Are exclusives anti-consumer?

[Chazore]

KrspaceT said:

The reason that PS4/XBox1/PC game releases anger nintendo fans is because, frankly, the Switch has performed plenty well enough to have people go 'hey, this system will sell your games on it', yet even at this point projects are still not releasing for it. Projects that would have had plenty of times to set up for the system, and we have long gotten past the point of 'too late in development'. 

An exclusive is generally made with a single system in mind, or paid to be there a la Tomb Raider or an Epic Store game. Yet look at all the games people are complaining about missing expectations. 

Businesses reporting bad quarters....and all of them aren't selling Switch titles that could very easily alleviate the problem. 

But then you'd have to give that same exact kudos to the other platforms, because they have all performed plenty, and thus shouldn't be excluded either.

There are still games being made to this day that skip PC, or skip X1/Switch/PS4, but that's either down to dev decision or publisher, and most of the time it's a pub based decision. 

A first party exclusive is made with a single system in mind, a 3rd party most of the time is designed for multiple sets of hw, even when you now have to factor in PS4P and X1X hw configs. People complained about TR being timed exclusive and that was deserved anger, because we all knew where that game was landing beforehand. When a dev flat out says nothing of other platforms, it becomes a "wait and see" approach. 

mmn, I don't think nor see the Switch being some godlike being, that can seemingly "save" these companies reporting bad sales. Most of the time it's actually the fault of these publishers making bad calls, devs leaving studios and studios being liquidated, then replaced with incompetent studios, which over the long term affect an IP, not "all 3 platforms besides one are bad, but you're ignoring that one platform that does better than all the rest". 

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Totally agree. I can accept controls scaled down to fit a gamepad on console, possibly using more automatic helps, if the PC original version keeps its full-fledged controls, possibly offering simplified ones only if the player prefers them. At the same time I could see even some PC games to benefit from a gamepad, heck, mech games would be finer with a true gamepad instead of the virtual one on phones and tablets too (but the best for the most complex PC ones would be two joysticks, of which at least one with three axes).

I'm not sure where you're going with this?. I can accept console games ported to PC being better suited to a gamepad, but I also think the same should be vice versa for PC games designed with a K+M in mind, rather than trying to supplant the gamepad>every other input method.

SvennoJ said:

Exclusives on PC make full use of the keyboard and mouse, at least they used to do. Mouse aiming is still a thing on PC is it not?
While a console port might be locked to 30fps with huge hud and button prompts for xbox controllers. It's hard playing Ori with a DS4.

And doesn't Battlefield have ray tracing implemented for the new NVidea RTX cards? Ah, it's unlocked now for older cards as well
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-real-time-ray-tracing-tested-on-gtx-pascal-hardware.

Games made for PC have more options, run better in different resolutions and frame rates, let you navigate menus with the mouse. Exclusives are good for PC as well.

Yeah, making full use of a peripheral is an absolute, non fail of a must. The same would be needed for games made for consoles. They need to make absolute full use of their gamepad. I was more talking about the actual system hw, than the system control peripherals. 

I'm actually able to play Ori with both a K+M and a gamepad, even the Switch pro gamepad (thanks to Steam gamepad config support).

Battlefield does, but as you can see, it's only first gen support, and feels like it wasn't there from the start, because it's only come into play, as RT started to pick up, rather than just as the tech came out. The general performance of RT is also being held back by the fact that it's not fine tuned either. With how the latest cards cost an arm and a leg, run quite hot and aren't being used properly (benchmarking and general reviews of these cards point this out), RTT isn't exactly being the end all to be all and isn't exactly being used by a number, larger than the price of the cards themselves.

Also, it being unlocked for older cards tells us that they've had to backtrack on claiming it would "never work" ion older cards, and that we'd need their latest cards, but then their latest cards don't perform with it as well, then of course the fact that the unlocked cards still suffer with it as well. 

There are indeed games that make actual use of hw (like some RTS titles like Ashes of a singularity) and then there are games that make improper use of the PC hw (like Creed Origins, which requires more higher end hw, despite Ubisoft clearly telling us of console parity, and looking almost the same, save for slight shadow and render distance, which is in no way justifiable for far more expensive hw, and thus is improper use).

Games designed for PC are supports to come with those features and performance options.

hw based exclusives or first party I can absolutely agree with (like Star Citizen for example), but 3rd party ones?, hell naw. It's why I'm glad Frostpunk is coming to consoles, because they made that game for PC first, focused on content releases, and further refinement, then opting to scale the game and tune it for what current gen hw can handle. Doing it that way allows for a refined PC version, without having to hinder it, while also molding the game for what console level hw can handle for it down the line, rather than the opposite way, which benefits consoles to a degree, and hinders PC over time.