Jimquisition: Rise Of The Exclusivity Wars

[Strazdas]

So you can than say there is no reason to buy the product they make exclusives for you to buy? You know how the business works.

It may be that its 8 Am in the morning, but i dont understand what you mean by this question.

And you know that I've told you what my views on porting is, if a PC game is too "advanced" it doesn't mean it can't be ported. Look at Minecraft on consoles, how well they've done and folk said it'd never work.
Basically your excuses for why some PC games shouldn't be ported are just that, excuses. Lack of money and audience is fine reasons, but not possible to port? Nope, in the past companies have built different versions of their games entirely to get their game on a platform and today isn't any different.

Yes, we already had this discussion and our views disagree on the matter. Your minecraft example though - you do know that Console version of minecraft is vastly inferior, unupdated mess that even mobile version outdoes? im sure you were aware of that, right?

Now for Japanese games being ported. It was that "nor a company being blind to outside audience is not acceptable for me" comment you made that made my next response on that. You say you think it right for them not to port due to costs, however you also stated how you don't accept them being "blind" to outside audiences.
Putting your comments together I don't think they mesh.

You have misunderstood me there then. What i meant is it is acceptable for them not to port if they cannot afford it, not acceptable not to port because they are unaware of potential audience (think there arent buyers).

 

[Rozalia1]

It may be that its 8 Am in the morning, but i dont understand what you mean by this question.

What I got from that was you saying that even the first parties should put their games on every platform, that is how it read to me.

Yes, we already had this discussion and our views disagree on the matter. Your minecraft example though - you do know that Console version of minecraft is vastly inferior, unupdated mess that even mobile version outdoes? im sure you were aware of that, right?

And yet it sold fine, more than fine in fact. Just because a platform can't run the top version doesn't mean its impossible to port the thing.

You have misunderstood me there then. What i meant is it is acceptable for them not to port if they cannot afford it, not acceptable not to port because they are unaware of potential audience (think there arent buyers).

Well there isn't a potential audience elsewhere they are niche after all (more so today). Porting say Yakuza to even the 360 isn't done because they can hardly even justify bringing the series over to the West (Japan is the primary market for them, and everyone knows the Xbox's standing there).

 

[Strazdas]

What I got from that was you saying that even the first parties should put their games on every platform, that is how it read to me.

Yes they should. Being a first party studio is not an excuse to be exclusive.

And yet it sold fine, more than fine in fact. Just because a platform can't run the top version doesn't mean its impossible to port the thing.

Which only shows how bare the platform is of good content if it jums in with money at even a promise of such.

Xbox minecraft is a joke. You can hardly call it minecraft as it cant even give you the main concept - freedom of exploration and building.

Well there isn't a potential audience elsewhere they are niche after all (more so today). Porting say Yakuza to even the 360 isn't done because they can hardly even justify bringing the series over to the West (Japan is the primary market for them, and everyone knows the Xbox's standing there).

Just because you dont know of an audience does not mean there is none. Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[Rozalia1]

Yes they should. Being a first party studio is not an excuse to be exclusive.

Which only shows how bare the platform is of good content if it jums in with money at even a promise of such.

(Xbox minecraft is a joke. You can hardly call it minecraft as it cant even give you the main concept - freedom of exploration and building. Not addressing this part but the above)

Just because you dont know of an audience does not mean there is none. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Its not an excuse and them being exclusive is correct thing for the company to do. They want consoles sold so they can make money off the games that are brought, exclusives by virtue of being exclusive drive console sales up which has the effect of driving games sales up overall. I'm sure you know all this so why you're here telling me a company should just straight up harm their business for your pleasure (someone who doesn't even buy their consoles+games) is just baffling. There is a reason whenever an Xbox "exclusive" is found not to be that most posters spend the thread calling Microsoft stupid.

Oh my. Bloody hell I guess I know why you were so slow to respond now, that is quite something else.
You legitimately made me laugh at that one. I mean no rudeness but that has to be one of the worse remarks I've heard on here.

Poppycock. You can say that to justify porting to anything. The Niche JRPG scene on the PC/Xbox is actually on fire, its just nobody knows it.

 

[Strazdas]

Its not an excuse and them being exclusive is correct thing for the company to do. They want consoles sold so they can make money off the games that are brought, exclusives by virtue of being exclusive drive console sales up which has the effect of driving games sales up overall. I'm sure you know all this so why you're here telling me a company should just straight up harm their business for your pleasure (someone who doesn't even buy their consoles+games) is just baffling. There is a reason whenever an Xbox "exclusive" is found not to be that most posters spend the thread calling Microsoft stupid.

Oh my. Bloody hell I guess I know why you were so slow to respond now, that is quite something else.
You legitimately made me laugh at that one. I mean no rudeness but that has to be one of the worse remarks I've heard on here.

Poppycock. You can say that to justify porting to anything. The Niche JRPG scene on the PC/Xbox is actually on fire, its just nobody knows it.

No. Correct thing for company to do is to provide the best service possible. What you mean is likely the most profitable thing for company, which granted some people may mistake for the correct thing because its capitalism gone wild nowadays. However you would once again be wrong, as there is no profitability by restricting your userbase significantly. What they are doing is a selfish thing. they want their console to be used and try to force people onto it not by making it better, but by holding games hostage.

Consoles should compete on being better than the other device, not by holding games you want to play hostage.

And, like i previously stated, where possible it should be ported to all platforms.

 

[Rozalia1]

No. Correct thing for company to do is to provide the best service possible. What you mean is likely the most profitable thing for company, which granted some people may mistake for the correct thing because its capitalism gone wild nowadays. However you would once again be wrong, as there is no profitability by restricting your userbase significantly. What they are doing is a selfish thing. they want their console to be used and try to force people onto it not by making it better, but by holding games hostage.

Consoles should compete on being better than the other device, not by holding games you want to play hostage.

And, like i previously stated, where possible it should be ported to all platforms.

Yes there is and you know it. Look at the battle between Infamous and Prototype. Which is still alive today? Which has had a bigger impact? Infamous quite easily. True they may be able to sell more copies if it was a multiplat however the loss in reputation for the platform holder, and the less consoles sold (which brings less game sales which is where the big money is) mean that their short term gains will quickly be obliterated.
You rag and rag on consoles yet don't know how the business operates? Come now, practically everyone knows these simple facts.
As for bringing the best service possible...you aren't their customer so why should they cater to you?

Better than the other device? So they should be top of the line PCs now? You know consoles have fixed hardware so however pricey and expensive you make them it won't matter.
So they should make all their exclusives multiplats, price their consoles at insane prices...so you can have the pleasure of coming on the internet and say their device sucks and you should stick to just a PC? Any guesses why they won't do that?

Yet you are against putting different versions of games on weaker systems and hide behind excuses. Minecraft alone blows your viewpoint to pieces and you can't counter that hence your earlier remark.
Don't make a claim you hold X view, while holding Y view that goes completely against the X view.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes there is and you know it. Look at the battle between Infamous and Prototype. Which is still alive today? Which has had a bigger impact? Infamous quite easily. True they may be able to sell more copies if it was a multiplat however the loss in reputation for the platform holder, and the less consoles sold (which brings less game sales which is where the big money is) mean that their short term gains will quickly be obliterated.
You rag and rag on consoles yet don't know how the business operates? Come now, practically everyone knows these simple facts.
As for bringing the best service possible...you aren't their customer so why should they cater to you?

Better than the other device? So they should be top of the line PCs now? You know consoles have fixed hardware so however pricey and expensive you make them it won't matter.
So they should make all their exclusives multiplats, price their consoles at insane prices...so you can have the pleasure of coming on the internet and say their device sucks and you should stick to just a PC? Any guesses why they won't do that?

Yet you are against putting different versions of games on weaker systems and hide behind excuses. Minecraft alone blows your viewpoint to pieces and you can't counter that hence your earlier remark.
Don't make a claim you hold X view, while holding Y view that goes completely against the X view.

Uh, what? Prototype was always multiplay. It is still "alive". The reason it really isnt heard about is that beyond the first game, the sequels were shit. Your talking about Impact and are using Infamous? Seriuosly? The game known best for its terrible texture popins? Thats the inpact you want to have - we have the worst graphics? And if we go for Single Plat vs Multiplay shooter inpact lets compare something better for for that - COD and Halo. Halo started on PC, but went console exclusive. CoD started on PC and went multiplat. CoD is much more known and inpactful on the market, sells more copes, what have you.

As far as business operating, it looks like you did not get my nod in previuos post - i dont support business operation based on capitalism. I am a socialist. Business first repsonsibility should be to provide best service possible. if it is not, then such business is broken. Sadly, our current economic model is based on business being broken.

As far as me being a costumer, lets take TLOU as an example. I was not a costumer because the game was not available. Had they released it for all platforms - i would have been a costumer.

What i meant by b etter than other devices is that consoles should compete by being the best console (the physical machine itself) rather than holding most games hostage. Competing with PCs sounds unreasonable to you? well they managed to BEAT them in power last generation launch. Back in 2005, consoles were stronger than PCs, now they are weak at launch.

Currently consoles are sold at very small loss, and its amazing how they manage that consider they use almost all stnadard parts and these parts dont cost 400 dollars. there is no reason for consoles to go expensive. the reaosn for that last generation was because they were unique costum built machines, and we all suffered that through.

I have plenty of guesses why they wont do that, ranging from stupidity to outright malice, but guesses are guesses.

I am not aginast putting games on weaker systems (after all like i said i am FOR porting PC games to consoles as well), merely agianst putting them on systems that are unable to run them. And seriuosly your still sticking to minecraft being proof of console porting? yeah i dont even know what to say without insulting you there.

My views are internally consistent, meanwhile you keep moving your goalposts.

 

[Rozalia1]

Uh, what? Prototype was always multiplay. It is still "alive". The reason it really isnt heard about is that beyond the first game, the sequels were shit. Your talking about Impact and are using Infamous? Seriuosly? The game known best for its terrible texture popins? Thats the inpact you want to have - we have the worst graphics? And if we go for Single Plat vs Multiplay shooter inpact lets compare something better for for that - COD and Halo. Halo started on PC, but went console exclusive. CoD started on PC and went multiplat. CoD is much more known and inpactful on the market, sells more copes, what have you.

As far as business operating, it looks like you did not get my nod in previuos post - i dont support business operation based on capitalism. I am a socialist. Business first repsonsibility should be to provide best service possible. if it is not, then such business is broken. Sadly, our current economic model is based on business being broken.

As far as me being a costumer, lets take TLOU as an example. I was not a costumer because the game was not available. Had they released it for all platforms - i would have been a costumer.

What i meant by b etter than other devices is that consoles should compete by being the best console (the physical machine itself) rather than holding most games hostage. Competing with PCs sounds unreasonable to you? well they managed to BEAT them in power last generation launch. Back in 2005, consoles were stronger than PCs, now they are weak at launch.

Currently consoles are sold at very small loss, and its amazing how they manage that consider they use almost all stnadard parts and these parts dont cost 400 dollars. there is no reason for consoles to go expensive. the reaosn for that last generation was because they were unique costum built machines, and we all suffered that through.

I have plenty of guesses why they wont do that, ranging from stupidity to outright malice, but guesses are guesses.

I am not aginast putting games on weaker systems (after all like i said i am FOR porting PC games to consoles as well), merely agianst putting them on systems that are unable to run them. And seriuosly your still sticking to minecraft being proof of console porting? yeah i dont even know what to say without insulting you there.

My views are internally consistent, meanwhile you keep moving your goalposts.

First of all Prototype got a single sequel, and second the studio that did it is dead and is one of those series thrown under the bus for not selling enough. Infamous on the other hand is alive and whatever you think of it has a good reputation. Prototype was multiplat and failed, Infamous has succeeded as an exclusive.
Halo being originally developed for the PC (and Mac) doesn't matter, it was an exclusive from the get go. Your call of duty example is meaningless, we are talking about first party exclusives not third party. The money you get from first party exclusives extends past the mere sale of the game which you fail to understand.

Can't play TLOU and the other games because you're not a customer? Well there is an incentive to become a customer.
Such a thing is why exclusives have value beyond their mere sale.

And the point of that is what? I know that you know that I know that you know that such a thing is pointless. So they release a 1000 pound console, or absorb massive costs to put the price down to be as good as a PC at launch for like a year for what? To go out of business?
Consoles are static, being better than top of the line PCs especially in this day and age isn't possible, nor is needed which pisses a lot of people off yes.
So yes it is unreasonable and again it isn't a bloody hostage. Those games wouldn't exist if not for the platform holder having a stake in the matter. Third party exclusives (e.g Drakengard) are also not held hostage as nothing is stopping them porting their game, they just don't because they don't see the worth in doing so.

Fine to play your game, if the PS4 was 1000 pounds and had hardware to match the tag what do you think would be the result. Heck not just you, anyone can join in the game if they like.

Minecraft is what I use because it stings you that it is a success. Its not possible, it'll be crap...all pointless chatter. The game was ported and whatever you think of the console version is sold incredibly well. It proves that just because the port is downgraded it doesn't mean it won't sell, or that people will be happy with it.

Shift the goalposts? My goalposts are where they've always been, yours seem to be on Mars at this point. You can't directly address Minecraft as it exposes you're hiding behind an invalid excuse in "its not possible/port would be crap", and this "consoles should be massively expensive to be better than PCs" business is all very odd.
I know that you know that I know where your current arguments are coming from, and my helpful advice to you would be to dial it back as you'll only embarrass yourself if you keep saying such hogwash.

 

[Strazdas]

First of all Prototype got a single sequel, and second the studio that did it is dead and is one of those series thrown under the bus for not selling enough. Infamous on the other hand is alive and whatever you think of it has a good reputation. Prototype was multiplat and failed, Infamous has succeeded as an exclusive.
Halo being originally developed for the PC (and Mac) doesn't matter, it was an exclusive from the get go. Your call of duty example is meaningless, we are talking about first party exclusives not third party. The money you get from first party exclusives extends past the mere sale of the game which you fail to understand.

Can't play TLOU and the other games because you're not a customer? Well there is an incentive to become a customer.
Such a thing is why exclusives have value beyond their mere sale.

And the point of that is what? I know that you know that I know that you know that such a thing is pointless. So they release a 1000 pound console, or absorb massive costs to put the price down to be as good as a PC at launch for like a year for what? To go out of business?
Consoles are static, being better than top of the line PCs especially in this day and age isn't possible, nor is needed which pisses a lot of people off yes.
So yes it is unreasonable and again it isn't a bloody hostage. Those games wouldn't exist if not for the platform holder having a stake in the matter. Third party exclusives (e.g Drakengard) are also not held hostage as nothing is stopping them porting their game, they just don't because they don't see the worth in doing so.

Fine to play your game, if the PS4 was 1000 pounds and had hardware to match the tag what do you think would be the result. Heck not just you, anyone can join in the game if they like.

Minecraft is what I use because it stings you that it is a success. Its not possible, it'll be crap...all pointless chatter. The game was ported and whatever you think of the console version is sold incredibly well. It proves that just because the port is downgraded it doesn't mean it won't sell, or that people will be happy with it.

Shift the goalposts? My goalposts are where they've always been, yours seem to be on Mars at this point. You can't directly address Minecraft as it exposes you're hiding behind an invalid excuse in "its not possible/port would be crap", and this "consoles should be massively expensive to be better than PCs" business is all very odd.
I know that you know that I know where your current arguments are coming from, and my helpful advice to you would be to dial it back as you'll only embarrass yourself if you keep saying such hogwash.

so your cherry picked bad example is somehow legit and my picked Exclusive vs exclusive gone multiplat (becuase you claim that going multiplat ruins them) is somehow "meaningless". Ignoring what does not support your argument does not actually win them.

No, there is incentive, its ont possible to become a costumer as they are not selling a copy of my platform of choice. they are intentionally cutting off part of the market.

you do know that for 500 dollars they could build a console that is faster than the current ones, right? Consoles being static was fine when their generations were short (remmeber, it used to take 3-4 years before). Its not acceptable when a generation takes 10 years though. If only they were modular and could be upgraded... oh... wait... PC already exists.

1000 pound console, sold at neither loss nor profit, would outdo average gaming PCs for many years actually. The result would be same as if you release a 1000 pound prebuilt - some people will buy it, others wont.

Minecraft is not a "Sucess" on Xbox. not by a long shot. Also where is a sting on a game ported to console doing well if i was always for porting games to all platforms. its like your imaginging some straw man position and then attack it instead of attacking what i actually said.

I have no fear of being embarased by arguments as weak as yours.

 

[Rozalia1]

so your cherry picked bad example is somehow legit and my picked Exclusive vs exclusive gone multiplat (becuase you claim that going multiplat ruins them) is somehow "meaningless". Ignoring what does not support your argument does not actually win them.

No, there is incentive, its ont possible to become a costumer as they are not selling a copy of my platform of choice. they are intentionally cutting off part of the market.

you do know that for 500 dollars they could build a console that is faster than the current ones, right? Consoles being static was fine when their generations were short (remmeber, it used to take 3-4 years before). Its not acceptable when a generation takes 10 years though. If only they were modular and could be upgraded... oh... wait... PC already exists.

1000 pound console, sold at neither loss nor profit, would outdo average gaming PCs for many years actually. The result would be same as if you release a 1000 pound prebuilt - some people will buy it, others wont.

Minecraft is not a "Sucess" on Xbox. not by a long shot. Also where is a sting on a game ported to console doing well if i was always for porting games to all platforms. its like your imaginging some straw man position and then attack it instead of attacking what i actually said.

I have no fear of being embarased by arguments as weak as yours.

My examples weren't used to demonstrate the same point as yours so yes there is a reason mine are legitimate and yours isn't. The fact you refuse to see the reason for a first party game being exclusive means you can bring up what you like, it won't matter.

As I said there is your incentive. You want the exclusives than pony up the cash for the device to play them, that is how it works.

Common info spread about that is simply wrong. The PS2 lasted an eternity, and the PS3 is guaranteed to last a long time as well (Japanese devs are slow to adapt new gen so all their exclusives will come out on PS3 for many years).
Yeah PC already exists, so why should they treat their product like a PC?

... Really? First of all them profiting, or far more likely losing a huge amount of money on a £1000 console is very much irrelevant because few are going to buy the bloody thing. If top of the line costs a bomb, than they ain't going to put it in the console. 599 us dollars from Sony was a disaster enough and you actually believe there would be no issue with £1000 console. The correct response there was to say that a £1000 console is ridiculous and a console shouldn't have top of the line hardware due to the price it'd mean.

... What? http://news.xbox.com/2014/04/games-minecraft-12m
Its one thing to hold absurd views, its another to reject reality itself.
It stings because it crushes your excuse for why certain PC games shouldn't be ported like a bug, it exposes your hypocritical viewpoint. Anyway anyone can see what I mean now, you keep making more and more outlandish claims to justify your viewpoint against Minecraft, a game whose existence defeats you utterly.

Nice snide remark, however the I never said my arguments are embarrassing you rendering your remark for naught. What I said is you will embarrass yourself if you keep making such odd statements. Lets see, Xbox Minecraft was a failure, console holders would improve their business if they made all their games multiplats, consoles should compete with PCs on hardware+price...these things are all very odd, and not held by many people.

Consoles are expected to be "cheap", and their hardware is expected to be "good enough", no one expects them to be £1000 behemoths. Wanting exclusives to be multiplats is held by a fair amount of people yes, however they know why the games are exclusives and what the benefits are. Minecraft on Xbox was a success, simple as.

 

[Strazdas]

As I said there is your incentive. You want the exclusives than pony up the cash for the device to play them, that is how it works.

Common info spread about that is simply wrong. The PS2 lasted an eternity, and the PS3 is guaranteed to last a long time as well (Japanese devs are slow to adapt new gen so all their exclusives will come out on PS3 for many years).
Yeah PC already exists, so why should they treat their product like a PC?

... Really? First of all them profiting, or far more likely losing a huge amount of money on a £1000 console is very much irrelevant because few are going to buy the bloody thing. If top of the line costs a bomb, than they ain't going to put it in the console. 599 us dollars from Sony was a disaster enough and you actually believe there would be no issue with £1000 console. The correct response there was to say that a £1000 console is ridiculous and a console shouldn't have top of the line hardware due to the price it'd mean.

... What? http://news.xbox.com/2014/04/games-minecraft-12m
Its one thing to hold absurd views, its another to reject reality itself.
It stings because it crushes your excuse for why certain PC games shouldn't be ported like a bug, it exposes your hypocritical viewpoint. Anyway anyone can see what I mean now, you keep making more and more outlandish claims to justify your viewpoint against Minecraft, a game whose existence defeats you utterly.

Nice snide remark, however the I never said my arguments are embarrassing you rendering your remark for naught. What I said is you will embarrass yourself if you keep making such odd statements. Lets see, Xbox Minecraft was a failure, console holders would improve their business if they made all their games multiplats, consoles should compete with PCs on hardware+price...these things are all very odd, and not held by many people.

Consoles are expected to be "cheap", and their hardware is expected to be "good enough", no one expects them to be £1000 behemoths. Wanting exclusives to be multiplats is held by a fair amount of people yes, however they know why the games are exclusives and what the benefits are. Minecraft on Xbox was a success, simple as.

No, thats not how it works. this only exists because companies hold games hostage and get away with this.

Also i know that PS2 lasted a long time, but the consoles before it didnt. And just because yo want consoles to be obsolete at launch does not mean i do.

Yes, minecraft sold 12 million copies. you seem to imply thats somehow big deal? Does that not instead support what i already said - the console market is so deprived of quality content that they choose minecraft?

Once again, your building strawmen instead of attacking my points. Well, at least you stopped insulting me, so thats progress.

And of course consoles should compete with PCs. after all they are competing for same audience.

 

[Rozalia1]

No, thats not how it works. this only exists because companies hold games hostage and get away with this.

Also i know that PS2 lasted a long time, but the consoles before it didnt. And just because yo want consoles to be obsolete at launch does not mean i do.

Yes, minecraft sold 12 million copies. you seem to imply thats somehow big deal? Does that not instead support what i already said - the console market is so deprived of quality content that they choose minecraft?

Once again, your building strawmen instead of attacking my points. Well, at least you stopped insulting me, so thats progress.

And of course consoles should compete with PCs. after all they are competing for same audience.

It is how it works, since the first bloody console. You want the exclusives than pay the toll for the games the console manufacturer either had the means to make available themselves, or the games put on their exclusively because of the platforms "attractiveness" to the third party.

Okay I'm going to have to nip this completely now. SNES went on a lot longer than you know as the generation after it was littered with failures (please don't tell me the 3DO and Jaguar drove developers away from the SNES as I don't know if I could take it). Sega also supported their offering...in their own questionable ways. The NES before that was also well supported for a long length of time (and in fact only stopped production in NES in 1995).
The PS2 went on forever, the PS3 will likewise, and no doubt the PS4 will get the same treatment.
So please no more of this "consoles used to be around for the length of a sneeze" business.
Oh and times change, consoles in this age aren't expected to be what you think they are if they ever really were to begin with.

Again with those ridiculous statements but I see you remixed them together this time. Anyway...yes I'd say 12 million is a teeny weeny little deal yes. People on here often call publishers seeing 3 million sales as bad mad...if they are so than what would they say of someone saying 12 million sales (counting just Xbox) is not that a success? Was 100 million sales needed to recoup costs? That why it wasn't a success? Or are you making statements like that because you have no cure for the Minecraft bug?
As for it proving that consoles are "deprived of quality content", how in the world does that prove such a thing? No really go on and explain how Minecraft's sales are as a result of your supposed lack of quality content.
I'll have you know also that the PS3 has for many years now been like the glory days of the PS2, heck even a Drakengard game was made for it! It'd honestly be the best ever if so many series weren't left behind on the PS2...oh how I wish there was a new Wild Arms game... ahm...anyway...

Strawmen? Go on and mark the strawmen I have apparently put out on the field. What are the falsities I have used to make you look absurd? Don't dance around them, just lay it into me.

Gone through that with you before and its a yes and no sort of business but really that isn't something worth debating because you see, if you are correct in that they are competing in the same space...than what are exclusives? A way to better compete against the competition. I suppose you think its corporate bullying or something...but to who? Who is the platform holder on the PC they are damaging?

Your arguement here I find fairly strange/funny.

I am against exclusives as a concept only because the actual games end up forgotten sooner or later, their communities die, they lack modding and the hype driven console part of the bussiness uses em up and throws them to the side/f*cks their corpse

Anyways, ot to necro an old arguement, but this:
http://www.wonder-tonic.com/wolf1d/

Is not this:
http://media.moddb.com/images/articles/1/123/122995/auto/wolfenstein-3d.png

Some games CAN be ported. Minecraft, even though its SHIT on the consoles, is still minecraft. Just a shit version of the PC minecraft.
But other things? There is a limit to what you can port...
To go for an old arguement, STALKER wont work on a PS2. In order to port it, it would require... it to be a different game.

Than you shouldn't be against exclusives if that is the case. Drakengard 3 recently game out friend to the delight of all its fans, and other exclusives will get returns which their fans will have waited for. Just because they don't have mods doesn't mean they are forgotten about. In 50 years time I'll still be looking forward to that Wild Arms sequel that has yet to come out.

Can't go to the first one as it gives me a warning.

These games that can only be on PC because "reasons"...are they only available to top end machines? Isn't that kind of sad? If only there was something that allowed weaker machines to play them eh?
Anyway, Minecraft on Xbox changed a couple of things from what I can read but its Minecraft at the end of the day. I have not been convinced that this "I want there to be no exclusives, but PC exclusives are special" viewpoint isn't born from selfishness and misplaced loyalty to a piece of plastic.

 

[Strazdas]

It is how it works, since the first bloody console. You want the exclusives than pay the toll for the games the console manufacturer either had the means to make available themselves, or the games put on their exclusively because of the platforms "attractiveness" to the third party.

Okay I'm going to have to nip this completely now. SNES went on a lot longer than you know as the generation after it was littered with failures (please don't tell me the 3DO and Jaguar drove developers away from the SNES as I don't know if I could take it). Sega also supported their offering...in their own questionable ways. The NES before that was also well supported for a long length of time (and in fact only stopped production in NES in 1995).
The PS2 went on forever, the PS3 will likewise, and no doubt the PS4 will get the same treatment.
So please no more of this "consoles used to be around for the length of a sneeze" business.
Oh and times change, consoles in this age aren't expected to be what you think they are if they ever really were to begin with.

Again with those ridiculous statements but I see you remixed them together this time. Anyway...yes I'd say 12 million is a teeny weeny little deal yes. People on here often call publishers seeing 3 million sales as bad mad...if they are so than what would they say of someone saying 12 million sales (counting just Xbox) is not that a success? Was 100 million sales needed to recoup costs? That why it wasn't a success? Or are you making statements like that because you have no cure for the Minecraft bug?
As for it proving that consoles are "deprived of quality content", how in the world does that prove such a thing? No really go on and explain how Minecraft's sales are as a result of your supposed lack of quality content.
I'll have you know also that the PS3 has for many years now been like the glory days of the PS2, heck even a Drakengard game was made for it! It'd honestly be the best ever if so many series weren't left behind on the PS2...oh how I wish there was a new Wild Arms game... ahm...anyway...

Strawmen? Go on and mark the strawmen I have apparently put out on the field. What are the falsities I have used to make you look absurd? Don't dance around them, just lay it into me.

Gone through that with you before and its a yes and no sort of business but really that isn't something worth debating because you see, if you are correct in that they are competing in the same space...than what are exclusives? A way to better compete against the competition. I suppose you think its corporate bullying or something...but to who? Who is the platform holder on the PC they are damaging?

Irrelevant. Just because it happened for a long time does not mean its acceptable.

Really? consoles are not expected to be high end gaming machines? well, the abysmal sales of Xbox Done claims otherwise!

Here, ill make it easy for you:
Xbox version of minecraft is abysmal, lacks features, is extremely limited.
It sells a lot of copies
Hence, there was nothing better to compete with a bad version of minecraft, therefore it means that console market lacks quality content that could drown minecraft.

You have used falsities of me using double standards. you have used falsities of claiming i dont want ports form PC to console and plenty others.

While exclusives does give them advantage in the competition, so does burning down competitors building. Does not make it a good thing. They are damaging everyone that uses PCs (thats over a billion people btw. it is believed that almost half the world has had a PC at some point now)

 

[Rozalia1]

Irrelevant. Just because it happened for a long time does not mean its acceptable.

Really? consoles are not expected to be high end gaming machines? well, the abysmal sales of Xbox Done claims otherwise!

Here, ill make it easy for you:
Xbox version of minecraft is abysmal, lacks features, is extremely limited.
It sells a lot of copies
Hence, there was nothing better to compete with a bad version of minecraft, therefore it means that console market lacks quality content that could drown minecraft.

You have used falsities of me using double standards. you have used falsities of claiming i dont want ports form PC to console and plenty others.

While exclusives does give them advantage in the competition, so does burning down competitors building. Does not make it a good thing. They are damaging everyone that uses PCs (thats over a billion people btw. it is believed that almost half the world has had a PC at some point now)

I tell you how it works...you tell me that isn't how it works...I tell you that its worked like that since the start...you tell me that is irrelevant thereby admitting my first statement was completely correct and you are wrong.
I accept your concession.

I see you are completely ignoring the part about console longevity, nothing new as both you and Twink will just start outright ignoring anything inconvenient so I'm used to it.
Just admit it and move on, no one will rag on you for it. Better to admit something than to fight it pointlessly or run away hoping no one spots you.

So by that logic the PS3 having the least amount of Minecraft copies sold has the highest quality content bar none, I mean the other platforms all had 10 times the sales...that must mean the PS3 has 10 times the quality!
Come on now, what is this? Amateur hour? There is a reason I laughed at that statement the first time, its laughably weak. There is no correlation between the two things.

Yeah you do have a double standard. You want all the platform holders exclusives even though its bad business no matter whatever you try and claim...yet PC exclusives "too advanced" should stay exclusive because...well only the PC could ever have such a game...please now. As I said Minecraft just tears your excuse for your hypocrisy to pieces, if you think all games should be on all platforms fine whatever that is one thing, but to want to keep PC exclusives you deem too "advanced" as exclusives and not have them be ported...yes that is a pure case of selfishness. Why selfishness? Simple you are someone who has said before that having those exclusives being multiplat will cause them to be dumbed down thereby hurting your enjoyment of the game.
You talk of companies harming business, of being greedy...however at least they have a clear tangible reason for why they do and want such things...your wants however? What tangible reason do you have?

Anyway these supposed strawmen haven't been very well detailed, nor are they in any way accurate by the information you've given me. I know that you know that I know that you know that I remember the Star Citizen business and what was said regarding that.

So there are a billion "PC gamers" that game exclusively on PC (after all if they don't exclusively then many will be customers of the big three)? Lofty claim. PC doesn't have a platform holder buddy so they ain't hurting any competitor there. Additionally they have a duty to their customers...which is a simple concept that isn't considered as vile as you think. If you're not a customer than you shouldn't expect the things available to customers...simple no?

@Rozalia1

If that is THE ONLY way for DrakenGuard 3 to come out, then yes, it is good. Even if sub-optimal. Cant blame anyone there.

Here is a video of what I sent you that gives you warnings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSvECzuaYn0

Not the same experience at all.

As for the surviving part:
I mean by a fairly decent number of people . Modding does just that. Lost Alpha was downloaded by 300 000 people on its first day...
Its made for a 7 year old game.

As for the high end machine part:
Yes, it is somewhat sad. Unfortunately, it just WONT work on lowe end ones. And sometimes, you cant go for less. As it would change the game.

Lets not pretend that your examples are valid. A console port that usually means a graphical downgrade is in no way comparable to having the game suddenly consist of pretty much a black screen.

And this applies to all PC games? They all have hundreds of thousands active all the time? Or is it just the "gems", or the internet darling if you will that get that which you speak of.

I think it went over your head there. PC games have settings meaning a weaker machine can play the game that a high end machine can max.

 

[Strazdas]

So by that logic the PS3 having the least amount of Minecraft copies sold has the highest quality content bar none, I mean the other platforms all had 10 times the sales...that must mean the PS3 has 10 times the quality!
Come on now, what is this? Amateur hour? There is a reason I laughed at that statement the first time, its laughably weak. There is no correlation between the two things.

Yeah you do have a double standard. You want all the platform holders exclusives even though its bad business no matter whatever you try and claim...yet PC exclusives "too advanced" should stay exclusive because...well only the PC could ever have such a game...please now. As I said Minecraft just tears your excuse for your hypocrisy to pieces, if you think all games should be on all platforms fine whatever that is one thing, but to want to keep PC exclusives you deem too "advanced" as exclusives and not have them be ported...yes that is a pure case of selfishness. Why selfishness? Simple you are someone who has said before that having those exclusives being multiplat will cause them to be dumbed down thereby hurting your enjoyment of the game.
You talk of companies harming business, of being greedy...however at least they have a clear tangible reason for why they do and want such things...your wants however? What tangible reason do you have?

Anyway these supposed strawmen haven't been very well detailed, nor are they in any way accurate by the information you've given me. I know that you know that I know that you know that I remember the Star Citizen business and what was said regarding that.

So there are a billion "PC gamers" that game exclusively on PC (after all if they don't exclusively then many will be customers of the big three)? Lofty claim. PC doesn't have a platform holder buddy so they ain't hurting any competitor there. Additionally they have a duty to their customers...which is a simple concept that isn't considered as vile as you think. If you're not a customer than you shouldn't expect the things available to customers...simple no?

I ignored some parts of your post because we already discussed this before, disagreed and it was obviuos neither of us are going to change our minds about it.

I would agree that PS3 has beter quality content than Xbox. When it comes to PC - PC just has way more users which allows for larger sales due to having largest demographic. However PC also has much more games, which makes competition hard for low quality content. Its also worth noting that PC version of minecraft has a lot more features, which may attract players and compete with other games. As far as PS3 minecraft - i never played that, so i dont know how good/bad it is in comparison.

Oh and the whole "maybe it sold because there was nothing else" Was purely speculation on my part as a possibility - i dont know for a fact why it sold so much copies. You, of course, blew it out of proprtion.

I want all games on all platforms, however i am realist enough to realize some platforms may not be able to run them. Right now, that happens to be consoles. I would LOVE to be able to play strategy games online with people who play it on console, but consoles hardly have mouse/kb support, which is pretty much essential in strategy games (hence they got so little of them). I would love if all players could play together regardless of platform. yet, i cant invest billions to make my own console, so all i got is to see how poorly the existing ones did.

Minecraft, if anything, would strenghten that point, because minecraft on consoles lack its main features such as exploration and freedom of building. SO if anything it proves my point that it cannot be correctly powered due to lack (in this case) of RAM.

What i said is that exclusives turning multiplat often becomes dumbed down, but not that it should be so. i completely blame developers for that.

Once again, your tearing down strawmen. I never said there are a billion PC gamers. i said there are a billion of people who have played a game on PC. Never said anything about them playing exclusively on PC either. Once again - i dont give a flying fuck about hurting companies. Costumers however - they should not be hurting due to stupidity caused by big three. Companies exist to serve costumers. if they dont - they are bad companies.

And this applies to all PC games? They all have hundreds of thousands active all the time? Or is it just the "gems", or the internet darling if you will that get that which you speak of.

so appernetly you can cherrypick Drakenguard 3, but as soon as somone else does something similar, its suddenly highest offense.

 

[Rozalia1]

I would agree that PS3 has beter quality content than Xbox. When it comes to PC - PC just has way more users which allows for larger sales due to having largest demographic. However PC also has much more games, which makes competition hard for low quality content. Its also worth noting that PC version of minecraft has a lot more features, which may attract players and compete with other games. As far as PS3 minecraft - i never played that, so i dont know how good/bad it is in comparison.

Oh and the whole "maybe it sold because there was nothing else" Was purely speculation on my part as a possibility - i dont know for a fact why it sold so much copies. You, of course, blew it out of proprtion.

I want all games on all platforms, however i am realist enough to realize some platforms may not be able to run them. Right now, that happens to be consoles. I would LOVE to be able to play strategy games online with people who play it on console, but consoles hardly have mouse/kb support, which is pretty much essential in strategy games (hence they got so little of them). I would love if all players could play together regardless of platform. yet, i cant invest billions to make my own console, so all i got is to see how poorly the existing ones did.

Minecraft, if anything, would strenghten that point, because minecraft on consoles lack its main features such as exploration and freedom of building. SO if anything it proves my point that it cannot be correctly powered due to lack (in this case) of RAM.

What i said is that exclusives turning multiplat often becomes dumbed down, but not that it should be so. i completely blame developers for that.

Once again, your tearing down strawmen. I never said there are a billion PC gamers. i said there are a billion of people who have played a game on PC. Never said anything about them playing exclusively on PC either. Once again - i dont give a flying fuck about hurting companies. Costumers however - they should not be hurting due to stupidity caused by big three. Companies exist to serve costumers. if they dont - they are bad companies.

And this applies to all PC games? They all have hundreds of thousands active all the time? Or is it just the "gems", or the internet darling if you will that get that which you speak of.

so appernetly you can cherrypick Drakenguard 3, but as soon as somone else does something similar, its suddenly highest offense.

10 times, by your logic the conclusion is obvious.

You: "Which only shows how bare the platform is of good content if it jums in with money at even a promise of such".

That was your first statement and it only went from there. Don't claim you said "maybe" that was the case when you were very straightforward in your statements on why Minecraft sold so much on Xbox.

Minecraft, Final Fantasy FIV RR show you up buddy. Anything can essentially be ported, some at higher sacrifice than others.

What are you talking about? It getting ported proves it shouldn't have been ported? Why do you put your nose up at millions of people? They have the Xbox version, they enjoy it, that is all that matters. They got a game ported to their system they may not have played if it wasn't ported. They may well have went and bought the PC version after thereby benefiting the creators even more, so yes your opposition to its port is ridiculous.
Your change of angle on Minecraft is better but still can't defeat Minecraft.

I remember your strong statements on the matter before and your insistence in keeping Star Citizen...well I say Star Citizen but its not a feeling you get specific to that game from what I saw.

My dad plays a couple of games on PC, to call him a PC gamer would be ludicrous. So yes your billion people remark is incorrect as far as I see it as most people who "game" on PC don't give a single crap about the platform. As for companies serving their customers being good companies and ones that don't not...yes...which is what they are doing. Creating exclusives for their customers...you aren't a customer, so you don't get access to the exclusives...the simplicity of this is...simple.

so appernetly you can cherrypick Drakenguard 3, but as soon as somone else does something similar, its suddenly highest offense.

Drakengard, especially 3 isn't an internet darling.

@Rozalia1

Take away the A-Life and map size of STALKER and you have made a different game. Take out most of its physics and some of its power-dependand features and you have changed gameplay. Simple as that mate.
And that is what you will need to do to have it on a PS2 .

Nope, but games that allow modding, companies that help modding on decent/interesting engines seem to do MUCH better in the very long run then other games.
Basically, if you allow modding, help it, encourage it even and already have something at least decent (helps if its awesome of coarse) you will have a higher amount of potential developers, a more rabid fanbase (this time used as a good thing) and higher long term sales.
That is what I am saying. And in the case that your game was bloody awesome to begin with and you played ALL your cards right, yopu get the Half Life or STALKER's community...

There is a difference between toning down and outright removing. That is what I am saying. The only feature that a person playing on Ultra Low (STALKER) loses is Dynamic Lightning. Does this impact their gameplay? Yes. It makes them less potent in MP matches and possibly SP as well.
Anything else, that can threaten the game even more (apart from atmosphere)? Nope.

So even if all is lost is Dynamic Lightning...you'd not want it ported, that it? Sorry but no that isn't correct in any way. First the game being ported even if downgraded gives many people the opportunity to play a game they will not normally have played, that is the first point. The second point is some if they like it enough may well go and get the PC version.
Minecraft on Xbox was a downgraded version but it has been success and only done good. It doesn't matter what you think of the version, don't hoard the game and let others play it.

Porting shouldn't happen in a couple of situations, first party exclusivity being the well first. The second being if there isn't a market for it. If Stalker X was a hip new game today you'd really not want it ported?