Consoles and Exclusives: Is there a point to it anymore?

[ShakerSilver]

With the PS4 and Xbox One around the corner, both touting their own line up of exclusives while running on x86 architecture, I have to ask... is there really any point in keeping the games exclusive anymore?

For the last few gens, exclusivity actually meant something, since porting from one console to another was difficult with their radically different architectures and somewhat different input devices. But now that all the next-gen consoles (except for Wii U) run on nearly the same software, it doesn't really seem all that necessary to keep these games exclusive. There's no real reason for keeping them exclusive besides making the consumer pick between what they want to play and what they're willing to miss out on.

Not only does pointless exclusivity making the new consoles seem less desirable, but PS4 and Xbox One have both essentially become media hubs, making them seem more like gimped PCs than game consoles. Most new features that the new consoles are giving us are things that have been available on PC for years, and are even making their way onto people's TVs through SmartTVs. Not to mention most of these features are locked behind a paywall if you want to use them on Xbox One.

What is really the point to these new consoles? They both seem to have the exact same set of multimedia features, their hardware is very similar, and they both carry a line-up of exclusives that could run perfectly fine on the competition's system or on PC. Is there really anything attractive about either of the two? To me, they both seem as homogenized as ever, and don't really seem all that attractive aside from the games they both hold hostage.

I think I'm going to have to skip this new console generation. I'm sorry if this post came across as anti-console, but I'm just expressing my thoughts on the new consoles.

 

[TehCookie]

I really hate the gimped PC nature of consoles, I'd rather them be cheaper game only machines. Especially with everything locked behind a paywall. The PS4 is just as guilty since it got rid of most it's media service so you would have to use their store and spend money.

As for exclusives, the point is to get you to buy that console over it's competitor. It games us a reason to buy them too, I want the WiiU when Bayo2 comes out and if it wasn't for that game The Wonderful 101 and x I wouldn't even think about buying it. When all thier other features are similar it's the libaries which will set them apart.

The point for new consoles in general is more powerful hardware.

I'm with you on skipping it, for a different reason, I'm only going to buy complete games that don't require outside forces to work.

 

[Directionless]

NO. Exclusives are bad for absolutely everyone involved. Sony and MS don't want to shell out money for exclusivity, thrid parties don't want to limit their audience, and consumers with at least 20% mental capacity don't want to have to own a specific console for a specific game.

But because the companies don't want to differentiate their systems through hardware and applications, they use games. And it sucks.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

That argument looks kind of odd. I mean, it would only be a problem for really indecisive people; because without the concept of exclusive, everyone else'd just buy whichever platform they wanted, and play games on it.

Captcha: I'm Batman.

Well, I suppose that means you can't even argue with me now. Because I'm Batman, and you don't argue with Batman.

(I kid, I kid. Obviously it was captcha telling me IT is Batman.)

 

[Yopaz]

Exclusivity is the main competitive edge of modern console gaming. So yes, there is a point, there will always be a point. Competition can even benefit the consumer since the companies have to do something to convince us that we should pick them.

Yes, it can suck for consumers at times, but if all the consoles are identical we're likely to pick the cheaper option and then over time eliminate competition. Now you might ask, what good has competition ever done for the consumer? Well, Prices lower to attract us, quality increases to attract us and they can't be worse than their fiercest competitor.

Xbox One dropped its DRM scheme because of Sony, not because of the consumer. The consumer hated the idea of having to check in with Microsoft just to avoid having an expensive door stopper, but they responded by telling us to deal with it or get the Xbox 360. Sony presented a console that let you lend fames to your friend by handing him the game disc and to function without internet connection.

The result was back pedalling. This happened because we have competition, exclusives maintain an competitive edge thus in the long term exclusives might benefit the consumer.

 

[Teoes]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

I could almost infer from this logic that if there were no exclusives, then you'd buy no system.

So the point in exclusives existing is to dictate to you which platform you buy. What if there's exclusives on more than one platform? If you want to play the other game then you're forced to shell out for more than one system; the alternative is that those same games are released for all platforms, then it only matters that you have one platform and you can play all the games you're interested in.

Say for a moment that there were no exclusives - all games are released for all systems. How is this a bad thing for you?

 

[Casual Shinji]

They are practically the same system, but one is 100 bucks cheaper then the other. That does it for me.

Consoles are more and more becoming different brands of the same system and I'm fine with that.

 

[Flames66]

With the PS4 and Xbox One around the corner, both touting their own line up of exclusives while running on x86 architecture, I have to ask... is there really any point in keeping the games exclusive anymore?

For the last few gens, exclusivity actually meant something, since porting from one console to another was difficult with their radically different architectures and somewhat different input devices. But now that all the next-gen consoles (except for Wii U) run on nearly the same software, it doesn't really seem all that necessary to keep these games exclusive. There's no real reason for keeping them exclusive besides making the *Customer* pick between what they want to play and what they're willing to miss out on.

I think the purpose of it is to artificially recreate the console wars of previous systems to drive up sales. They are aiming for some people to buy one or the other and vehemently defend their choice in message boards and such, and for smug ponces to buy both and all the exclusives for a feeling of superiority.

 

[Battenberg]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shoulldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

As much as I understand exclusives and why they're so rampant in current gaming I don't agree with them at all. As several other people have said they don't benefit anyone, they've simply become a crutch for the various consoles to use to differentiate themselves, disguising the fact that the hardware is basically the same now.

 

[Talvrae]

well it is the exclusive who make a custommer buy a console rather than an other often, me i have buy a 360 because Mass effect was originally annonced to be an exclusive for the 360 and no other reasons... If it wasnt for mass Effect, i would probably didnt even have buy a console that generation

 

[Nazulu]

Only one point for me. If they compete in out-doing each other in quality by making the best of the best games and hardware. Though I haven't felt that fierce battle since Sega died. It felt like I was going for a team.

Might as well just make one console now and they can fight over which has the best controller or something.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

 

[Saltyk]

Well, the exclusives are pretty much the primary difference between the systems, right? So, yeah, I think there is a point to them. The companies can say that "If you want my games, you have to buy my system."

Isn't odd how people keep mentioning Microsoft and Sony, but completely ignore Nintendo? This is especially odd considering the topic. As even the Nintendo Defense Force's primary defense is that Nintendo makes great and fun games. The most ardent Nintendo fan will tell you that the reason to buy their consoles is their games.

Oh, I forgot. Nintendo isn't in this competition anymore. Seems someone forgot to tell Sony that, judging by some of their games, though.

Full Disclosure: I have not owned any Nintendo consoles since the NES. And actively hated the Wii for it's motion control gimmick, and don't care about the Wii U.

 

[Teoes]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

Surely it would be more like buying a car for the engine, wheels, upholstery/decor, fuel economy, size/space and any other bits & bobs, rather than the roads it will and will not drive on. Although really the analogy doesn't quite match up and it's more like buying a DVD player for its functionality/price, rather for the DVDs it arbitrarily will or will not play.

If exclusives are so necessary for competition between console manufacturers how come there's still a variety of DVD players on the market? Or PCs? MP3 players? Phones (Apple being a thorn in that one)? Washing machines, cookers, fridges..?

 

[Battenberg]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

Is that sarcasm? Or just an awful analogy? It would, in fact, be like buying a car FOR THE CAR; choosing it based on all aspects of its production rather than additional stuff you can get later. By contrast buying a console just for its games would be more like buying a car because you want to join a gentleman's club that only accepts owners of a certain brand although frankly even then the car metaphor is pretty crap.

As several other people have said what would you lose if every game was available on every platform? If you truly wouldn't buy any consoles purely because none of them have exclusives then fair enough, my argument doesn't apply to you. Otherwise these exclusives only serve as a simpler alternative for these big companies than trying to compete in terms of hardware.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

Surely it would be more like buying a car for the engine, wheels, upholstery/decor, fuel economy, size/space and any other bits & bobs, rather than the roads it will and will not drive on. Although really the analogy doesn't quite match up and it's more like buying a DVD player for its functionality/price, rather for the DVDs it arbitrarily will or will not play.

If exclusives are so necessary for competition between console manufacturers how come there's still a variety of DVD players on the market? Or PCs? MP3 players? Phones (Apple being a thorn in that one)? Washing machines, cookers, fridges..?

1. My analogy worked just fine. Yours did not. My analogy being that you buy something for a reason unrelated to the purpose of that something.

2. Your question doesn't make sense. All those things with different brands serve the same purpose. Relating to your question, a PS3 does not do the same thing as an Xbox 360. One plays a PS3 disc, the other plays a 360 disc.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

But if the were no exclusive titles, you could just choose hardware based on its own merits and personal preferences and not miss out on any content to boot.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

Is that sarcasm? Or just an awful analogy? It would, in fact, be like buying a car FOR THE CAR; choosing it based on all aspects of its production rather than additional stuff you can get later. By contrast buying a console just for its games would be more like buying a car because you want to join a gentleman's club that only accepts owners of a certain brand although frankly even then the car metaphor is pretty crap.

As several other people have said what would you lose if every game was available on every platform? If you truly wouldn't buy any consoles purely because none of them have exclusives then fair enough, my argument doesn't apply to you. Otherwise these exclusives only serve as a simpler alternative for these big companies than trying to compete in terms of hardware.

My analogy worked just fine. My analogy being that you buy something for a reason unrelated to the purpose of that something. The purpose of a car, is the use of a car. The purpose of a console is the use of a console. Its used to play games. If you buy a console for the hardware you may as well pick it for the colour. What if I design a superior system in every way possible but the only game available for it was Atari 2600's ET?

As for the ridiculous notion that they had the same library, then you pick based on all the tertiary (beneficial) criteria: colour, lack of restrictive DRM (although the original Xbox One DRM trumped my desire to play certain games), media features, controller shape, nationalism, what your friends got so you can play together etc.

And finally the hardware competition. The truth is that they don't want to overly compete in hardware. Homogeneity of hardware means that they don't get an inferior product on their machine. For instance, EA will release FIFA on both platforms and they'll want to reuse as much code as possible. So they'll program for the lowest common denominator. Having the superior hardware doesn't ensure a prettier or smoother game if it was developed with both console in mind. This drives them to compete with software, and then all that other crap they shovel into it.

Not buying a console

 

[Teoes]

Yes their is. IF they want my money then they had better give me a reason to buy their systems (aka the exclusives).

Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?

Because that would be ridiculous. That would be like buying a car because of the sound system in it.

The ONLY reason to buy a console is to play the games that are available for it.

Surely it would be more like buying a car for the engine, wheels, upholstery/decor, fuel economy, size/space and any other bits & bobs, rather than the roads it will and will not drive on. Although really the analogy doesn't quite match up and it's more like buying a DVD player for its functionality/price, rather for the DVDs it arbitrarily will or will not play.

If exclusives are so necessary for competition between console manufacturers how come there's still a variety of DVD players on the market? Or PCs? MP3 players? Phones (Apple being a thorn in that one)? Washing machines, cookers, fridges..?

1. My analogy worked just fine. Yours did not. My analogy being that you buy something for a reason unrelated to the purpose of that something.

2. Your question doesn't make sense. All those things with different brands serve the same purpose. Relating to your question, a PS3 does not do the same thing as an Xbox 360. One plays a PS3 disc, the other plays a 360 disc.

Well not quite. You buy a console to play games. It relates to my earlier post in this thread and the bigger question of why there are console exclusives in the first place; Battenburg's question of "Why shouldn't the hardware be what decides the popularity of a console?" that you initially replied to relates to this also.

What has been previously raised is that the various consoles are getting closer and closer in terms of architecture and functionality. If the only point of console exclusives is to push a particular brand, why is it not better for the consumer to have no exclusives, for all games to be available on all platforms and have the hardware of a brand of console be what decides its popularity? That's what I was getting at with my last post. There's no exclusives in the CD/DVD/MP3/whatever markets - the player you settle on is decided by the hardware, functionality, availability and price. Why should the games industry be different?

Also, "My analogy being that you buy something for a reason unrelated to the purpose of that something." - the hardware is not unrelated to the purpose of the console. The purpose of the console is to play games and the hardware is part of what plays the game. If we establish that there's no real point or benefit to the consumer for exclusives to exist[footnote]Especially when, again, other similar markets do not follow the same practice.[/footnote] (as the only point is to restrict a gamer's options and reduce their freedom of choice, or "force" them to spend more money than they would have otherwise) then the hardware of consoles is what differentiates them and decides on a particular product's popularity.