JWeinCom said:
I deleted everything that was irrelevant to the point. Which means, literally everything you just said. Let me remind you of the point that you made. "1) Developers have a larger market to sell their games on, increasing popularity and profits. Keeping the lights on." Your first point was strictly about the profitability of third party developers. I don't know why you're pretending that you did not make this point but there it is in your own words. Now, here is a counter argument. In actual argument form. 1: Third parties engage in deals as a result of free bargaining. 2: Third parties would only engage in such deals if they believed it would be beneficial to their business. 3. Considering these deals have been going on for 30 years, third party developers have enough evidence to reasonably conclude they are beneficial. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that these deals are in fact beneficial to third parties. Therefore your argument that an end to third party exclusives would increase profits of third party developers is false. Pretty sure the the logic there stands on its own, but as a formality, do you accept that your first point has been disproven? If you acknowledge that, or can explain why my logic here is flawed, then I might be willing address another point, but I'm not going to engage any further in a conversation where when one argument is proven wrong you just make 10 new bad arguments. That's just a waste of time. |
First off, multiplatform games DO have a larger market to sell their products on which would also mean they have a larger profit margin long term. If a game is exclusive, the devs take the safer option and will take the money and run. Sure it's an easier business option but as consumers, we would rather have games sold to more people increasing popularity over cash grabs. Bigger popularity increases game population (Especially MP and Online games) increases the chances of sequels and pushes brand power of the IP. Money doesn't create that. A major benefit for selling games on multiple platforms is IP recognition. Widens the brand and IP, creating a bigger community for that game.
Also not all 3rd party companies have deals in place which makes your point debatable. Plenty of big and small games release with no deals attached. As consumers, we would want to push the 1st party output and better-quality hardware because that should be the sole purpose on buying a platform over the other, not which platform has exclusive deals in place.
My hypothetical is about how would it be if companies had to solely rely on their own products and ideas to sell to the consumers and not rely on moneyhatting IPs that they don't own or make. As consumers, we will benefit from that notion because we will see more 1st party game output and better hardware created because that's the main selling point over the other.
