Poll: We need more exclusive titles

[Kotaro]

Multiplatform isn't a bad thing in itself. In fact, it can be a good thing, since it means more people will be able to play the game.
Exclusives can also be a negative. For example, I don't really want a console that has one particular "feel" to it, because I am more of an all-around gamer; I play every genre (while I play more RPGs than other genres, I do play them all). So every platform has games I want badly to play, but I can't afford all of them.
I mean, I currently have a gaming laptop, a Wii, a PS2, a 3DS, and a PSP. Yet if I want to play all the games I like, I will also need a PS3, a Vita, and (possibly) a 360. I can't afford to keep up with all of this.

THE POINT: While exclusives allow developers to take better advantage of the hardware they're working with, it can be harmful to people who can't afford multiple consoles. Neither "all games must be exclusive" nor "all games must be multiplatform" can be the end-all solution. It depends on the specific game, and what the developers want to do with it, really.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I don't think console exclusives are really needed. Besides, the consoles have enough exclusives as is.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Just because it's an exclusive title doesn't mean it's not following the trends. If a game looks like it's going to sell well regardless of what platform it is released on then chances are it's probably because it follows a formula that has been proven to work with other popular titles, thus is expected to do well regardless since it will be following that same trend.

Frankly, if you want something different, look into indie titles or studios that have a track record of taking risks like id or Mojang instead of EA or Treyarch. Games like Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Bastion etc. that are doing their own thing instead of following what everyone else is doing.

 

[vxicepickxv]

no, we should have less exclusives, I wanna play everything on my PC. but they don't port any of the JRPGs D:

Well, aside from Final Fantasy 7,11, and 14 you're pretty damn close to right.


The single largest classic gaming market, and market with the largest backlog is the PC. It may sound odd, but the PC gaming library also goes back farther than 1994, which is the debut of the PS1.

I'm pretty sure that Microsoft/Bungie is supposed to have Halo 3 come out for the PC some time soon.

 

[Fidelias]

Wait, you think that exclusives are some of the best games? I mean, sure, most of the time they are above average. But Killzone, Halo, God of War, Uncharted, etc, aren't exactly the cream of the crop.

Compare those games to some multiplatform games, such as; Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout, Oblivion, The Darkness, Knights of the Old Republic, Bastion, Half Life, Deus Ex: HR, Dragon Age, Battlefront 2, I could probably go on.

Besides, there's no real benefit for cross platform games anymore. The system specs between the PS3 and Xbox are almost identical. Oh sure, the PS3 has the potential for better graphics, but once we've gotten to the point of games like Mass Effect, will we really care if we get better graphics? I don't really think I'd be able to notice it much.

The only hard part would be porting games to computer, or Wii. I don't know about the Wii though, I don't have one.

 

[daydreamerdeluxe]

I find it fascinating how Nintendo is hardly mentioned on here: most of their games are either shovelware or classic Nintendo brands such as Mario or Pokémon. Whilst the PS3 and Xbox 360 share a lot of games, I think the Wii has more exclusives than shared, but still gets totally ignored.

 

[Signa]

I am so fucking sick of the whole "I don't want to have to upgrade my PC" argument. I have a laptop which I use to play PC, which i use every single day and cost me less than $1000 AUD last christmas(probably worth about $600 USD in comparison) which plays every game i throw at it and will do for the next few years, plus i have a ps3 which i adore. I'll bet you'd buy another xbox 360 after it red rings for the 5th time. it is no more expensive to play PC. games are cheaper too.

Hell, my dad just bought a PC bundle deal on Newegg for $220, and all it needs is a $50 video card to make it play ANYTHING. Sure, the settings won't be maxed, but neither are consoles.

OT: While I agree with the OP that exclusives breathe a sense of quality into a console, I think that's just a symptom of a larger problem. That problem being that publishers don't give devs the breathing room to actually make good games anymore. It's no coincidence that I've been finding a lot of fun in last-gen games, even though I consider myself a PC exclusive gamer in this current gen. People in this thread are pointing out the same fact with their PS2s and Dreamcasts.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I disagree. I don't like Exclusivity of any kind, it just furthers ridiculous notions like "Us vs them" and feelings of superiority over others.
Not to mention the fact that you may not be able to play a game you want to, just because you don't have the console it's exclusively being released on.

 

[M920CAIN]

Here's a good fu-kin idea... STANDARDIZE GAMING! problem solved.... no more exclusives, no more lack of quality due to platform differences.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

It would greatly help the industry if the 2 middle ground consoles decided to actually pick a direction and move rather than just sit around and have problems with everything. Developing an all-in-one controller and programming language is a fruitless effort, as gaming should be all about radical differences and niche appeals. The average gamer isn't going to play games of every genre so why do we feel compelled to make gamers buy systems that fit the "jack of all trades, master of none" archetype and then make them buy another one to appease the arbitrary requirement of hardware-equivalent-yet-incompatible coding?

The Wii may be underpowered, already obsolete and loaded with 3rd party shovelware, but it specialized in a field and went with it, and that made it the dominant console of the generation. People wanted an easy to access machine that ran simple games and offered a new way to experience the medium, and that's what it did. The 360 and PS3 only have exclusives because of arbitrary limitations enacted by corporations, and that is the main thing keeping the hobby from growing, absurd entry fees caused by arbitrary software limitations.

Just look back when SEGA and Nintendo were fighting it out. The SNES did some things well and some things not so well. Platformers, top-down shooters and JRPGs excelled, whereas things like FPS's, WRPG's, RTS's, sports games, flight sims, realistic brawlers and multiplayer games rarely worked well, but if you were only interested in those, then the SNES just wasn't for you, the other systems had you covered. Every genre had a console of preference that matched its needs. What about now?

The 360 and PS3 seem content to try to appeal to the the motion control market, the FPS market, the W and JRPG markets, the RTS market, the MMO market, the multiplayer market, the racing markets, the sports market, the hack n slash market and many others, and they simply cannot feasibly do it.

What we end up with is joysticks that are sluggish for shooters, motion controllers that are more gimmick than innovative, RPGs based on hard to navigate menus, controls too slow for RTS, online capability too finicky and restrictive for solid multiplayer, one or two button hack n slashers, simplified sports titles and overall a strong feeling of uniformity. The industry needs to spread out and divide up the ground so we can stop tripping over each other.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Yes, yes, oh God yes!

I am a firm believer that exclusives is the way to go if you want the best of quality. All of my favourite games of each platform is an exclusive afterall.


360: Mass Effect 1

PC: Crysis

So, please, please, please make more exclusives.

I'm not quite sure you understand what exclusive means. It means it's released for that platform and no others.

Mass Effect 1 is out on all 3 platforms. Will leave a correction here, can't find it on PS3 but it is definitely on 360 and PC which removes it's exclusivity.

Next week Crysis comes out on PS3 and 360.

Neither of those are exclusives. Mass Effect 1 nearly was but was ported to PC and Crysis was until recently now it's not.

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1073013/crytek_crysis_on_console_looks_better_than_pc_version.html

Just for those wanting to check.

Witcher 2 was also going to be PC exclusive but now it's going to console.

On Topic.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I gave my 360 to my son, not enough interest in it to keep it for myself. I've never wanted a PS3 and i'm more than happy with my PC.

I agree that Mass Effect is a stretch but it was planned as an exclusive and would have stayed that way if EA hadn't bought BioWare. And on Crysis, wow, you get a port 4 years after it was released on the PC. The same thing happened to Deus Ex, Quake III and Half-Life 2. They were developed as exclusives and released as exclusives thus relieving them from the taint that is multiplattform. You don't exactly think "Consoles!" when you mention Deus Ex or Crysis.

I apologise I was a bit harsh saying you don't know what an exclusive is.

You were right in a way all of them were planned exclusives.

Crysis was to be PC exclusive but i'm thinking they see a bit of extra money doling it out on the console .... even if it has taken them 4 years to think that up.

Pretty much like Blizzard suddenly going for the console market aswell.

When will people get this through their heads. The PC does not have exclusives, in the way consoles do. Exclusives on consoles are an artificial restriction by consoles makers to push their platform. On the PC titles maybe unique for a while, purely due to other systems not being capable of the processing needed or the control method. You think Crytek would not have released Crysis on consoles if they could have at the time.

This has been the case with the PC back through titles like Far Cry etc all the way back to Wing Commander. They started on PC and then went to other systems when they were capable (maybe having to wait for a new gen update) or when the game had been optimised enough that it could be played on other systems.

So I have to vote no to exclusives the way they are done on consoles where console makers pay for exclusivity rather than there being a technical reason the game cannot be on other platforms. That is bad for gaming.

The type of exclusives I will vote for are ones that are on one system purely as they are taking advantage of something that system has that others do not. This is good for gaming.

What if people DON'T want to have to constantly upgrade their system to keep up with the latest technology to be able to run a fucking game.

I see this argument a lot. I would like to reverse it. Why do people who want to update their systems more than every 5 years have to be penalised just becuase other people don't. If you don't want to update your system to get the latest graphics or better processing power for better game mechanics, that's fine just stop holding back the rest of us and the industry.

You disagree about this attitude holding things back. Look at the recent comments from epic saying the are holding back unreal engine 4, because current consoles could not cope with it.

 

[Crazycat690]

I agree, Sony and Nintendo got the right idea, both have exclusives that will attract different audiences, although MS isn't even trying anymore :/

 

[flamingjimmy]

...I own these three platforms and love them equally...

Let me stop you right there. If you're the kind of person who can afford to have three different current generation games consoles/decent pc then of course you aren't going to care about exclusives.

For most normal people it's pretty annoying actually. I love my 360 but there are a fair few games on PS3 and PC that I'd like to play but I just can't afford it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

More people being able to play a game is never a bad thing. It trumps exclusivity.

 

[krazykidd]

There are a lot of gamers that are against exclusives. They say it divides the community, it punishes you for not choosing a particular console and it is bad for our wallets.

I don't agree and I will tell you why.

I know you can't survive without third-party support, but I think companies should strive to develop better exclusives in order to raise the standard for gaming.

Back then, each platform had a defining characteristic, had a personality: pc was the home of adventure games, FPS's and offered complex games, the dreamcast combined good graphics with old-school flavoured gameplay, it had many fun multiplayer games and that Pick Up & Play mentality that we all love; the ps2 was the holy grail for jrpg fans and had unique franchises(gta,gow,mgs,gt,etc...).

I own these three platforms and love them equally- I still play my ps2 and my dreamcast on a regular basis- and each offered a distinct and unique experience. The competitions was healthy for the industry, it was all about making good games- system sellers-.

Nowadays it is all about the graphics, about making all-in-one consoles.
Sony and m$ think that their consoles are going to replace the personal computer.
That why they offer the beefed up graphics, that why they are more expensive and offer, essentially, the same games(FPS'S). The market is flooded with post-apocalyptic fps's and fantasy rpg's.

Consoles shouldn't be competing directly against pc's, because they will always be a couple of steps ahead in terms of hardware. Do you guys really want our consoles to cost 800/900$ in future generations just to be able to play cod:mw8 in 3d?

There's basically no difference between current platforms, ps3 and the 360 have the same games, pc just gets crappy ports- no one wants to take advantage of the extra power to make ambitious titles-, we are getting only one flavour and to be honest i'm starting to get sick of it.

If Nintendo doesn't stop with the gimmicks and step up their game(pun intended) I don't think the industry is going to change.

Wait.... Back then for you is dreamcast and ps2?... Really?

OT: No i disagree , i think every game should be released on every console ( except maybe the wii due to motion contolles). We should band gamers together rather than divide them .

What i think needs to happen is , sony / microsoft and nintendo need to band together and make one console . This will result in everyone one having the same console and being on even ground with each other . They would sell a record breaking number of consoles ( meaning they would all make more money even if the cash is split 3-ways) because almost every household will have at least 1 of said super console . And game would be available to everyone , gaining more sales because everyone could play it .

The down side is that the console will cost about 600$ on release ( hey it's a super console ) and game probably 100$ new on release ( because since they all banded together well the have the monopoly of the market so if you want to play video games you habe to give them your wallet.

But all in all i think it would be good for business ( moneywize) and good for the consumers ( content wize).

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Frankly, exclusives are often better than those mainstream titles that are accessible to every console in existence. Here are some examples:

PS3: Uncharted, inFamous, Disgaea (upon release), Metal Gear Solid

XBOX 360: Halo, Gears of War

PSP: KH:BBS, Prinny

 

[segataDC]

you are just making the asumption the everyone likes the same genres and will buy all the consoles at launch.

Want i'm trying to say is that consoles should have more exclusives, especially different genres, to give us a wider variety of genres.

Imagine the wii being the home for GOOD platformers, jrpgs, quirky and fun games and highly stylized.
That will cover a couple of niche markets and would give nintendo profit and more variety to us, gamers.

They should leave the "gritty realism" for M$ and PS3.
Also, as some of you have been saying there a certain genres (rts,fps,wrpg) that work better on the pc.

Each console should offer a different flavour, cover a different demographic. That would be better for us.

For example: you don't like shooters? then you could buy the wii and still get good games. You like complex simulation? then you should buy pc exclusives that utilize it's power and offer the experience you want.

 

[theguitarhero6]

I've got an Xbox 360 as opposed to the PS3 for of slew reasons, (not funna go into THAT debate) mainly because of the larger game library. I wouldn't mind, however, being able to play Resistance or the Killzones. It pretty much sucks being excited for a game on another console that I'll never be able to purchase. That's why I dislike exclusives. I'll take God of War 3 on Xbox 360 if it means PS3 owners can play Halo.

 

[segataDC]

It would greatly help the industry if the 2 middle ground consoles decided to actually pick a direction and move rather than just sit around and have problems with everything. Developing an all-in-one controller and programming language is a fruitless effort, as gaming should be all about radical differences and niche appeals. The average gamer isn't going to play games of every genre so why do we feel compelled to make gamers buy systems that fit the "jack of all trades, master of none" archetype and then make them buy another one to appease the arbitrary requirement of hardware-equivalent-yet-incompatible coding?

The Wii may be underpowered, already obsolete and loaded with 3rd party shovelware, but it specialized in a field and went with it, and that made it the dominant console of the generation. People wanted an easy to access machine that ran simple games and offered a new way to experience the medium, and that's what it did. The 360 and PS3 only have exclusives because of arbitrary limitations enacted by corporations, and that is the main thing keeping the hobby from growing, absurd entry fees caused by arbitrary software limitations.

Just look back when SEGA and Nintendo were fighting it out. The SNES did some things well and some things not so well. Platformers, top-down shooters and JRPGs excelled, whereas things like FPS's, WRPG's, RTS's, sports games, flight sims, realistic brawlers and multiplayer games rarely worked well, but if you were only interested in those, then the SNES just wasn't for you, the other systems had you covered. Every genre had a console of preference that matched its needs. What about now?

The 360 and PS3 seem content to try to appeal to the the motion control market, the FPS market, the W and JRPG markets, the RTS market, the MMO market, the multiplayer market, the racing markets, the sports market, the hack n slash market and many others, and they simply cannot feasibly do it.

What we end up with is joysticks that are sluggish for shooters, motion controllers that are more gimmick than innovative, RPGs based on hard to navigate menus, controls too slow for RTS, online capability too finicky and restrictive for solid multiplayer, one or two button hack n slashers, simplified sports titles and overall a strong feeling of uniformity. The industry needs to spread out and divide up the ground so we can stop tripping over each other.

absolutely agree with you.