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

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

I...sort of understand what you're saying, now. I think I'd maintain that brand strength should be determined by the quality of the game instead of the exclusivity of it, but MMOs are a weird case where the genre tends to eat its young.

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.

Well, no, it's really not, but if your confirmation bias insists it is who am I to argue?

 

[Something Amyss]

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

In fairness, you list several products with some form of monopolistic behaviour.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Exclusives are essentially a publisher strong-arming people to get their specific system,damn near black-mailing people into buying their product. It's a horrible thing but there's nothing that we can do about it at the moment, unless we all agreed ALTOGETHER not to get exclusives.

Well then your just going to kill exclusives, not make them multiplat. What would be the point of Making a God of War on the 360 if God of war won't even sell exclusively on PS3? It makes no sense for any company to make a multiplatform game if it can't even sell on one platform.

And Like I've said, getting rid of Exclusives will simply create a monopoly for Video games in one form or another.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And Like I've said, getting rid of Exclusives will simply create a monopoly for Video games in one form or another.

Spoiler

You've yet to really establish why this would be an inevitability.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

And Like I've said, getting rid of Exclusives will simply create a monopoly for Video games in one form or another.

Spoiler

You've yet to really establish why this would be an inevitability.

... Do you remember Nintendo in the 80's? How they where pretty much the only Real Console Manufacturer around? Remember how the Gouged Prices, forced 3rd Parties to make games on their console before anyone else, forced special chips into their Cartridges that only they produced, and set the number of copies of games available? If it weren't for Sonic the Hedgehog, Sega's main exclusive, then Nintendo would be the only people around making Consoles. So you can credit Sonic the Hedgehog for the fact that there isn't just one main company making Consoles. But if Sonic never came around, or if he never gained popularity, we might only now be playing on SNES's...

The Fact that Nintendo held a Monopoly on Video Games in the 80's means we can very much fall back into Monopolization of Video Games at any time. Now, it probably wouldn't be Nintendo, but whoever would come out on top would screw the rest of us over. And all it would take is the removal of Exclusives, or the right to make them.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

But that's the whole point of exclusives...
To lure gamers who are fans of the franchises in buying THIS console instead of the other one.Duh

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The Fact that Nintendo held a Monopoly on Video Games in the 80's means we can very much fall back into Monopolization of Video Games at any time. Now, it probably wouldn't be Nintendo, but whoever would come out on top would screw the rest of us over. And all it would take is the removal of Exclusives, or the right to make them.

The PC is not an exclusive driven environment, and yet PC games are cheaper on the average than console games and there is no one monopolistic entity setting prices and gouging consumers.

You're presenting an alarmist hypothetical as an inevitability, and using 30 year old events when the industry was in its infancy as evidence. This is not a compelling argument in favor of exclusives.

 

[Yopaz]

I dunno..Yeah competition is good. But exclusives are fake competition.

Yet PS3 has sold better in Europe and Japan despite vastly different prices. We buy game consoles for the games and good exclusives attract customers to their platform rather than their competitor. How is that fake competition? What is fake competition?

How would an incentive to make cheaper consoles eliminate competition?

It wouldn't, but it could potentially eliminate competitors. The company with the most cash available could sell consoles at a loss knowing they would squeeze out their competitor with less resources and make it back when they've secured the majority of the audience.

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)?

Why would they be that much cheaper? Price ISN'T the main competitive edge exclusives are. We pick consoles over games, not prices.

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."

False analogy and I won't even go into that one because it doesn't have anything in common with this.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

No, it would be like buying a car because of the engine in it.

Buying a console for exclusives, on the other hand, is like buying a car for the fancy rims and the spoiler. And the sound system in it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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

Of course, didn't you know captcha really was just Batman's way of solving Riddler's puzzles nowadays? He gets the interwebz to do it for him. Sneaky sneaky Batman.

OT: I dunno, don't care if a game is exclusive. Doesn't bother me, but actually makes me feel like there is more time devoted to the game itself and less time devoted on getting it to work on all plats.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

The PC is not an exclusive driven environment, and yet PC games are cheaper on the average than console games and there is no one monopolistic entity setting prices and gouging consumers.

You're presenting an alarmist hypothetical as an inevitability, and using 30 year old events when the industry was in its infancy as evidence. This is not a compelling argument in favor of exclusives.

There are plenty of Games only available on PC that will never ever get a Console release. Games like "The Stanley Parable", "Dota 2", anything Paradox Makes, "World of WarCraft", a lot of Indie games, and I could keep going and going.

And instead of one Monopolistic Entity, there are 3: Steam, UPlay and Origins (There are others, but they are less important). UPlay and Origins are probably the worse (Or where the worse), but Steam is pretty bad too (You can't sell games you bought, you can't even delete those games you bought cause they exist somewhere). Steam also has a near monopoly on PC Gaming.

Not only that, but PC's have had there fair share of Monopolization. Remember in the 90's when Bill Gates and Microsoft where Sued because they forced most computers to use their Operating Systems? Remember how you couldn't get rid of Basic Microsoft Products on those computers if you didn't want it to break apart? Microsoft had to be divided into 2 because of that!

History repeats itself as well my friends: Microsoft's attempt to make the XBone a Home Console version of UPlay or Origins is an example of how any company could screw us over at any minute. Just because it may not be the same kind of Screwing us over that Nintendo pulled in 85-89, doesn't change that fact. The only thing keeping us from being screwed over is alternatives, and Alternatives are only appealing if they have something "Exclusive" to them.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well then your just going to kill exclusives, not make them multiplat.

And the difference being...?

What would be the point of Making a God of War on the 360 if God of war won't even sell exclusively on PS3? It makes no sense for any company to make a multiplatform game if it can't even sell on one platform.

What would be the point of making it even for PS3 then, if it's not going to sell? Big name games are made with an expectation that they will sell, not with an attitude "Okay, we made it now let's see if it sells".

And Like I've said, getting rid of Exclusives will simply create a monopoly for Video games in one form or another.

And we're still waiting for citations on that, other than "Because I said so, and I'm right".

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

This is the most concise, correct answer to the topic's question I've seen thus far.

But rather than just parroting I'll add something.

Spoiler: Something

Consoles are proprietary systems, but software (like games) more broadly, doesn't have to be thanks to hardware being more powerful and adaptable than ever. This point is even more evident with the Xbone and PS4 since they are built on the same architecture as PCs.
If a huge variety of gaming PCs can run the game, why restrict it to just a console?

Thus, more than ever the proprietary consoles require some sort of leverage to justify their existence.

Lower entry cost is typically the biggest point of leverage, since consoles are specially made to play games, and are usually sold under a "loss leader" strategy where the user pays less for the initial hardware, but more for games and accessories over the life of the console (with appropriate caveats of course, but that's mostly how it works).

Exclusive software (games) is the other big point of leverage.

So, any reasonable defense for this sort of leverage is looking very weak indeed.
Exclusives are just a way of artificially boosting the market share of a console, which doesn't help the larger market base at all but just the market for that system. Meaning exclusives are an anti-competitive practice.

Exclusives aren't necessarily helpful for developers either, because they limit the share of the market they can sell their games to. So when a developer makes a game system-exclusive when they could sell it across a variety of platforms, they're taking a risk of some sort; With consoles, it's usually in exchange for some sort of concession from the console manufacturer like marketing support, localization, or even funding (Bayonetta 2 on the WiiU, or Halo on the Xbox series are examples).

Granted, this can help get games developed that otherwise wouldn't, but it's definitely the exception and not the rule and not a model the larger market should follow because, again, exclusivity is anti-competitive.

The one caveat; the only time that doesn't hold true is if it's cost-prohibitive or technically impractical for the developer to port the game to another system. For example, most PC RTS games are unplayable on console controls or how most Wii games are unplayable on PC. (both of which stem from artificial barriers on the proprietary console's side, incidentally)

Therefore, the only people who -absolutely profit- from exclusives, are the proprietary console manufacturers.

Spoiler: Tangentially

..this practice is the biggest thing keeping Nintendo in the console hardware market, as their few multi-platform releases are rarely, if ever the superior choice (the only Wii ports that compare favorably are those pitted against the comparatively ancient PS2, like Resident Evil 4 and Okami. And even then it's not a huge improvement. Conversely, when comparing Wii ports to the 360 and PS3, the Wii ALWAYS came out on bottom, like with The Force Unleashed).

It's a big reason why Nintendo stopped trying to compete with the larger mainstream market and is focusing on pushing their first party titles (the other big reason is probably third parties not wanting to deal with them).

 

[Mr.Mattress]

And the difference being...?

What would be the point of making it even for PS3 then, if it's not going to sell? Big name games are made with an expectation that they will sell, not with an attitude "Okay, we made it now let's see if it sells".

And we're still waiting for citations on that, other than "Because I said so, and I'm right".

1) That there would be no God of War on the 360, nor would there be anymore God of Wars for anything.

2) Yeah, they expect it to sell on the PS3, and they have been for 2 generations now. If all of a sudden, it no longer sells, then they will stop making it, not make it multiplatform.

3) Does Nintendo in the 80's mean nothing to anyone here?! Or how about Nintendo in the 90's? How about Microsoft freakin' Four months ago?!

 

[Lightknight]

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.

You need multiple consoles for competition. I don't want Sony or Microsoft to have a monopoly. That'd be the worst thing you could imagine.

You don't want to have tiered consoles within the same generation for another reason altogether. The weakest link hinders the gaming market with developers trying to create a game capable of being played on all of the systems. With large steps in console generations, you have a flood-gate scenario where the entire bar is moved and the weaker consoles become irrelevant. Right now, games are being hindered by the ps3/360 despite much more powerful PCs on the market. They can scale up graphics but this does nothing for the physics and AI within a game that would benefit from more power.

Steam boxes don't exist yet. You don't know what they're like or what their capabilities are. For all you know they'll never succeed. If they get out in the open and work, then we'll know. But there's a lot of questions still to be had. It's really easy to sit on this side of hindsight and claim that they'll God's next gift to man when the reality of them haven't come around.

There isn't any "steam box", there is meant to be several steam boxes. This completely removes the benefit of optimization that consoles traditionally offer. There's completely give and take in both directions but console environments are the safest bet for developers. It isn't a mistake that GTA V didn't come out for computers yet and won't until months after the console release. It's because the pc environment can seriously cut into real sales.

 

[Vegosiux]

1) That there would be no God of War on the 360, nor would there be anymore God of Wars for anything.

Same difference to me. With the amount of games coming out, I don't have time to play all of them anyway, so I'm not going to miss any specific franchise if it happens to poof out of existance, because I'll be busy enough with other stuff I want to play.

2) Yeah, they expect it to sell on the PS3, and they have been for 2 generations now. If all of a sudden, it no longer sells, then they will stop making it, not make it multiplatform.

That's something that happens regardless of whether it's an exclusive or not. Multiplatform games aren't likely to be sequeled[footnote]"to sequel" is now a verb.[/footnote] if they don't sell, either.

Now, if you can demonstrate that PS users have a fundamentally different taste and preferences than PC or Xbox users, you might have a point, because in that case, it would indeed make no sense to port something those other console users aren't going to play. But I do not see such things happening. God of War would sell regardless of the platform it was released on, for example, why? Because it satisfies the lowest common denominator and has enough of a marketing hype momentum.

3) Does Nintendo in the 80's mean nothing to anyone here?! Or how about Nintendo in the 90's? How about Microsoft freakin' Four months ago?!

The "history" arguments have already been addressed by BloatedGuppy, and I'm not even sure what the Microsoft argument should be saying. How does the entire Microsoft PR debacle tie into your statement that "Getting rid of exclusives is going to create monopolies"? I'm sorry, I do not see a connection between Microsoft completely bombing their presentation, exclusives, and monopolies.

Edit: Why'd it get quoted twice...meh, nevermind, fixed.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There are plenty of Games only available on PC that will never ever get a Console release. Games like "The Stanley Parable", "Dota 2", anything Paradox Makes, "World of WarCraft", a lot of Indie games, and I could keep going and going.

And instead of one Monopolistic Entity, there are 3: Steam, UPlay and Origins (There are others, but they are less important). UPlay and Origins are probably the worse (Or where the worse), but Steam is pretty bad too (You can't sell games you bought, you can't even delete those games you bought cause they exist somewhere). Steam also has a near monopoly on PC Gaming.

Not only that, but PC's have had there fair share of Monopolization. Remember in the 90's when Bill Gates and Microsoft where Sued because they forced most computers to use their Operating Systems? Remember how you couldn't get rid of Basic Microsoft Products on those computers if you didn't want it to break apart? Microsoft had to be divided into 2 because of that!

History repeats itself as well my friends: Microsoft's attempt to make the XBone a Home Console version of UPlay or Origins is an example of how any company could screw us over at any minute. Just because it may not be the same kind of Screwing us over that Nintendo pulled in 85-89, doesn't change that fact. The only thing keeping us from being screwed over is alternatives, and Alternatives are only appealing if they have something "Exclusive" to them.

Wut?

1) There are no "PC exclusives". It's just a broader platform than consoles. You can build any type of PC and play the same PC games.

2) What the hell do digital distribution platforms...of which there are a multitude of competing entities, all offering ludicrously consumer friendly pricing...have to do with console exclusives defeating monopolies?

3) And now you're talking about operating systems and PR debacles. This is seriously confusing. I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about any more, other than that you have a vague idea of "Exclusives Good" and "Monopolies Bad" and no real way to verbalize it effectively. I think we better just stop here while we're both sane.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Same difference to me. With the amount of games coming out, I don't have time to play all of them anyway, so I'm not going to miss any specific franchise if it happens to poof out of existance, because I'll be busy enough with other stuff I want to play.

Well, that's great. But everyone that loves God of War certainly would miss it. And they'd be mad at the people who didn't support God of War "Because it was Exclusive".

That's something that happens regardless of whether it's an exclusive or not. Multiplatform games aren't likely to be sequeled if they don't sell, either.

Yes, but you said you wanted to tell Game Developers to stop making Exclusives, and you said we all had to come together and stop buying exclusives in order for that to happen. Many Exclusive series are beloved, and killing off all Exclusives because of their Exclusivity is pretty dumb.

Now, if you can demonstrate that PS users have a fundamentally different taste and preferences than PC or Xbox users, you might have a point, because in that case, it would indeed make no sense to port something those other console users aren't going to play. But I do not see such things happening. God of War would sell regardless of the platform it was released on, for example, why? Because it satisfies the lowest common denominator and has enough of a marketing hype momentum.

Doesn't matter; if it stops selling on One Console, the makers are going to assume it will not sell anywhere period. They aren't going to say "Oh, it didn't sell on the PS3, so maybe the next game in the series will be a Multiplatform that's on the PS3, XBox 360 and Wii as well". They're going to kill off the Series. Your wish to end the Exclusiveness of series will only lead to the mass death of those series.

And I won't be arguing that Playstation Users are different from PC and XBox ones, because they're not. But your plan would not make those Playstation Exclusives Multiplatform games.

The "history" arguments have already been addressed by BloatedGuppy, and I'm not even sure what the Microsoft argument should be saying. How does the entire Microsoft PR debacle tie into your statement that "Getting rid of exclusives is going to create monopolies"? I'm sorry, I do not see a connection between Microsoft completely bombing their presentation, exclusives, and monopolies.

Man, I am completely and utterly surprised by how many people that are anti-exclusive think that Companies will not screw us over. Microsoft's PR Debacle proves they would try to screw us over: They thought they had a loyal fanbase that would stick with them through thick and thin, but they didn't, and their competition was playing against their debacle, so they had to bow down. Without Sony and Nintendo's alternatives, they would have never bowed down. Companies are all about money, and making as much of it as possible.

Now I have to ask you something: Why?! Why do you trust any company to not screw us over? If their is only one company in charge of Consoles, regardless of tiering, regardless of using other companies to make it, then why would they not try to screw us over?!

Wut?

1) There are no "PC exclusives". It's just a broader platform than consoles. You can build any type of PC and play the same PC games.

2) What the hell do digital distribution platforms...of which there are a multitude of competing entities, all offering ludicrously consumer friendly pricing...have to do with console exclusives defeating monopolies?

3) And now you're talking about operating systems and PR debacles. This is seriously confusing. I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about any more, other than that you have a vague idea of "Exclusives Good" and "Monopolies Bad" and no real way to verbalize it effectively. I think we better just stop here while we're both sane.

1) Yes there are. Why can I not play WoW on my WiiU? Where's Crusaders King 2 for the PS4? Where's League of Legends for the XBOne? They don't exist, because they are exclusively on PC. You can argue up and down the street that there are no PC Exclusives, but I can give you a list of Every Game that has only come out PC's. It doesn't matter that there are 80 Million Types of PC's, because these Games can only be played on PC's.

Also, that leads me to ask: Are you supportive of games like WoW, Crusaders King 2 and LoL being Multiplatform games as well? Or are you going to deny them being PC Exclusives?

2) It's to demonstrate how Companies try to screw us over: With Steam, once you get a game your stuck with it for life. You cannot delete it permanently (You can delete it, but it still exists) or sell it back. This is exactly what Microsoft was trying to do (In addition to other questionable activities) with the XBone. If Steam where all by itself, you don't think it would try to screw us even more then it already does? The only reason we tolerate it is because it's not as bad as UPlay and Origins. Imagine if UPlay and Origin didn't exist, you don't think Valve would start doing things that would be very much like bad UPlay Or Origin policies?

3) Your right, it is confusing to me. Why do you have such great faith in corporations? Time and time again they have screwed consumers over. I just can't wrap my head around it! Even when I present evidence you dismiss it "Because it's in the past". I don't get this logic. I'll stop arguing because it's obvious I cannot convince you otherwise. I just don't understand why you believe that there would be competition without Exclusives, or how a company wouldn't screw us over if they were the only ones making consoles. It upsets me a little just thinking about it...