Games should be made "EXCLUSIVE" for one platform again

[DonFerrari]

Pemalite said:

Then console gamers will miss out on Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Quake, Unreal, PUBG, Half Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead, The Sims, Minecraft... List goes on as they were all PC Exclusive at one point.

It's a good thing they are multiplatform, it exposes more gamers to amazing games... And ultimately that is what our "hobby" is about, playing fun games.

Exclusives only benefit the platform holder, not the consumer.

With that in mind... Because I am primarily a PC gamer who also owns consoles... And because something like the Xbox One X has zero exclusives... I have no reason to use it, so it's a double edged sword. - But on the bright side, at-least I get to play my favorite games on my preferred platform.

From this list the only one I cared to play was the Sims in PC back in early 2000. So I wouldn't miss those not making to console.

Pemalite said:

Azuren said:

Since most of those are first person and the other two don't interest me... I could live with that.

JRPG's are pretty much the main genre that never had much PC exclusivity.

But it also means games like Neverwinter Nights, Baldurs Gate, Command and Conquer, Diablo, StarCraft, The Witcher, Civilization, Warhammer, Age of Empires, Supreme Commander and so on would have also never made it to console.

I could probably keep listing games... But you get my point. PC isn't just FPS.

From this list only C&C, Civilization and AoE I have played and also on PC. Again wouldn't miss not coming to console.

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.

I guess you missed the part that the platform holder helping to finance the game would overlook the process to see if the quality is satisfactory as they do with their internal games.

Seventizz said:
Well, there is one benefit that actually helps all gamers. Take Rise of the Tomb Raider. Square publicly had sworn off the franchise after the reboot before it didn’t meet inititial financial expectations. MS stepped in and helped fund Rise in lieu of marketing and timed exclusivity. Eventually the game launched on the ps4 opening the audience. So, would it be better had the game not been made at all?

Considering how much sales were lost because of the timed exclusivity I'm not sure if that was the best option for RoTR, even more because it was already at development and near finishing when MS offered the timed exclusivity.

Azzanation said:

CGI-Quality said:

As are many console fans, despite the bickering. And it doesn't matter if consoles support cross-play or not, the "fighting and arguing" will always exist. To think otherwise is extremely naive.

The point you missed is it happens far more in the console market. Aslong as consoles exists there will always be petty arguments. This is a small thing in the PC industry.

I go to work and see many new faces, i talk about games to my staff and i see PC gamers accepting eachother all the time, where as i see people getting neglected because they game on the wrong console. Thats what i personally see everyday, i am sure there are examples where there are console gamers who get along however there are also those who dislike eachother because they like B better than A consoles. Thats my point, weather it goes away wont happen aslong as we have consoles and exclusives.

DonFerrari said:

If you have this massive library, why are you here arguing them?

Whos arguing? I am sure not, just stating my opinion while at work, what can i say its a quiet day for me. ;)

So console gamer are arguing because of lack of good games, but you are just giving opinion while at work... you certainly have made a big research to come to those premises.