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
GoOnKid said:

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

That's the thing though, they've had time to do this. Epic have had access to proper R&D, they have the money to "trickle" down said prices to us, but they aren't, because they are treating devs like kings, and consumers to pay up.

I'm also really not up for giving them more time. I've given MS more time, I've given Origin and Uplay more time, neither of them have vastly improved, or given us really good cheap deals. Ubisoft even stopped key sale deals due to the EGS exclusivity deal with TD2. 



                                       

Around the Network
Chazore said:
GoOnKid said:

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

That's the thing though, they've had time to do this. Epic have had access to proper R&D, they have the money to "trickle" down said prices to us, but they aren't, because they are treating devs like kings, and consumers to pay up.

I'm also really not up for giving them more time. I've given MS more time, I've given Origin and Uplay more time, neither of them have vastly improved, or given us really good cheap deals. Ubisoft even stopped key sale deals due to the EGS exclusivity deal with TD2. 

All Epic needs to do to get my money is...

1. Price their AAA games at $45 at launch. 

2. Make a friggin offline mode!

Forget about moneyhatting exclusives for a year. That won't get me off Gog or Steam. 



vivster said:

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.

I'm sure you can solve this problem and world hunger by donating $100 for games that cost half the of the actual MSRP.



    

Basil's YouTube Channel


                    

Chazore said:
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. 

There are way too many hardware configurations on PC to go very far in that. The pro consoles are already muddying how well games run on either hardware profile. Either they don't make full use of the pro version, or the base version suffers too much. Console is still the way to go to get 6 years or more guaranteed performance from all new games. Well maybe some ports excluded.

Meanwhile on PC I got locked out of playing Elite Dangerous any further until I upgraded my hardware. On the plus side, now I've got a new gaming laptop it looks phenomenal again.

I started out with the keyboard with Doom, you could not aim up and down either. Quake introduced the mouse for aiming. It took me years to get used to playing fps with a gamepad on consoles. It took about 5 minutes to get used to the aim controller. Controllers have never been a good fit for fps, yet a whole generation has grown up with that control scheme and my kids now suck with mouse and KB on Fortnite. They rather play with controller.



SvennoJ said:

There are way too many hardware configurations on PC to go very far in that. The pro consoles are already muddying how well games run on either hardware profile. Either they don't make full use of the pro version, or the base version suffers too much. Console is still the way to go to get 6 years or more guaranteed performance from all new games. Well maybe some ports excluded.

Meanwhile on PC I got locked out of playing Elite Dangerous any further until I upgraded my hardware. On the plus side, now I've got a new gaming laptop it looks phenomenal again.

I started out with the keyboard with Doom, you could not aim up and down either. Quake introduced the mouse for aiming. It took me years to get used to playing fps with a gamepad on consoles. It took about 5 minutes to get used to the aim controller. Controllers have never been a good fit for fps, yet a whole generation has grown up with that control scheme and my kids now suck with mouse and KB on Fortnite. They rather play with controller.

I do rememebr this happening with the 3DS, in regards to the N3DS's release. There was the thought that with the N3DS, that devs would end up making better use of the hw and the extra juice it provided. The reality today, is that, to my mind, only Terraria ended up making decent use of the N3DS's extra power. I distinctly remember sun/moon getting rid of the 3D holo effect, because with X/Y, it posed a performance issue with the regular 3DS, so it was done away with by Sun/Moon, yet they didn't think to allow it for the N3DS.

I believe this is something that that the devs and console creators need to discuss between themselves, because on PC, it is harder, because you do have more hw configs to adhere to. I personally would aim for the past 3-5 years worth of hw configs, instead of 5-10 years worth. I would especially like to put more focus on the latest cards, since they are supposed to deliver, and getting much more use out of the latest tech, is something I would like to see more of, rather than "what can we fit on this tiny stopwatch (aka DOOM on a toaster and being marveled by it).

The thing is, consoles can play X/Y games for a certain amount of years, but then you end up having said games to be created, just so those systems can play it alone. This over time means that PC ends up being tied in some way to console gens, so while a PC can run said games at higher refresh rates and resolutions, the game is still designed purely in mind with what said consoles can handle. Consoles get a limited time pro per gen, but it comes at the expense of holding another platform to it's rules, which doesn't benefit the other platform, because said other platform has to play exactly by the baseline rules set by then current gen hw.

Like for example. I have a 1080ti. I can play games at a higher refresh rate and higher resolution and other settings. Whenever I see a game like Creed origins, I don't really see my hw being used to a decent extent, primarily because Ubisoft had designed that game with consoles primarily in mind, and console parity enforced, which meant that my own hw now has to play by rules set by Ubisoft, for another platform entirely. Consoles and PC had the same exact textures, which meant that my GPU wasn't going to get much use, and still the game demanded more power unnaturally, despite being able to run on baseline consoles. That tells me that they designed the game to work well with consoles, but demand much more, for little to no difference on PC. I'm also aware that they are only just now looking into TD2's PC performance issues, weeks after it's release, which tells me that Ubisoft once again consider PC, a secondary platform to dev for second (Despite their claims of loving PC gaming, but pulling exclusivity deals, enforcing console parity and, well, leaving PC issues till a later date, rather than ironing them out before and a day or 4 after launch). 

I still believe that my 1080ti, will still take me for a good few years more at 1440p. I will have to turn down settings, but I've been doing that for years, even on lower end hw. I do like being able to do that, but I'm also glad that consoles are slowly gaining the ability to pick and choose what settings to tweak.

Try playing an FPS with a trackball. I couldn't, and I tried for around 3 years XD. But yeah, I can see some kids growing up today, finding difficulty in trying to learn the K+M route. I'd honestly point them in the direction of the hand keyboard instead. it fits the palm of your hand, while allowing you to keep tabs on how many keys you have at your disposal (which means not having to have a big ol keyboard sitting on your lap/desk for gaming).



                                       

Around the Network
Chazore said:

[...]

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.

[...]

I was referring to games developed for PC first where K+M actually isn't the best control setup and gamepad can be the best compromise after the proper best controls, that could be, for example, two joysticks for mech games, or wheel and pedals for driving games. Obviously for complex mech games and owning just one joystick, using it together with K+M could still be a better compromise than a gamepad (and J+K for combat and K+M for management parts was the control setup I used for Mechwarrior 2:Mercenaries, and also for driving games before buying wheel and pedals), but yes, outside of a few genres, mostly sims, in general I agree that a game developed on PC first should have K+M as its recommended control setup, and gamepad shouldn't be pushed as main control method when it isn't the ideal one, because for most PC games it simply isn't.



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!

        

Chazore said:
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. 

We usually don't agree on most threads, but your post was great.

LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

I have most of the cars I wanted on GTS without MTx, only one car for a specific race that is very expensive and didn't entered any give away yet. But the star wars game with almost gatcha mechanism was a very abusive MTx. Most MTx as you said doesn't really affect the game, but certainly are used to pass faster and give devs more money.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

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.

Same could be said about Halo 5. They aren't needed, they are still there though.

Microtransactions are Microtransactions in my eyes, I would rather the world be without them in it's entirety.

SvennoJ said:

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.

Metro is another franchise that pushes the PC.

SvennoJ said:

Meanwhile on PC I got locked out of playing Elite Dangerous any further until I upgraded my hardware. On the plus side, now I've got a new gaming laptop it looks phenomenal again.

Your PC must be extremely antiquated.
Here it is running on a Core 2 Quad Q6600. (Year 2006)



Rest of the system is your bog standard 8GB Ram.
And on the GPU front a Radeon 4830 (2008) is enough to run the game. (Aka. Direct X 10 GPU hardware.)



When is an appropriate cut-off point for old hardware to be able to run the latest games in your eyes on the PC? I don't see an Xbox or Playstation from 2006/2008 running Elite Dangerous?



It's only an issue when you pay a company to not release a game on other platforms. When its first party, paying a 3rd party to make an exclusive from the ground up, or saving a game like Bayonetta 2 after other publishers wouldn't fund it it's all good.



Chazore said:
GoOnKid said:

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

That's the thing though, they've had time to do this. Epic have had access to proper R&D, they have the money to "trickle" down said prices to us, but they aren't, because they are treating devs like kings, and consumers to pay up.

I'm also really not up for giving them more time. I've given MS more time, I've given Origin and Uplay more time, neither of them have vastly improved, or given us really good cheap deals. Ubisoft even stopped key sale deals due to the EGS exclusivity deal with TD2. 

Well, that sounds quite bad, then. I don't know if you have subscribed to any of these stores but considering how bad their practices are I would advise to simply not support them.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism