Quantcast
Are exclusives anti-consumer?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are exclusives anti-consumer?

Are exclusives Anti-Consumer?

Yes 15 15.31%
 
No 73 74.49%
 
Other 10 10.20%
 
Total:98
Chazore said:
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).

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. 



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

I haven't read much past the first page but I'm gonna reply anyway...

Only when they're bought. Certain exclusives were exclusives because they had to be. Like for instance, Final Fantasy VII. It was PS1 exclusive because of the disk drive. Square couldn't have made that game on the N64. And because the Saturn's video codec was inferior to PS1's, it likely couldn't have been done on Sega's console either.

Also, games that are first party and are made around the console they're exclusive for. Like Super Mario 64, Zelda OoT. Etc..

However, if the console manufacturer buys the exclusives, then yes. I'd consider that anti-consumer.

Last edited by Azelover - on 15 April 2019

I disagree. It depemds on your taste. When jt comesto third party games than xbox .Ine xis the best place to play them as gameslook and perform  better. Not everyone has  cgi computer to play 4k at highest setting 😂 

That also includes xbox one exclusives that are also on pc. They are all enhanced for 4k. So really u only need is all 3 consoles 😂  and if u have money to burn then also a pc.

To answet the thread question, there shouldnt be any exclusives. All games should be on all platform. It should just come to service to the gamers, specs of the consoled and online quality. At the end of the dsy if games come out on all platfos then devs can get more sales which innturn means more studios surviving rather than shutting down.

Cerebralbore101 said:

I thought I'd make a poll for this, and see what the community thinks.

I think a lot of games wouldn't get made, or wouldn't be as great if they weren't exclusives. Exclusives sell consoles, which increases the userbase, which increases the games sold, which increases the licensing revenue. Nintendo and Sony wouldn't put so much money into development of certain games, if they didn't plan on making that money back via console sales. 

In this day and age, you honestly only need a Switch, a PS4, and a PC to play all games. If you don't like Nintendo games then you just need a PS4 and a PC. If you don't like strategy, or sim games then you can get away with just a Switch and PS4. 

The people that complain the most over exclusives are PC-Only gamers. I've always thought this was funny, because if you can afford a great gaming PC at around $1000 to $1500, then you can afford a $300 console. 

Some people don't like that Epic is making certain games timed exclusives. I feel for them there, because Epic still doesn't have an offline mode, and I wouldn't want to buy a game that would become unplayable should anything happen to Epic's DRM servers. 

Anyway, what do you think? 



Chazore said:

[...]

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).

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).



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!

        

Megiddo said:
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.

Just because one option is more pro-consumer then the other (hence implying that the other is pro-consumer to some degree),  doesn't mean the other is automatically anti-consumer. 



Around the Network

How would everyone like it is Sony published Horizon Zero Dawn 2. Made it available on all consoles and PCs and all the sales of that game all went to Sony? I'm game if that's the way people want to play.



Chazore said:
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. 

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.



Vizigoth04 said:
How would everyone like it is Sony published Horizon Zero Dawn 2. Made it available on all consoles and PCs and all the sales of that game all went to Sony? I'm game if that's the way people want to play.

And what reason does it have to do so? Horizon was made to sell PS4's, it isn't going to be worked on to sell Xbox 1's and Switches



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?

You could better ask is console gaming in general is an anti consumer practice. I would say it isn't I like consoles and I don't mind the restricted space of consoles that much.
Besides its kind a hard to accuse a company for releasing a game it funded and/or made and releases it on its own platform. Why should the company release it on other platforms it the company doesn't want to do that.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Depends.

If it's a first exclusive, of course that is perfectly fine. Or a third party exclusive that the platform maker helps pay for the development of.

The only time it is anti-consumer is if it was a game that would have launched on the competing platform anyway, especially when the majority of the fanbase is on that platform, but another company pays for timed exclusivity. Even worse is when the game is announced for both platforms, but then a few weeks/months before launch it is announced to be a timed exclusive.