Games should be made "EXCLUSIVE" for one platform again

[Zoombael]

Otter said:

Zoombael said:

If you cant even answer to the first half of your initial question yourself. The most prestigious and anticipated games of this generation are exclusives and it doesnt come to your mind that their above average quality has anything to do with their exclusive status.

You re just confirming my view on the games community. A place inhabited by to much irrational to discuss rationally.

 

Then let me ask, how are platform holders are supposed to compete against one another...

I'm really choking at the irony of every point you try and make. Critical thinking and comprehension is key, use it to avoid falling into the same category of irrational person you're looking down on. Instead of answering a question with another question, try and extrapolate over the correlation you made. Exclusives aren't magically better than non exclusive games, if so why? The benefits afforded to being exclusive are easier optimisation and somewhat reduced development times, but this really doesn't shape the diversity of a game, or make it vastly different experience. What you're correlating in terms of the most anticipated games and exclusives is specific to 1st party exclusives, a distinction which obviously needs to be made. 

First party exclusives benefit from the ambitions of the platform holders/publishers (sony/microsoft/nintendo) not operating primarily as a software business. Their concern is producing system selling software, shifting hardware in the process and catering to a wide userbase. As a result developers generally get given more freedom and strive for the highest quality, but this of course doesn't garauntee quality. However what the OP is talking about is all games (3rd party) being made for one platform in mind. Which is why I posed, what is to gain? EA  publishing and developing  Battlefront II for the PS4 wouldn't have made it any less of a cash grab. FFXIII being made exclusively for PS3 wouldn't have made it any less linear. Titanfall 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider managed to surpass their (timed) exclusive predecessors on metacritic. Meanwhile being exclusive didn't save The Order/Rise, or magically make Knack next the Mario. 

By all means, maybe you have a point that I've missed but you're going to have to make it. And more than a loose correlation this time.

You re seriously suggesting, a platform holder is not inclined to make sure that games to bolster his product(s) are of a certain quality and speak to a wider audience? Ok, looking at what MS is doing the past decades, i can emphasize... a little.

 

 

" However what the OP is talking about is all games (3rd party) being made for one platform in mind. "

 

Thats the assumption you made...

 

 

Ka-pi96 said: 

AlfredoTurkey said: 

If it "ruins" gaming, than how did the NES and PS2 exist and kick so much ass? Having exclusives makes gaming more exciting and interesting. It gives each platform an identity and makes each one worth owning. 

A bit contradictory to use NES/PS2 as examples and then say exclusives "makes each one worth owning" no? That's easily two generations where there was only 1 console worth owning.

And I dunno about NES (before my time and I wouldn't play anthing that dated now either) but the PS2 was good because of the games on it. If all those games had released on Xbox/Gamecube & PC as well the gen would have been better, not worse.Them being exclusive didn't make them good, it just meant people had no choice about what hardware to use in order to play those games. Games are always better if you're playing them on hardware you like instead of hardware you think is a piece of shit.

You dont think competition is good? Everybody deserves to be a winner. So everone can be as lazy as Microsoft and become as fat as Gaben.