the market.

you do know that for 500 dollars they could build a console that is faster than the current ones, right? Consoles being static was fine when their generations were short (remmeber, it used to take 3-4 years before). Its not acceptable when a generation takes 10 years though. If only they were modular and could be upgraded... oh... wait... PC already exists.

1000 pound console, sold at neither loss nor profit, would outdo average gaming PCs for many years actually. The result would be same as if you release a 1000 pound prebuilt - some people will buy it, others wont.

Minecraft is not a "Sucess" on Xbox. not by a long shot. Also where is a sting on a game ported to console doing well if i was always for porting games to all platforms. its like your imaginging some straw man position and then attack it instead of attacking what i actually said.

I have no fear of being embarased by arguments as weak as yours.

 

[Rozalia1]

so your cherry picked bad example is somehow legit and my picked Exclusive vs exclusive gone multiplat (becuase you claim that going multiplat ruins them) is somehow "meaningless". Ignoring what does not support your argument does not actually win them.

No, there is incentive, its ont possible to become a costumer as they are not selling a copy of my platform of choice. they are intentionally cutting off part of the market.

you do know that for 500 dollars they could build a console that is faster than the current ones, right? Consoles being static was fine when their generations were short (remmeber, it used to take 3-4 years before). Its not acceptable when a generation takes 10 years though. If only they were modular and could be upgraded... oh... wait... PC already exists.

1000 pound console, sold at neither loss nor profit, would outdo average gaming PCs for many years actually. The result would be same as if you release a 1000 pound prebuilt - some people will buy it, others wont.

Minecraft is not a "Sucess" on Xbox. not by a long shot. Also where is a sting on a game ported to console doing well if i was always for porting games to all platforms. its like your imaginging some straw man position and then attack it instead of attacking what i actually said.

I have no fear of being embarased by arguments as weak as yours.

My examples weren't used to demonstrate the same point as yours so yes there is a reason mine are legitimate and yours isn't. The fact you refuse to see the reason for a first party game being exclusive means you can bring up what you like, it won't matter.

As I said there is your incentive. You want the exclusives than pony up the cash for the device to play them, that is how it works.

Common info spread about that is simply wrong. The PS2 lasted an eternity, and the PS3 is guaranteed to last a long time as well (Japanese devs are slow to adapt new gen so all their exclusives will come out on PS3 for many years).
Yeah PC already exists, so why should they treat their product like a PC?

... Really? First of all them profiting, or far more likely losing a huge amount of money on a £1000 console is very much irrelevant because few are going to buy the bloody thing. If top of the line costs a bomb, than they ain't going to put it in the console. 599 us dollars from Sony was a disaster enough and you actually believe there would be no issue with £1000 console. The correct response there was to say that a £1000 console is ridiculous and a console shouldn't have top of the line hardware due to the price it'd mean.

... What? http://news.xbox.com/2014/04/games-minecraft-12m
Its one thing to hold absurd views, its another to reject reality itself.
It stings because it crushes your excuse for why certain PC games shouldn't be ported like a bug, it exposes your hypocritical viewpoint. Anyway anyone can see what I mean now, you keep making more and more outlandish claims to justify your viewpoint against Minecraft, a game whose existence defeats you utterly.

Nice snide remark, however the I never said my arguments are embarrassing you rendering your remark for naught. What I said is you will embarrass yourself if you keep making such odd statements. Lets see, Xbox Minecraft was a failure, console holders would improve their business if they made all their games multiplats, consoles should compete with PCs on hardware+price...these things are all very odd, and not held by many people.

Consoles are expected to be "cheap", and their hardware is expected to be "good enough", no one expects them to be £1000 behemoths. Wanting exclusives to be multiplats is held by a fair amount of people yes, however they know why the games are exclusives and what the benefits are. Minecraft on Xbox was a success, simple as.