Are exclusives anti-consumer?

[Chazore]

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I think making fun of PC gamers in this regard is a little bit short-sided. I honestly think, as pathetic as this may be, that if PC exclusives were given the spotlight as much as console exclusives this probably wouldn't be an issue. Some PC games can sell millions and be virtually unheard of in the console space. It's the issue of sales vs. mindshare and because console exclusives are marketed to sell plastic (whereas Microsoft and Valve have rarely marketed PC exclusives to sell PCs), they get way more attention. It's an ego issue in a lot of ways, because that's what exclusives are about in terms of marketing.

That being said yes you could argue that exclusives are anti-consumer. I think the general consensus has become that moneyhatting exclusives are the big bad, and that first party or IP-exclusives are good or a necessary evil. And I tend to agree with that outlook.

I feel like that's a subject that has rarely been touched upon on here, let alone anywhere else on the net in eyars. I think a large majority of gamers fail to realize that PC has never really had as big of a marketing push for an exclusive, to sell ahrdware, but software wise, I'd say the only one that really had some good marketing, was World of Warcraft, due to the original release having many celebs like ozzy, Shatner etc. Outside of that game,w e haven't really had marketing ads that advertise PC exclusives in the same vein as consoles today. We haven't had F76 style building ads, or subway metro train ads like RDR2 got either.

That's also likely why most console gamers don't know about some PC games releasing in and out each month, because they are used to seeing insanely pushed out the door ads all over the place. PC just gets reddit, youtube, some social networking and a store front page ad. 

SvennoJ said:
No. Exclusives receive extra funding to get the best out of the hardware. It's only in the interest of the consumer if they want to enjoy the full potential of the hardware they spend good money on.

Does that really translate well on PC?. I feel like that's largely a console related thing, than a PC one. Sure we got Crysis, which melted hw left and right, but since then we haven't really had an exclusively funded for PC game, that's actually been innovative, while also making very good use of the hw at the time it was released. 

KrspaceT said:
Exclusives are fine, PC gamers are just the actual definition of 'entitled gamers': though I will confess that at this point new games that release with PS4/Xbox1/PC settings do make me angry, particularly anything made with an engine the switch works (Hello Borderlands 3. Any reason you aren't on the Switch where you could have a fandom that doesn't care about Epic?)

Not sure how PC gamers are the "!actual definition of entitled".

I find it a bit hypocritical though how PC gamers are somehow "entitled", but you feel entitled to games not released on Switch...

OT:

I think exclusives are anti-consumer, but at the same time, I realize that 1st party are owned by the platform creator and are thus the ones who run and own that show. When it comes to third parties though, I'd have to say that they are outright anti-consumer. When we had RottR being temp exclusive to MS, that did actually ruffle feathers, the same way EGS is currently ruffling feathers of gamers on PC. What EGS is doing is effectively watering down the general experience, claiming what we've had is what we "don't need", and paying more for less is somehow "saving the industry". Epic are basically taking consumer choice and voices away, and that's just flat out anti-consumer.

I'm actually glad that Frostpunk is releasing soon for consoles, because they get to experience the same dread I did when I made decisions within that game, that I thoughts were the right ones. I'd also be happy if Two point Hospital was released as well. 

I don't mind PC exclusives going to console. My only desire is that said exclusives on PC, are made entirely for PC first, to make the most out of it, then scaled down later on to what console level hw can actually handle. That also includes consoles having to support K+M, if the game was designed for it. I use gamepads for games designed on a console, so really there shouldn't be much issue in a console supporting M+K and enforcing it, rather than having the entire game being centered around just gamepad support, UI and all (because that really just suits one party all the time, but not the other).