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

Depends on the reason. What's happening on PC with Epic Games Store is (and just for the record, I'm still not a huge fan of Steam), but, say, first-party exclusives on consoles are not.



Around the Network

Mixed.

Having exclusives prevents monopolies is good for competition, but at the same time, a monopoly will create/buy exclusives.



Competition keeps innovation rolling and prices stable. If all consoles could play the same games they would only differentate by power. This would lead to competitors dropping out of the market one after another and then the remaining company will have the ability to set prices however it wants. Do you think a console would still cost 400, then? Think again. Do you think you would still pay only 60 for the online subscription and another 60 for the average AAA game?

At the same time, do you believe you would still have the same width and scope of games like we are used to today? Many franchises wouldn't be supported anymore and the software manufacturors would only produce the same games over and over again with no reason to become creative or diverse.

Last edited by GoOnKid - on 15 April 2019

Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

I don't think so at all. Full games being exclusive, or being timed exclusives don't bother me. What I don't like when a game is released on multiple platforms, but certain content is exclusive like; missions, guns, etc. You're paying the same price, but you're getting less content than a different platform. That is something that needs to die.



KrspaceT said:

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. 

But then you'd have to give that same exact kudos to the other platforms, because they have all performed plenty, and thus shouldn't be excluded either.

There are still games being made to this day that skip PC, or skip X1/Switch/PS4, but that's either down to dev decision or publisher, and most of the time it's a pub based decision. 

A first party exclusive is made with a single system in mind, a 3rd party most of the time is designed for multiple sets of hw, even when you now have to factor in PS4P and X1X hw configs. People complained about TR being timed exclusive and that was deserved anger, because we all knew where that game was landing beforehand. When a dev flat out says nothing of other platforms, it becomes a "wait and see" approach. 

mmn, I don't think nor see the Switch being some godlike being, that can seemingly "save" these companies reporting bad sales. Most of the time it's actually the fault of these publishers making bad calls, devs leaving studios and studios being liquidated, then replaced with incompetent studios, which over the long term affect an IP, not "all 3 platforms besides one are bad, but you're ignoring that one platform that does better than all the rest". 

Alby_da_Wolf said:

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).

I'm not sure where you're going with this?. I can accept console games ported to PC being better suited to a gamepad, but I also think the same should be vice versa for PC games designed with a K+M in mind, rather than trying to supplant the gamepad>every other input method.

SvennoJ said:

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.

Yeah, making full use of a peripheral is an absolute, non fail of a must. The same would be needed for games made for consoles. They need to make absolute full use of their gamepad. I was more talking about the actual system hw, than the system control peripherals. 

I'm actually able to play Ori with both a K+M and a gamepad, even the Switch pro gamepad (thanks to Steam gamepad config support).

Battlefield does, but as you can see, it's only first gen support, and feels like it wasn't there from the start, because it's only come into play, as RT started to pick up, rather than just as the tech came out. The general performance of RT is also being held back by the fact that it's not fine tuned either. With how the latest cards cost an arm and a leg, run quite hot and aren't being used properly (benchmarking and general reviews of these cards point this out), RTT isn't exactly being the end all to be all and isn't exactly being used by a number, larger than the price of the cards themselves.

Also, it being unlocked for older cards tells us that they've had to backtrack on claiming it would "never work" ion older cards, and that we'd need their latest cards, but then their latest cards don't perform with it as well, then of course the fact that the unlocked cards still suffer with it as well. 

There are indeed games that make actual use of hw (like some RTS titles like Ashes of a singularity) and then there are games that make improper use of the PC hw (like Creed Origins, which requires more higher end hw, despite Ubisoft clearly telling us of console parity, and looking almost the same, save for slight shadow and render distance, which is in no way justifiable for far more expensive hw, and thus is improper use).

Games designed for PC are supports to come with those features and performance options.

hw based exclusives or first party I can absolutely agree with (like Star Citizen for example), but 3rd party ones?, hell naw. It's why I'm glad Frostpunk is coming to consoles, because they made that game for PC first, focused on content releases, and further refinement, then opting to scale the game and tune it for what current gen hw can handle. Doing it that way allows for a refined PC version, without having to hinder it, while also molding the game for what console level hw can handle for it down the line, rather than the opposite way, which benefits consoles to a degree, and hinders PC over time. 



                                       

Around the Network
GoOnKid said:

Competition keeps innovation rolling and prices stable. If all consoles could play the same games they would only differentate by power. This would lead to competitors dropping out of the market one after another and then the remaining company will have the ability to set prices however it wants. Do you think a console would still cost 400, then? Think again. Do you think you would still pay only 60 for the online subscription and another 60 for the average AAA game?

At the same time, do you believe you would still have the same width and scope of games like we are used to today? Many franchises wouldn't be supported anymore and the software manufacturors would only produce the same games over and over again with no reason to become creative or diverse.

Thing is, prices aren't any cheaper on EGS, and if anything, the consumers there are having to pay that bit more, thanks to Epic not wanting to pay the fees that Valve does in some countries, which has people annoyed that this "competition" isn't benefiting the consumers in the way we'd usually hope for. 

We keep hearing about these devs making exclusivity deals with EGS, having promised "trickle down" savings or "passing the savings onto the consumer", which only end up with netting the consumer a meager $5 discount, which isn't even worldwide for everyone. I've seen far superior deals over on Steam, GoG, Itch.io and GMG.



                                       

Chazore said:
GoOnKid said:

Competition keeps innovation rolling and prices stable. If all consoles could play the same games they would only differentate by power. This would lead to competitors dropping out of the market one after another and then the remaining company will have the ability to set prices however it wants. Do you think a console would still cost 400, then? Think again. Do you think you would still pay only 60 for the online subscription and another 60 for the average AAA game?

At the same time, do you believe you would still have the same width and scope of games like we are used to today? Many franchises wouldn't be supported anymore and the software manufacturors would only produce the same games over and over again with no reason to become creative or diverse.

Thing is, prices aren't any cheaper on EGS, and if anything, the consumers there are having to pay that bit more, thanks to Epic not wanting to pay the fees that Valve does in some countries, which has people annoyed that this "competition" isn't benefiting the consumers in the way we'd usually hope for. 

We keep hearing about these devs making exclusivity deals with EGS, having promised "trickle down" savings or "passing the savings onto the consumer", which only end up with netting the consumer a meager $5 discount, which isn't even worldwide for everyone. I've seen far superior deals over on Steam, GoG, Itch.io and GMG.

Give it a little bit more time. They will eventually try to go into a price war to reach more consumers.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

Yeah?
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.

All microtransactions are pointless and needless. You can defend literally any game with microtransactions by saying that. Doesn't excuse the fact that they're their. And typically if a company is going to put loot boxes and stuff in games, they are designed into the economy to entice people to spend money after purchasing the game. Otherwise publishers wouldn't pay for the content to be made. Naughty Dog and Bioware and 343i aren't making these things out of the bottom of their hearts, they want you to spend more money.

But yeah, "fine and full without them" can be said for any game.



Chazore said:

SvennoJ said:

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.

Yeah, making full use of a peripheral is an absolute, non fail of a must. The same would be needed for games made for consoles. They need to make absolute full use of their gamepad. I was more talking about the actual system hw, than the system control peripherals. 

I'm actually able to play Ori with both a K+M and a gamepad, even the Switch pro gamepad (thanks to Steam gamepad config support).

Battlefield does, but as you can see, it's only first gen support, and feels like it wasn't there from the start, because it's only come into play, as RT started to pick up, rather than just as the tech came out. The general performance of RT is also being held back by the fact that it's not fine tuned either. With how the latest cards cost an arm and a leg, run quite hot and aren't being used properly (benchmarking and general reviews of these cards point this out), RTT isn't exactly being the end all to be all and isn't exactly being used by a number, larger than the price of the cards themselves.

Also, it being unlocked for older cards tells us that they've had to backtrack on claiming it would "never work" ion older cards, and that we'd need their latest cards, but then their latest cards don't perform with it as well, then of course the fact that the unlocked cards still suffer with it as well. 

There are indeed games that make actual use of hw (like some RTS titles like Ashes of a singularity) and then there are games that make improper use of the PC hw (like Creed Origins, which requires more higher end hw, despite Ubisoft clearly telling us of console parity, and looking almost the same, save for slight shadow and render distance, which is in no way justifiable for far more expensive hw, and thus is improper use).

Games designed for PC are supports to come with those features and performance options.

hw based exclusives or first party I can absolutely agree with (like Star Citizen for example), but 3rd party ones?, hell naw. It's why I'm glad Frostpunk is coming to consoles, because they made that game for PC first, focused on content releases, and further refinement, then opting to scale the game and tune it for what current gen hw can handle. Doing it that way allows for a refined PC version, without having to hinder it, while also molding the game for what console level hw can handle for it down the line, rather than the opposite way, which benefits consoles to a degree, and hinders PC over time. 

There are limits to porting and compromises you have to make when you are going to port games later.

Take VR for example. It's great some games cross over from PC to PSVR and vice versa, yet there are problems. PSVR is limited in room scale options (more like closet scale) and the move controllers are a poor substitute for Vive's controllers.

Fantastic contraption still worked on PSVR yet very limited to the PC version. 360 degree shooting galleries are also not ideal for PSVR, while PSVR has better movement options with a DS4 and being stuck to teleportation from PC ports is annoying. Doom was obviously made for PC first with a poorly implemented aim controller tacked on, same as Arizona Sunshine. The exclusive Far point made much better use out of it.

Astrobot was specifically made for the DS4 and limitations of PSVR. That made it one of the best PSVR games yet hard to port to other systems. (Although you could simply plug a DS4 into the PC, or maybe not, need the ps camera to track it)

Anyway exclusives on consoles can get every last bit of juice out of the system and use the controllers to their full extent. Exclusives on PC can give you options that go far beyond what consoles are capable of.



SvennoJ said:

There are limits to porting and compromises you have to make when you are going to port games later.

Take VR for example. It's great some games cross over from PC to PSVR and vice versa, yet there are problems. PSVR is limited in room scale options (more like closet scale) and the move controllers are a poor substitute for Vive's controllers.

Fantastic contraption still worked on PSVR yet very limited to the PC version. 360 degree shooting galleries are also not ideal for PSVR, while PSVR has better movement options with a DS4 and being stuck to teleportation from PC ports is annoying. Doom was obviously made for PC first with a poorly implemented aim controller tacked on, same as Arizona Sunshine. The exclusive Far point made much better use out of it.

Astrobot was specifically made for the DS4 and limitations of PSVR. That made it one of the best PSVR games yet hard to port to other systems. (Although you could simply plug a DS4 into the PC, or maybe not, need the ps camera to track it)

Anyway exclusives on consoles can get every last bit of juice out of the system and use the controllers to their full extent. Exclusives on PC can give you options that go far beyond what consoles are capable of.

But of course. The same is said for both sides of the spectrum, whenever X game is ported to Y system.

Those two issues seem related to hw ones, the latter not having hindsight to see what else those pretrials could be used for. I'm not disagreeing either. 

It seems as though the PSVR peripherals were very much designed with PSVR in mind, rather than whatever headset could be used with X/Y peripherals. I was just talking about this the other day with a work colleague, on how nice it would be to see all the headsets and their peripherals being able to work on X/Y games on different platforms.

DOOM was made for PC, and I still think that it remains as being one of the ebst PC versions to come out in the past 10 years. DOOM's MP however was made for consoles, designed by a console based team that worked for both the PC/console's respective MP versions. Then again, I started out with gamepads for the longest time, even despite me also owning a PC in the times when I was a kid. Fast forward to today and I cannot for the life of me play any FPS game with a gamepad, the M+K just feels more natural to me, so whenever I see a game with fps combat with a gamepad in mind (which are thankfully rare), I feel like I'd end up suffering.

Console 1st parties definitely get juice from what they were designed for. I just wish the exact same could be said for PC's. I like having options on PC, but I consider them baseline and a requirement, rather than a nice thing to have. I'd really like for DOOM levels of performance on all sorts of PC games, because then I'd get far more from my hw in years longer.