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

[MrHide-Patten]

I suppose if an important feature hinges on how it is controlled, then it would make sense. And if a publisher/console maker puts money behind a games development then they'd like a return on their investment. (I.e. why Journey was exclusive to the PS3).

So whilst it's not very consumer friendly, I wouldn't say I care because I'm purchasing the one with the exclusive I want and it's just keep up to date I geuss. If a game comes out for a system I don't have, I just suck it up... and look on Steam.

 

[Teoes]

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.

Good thing we've not had any inferior products for a while.

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.

Isn't that exactly what happens now and has happened for years with all non-exclusive games? I don't see how that makes it a bad idea to scrap exclusives and judge/buy consoles based on their own merits, rather than what games they will or will not play.

 

[dl_wraith]

The current gaming industry has become a homogenized mess with Microsoft and Sony relying too heavily on 3rd party publishers for big hits for exclusivity to make any real impact. Let me explain my thinking:

Time was that you bought a console platform based on the game IPs you wanted to play. Atari, Sega, Nintendo, NeoGeo (and to a much lesser degree Commodore, Panasonic and other minor console manufacturers) all had libraries full of exclusive titles designed for their platform and frequently developed by their in-house studios (or very close affiliates). You want X game? Then you buy Y console - it was that cut-and-dry.

Fast forward to the age of Sony and Microsoft getting involved. The previously big players that had sway in the arcade world (Sega, Atari, NeoGeo) had pulled out of the hardware race so much of the exclusivity that had once existed started to dilute. Sony tried to bring in their own IP to combat the allure of Nintendo's still strong back catalog and Microsoft muddled along relying on a mix of cross-platform games and a couple of big budget exclusive hits.

Now push forward to today. Nintendo are resorting to raiding stale back catalog ideas doing little of innovation with the software while trying to keep their hardware different enough from the 'normal' console setup. Sony and Microsoft's platforms are so similar in capabilities and their in-house studios producing so few platform exclusives that choice is dictated largely by what your friends happen to have. Both Sony and Microsoft have relied so much on 3rd party devs and this has hurt the 'choice' somewhat.

You see, when the console manufacturers were pushing more of the buttons of software development (directly or indirectly) the aim was to put as many consoles in users hands as possible by having the best games. Now most of the buttons are pushed by publishers and developers whose aim is to put their games into as many hands as possible by backing as many platforms as they can. The landscape has changed and the strategy with it.

MS fought back by trying to capture as many timed exclusives as possible in lieu of having solid 1st party titles. This approach hasn't had the impact they wanted because gamers have the same console as their friends rather than buying into a software catalog as they did in times past.

So, as long as the game production is driven more by the devs/publishers of the games rather than the manufacturer of the consoles, games exclusivity will carry on waning and should eventually die. Software exclusivity can sell consoles though as people will buy into the IPs they really get invested into so yes, it does have a point.

Frankly for exclusives to matter Microsoft studios and Sony Entertainment will need to up their game and produce the titles that their fans will want to see rather than aping one anothers catalogs and playing for times releases. Given how voracious for games we've all become I doubt Sony or MS can produce the volume of 1st party games that would keep our attention long.

A long way around to make a point. Sorry.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Seems like the right thread for this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/05/valve-shows-off-steam-hardware-promises-no-exclusives/

"If it can run in both places, we don?t like to create those artificial barriers to accessing content. We believe that, in maybe five years from now, folks will find it a quite antiquated notion that you should assume that when you change devices or platforms, that you lose all of your other games and friends. We?re hoping to unify, to get Steam to be as platform- and context-agnostic as possible. You shouldn?t have to shed that every generation, or even slightly shed it."

Exclusives are a stupid, consumer-hostile notion that should have died off a long time ago.

"Sorry kid! You can only watch Finding Nemo on SONY DVD players!"
"Hold up there Ma'am, Peaches are only available with Frigidaire!"
"Sorry buddy, ESSO gas is exclusive to Ramblers! You're stuck!"

 

[Easton Dark]

"Sorry kid! You can only watch Finding Nemo on SONY DVD players!"

That would be fucked up. A world where every movie or animation company had its own proprietary DVD or Blu-ray player that you needed to play their movies.

Exclusives can bugger off, I don't want to have to deal with things like exclusive games, or even exclusive DLC. Like, really? You're telling me that Epic doesn't want me to buy Gears of War on PC? Naughty Dog doesn't want my money for Uncharted? Wonderful 101, Platinum, no money for you?

 

[The_Echo]

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.

I mean... this is kind of the nature of consoles.

This is how it's been since basically the beginning. And I don't think, as long as the industry is dominated by so few console providers, that it'll be changing anytime soon.

 

[Evonisia]

Exclusives are only there to blackmail you into buying a console. There's no point to them other than that, oh and guess by extension make money for the producers.

 

[Eve Charm]

Exclusives are bad for the consumer, bad for the developers, Great for the consoles manufactures. Now it isn't bad for the developers anymore when the manufacture -Pays- for the exclusive, either by buying the game or making the game themselves. The consumer gets the short end of the stick.

Now I'd LOVE to not need a wii u to play my Wonderful 101 and pikmin 3, A Boner for Dead Rising 3, And a PS4 down the line when Infamous second son comes out (they really needed a stronger title to launch with ) But as long as their is money in selling a console, games for that console, accessories and paid memberships, the makers are going to continue to each make their own console, and find a way to sucker consumers into buying it.

Consumerism at it's finest.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

yes, there is a point. It's a way for companies to sway consumers to buy their product instead of the competition's. It's just simple logic. Otherwise systems would just be even MORE homogenized and boring. And quite frankly I blame 3rd parties for most of this.

 

[Raggedstar]

I don't like the idea of exclusives. We had some laughs with it in the past with team loyalty, but unless your game REQUIRES certain hardware (such as a Wii or WiiU controller and you can't work a way without it) I don't see the point these days. You automatically widen your audience that way, sell more games, and more people can enjoy the products. I know exclusivity must be more complicated than that, but if companies want my money, they need to place their games where I can reach them instead of asking me to buy an expensive ladder to reach them.

But consoles I do believe have a place, whether in a Steam Box or other format. Unless I buy a gaming laptop (or I guess a Steam Box) I can't play non-handheld games on a big screen when I'm on vacation or bringing over to a friend's house. I wouldn't be playing a lot on vacation, but I remember last year I would wind down after tourist-ing with a little Wind Waker. Not to mention that as someone who only recently built a gaming PC for the first time (and if those reading helped me, hugs to you for the help) I do like the "ready out of the box" advantage of consoles. Convenience will always have a place, even if a console can't reach the levels of quality of a good gaming PC (talking for my most of my friends, where one has a gaming laptop she bought, and the others almost exclusively console gamers. Only one is confident and knows his stuff regarding PC building). Steam Box may be a good work-around as a best of two worlds, but who knows what will happen next.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Guys guys guys, I have one argument as to why Exclusives are a good thing. Now, we can argue that Exclusives really don't do much for gaming or gamers, and that there's no point to exclusives, but let's ignore those. The Argument is: Without Exclusives, there's no point to multiple consoles, thus only one console would exist, and thus we would have one console owning a monopoly. And when in the world has a Monopoly ever been a good thing?

So, Exclusives prevent Monopolies. Case closed.

 

[Lightknight]

As hardware begins to exceed development capabilities, IPs will start to become the only things that distinguish consoles from one another if their features are similar enough. Exclusives then are vital to the competitiveness of a console and will only become more necessary as time goes on. This is why all the main console manufactures have massive first and second party studios. Because exclusive games are console sellers. How would the XBOX have done without Halo early on, for example?

Eventually, computing capabilities will be so advanced that baring some kind of widespread human augmentation, graphics and physics will become "perfect" in a way that adding more resolution or more anything else simply won't be distinguishable by the human eye or mind in a way that makes it worth while.

At that time, the discussion will be purely about games and exclusivity will be the only differentiator. So no, it's not going away or becoming meaningless. It's only becoming more meaningful.

While yes, consoles are becoming more like PCs, this doesn't make them a bad thing. For $400 you get what amounts to a powerful computer that can serve many entertainment needs that consoles never could before. That's only more functionality. The benefit of the console is the standardized environment, both software and hardware. What you call "gimped" is them providing a clean environment that developers can consistently count on to be able to push individual components in a way that you can't do with pc's because any pc may have any combination of manufacturers of the various components (motherboard, ram, gpu, cpu hdd, etc). So 8 GB of Ram on a console can mean a heck of a lot more than it does on a pc.

From a publisher's perspective, console games are more reliable cash, less prone to piracy. From a customer's perspective, it's a cheap (pcs can get expensive fast), plug and play device requiring nearly no technical expertise, multiplayer competent (pcs still suck at multiplayer), small device that fits under the TV. PCs have a long way to go in this route and will have to gimp themselves in some ways to compete.

 

[Teoes]

Guys guys guys, I have one argument as to why Exclusives are a good thing. Now, we can argue that Exclusives really don't do much for gaming or gamers, and that there's no point to exclusives, but let's ignore those. The Argument is: Without Exclusives, there's no point to multiple consoles, thus only one console would exist, and thus we would have one console owning a monopoly. And when in the world has a Monopoly ever been a good thing?

So, Exclusives prevent Monopolies. Case closed.

Just like there's only one kind of DVD player, PC, Hi-fi, phone, MP3 player etc. in existence? Case re-opened.

Edit: How can the case be closed when half the argument is ignored? Love it!

 

[Tom_green_day]

Of course there's a point. It makes you choose a platform (if you can only get one). Exclusives like Last of Us and GTA V (well not strictly exclusive but bear with me) are the reasons I don't do PC gaming. I can't play them on the PC. That's why I'll probably buy an Xbox One, the exclusives are head and shoulders above PS4 in my opinion.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Just like there's only one kind of DVD player, PC, Hi-fi, phone, MP3 player etc. in existence? Case re-opened.

Edit: How can the case be closed when half the argument is ignored? Love it!

Yes, because Movies are the same thing as Video Games, PC's and Operating Systems for PC's haven't had monopolies, and Apple isn't currently having a stranglehold over MP3's and Smartphones with their Ipod/Iphone Brands. Oh wait, no; DVD's are completely different, Microsoft was sued in the 90's for pretty much owning the PC Market, and Ipod's and Iphones are the leading brands of MP3 Players and Smartphones...

Also, if Video Games where like DVD players, then there would still be one company that has the best Video Game Player out there, and thus it would stranglehold the market (Just like Sony has the Best Blu-Ray players, and has the largest market share of Blu-Ray Players).

And yes, I intentionally ignored those arguments, because the fact that Exclusives stop Monopolies from forming should make those Arguments unimportant.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Guys guys guys, I have one argument as to why Exclusives are a good thing. Now, we can argue that Exclusives really don't do much for gaming or gamers, and that there's no point to exclusives, but let's ignore those. The Argument is: Without Exclusives, there's no point to multiple consoles, thus only one console would exist, and thus we would have one console owning a monopoly. And when in the world has a Monopoly ever been a good thing?

So, Exclusives prevent Monopolies. Case closed.

Just like there's only one kind of DVD player, PC, Hi-fi, phone, MP3 player etc. in existence? Case re-opened.

Edit: How can the case be closed when half the argument is ignored? Love it!

Except exactly what you're asking for is a one console future...which would be terrible. It wouldn't do anything except homogenize things and keep them as safe and gutless as possible. Furthermore, hardware manufacturers also tend to be game developers themselves thus it's just logical for them to use their unique software to drive sales of their consoles. This is not complicated.

 

[Lightknight]

Exclusives are bad for the consumer, bad for the developers, Great for the consoles manufactures.

Bad for consumer: Yes. No argument there. I will certainly miss any IP exclusive on the XBO this time around.

Bad for developers: No. Exclusives are usually developed by the console manufacturers' own studios. That means these developers are employed by Sony or Microsoft and so are able to have jobs. That in no way harms them. If it's a third party game that is exclusive, then Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo usually server as the publishers of the game which means the developers got paid for it there too.

Most development studios just want to make a living developing games. Some get large enough to start self publishing and becoming money makers but it's a long way to get there and large studio backed projects help.

Not only that, but most development studios that have a deal with a publisher (like EA) that doesn't owe them are likewise only making money by being paid to complete the project rather than getting any kind of reward for success. All this risk is on the publisher and so any reward is theirs as well unless a contract negotiation has special clauses.

Make no mistake, if exclusivity did not benefit these companies, they wouldn't do it. No one is forcing anyone to be exclusive. They're getting paid for it.

 

[Eve Charm]

Well We wouldn't need just one console, You could have that really expensive console that runs all the games super good at a high definition and costs an arm and a leg. That middle of the line and lower end consoles that play some games but not all off them and don't look as good. That one console that will let you modify and upgrade it, or that other one that's made cheap and you can't upgrade it and when you need a new one you just toss it in the garbage and buy another cheap one?

Basically pc consoles, Steam boxes basically would have already taken over if their wasn't exclusives, and games would probably cost less like steam.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

You guys are erroneously comparing devices designed to play basic media (like an MP3) with a device designed to run highly specific and optimized software. It's a lot easier for ten different manufacturers to each make a device that can run an MP3 than it is for them to each design a computer system that can run software that has had all of its abstraction layers stripped away for the sake of optimization.

The current console paradigm has the benefit of giving us much cheaper hardware than we'd otherwise need to run games. The "console that plays every game" that everyone claims to want is called a PC, but consumers have broken for consoles since they're less costly and are less prone to performance issues brought on by different hardware configurations.

The loss-leader model of selling the console at a loss at first and making up for it with game sales (that you're only getting a cut of because publishers have to license your technology to make a version of their game specifically for your console) also keeps the generation cycle as long as possible, meaning you're only looking at upgrading every 7 years.

You'll ultimately spend less buying both major consoles than you would buying and upgrading a PC 2-3 times during the same period to keep up with new games.