Quantcast
Are exclusives anti-consumer?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are exclusives anti-consumer?

Are exclusives Anti-Consumer?

Yes 13 13.68%
 
No 72 75.79%
 
Other 10 10.53%
 
Total:95

Only if playing the game would suddenly require the consumer to spend a significant amount of additional money to play it. For example, a game that was promised as a multiplatform title that people had bought systems for was no longer coming to some of those systems, effectively either gating some people out of playing the game or forcing them to buy another system to play it..



My Most Recent Articles:

1. History of Real-Time Strategy: The Downfall (2004 - 2010)

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #6: Villains

2. History of Real-Time Strategy: The Peak (1999 - 2003)

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

Around the Network
theRepublic said:
I went with Other.

First party exclusives are fine. It would not make sense any other way. Third party exclusives? Those suck. Especially if it wasn't a developer decision, and instead the publisher got money to make it an exclusive.

Developer decision? 

Publishers foot the bill for the developers. So the developers don't really have a say in the matter. And those that do have say choose which publishers they ae goig to work with.

 



I enjoyed the part where you implied the only thing PC has over console are sim and strategy games. As if there aren’t literally loads of good titles that come out yearly on PC, usually 1/3 to 1/2 the AAA price, with free online play in those titles that support MP, while you go crazy for the three or four worthwhile $60 exclusives PS4 or Switch will get every year. And these PC games take years to come to console, if they ever do.

As for anti-consumer, of course not. When Sony bought multiple Tomb Raider games on PSone, they were looking out for their consumers. Same with MS and Shadow of the TR. Same with Epic and the EGS.



Yes and no.They force you to get a console that you may not like completely, but at the same time, it incentivizes competition, and competition forces developers to make better games.



Well first part is definitely fine, but third party is more iffy. Problem is if a third party is purchased and made first party, is it ok to make their IP exclusive?

When I decide to go steady with a girl, and make her exclusive, there's a reason I want her all to myself, and everyone else, as Mattrick would say, can just deal with it. If she cheated on me and used the argument that it would be anti consumer to lock herself down to just me, well that wouldn't fly. If she chooses to become first party, knowing the expectations, then she's made a choice and has to deal with the positives and negatives, and so does everyone else. Now if there's no strings attached and we were both cool with that, then we would both get what we wanted and others could benefit as well. Not everyone has the same tastes and expectations when it comes to relationships though, and the same with gaming. Both companies and consumers want different things. Everyone just has to make a choice based on what's available.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network

Moneyhats are bad. That's the only thing really.
Bayo 2 or 3 are not bad because without Nintendo these games would never be made.

You don't want rise of the tomb raider deal that deal killed the franchise



”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)

Third party exclusives, yes. The Tales of Vesperia exclusivity to the 360 in the West for so many years was a nightmare...literally a nightmare. Thankfully now I can play the game on my ps4.



dS ≥ dq/T

FATALITY said:
Moneyhats are bad. That's the only thing really.
Bayo 2 or 3 are not bad because without Nintendo these games would never be made.

You don't want rise of the tomb raider deal that deal killed the franchise



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.



Intrinsic said:
theRepublic said:
I went with Other.

First party exclusives are fine. It would not make sense any other way. Third party exclusives? Those suck. Especially if it wasn't a developer decision, and instead the publisher got money to make it an exclusive.

Developer decision? 

Publishers foot the bill for the developers. So the developers don't really have a say in the matter. And those that do have say choose which publishers they ae goig to work with.

There are small developers out there that only work on one platform. They are too small to port to all the different consoles.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 1998 (Half-Life) - 5 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links