Shadow-Phoenix said:
You do realise that even if each console manufacturer went and made their consoles entirely "different" from one another they would all then have the same exact games on every system which would mean there would have to be exclusive choices for the game on each of the platforms that other consoles won't clearly have.
That and all I can see out of that is PC only people still getting their own exclusive games and all the ones from consoles while the consoles themselves not receiving any from the PC which in the end presents the "what's the point?" scenario, why would anyone want to buy a console then if PC has their own games and all the consoles?.
For the past 20 odd years people have shown that they are fine buying a different console along with their attached exclusives and I've yet to see a mass revolt (I mean literally everyone on all sides 100%) against exclusives which would have to include the PC to be fair and just.
I understand how you hate exclusives but I myself don't own any current consoles anymore but I'll happily save up and create a new backlog of this current gen while the new gen arrives, but hating exclusives on consoles and wanting them for yourself while not letting them have any seems like ill wishful thinking.
Wording is a bit strange in the first paragraph but I think I get what you're trying to say.
And yeah, I'm completely fine with exclusives if they're limited by the hardware of the system, something unique. I'm not up in arms about 3DS games not coming to other platforms as other platforms don't have the dual screen, 1 touch screen, camera + mic setup for gaming that the DS has. The PC has the potential for that, but too few people have the required hardware and thus its a bit beyond asking that it get ported anyway [Even though the only way to encourage people to get such hardware is to make games that use it...]. What I'm against is ports not being made simply to sell a certain console - I.E: Halo. Fable 2. The various Naughty Dog games. If its simply to sell a system, what is the point? For the consumer, there is none. Its an anti-consumer policy made to try and bludgeon money out of people who don't want to spend it. Its arguably a legitimate tactic, but its hardly advantageous to the consumer who has to buy 4-6 platforms to play all the games they want to.
The PC in this setup also wouldn't necessarily have all the games. As said above, whilst it has the technical capacity to have all the games, too few people would own the hardware to make a port viable. Hence it wouldn't get made, and would fall under the hardware issue in a broader sense.
A lot of people are fine with buying a selected console and its exclusives as they recognise its a way to move consoles, are blinded by fanaticism, don't really care about other console's exclusives, or have enough money that it doesn't matter. Those that don't fit into those categories generally do complain, but know there's nothing they can really do to change it at this point. And naturally all PC games that could be adequately controlled and that there is a market for should be ported to consoles. Games like the Total War series probably not, as outside the WiiU there's not a system that could control it and even the WiiU might struggle a bit, and the same would go for various other RTS games, or 4X games where the console market is virtually non-existent, however FPS and RPGs on the PC that can be ported to consoles should be, and I'd never say otherwise.
The only time I'll get a console and its exclusives will be when the console is $20, and the games $5 each at this point. I have an expensive PC I'd rather spend money improving than buying a crap one for $300-$500, and I'm not up for buying redundant hardware. It'd be like buying a 9600GTX for my PC to run certain games, but that might actually cost $50 if I'm lucky. A WiiU I might consider due to its unique control scheme, and a 3DS. PS4? Nope. Xbone? Nope. The current gen consoles? Nope. And this is my problem. I'm not against exclusives in all their entirety, merely what I perceive to be unfair exclusives; those made with the purpose of gouging money out of consumers by forcing them to by hardware to run their software rather than just the software. The example's been brought up many times, you don't need a Sony DVD player for some DVDs and a Philips one for others. They are virtually the same hardware, and thus you only need one. The same should be true for consoles. If they're virtually the same hardware, as they have been for this generation and next, then there is no need for exclusives - except for the manufacturers to make greater profits at the expense of consumers. If they did different things I'd accept it, but if they're the same? I'm not going to lie down and get ripped off just because a billion dollar company wants to make a few extra million. I'd rather do things from a consumer point of view, and do what is best for me - not the companies.
