By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the_dengle on 08 June 2014
Edit Thread
KylieDog said:
the_dengle said:
The negatives confuse me. Exclusives are bad now?


I'll explain.

A brand new IP is made by Capcom.  This IP has no fanbase, so nobody is missing on on a series they like.   That is good.
Resident Evil is not a new IP, if that is suddenly exclusive, the fans on the other consoles are missing out.  That is bad.

Exclusive DLC means that one or more userbases are going to be missing out on content for a game they can buy.  That is bad for same reasons as Resident Evil going exclusive.  It isn't a reward for the userbase that gets it since if it wasn't exclusive they would get it anyway.

Timed exclusive games or timed exclusive DLC means one or more userbases need wait, this like exclusive DLC is bad as it isn't a reward for anyone, only a punishment of sorts for another.

Moneyatting is a shitty practice that benefits no gamer. 

How about this: having been released on iOS, The World Ends With You is technically a multiplatform game. If Square-Enix announces a sequel exclusively for the 3DS, why should Nintendo (or Square, I'm not sure which company would lose the points under this rule) be penalized for that? The same is true of the Ace Attorney series, traditionally a Nintendo exclusive yet available on mobile devices. Let's not forget Monster Hunter, which thanks to Frontier is now a multiplatform series, yet has always been exclusive at initial release.

Furthermore, the rule as it stands doesn't cover always-exclusive series changing platforms. If a new Professor Layton game was announced for Vita, no one would be penalized. It also doesn't cover series that have always been exclusive, but not to the same platform, such as Shin Megami Tensei and Fatal Frame. Would Nintendo be punished for announcing a new Fatal Frame title, despite owning exclusive rights to the IP? This rule was made with good intentions, but is too vague. Campanies should not be punished for making or securing exclusive games for their platforms. There was nothing under-handed about the making of Bayonetta 2.

I'd also like to ask about localization announcements. If Dragon Quest X were announced for Western release, would it be treated as a new game announcement, or as new gameplay of a previously announced game, or would it be ignored? Or would Nintendo be penalized because the DQ series was once on Sony platforms?

And speaking of Shin Megami Tensei, what about cross-over games? Would Nintendo be punished for Hyrule Warriors or a new Pokemon X Nobunaga's Ambition (Pokemon Conquest in the West)?

If a multiplatform series going exclusive results in lost points because of an alienated fanbase, what about a multiplatform series being multiplatform on fewer systems? If Assassin's Creed doesn't come to Wii U this year, will Ubisoft be penalized for abandoning what little fanbase they've made for themselves on Nintendo consoles?

I understand why the rule exists, but it has too many loopholes which would result in point deductions for companies that don't deserve it. Let the inevitable fan backlash be the punishment for shady deals. Give companies points for securing exclusive games for their consoles. Deduct points from publishers for having mutually exclusive DLC.

Money-hats don't benefit gamers, but they most certainly do benefit platform makers. There's no denying that an exclusive like Dead Rising 3 on XB1 had a positive impact on its sales. Good for Microsoft, bad for gamers... you have to give them points for it. It was beneficial to their console, which is what this is all about.