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

[Mr.Mattress]

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?

And that Middle of the Line one would sell more then the other two (Maybe even combined), and as the other two die, that Middle of the Line one only gets more powerful while staying at a cheaper price, thus any attempt to make a weaker or stronger, or even another Middle of the line, console wouldn't even break into the market.

However, the negative side effects, other then less competition, is that the company that actually made the Middle of the Line console will start screwing over their consumer in various ways: Knowing they're the best in the business allows them to, say, make you sign a contract that allows them to monitor you at all times, or makes it so that you can't sue them. They could make it so that you have to use only their programs on their machine, and since you can't hack or mod the machine without them coming to your house and suing you, and stealing your console, your stuck with outrageous prices and demands. And any video game company that complains about the console could be Blacklisted, which would mean you'd actually loose out on games that would normally be on all consoles, that would only be on the "loser" ones.

It's funny how Monopolies work like that, isn't it? (Look at Apple and their Iphone)

 

[Eve Charm]

What you mean people don't buy Samsung and other Android phones? oh wait they do, and looking at apple, a lot of them adapt the same features and improve on them. Ipads aren't top of the line anymore now that we have tablets that were made to compete with them.

Really Iphones only are a big thing cause people WANT to waste money on HIGH END PRODUCTS to the point they feel they NEED TO UPGRADE whenever the NEW phone comes out, same with samsung.

If you want to go with just updating the common consumer would have never went from PS2, to Xbox 360 like most did instead of PS3 because at the time, and it's not like both didn't play Madden and COD.



A Monopoly is "Hey you gotta get your electric from us because you can't go anywhere else LOL"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

There are three primary consoles that I am aware of.

PCs do not need to be updated three times during a console generation to "keep up". If you're willing to live with console-quality graphics and textures you could probably make do with a single inexpensive upgrade, if you upgraded at all.

PCs also have lower price points on software across the board, particularly since the rise of digital distribution. If you are a heavy gamer, you could close the price gap between a gaming PC and a console in a year or two tops, on game savings alone.

It's funny how Monopolies work like that, isn't it? (Look at Apple and their Iphone)

What gave you the impression Apple has a monopoly with the iPhone? Android devices are ~70% of global sales (double check...actually it looks closer to 80%).

 

[Mr.Mattress]

What you mean people don't buy Samsung and other Android phones? oh wait they do, and looking at apple, a lot of them adapt the same features and improve on them. Ipads aren't top of the line anymore now that we have tablets that were made to compete with them.

Really Iphones only are a big thing cause people WANT to waste money on HIGH END PRODUCTS to the point they feel they NEED TO UPGRADE whenever the NEW phone comes out, same with samsung.

If you want to go with just updating the common consumer would have never went from PS2, to Xbox 360 like most did instead of PS3 because at the time, and it's not like both didn't play Madden and COD.

A Monopoly is "Hey you gotta get your electric from us because you can't go anywhere else LOL"

Oh yes, because 5% of the market is other Phones, that means the Iphone Doesn't have a monopoly over the Smartphone Market (I know it's not a 95% - 5% Ration). When stores have huge sections of Ipod products and only little sections dedicated to all the other stuff, then I can definitely say there are some monopolistic practices going on. And just because Apple doesn't have a stranglehold on Tablets means jack when we're talking about Smartphones (Someone else has a stranglehold on that, or is in the process of doing so).

And that's the problem with there really being only one thing: In the case of a Video Game Console, it will be the same as Iphones and Samsung Phones/Tablets.

There's a reason people went from PS2 to XBox 360, the 360 had EXCLUSIVES that people actually wanted, and a cheaper price as well, as well as the Multiplats. (Timing might have also helped)

It's funny how Monopolies work like that, isn't it? (Look at Apple and their Iphone)

What gave you the impression Apple has a monopoly with the iPhone? Android devices are ~70% of global sales (double check...actually it looks closer to 80%).

My mistake then; it must just be America (Or the places I live in). That just means that Android actually has the Monopoly.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

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.

Another thing is that it also leads to games that use the concepts of other games (And I mean this in a potentially good way).

An example is that Nintendo has Super Smash Bros. and while I don't like Playstation Allstars, it did try to do some things different with the fighting mechanics SSB has. So there's the potential for better, or at least different, types of games to be made that experiment with things because it's an exclusive title for a console.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense here, I'm having a hard time wording this.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

There are three primary consoles that I am aware of.

What, are you counting the Steambox? It hasn't launched yet, and is looking to break the current console paradigm, so it can't really be considered as one of the primary consoles.

 

[Yopaz]

Another thing is that it also leads to games that use the concepts of other games (And I mean this in a potentially good way).

An example is that Nintendo has Super Smash Bros. and while I don't like Playstation Allstars, it did try to do some things different with the fighting mechanics SSB has. So there's the potential for better, or at least different, types of games to be made that experiment with things because it's an exclusive title for a console.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense here, I'm having a hard time wording this.

Oh, I think I understood you and this is something I hadn't thought about, but I agree. Experimentation trying to replicate the success of others might lead to some interesting developments, not all of them will be good of course, but I doubt Playstation All Stars would have been made without the success and exclusivity of Super Smash Bros.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What, are you counting the Steambox? It hasn't launched yet, and is looking to break the current console paradigm, so it can't really be considered as one of the primary consoles.

I was thinking of Nintendo, actually. From what I can see, Steambox is just a slim PC that lies on its side.

Another thing is that it also leads to games that use the concepts of other games (And I mean this in a potentially good way).

The PC is an open platform, and any time there is an even moderately successful game it gets iterated on a thousand time over by competing developers. I'm not sure why you think exclusivity would fuel this.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I was thinking of Nintendo, actually. From what I can see, Steambox is just a slim PC that lies on its side.

Wait, Nintendo announced that they're going to launch a next-get console?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wait, Nintendo announced that they're going to launch a next-get console?

I'm sure they will at some point, and their little U thingie was sort of a gap bridger, was it not?

There are still three primary console manufacturers, each with their own battery of exclusives intended to entice you to buy their lobotomized PCs.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

1. Inferior on their machine compared to the other one. I thought that was clear based on the EA description but I guess not. The idea is that building a machine that can run Crysis on eye-bleeding resolution is a waste if the multiplatform games all look like Pac Man.

2. What merits? The only merit a console has (compared to other consoles) is what games it plays.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I'm sure they will at some point, and their little U thingie was sort of a gap bridger, was it not?

According to what? The current corporate mentality ruling Nintendo isn't going to give us a new console. Nintendo would need an upheaval at the top in order to join the race again.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would say there is a point, exclusives are the main point one console manufacturer has to say "buy our system!" I understand to a lot of us exclusives are bad and unnecessary, but that is the way of competition, you need a trump card to beat the opposition. For consoles it's exclusive titles that give them an edge. I never found it to be that bad, every company needs something to separate themselves from their competition. We always say the software is what really matters when it comes to games, yet we don't want specific companies to have those titles to lead other away from the competition?

As a side note, I think at this point Nintendo seems to be the only one who really counts on exclusivity. Sony has lots of exclusives, yet they haven't had the success of the big Nintendo franchises. Sony could survive with few exclusive games, Nintendo needs them.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

We've already had devs talking about how the porting process isn't that simple for some reason.

However:

Not only does pointless exclusivity making the new consoles seem less desirable

I would argue the opposite. Pointless exclusivity is just about the only selling point to differentiate these consoles.

As for hardware....

The fact is, people are going to want new consoles. I know, I know, PC gaming master race, blah blah, but People want consoles you can just stick a game in and play. Open systems are scary to a lot of people. So they need new consoles to sell to the people who want shit that "just works," but want better graphics and bigger games.

There's a niche to fill, so people are filling it.

 

[Rad Party God]

Nope, there's absolutely no reason for it, except maybe this:

 

[BloatedGuppy]

According to what? The current corporate mentality ruling Nintendo isn't going to give us a new console. Nintendo would need an upheaval at the top in order to join the race again.

Ugh, you know what? I have no real emotional investment in console politics. Whether it's 2 machines or 3 machines, the fact remains console gaming is not cheaper than PC gaming, save perhaps for the size of the day one cost.

 

[QuiB25]

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.

I dunno..Yeah competition is good. But exclusives are fake competition. How would an incentive to make cheaper consoles eliminate competition? The newer consoles haven't been THAT much cheaper over the generations, have they? Are there are other ways to differentiate yourself from your competitor than forced, arbitrary differentiation (exclusives)?

It'd be like choosing to buy a pair of Nikes or Adidas shoes. You COULD decide based on the quality of the shoe, what it was made for (running or casual), price, etc. Or you could choose based off some anti-consumer bullshit like "You must buy a pair of Nike shoes to be allowed to buy a pair of Nike shorts."

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Ugh, you know what? I have no real emotional investment in console politics.

You're the one who brought it up.

Whether it's 2 machines or 3 machines, the fact remains console gaming is not cheaper than PC gaming, save perhaps for the size of the day one cost.

Sorry, but under any realistic assessment, it is, and I don't really care to indulge you in nonsense about playing top of the line games on a bargain-bin seven year old PC.

 

[FoolKiller]

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?

The problem is that you look at it as a games industry but then compare it to formats. The "formats" are Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. Not video games. The other media industries have also been fractured in this way. Find me an iTunes download of some of the indy stuff I have from the 90s. Its not going to happen. I need to have a CD player.

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

6 years ago, there were competing formats, with exclusive titles, in the HD video market: HD DVD vs. Bluray. You know how that problem was resolved? HD DVD died.

And consoles aren't the only one guilty of this. PC games suffer from the same exclusivity. It's Windows vs Mac vs Linux.

And to conclude this, I will just point out that comparing even other media industries is flawed because the video game industry is unique. It creates formats every generation and the library of previous titles is all but extinct. I can walk into a music store and get a CD with Belinda Carlisle on it. I can't go into a video game store and get Actraiser.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What, are you counting the Steambox? It hasn't launched yet, and is looking to break the current console paradigm, so it can't really be considered as one of the primary consoles.

I was thinking of Nintendo, actually. From what I can see, Steambox is just a slim PC that lies on its side.

Another thing is that it also leads to games that use the concepts of other games (And I mean this in a potentially good way).

The PC is an open platform, and any time there is an even moderately successful game it gets iterated on a thousand time over by competing developers. I'm not sure why you think exclusivity would fuel this.

That assumes that I think that you need exclusivity for people to want to copy what others have done. I just meant it causes it in a different way. Yes, you can make something like something else even on the same console, but look at it this way, lots of people try to make things to disrupt the power of certain brands like CoD or World of Warcraft, but the problem is that they tend to not do as well because... people already have those games so why would they play games that look similar? If it's on a console that didn't have such a title before then it would gather more interest to the people that have that console. If it makes success then that leads to competition with the people they were originally following the lead of.