Quantcast
Sony is losing playstation console exclusives left and right this 2018.

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony is losing playstation console exclusives left and right this 2018.

kurasakiichimaruALT said: 

For the ones asking what are those "console exclusives gone rogue".
Nier
Hellblade
Crash
Edith Finch
No Man's Sky
Firewatch

Regarding Nier, the first one was on Xbox.

For Automata, I'm sure Square Enix didn't anticipate how popular the game would get in the west, so they started off by focusing on just PS4 and PC.
An Xbox One port later on makes sense given it's newfound popularity in the west.

As for Crash, I wouldn't expect Activision to just put it on one system.

And in general, these things happen depending on the game. It's nothing they should do anything about imo, but rather be happy that they get these kind of timed, or permanent, exclusives seemingly for free fairly often.

Last edited by Hiku - on 22 August 2018

Around the Network
Lawlight said:
shikamaru317 said:

For those asking for a list:

Former PS4 Console Exclusives
-Nier Automata
-Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice
-Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy
-No Man's Sky

Series that were Playstation exclusives in previous generations going to other platforms on the remasters or newest releases
-Grandia (Grandia remaster is Switch exclusive)
-Spyro Reignited Trilogy
-Valkyria Chronicles

Former Playstation exclusives going to PC
-Yakuza (also hints of going to Xbox in the future)

You’re padding your list with games that were never exclusives in the first place as they were on PC.

Grandia was never a PS exclusive.

Spyro hasn’t been exclusive since 2001.

Valkyria Chronicles went multiplatform before this gen started. The last VC game that was exclusive and released in the west was in 2010 and the last exclusive on a PS system was in 2011.

Same thing with Yakuza - it went multiplatform before the PS4 got released.

As you can, none of this matters as ultimately the PS console is about the unique and varied first parties and the enormous amount of third parties.

You beat me to it yes Grandia was actually ported from the sega saturn. Games being published  firstly on PS4 are often alongside PC something that  should be a further clue has to how thin any perceived exclusivity is .

We gamers cry exclusivity lost, instead of saying with the rise of the PS4 and it dominance first choice platform selection moved closer toward PS4, now with a competitive Switch we are seeing publishers once again widening their platform selection, this is good for the industry  and won't harm Sony at this point since marketshare still makes them an attractive first choice destination,  now we just  have more choice.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 22 August 2018

Lawlight said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Because Zelda CDi was nothing like the Nintendo games, and a complete joke? Tekken on GBA was nothing like the PS2 games. It wasn't even 3D. And Tekken is a 3D fighting series. The same thing can probably be said for Zone of the Enders, but IDK because I never played it on GBA. 

Not moving the goalpost here. Just pointing out that the only reason why Timesplitters/SSX was exclusive was due to there not being anything else to release it on at the time. In other words Timesplitters/SSX were never meant to be exclusives. 

Gamefaqs has Burnout releasing five months after the PS2 version for both Xbox and GC. So it wasn't really an exclusive, but rather just a multiplatform game that had two versions delayed.

What was the first Ridge Racer to come to Xbox, GameCube or PC? I might give you that one. 

I'm sorry man, but so many of these seem to be a stretch. GBA gets a spinoff game, completely unrelated to the main series. A game comes out in early 2000, before Xbox or GameCube even exist, and then promptly goes multiplat in a year or two. A game gets an unplayable, awful port to PC. A game gets ported to Wii in 2007 when the PS2 era was technically over. 

It’s not my fault if those Zelda games are a complete joke. BotW looks nothing like those 3DS games - are they not Zelda games either? Tekken GBA looks like Tekken with less good graphics.

It’s 6 months between the Burnout releases. Factor in the dates.

So let me get this straight. Only games that fulfill the following criteria are valid;

- Must be released on the PS2 after the GC and Xbox have been released.

- Must be released on PS2 first and then on other systems.

- I will let you specify the time between the releases as 6 months doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

- The game has to be part of the main series.

- The game needs to not have bugs.

- The game has to be released during the PS2’s generation.

Any more conditions you want to add to your original statement? Keep in mind, this all started because you claim that the PS3’s sales is what caused devs to go multiplatform. Now you’re bending backwards to show that this wasn’t happening before the PS3.

1. If the other two systems don't exist yet, it was never meant to be exclusive. There just wasn't anything else to release it on at the time. And it would have been faster to release the sequel on those systems than bother doing a port of the first game.

2. Of course it must be released on PS2 first. Otherwise we're not talking about Sony exclusives going multiplatform. And the argument was that Sony exclusives have been going multiplatform since before PS3. 

3. Prove to me that Burnout wasn't always intended as multiplat. They probably started working on ports of Burnout before the PS2 copies even shipped. 

4. If I were to make a thread titled "Animal Crossing going multiplatform", and then use Animal Crossing Pocket Camp as my example, the thread would be derided as clickbait. The argument is over games going multiplatform, not series. Games. Ask 99% of the people on these forums if Animal Crossing is exclusive to Nintendo. They will all answer, "yes" without even thinking about the phone game. 

5. Yeah, I gave you DMC3 releasing on PC. 

6. Yes of course it has to be released during PS2's generation. This argument is about games going multiplatform before PS3. Post 2006 isn't before PS3, and therefore doesn't help your case.  



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Why?

they where third party timed exclusives to which the contract had expired or always where intended to multiplat after a certain time

 

Should sony do something about it?

maybe 

 

Can they do something about it?

they could pay more for longer timed exclusives

 

What would be effect of this next gen?

dont think this will have any effect next gen people will still buy ps. they have enough great 1st party excusives and some third party exclusives.

 

the way i see it sony can lose those third party exclusive deals they have more than enough exclusives. xbox on the other hand if they start losing games they already have very few exclusives. the list they can lose before having noting left is already shorter than what sony has "lost"



What can Sony do about it?
Open more studio's and make those games themselves or pay for the development of said games and get the rights



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network

At this point, it's not like most of those games matter. They've been out long enough on Playstation, that they've most likely sold most of what they're gonna sell, on PS4.



A bunch of games never announced as full exclusives......



Preston Scott

Cerebralbore101 said:
Lawlight said:

It’s not my fault if those Zelda games are a complete joke. BotW looks nothing like those 3DS games - are they not Zelda games either? Tekken GBA looks like Tekken with less good graphics.

It’s 6 months between the Burnout releases. Factor in the dates.

So let me get this straight. Only games that fulfill the following criteria are valid;

- Must be released on the PS2 after the GC and Xbox have been released.

- Must be released on PS2 first and then on other systems.

- I will let you specify the time between the releases as 6 months doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

- The game has to be part of the main series.

- The game needs to not have bugs.

- The game has to be released during the PS2’s generation.

Any more conditions you want to add to your original statement? Keep in mind, this all started because you claim that the PS3’s sales is what caused devs to go multiplatform. Now you’re bending backwards to show that this wasn’t happening before the PS3.

1. If the other two systems don't exist yet, it was never meant to be exclusive. There just wasn't anything else to release it on at the time. And it would have been faster to release the sequel on those systems than bother doing a port of the first game.

2. Of course it must be released on PS2 first. Otherwise we're not talking about Sony exclusives going multiplatform. And the argument was that Sony exclusives have been going multiplatform since before PS3. 

3. Prove to me that Burnout wasn't always intended as multiplat. They probably started working on ports of Burnout before the PS2 copies even shipped. 

4. If I were to make a thread titled "Animal Crossing going multiplatform", and then use Animal Crossing Pocket Camp as my example, the thread would be derided as clickbait. The argument is over games going multiplatform, not series. Games. Ask 99% of the people on these forums if Animal Crossing is exclusive to Nintendo. They will all answer, "yes" without even thinking about the phone game. 

5. Yeah, I gave you DMC3 releasing on PC. 

6. Yes of course it has to be released during PS2's generation. This argument is about games going multiplatform before PS3. Post 2006 isn't before PS3, and therefore doesn't help your case.  

Ok. I’ll get you that list. As for Burnout, the onus is on you to prove that the games were just delayed. From where we’re sitting now, it started as a PS2 exclusive.

Also, don’t use AC Pocket Camp as an example as the examples that I gave were released on dedicated systems. Would we say that Persona would be discounted because it’s a spin-off? Valkyria Revolution is not a VC game? Also, technically AC isn’t exclusive to Nintendo systems if they’re also releasing it on mobile. That doesn’t change no matter what 99% of this site says.



Don't you mean games are winning platforms? It's a great thing and nobody should do anything about that.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Cerebralbore101 said:
Lawlight said:

It’s not my fault if those Zelda games are a complete joke. BotW looks nothing like those 3DS games - are they not Zelda games either? Tekken GBA looks like Tekken with less good graphics.

It’s 6 months between the Burnout releases. Factor in the dates.

So let me get this straight. Only games that fulfill the following criteria are valid;

- Must be released on the PS2 after the GC and Xbox have been released.

- Must be released on PS2 first and then on other systems.

- I will let you specify the time between the releases as 6 months doesn’t seem to be enough for you.

- The game has to be part of the main series.

- The game needs to not have bugs.

- The game has to be released during the PS2’s generation.

Any more conditions you want to add to your original statement? Keep in mind, this all started because you claim that the PS3’s sales is what caused devs to go multiplatform. Now you’re bending backwards to show that this wasn’t happening before the PS3.

1. If the other two systems don't exist yet, it was never meant to be exclusive. There just wasn't anything else to release it on at the time. And it would have been faster to release the sequel on those systems than bother doing a port of the first game.

2. Of course it must be released on PS2 first. Otherwise we're not talking about Sony exclusives going multiplatform. And the argument was that Sony exclusives have been going multiplatform since before PS3. 

3. Prove to me that Burnout wasn't always intended as multiplat. They probably started working on ports of Burnout before the PS2 copies even shipped. 

4. If I were to make a thread titled "Animal Crossing going multiplatform", and then use Animal Crossing Pocket Camp as my example, the thread would be derided as clickbait. The argument is over games going multiplatform, not series. Games. Ask 99% of the people on these forums if Animal Crossing is exclusive to Nintendo. They will all answer, "yes" without even thinking about the phone game. 

5. Yeah, I gave you DMC3 releasing on PC. 

6. Yes of course it has to be released during PS2's generation. This argument is about games going multiplatform before PS3. Post 2006 isn't before PS3, and therefore doesn't help your case.  

Question - are we going to ignore the Dreamcast? Also, are we excluding PC?