By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 14 May 2011
Edit Thread
padib said:
richardhutnik said:

I want to step in here and say I am NOT opposed to exclusives.  I do help differentiate consoles and give reason to buy one over the other.  My question mainly had to do with people getting upset something isn't an exclusive, or using as ammo in a fanboy war.

3DO tried the one platform to rule them all, "and in the darkness bind them" and it didn't work at all.  The price of the platform was way too high.  Also, having your own platform causes you to stand out as more relevant in the videogame industry.  When Sega was making a console, the world paid attention to what they were working on and doing.  Now that they don't, they are as relevant, if not less relevant, than Capcom or Konami, and certainly less relevant than Namco.

Also, by working the way it is now, companies making consoles get to offset their development costs by charging licensing fees on their console, which enables new technology to get out that would normally cost a lot more (see 3DO as an example).

For the record, I wansn't placing you in any position. I was simply relating to your interesting topic, which I responded to before posting this current topic. It made me think, that's all. I personally am not opposed to exclusives either, and am closer to your opinion i.e. opposed to using it as a pretext for fanboyism. Mosly, I wanted simply to hear the pros and cons of both situations, current and hypothetical. I'm also glad to hear varyious point of view, that's great.

I'd like to extend the discussion by likening the video game market to the movie market. If the games market was more like hollywood, do you think games would be better or worse? On what level would games compete? A philosophical level, or a quality level? (by philosophical, think PS360 is for more serious games, Wii for more "fun, easy-going" games, in general)

Thanks all for your input.

Welcome.  I do get tired of games being fanboy fodder where hypetrains behind things not released, get there because people think the games will be able to sell consoles, and people act as unpaid foot soldiers for different companies.  I did feel a need to chime in to say that the approach for one common platform isn't practical at this time.  Companies loose too much prestige if they drop a console.

As far as the game marketing being more like Hollywood, I think it is a BAD idea.  To model yourself after a certain industry and not have revenue streams set up the same way (like your industry lacks box office) is a recipe for going under.  The videogame industry does not have box office, and is skating on razor-thin margins, due in part to it trying to be like Hollywood.  The effect is likely worldwide to.  I happened to get into a Skype call with a recruiter in the videogame industry in England.  He was dealing with another studio laying off more people.

Modeled like Hollywood means less studios and more blockbuster content.  It means the industry wanting to drive the price up further, as they provide less and less content.  It means focus less on gameplay and more on anything BUT gameplay.  The benchmark of a good game is accessibility, depth, and replayability.  When I saw someone post on another forum, they want SHORTER games, because longer games water down the storyline and plot, to me that is a sign of games stop being games. 

Anyhow, that is my take.  I think that is worth of another subject.  I could go into a rant about issues with interactive fiction and their being confused with games, and the Hollywood connection to this.