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%

Not in my opinion. Exclusives are the reason to own one console over another.

Around the Network
XD84 said:
I want to answer with a question:
Do exclusive first party games have micro transactions?

No, they only have one macro transaction. A plastic box they force you to buy with it.

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

Yes, it is anti-consumer.

But it is pro-gamer.

Hunting Season is nigh...

For me exclusives are are gifts. They are companies paying large amounts of time and money, to the most talented developers, allowing them to put their full passion into a project. Regardless of whether you like a single platform, or every platform, exclusives are where the best experience is at on every platform.

I see multiplatform titles to be the truly anticonsumer games. Sure everyone has access to them, but most have no passion, and no soul. They are typically the lowest possible effort, for the largest possible return. Not only do they try to get cash up front from consumers on every device possible, but then they continue to try and milk consumers with never ending micro transactions.

If course there are exceptions on both sides, there are uninspired exclusives and genuinely passionate multiplats. It probably 80/20, 80% of exclusives are passion projects, with 20% made just to fill a spot in the line up. With multiplats it is 20% passion, and 80% just to fill a place in the market.

Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams


Megiddo said:
Simply put, there is no benefit to consumers for any flavor of exclusivity. Whereas if all games were available for all platforms it would allow any consumer to consume any game on the platform of their choice.

The answer is yes. Exclusives are pro-producer and anti-consumer. Kinda bewildered that almost 80% of people can't quite wrap their head around such a simple idea.

And if there were no exclusives you would not get even half of the games we call exclusive: exclusives are created to get attention, and if there was all just one big platform you would not see a Metroid game ever again, God of War wouldn't be half as good, and I can't see Microsoft bothering at all.

The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network

If they are 1st party games or games that are FUNDED and published by a console maker, then no as it promotes healthy competition.

If the dev chooses only one platform, it sucks but they have their reasons. Maybe they do not have the resources to do more than one effectively, especially if say a JRPG, as an example, does not sell enough on X1 to make a profit. It sucks, but can't really hold it against them.

If a game is money hatted into not releasing on a certain platform, but the party involved is not funding and publishing the game themselves, then and only then can it truly be considered BAD for the industry...and make no mistake this particular practice is horrible.

Last edited by Shiken - on 15 April 2019

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

No, they are not anti-consumer. In fact they are very pro-consumer. Most of times you'll get a better game for the same pricetag because a platform holder poured money on the game to promote their platform even accepting not to get the money back on that specific game. So you'll have more investment and caring for the game.

There are so many games that doesn't matter which of the 4 platform (PC, PS4, X1, Switch) you have you will have enough quality game to play out that the few exclusives won't jeopardize your enjoyment of gaming. It is much more people that love to complain about everything being entitled to play the game they want on the platform they want paying how much they want being pissed when some of these aren't met.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Pemalite said:
XD84 said:
I want to answer with a question:
Do exclusive first party games have micro transactions?

Halo 5 has microtransactions on Xbox One.
Team Fortress 2 has Microtransactions on Steam.
Battlefront 2 has Microtransactions on Origin.
Uncharted has Microtransactions on Playstation.

I could go on.

In Uncharted and Gran Turismo the microtransactions are pointless and needless. You can play perfectly fine and full without them. Can't comment on the rest though.

Even more when we compare to lootboxes and EA scandal.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


I think exclusives give any gaming system it’s identity. If there weren’t exclusives, particularly on consoles, then there would no reason for multiple consoles and people would only purchase on brand infatuation alone. This would inevitably lead to a single company attempting to become the monopoly, and would cause another gaming market crash

0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon

If exclusives did not exist then people would just buy the most powerful platform (Not including PC), and others would go out of business. Sounds pro consumer that doesn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. One dominant platform would mean stupid prices, among other obvious issues.