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
BasilZero said:

Third party exclusives yes.


First party is fine because the console makers/store front owners own them.

Everyone complains which is normal and fine imo.

Tons of people bitched about Xbox360 nabbing games that were exclusive that were not on PS3 or had timed exclusivity especially on this forum so not only PC gamers complain about it. Hell look what happened to the last Tomb Raider game.

Also deep down I bet every Nintendo fan scorns companies that announce PS4/XBO/PC only titles l0l

You also have MS fans complaining that KH 1.5+2.5 didnt come out on Xbox One for an example.

Edit: Also yikes at that baiting jab against PC gamers and Xbox gamers in the OP lmao!

The only difference between first party and 3rd party exclusive is that 3rd parties moneyhat just one game while 1st parties moneyhat whole game studios and hold them hostage, while forcing them year after year to put their great games on sub optimal platforms that only hurt the game.



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

Around the Network

First party exclusives are fine. Third party ones can be acceptable only if time-limited, otherwise they are definitely anti-consumer.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

        

Alby_da_Wolf said:
First party exclusives are fine. Third party ones can be acceptable only if time-limited, otherwise they are definitely anti-consumer.

Unless it is a case where it is piblished and funded by a 1st party, just like Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2/3.

Had it not been for Nintendo/MS, those games would not exist so I feel it is justified in that case.  It is when games get moneyhatted like Destiny on PS4, Rise of the Tomb Raider on X1, or any other game that fits that bill (timed or not) that it becomes anti consumer.



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

I think we’re inching closer and closer to a point where “spending money on goods or services” is considered anti-consumer.



Yes, they are. I do not see how anyone can think otherwise. When a game is exclusive you are forced to buy another console that you had no intention of buying. These companies force you to also pay to play online on their platform. 

Why shackle a game to one platform when it can go to multiple platforms to have a bigger audience, gaining more attention, gaining more sales, and everyone can enjoy it on their preferred platform? 

I've read some comments saying that it's good for 1st Party, but not 3rd Party. No, it's still anti-consumer regardless of who is making/publishing the game. Would it be nice to play Horizon ZD and God of War on PC without coughing up $300 to play them? Yes. Same goes for other platforms. 

Other comments I read said that it is anti-consumer, but it's pro-gamer. Yeah pro-gamer. Try telling Xbox One and PC gamers that Nier Automata should of remained a PS4 exclusive cause it would of been better for them. Try convincing PS4 gamers that it would of been better if Rise of Tomb Raider remained only on Xbox/PC. Try convincing PC/PS/Xbox gamers that Phoenix Wright should of remained Nintendo exclusive. I think you get my point. 

Also every time a game that is an exclusive gets announced for other platforms, what is the general response from gamers? Praise and excitement, or disgust and rage? 

Every time a game gets announced as an exclusive, what is the general response? Frustration, or disappointment?



Around the Network
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).



                                       

When someone buy the exclusive chance to have that game, sure it's anti consumer for the others but pro consumer for your client base. On the other hand, if some developer/publisher is owned or just choose one platform to launch their game it is not. No one should be forced to launch on all platforms if they don't want to.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Veknoid_Outcast said:
I think we’re inching closer and closer to a point where “spending money on goods or services” is considered anti-consumer.

Is it more pro-consumer to be able to buy one console to play all the games you're interested in or is it more pro-consumer to have to buy five different consoles to play all the games that you're interested in?

This isn't a particularly difficult question to understand, and yet 75% of people polled have not quite figured it out, quite baffling.



Technically yes.
They limit the options of the consumer, there is no other logical way to analyze it.

Do I want them gone? No because I think platforms are interesting when they are as different as possible, but that's just my personal feeling. Looking at it strictly logically, they make consumers less free to choose, and are thus anti-consumer by definition.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Shiken said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
First party exclusives are fine. Third party ones can be acceptable only if time-limited, otherwise they are definitely anti-consumer.

Unless it is a case where it is piblished and funded by a 1st party, just like Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2/3.

Had it not been for Nintendo/MS, those games would not exist so I feel it is justified in that case.  It is when games get moneyhatted like Destiny on PS4, Rise of the Tomb Raider on X1, or any other game that fits that bill (timed or not) that it becomes anti consumer.

Agree, I'm fine with including third party in the first party bunch when a first party publisher completely funded the development of a game, particularly if it was the only chance for a game to ever exist. Other cases, in which the game would have been made anyway, sadden me if they become exclusives, although in such cases, a first party becoming the sole publisher and funder of a third party, although being a more irreversible action, is surely less anticonsumer than moneyhatting a formally independent third party for exclusives. Very often, btw, the short term benefit of moneyhatting isn't even worth giving up other platforms potential revenues in the long term, and it's not surprising that in the past, outside of gaming market, execs responsible of choices in favour of MS and Intel that in the end damaged or even killed their companies, most probably were Intel and/or MS "moles", like Rick Belluzzo at HP and SGI and Stephen Elop at Nokia (almost sure, I'd say, as MS wouldn't have hired them for important and princely paid roles just after they killed or almost killed their companies if they had done it due to incompetence).



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!