jesus kung fu magic said: Tuganuno said: jesus kung fu magic said: Tuganuno said: The best games of this generation are exclusives. So yeh. The majority of the AAA titles this gen have been multiplats so no The games that pushed consoles to the max on this generation are exclusives. Games like MGS4/GoW3, Gears of War/Alan Wake, and basically any First Party game of Nintendo - Super Mario Galaxy 2, for example. For example, and this is just an example because I'm not sure if this rumour is true, but FF didn't get as much content because of the 360 version. Besides, games take time to port, and some developers can't afford to delay the release date. If a company spends 100% of the time developing a game for a X platform instead of just 80%, the exclusive game will obviously be better than the multiplat. RDR , Bioshock are better than the games you mentioned save SMG2.....and there are also games like Fallout 3 , ES4:oblivion , COD4 , Batman:AA just to name a few. You dont have to be exclusive to be good and you also dont have to push the system to be good.....id rather a developer be creative than just try to pump out polygons from the system.

Lol? You can't just say "Bioshock and RDR pwn everything you previously said, your argument is invalid". I mean, that doesn't even make sense, some games aren't in the same genre. Besides, it's your opinion, can't take that as a fact.

All I said is that exclusives max out the console's potential and that's true, there is no way around it. Think of PS3 games. Multiplats look like shit, even tho exclusives like Uncharted 2 and GoW3 are some of the best looking games on this generation.

Therefor, a game that is exclusively developed for a console will always be better than the same game if it was developed for several platforms. And due to these reasons, my interest in exclusives > multiplatforms.

@ zero129

If there was no technical reason (like the benefit of Blu-Ray storage, like I think is the case) and there was already a PC version ready to be supplied for consumers I would think it's not a good idea.

This thread asked opinions and that's my perspective.



I already stated Halo was a Macintosh game project, Killzone originated withe the help from Sony on the PS2, right? If it was a Macintosh game and Sony paid to make sure it becomes a Playstation only franchise I would consider this a bad idea. Killzone 2 and soon Killzone 3 look like excellent games to show off the PS3's hardware technically, I fully support that.



No that's not my logic at al, please reread above. Surely Microsoft has enough resources to not buy but develop XBox exclusives?

here are my 2cents in regards to the topic

Well as some one who trying to start up a company I can honestly say no. When I work on a game I'm making the game to share the experience I'm envisioning. Of course I can't consider it free. I need to invest money in the game and I would like to make my career sharing my visions. This is a circle. So while I consider the highest priority as the game and vision, money cannot take a back seat. The game is the engine and chassis Money are the wheels and steering wheel.

Having said that. Exclusivity sucks. It essentially defines that sharing my vision becomes less important. I want my vision to go to as many people there are. That way more people/gamers/consumers know what I make.

In pointing out the OP
"For me yes. Exclusivity drives the market and sets brand recognition."

This explains a lot of the consumer point of views. Who's Brand Recognition? my game? or the platform? TMNT, Mega Man have appeared on multiple console brands. Clearly in the case of the OP the Platform is more important than my company or the game. Where as what really drives the market is the reverse. Exclusives don't drive the market. The Market is based on supply and demand. A game produced in a limited scope of potential demand does not need more supplies. As is the last Generation the GC has the minimal potential demand. How could that drive the market in anyway? It can't and doesn't. What the OP is actually saying is this. "I want MY preferred console to have higher demand. That requires more exclusives to MY console."

So in the end. Exclusives only support a console, but hold back the industry as a whole. In many ways. As others have pointed out elements that are considered positive in light(as in graphics) generally have the cost that the code is not as portable and come next generation there is a lot of building from scratch again. So yes PS3 Exclusive can and will do fabulous graphical games, but at the cost that all the hours spent working on the games engine is borrowed from the next generation.

So Exclusives make bragging, fapping rights are in overall more harmful to the gaming console industry than helpful.

.jayderyu said: here are my 2cents in regards to the topic Well as some one who trying to start up a company I can honestly say no. When I work on a game I'm making the game to share the experience I'm envisioning. Of course I can't consider it free. I need to invest money in the game and I would like to make my career sharing my visions. This is a circle. So while I consider the highest priority as the game and vision, money cannot take a back seat. The game is the engine and chassis Money are the wheels and steering wheel. Having said that. Exclusivity sucks. It essentially defines that sharing my vision becomes less important. I want my vision to go to as many people there are. That way more people/gamers/consumers know what I make. In pointing out the OP "For me yes. Exclusivity drives the market and sets brand recognition." This explains a lot of the consumer point of views. Who's Brand Recognition? my game? or the platform? TMNT, Mega Man have appeared on multiple console brands. Clearly in the case of the OP the Platform is more important than my company or the game. Where as what really drives the market is the reverse. Exclusives don't drive the market. The Market is based on supply and demand. A game produced in a limited scope of potential demand does not need more supplies. As is the last Generation the GC has the minimal potential demand. How could that drive the market in anyway? It can't and doesn't. What the OP is actually saying is this. "I want MY preferred console to have higher demand. That requires more exclusives to MY console." So in the end. Exclusives only support a console, but hold back the industry as a whole. In many ways. As others have pointed out elements that are considered positive in light(as in graphics) generally have the cost that the code is not as portable and come next generation there is a lot of building from scratch again. So yes PS3 Exclusive can and will do fabulous graphical games, but at the cost that all the hours spent working on the games engine is borrowed from the next generation. So Exclusives make bragging, fapping rights are in overall more harmful to the gaming console industry than helpful.

Eloquently stated.

Who wins if Street Fighter 4 or Call of Duty:  Modern Warfare were exclusive?  Certainly not the gamers.  For me, multi-platform gaming means that I can choose the "best version" (being a multi-console owner) and people who only on one console can play some version of a game.  What's wrong with that?

d21lewis said: .jayderyu said: here are my 2cents in regards to the topic Well as some one who trying to start up a company I can honestly say no. When I work on a game I'm making the game to share the experience I'm envisioning. Of course I can't consider it free. I need to invest money in the game and I would like to make my career sharing my visions. This is a circle. So while I consider the highest priority as the game and vision, money cannot take a back seat. The game is the engine and chassis Money are the wheels and steering wheel. Having said that. Exclusivity sucks. It essentially defines that sharing my vision becomes less important. I want my vision to go to as many people there are. That way more people/gamers/consumers know what I make. In pointing out the OP "For me yes. Exclusivity drives the market and sets brand recognition." This explains a lot of the consumer point of views. Who's Brand Recognition? my game? or the platform? TMNT, Mega Man have appeared on multiple console brands. Clearly in the case of the OP the Platform is more important than my company or the game. Where as what really drives the market is the reverse. Exclusives don't drive the market. The Market is based on supply and demand. A game produced in a limited scope of potential demand does not need more supplies. As is the last Generation the GC has the minimal potential demand. How could that drive the market in anyway? It can't and doesn't. What the OP is actually saying is this. "I want MY preferred console to have higher demand. That requires more exclusives to MY console." So in the end. Exclusives only support a console, but hold back the industry as a whole. In many ways. As others have pointed out elements that are considered positive in light(as in graphics) generally have the cost that the code is not as portable and come next generation there is a lot of building from scratch again. So yes PS3 Exclusive can and will do fabulous graphical games, but at the cost that all the hours spent working on the games engine is borrowed from the next generation. So Exclusives make bragging, fapping rights are in overall more harmful to the gaming console industry than helpful. Eloquently stated. Who wins if Street Fighter 4 or Call of Duty:  Modern Warfare were exclusive?  Certainly not the gamers.  For me, multi-platform gaming means that I can choose the "best version" (being a multi-console owner) and people who only on one console can play some version of a game.  What's wrong with that?

This is basically what I think.

However, some games should be exclusive if only to drive interest for a certain console. This is what the 1st parties are doing with Mario, Halo, etc. 

However, with 3rd parties, no one wins with exclusivity. The "optimization" of a game if it is exclusive is nothing more than minor technical differences. FF13 not being exclusive is a pretty good example.

CGI-Quality said: But I still don't get how the gamers "win" if all the resources going into these games go into the SAME games for multiple systems. How do we wi, we're actually losing on games. The bigger the library of one console is, that is unique, the better it is for people looking for a particular system. Are you guys saying it would be cool for the 360 & PS3 to have a library that's 100% the same? OK, if so, that's your opinion , no problem, then what would be the point of mutliple consoles? I think you guys are not looking at the big picture. Fortunatley, folks like Nintendo and Sony ARE looking at the larger picture, and know you're console is only as good as it's games (meaning what it offers on it's own). This gen would be pathetic if the Sony was like: "look at what we have, these awesome games. See our buddy over there (the 360), look what he has, oh wait.................he has what we have". "Buy our product though, we're still different" (even though there's virtually no difference in the libraries). See how that sounds/looks? This idea that "more gamers get to play" is bullocks to me. As long as the system a game is on is available, gamers get to play. It's always been that way. We don't need two consoles with the same damn games to prove that.

The first party games being exclusive and how different the online settings are do cause striking differences in the console.

However, PS3 and 360 are in fact very similar in terms of games, I'd go as far to say more than 2/3 are multi-plat.

Although that 1/3 is a big motivation in deciding consoles and the differences in the hardware itself.

I hope I made sense.

CGI-Quality said: dtewi said: CGI-Quality said: But I still don't get how the gamers "win" if all the resources going into these games go into the SAME games for multiple systems. How do we wi, we're actually losing on games. The bigger the library of one console is, that is unique, the better it is for people looking for a particular system. Are you guys saying it would be cool for the 360 & PS3 to have a library that's 100% the same? OK, if so, that's your opinion , no problem, then what would be the point of mutliple consoles? I think you guys are not looking at the big picture. Fortunatley, folks like Nintendo and Sony ARE looking at the larger picture, and know you're console is only as good as it's games (meaning what it offers on it's own). This gen would be pathetic if the Sony was like: "look at what we have, these awesome games. See our buddy over there (the 360), look what he has, oh wait.................he has what we have". "Buy our product though, we're still different" (even though there's virtually no difference in the libraries). See how that sounds/looks? This idea that "more gamers get to play" is bullocks to me. As long as the system a game is on is available, gamers get to play. It's always been that way. We don't need two consoles with the same damn games to prove that. The first party games being exclusive and how different the online settings are do cause striking differences in the console. However, PS3 and 360 are in fact very similar in terms of games, I'd go as far to say more than 2/3 are multi-plat. Although that 1/3 is a big motivation in deciding consoles and the differences in the hardware itself. I hope I made sense. Oh yeah, you're making sense, even if we clash on this. d21lewis makes sense too, I just don't agree with him on this one either. :P

Well, we don't really clash, we're sort of agreeing that exclusivity is good.

Yes i do. Because with an exclusive all the efforts are put into one version of the game and how it plays. In a multiplat the games resources are split across 2 platforms. Not to mention making a game for the ps360 takes a little away from the quality because the devs always have to make compromises on the game.

I.e not being able to take advantage of the 360's memory and unique graphics card. Not being able to use the sell to its fullest because the 360's processor wouldnt be able to keep up. Little things like that can make as huge difference in a games quality

yes,

CGI-Quality said: d21lewis said: .jayderyu said: here are my 2cents in regards to the topic Well as some one who trying to start up a company I can honestly say no. When I work on a game I'm making the game to share the experience I'm envisioning. Of course I can't consider it free. I need to invest money in the game and I would like to make my career sharing my visions. This is a circle. So while I consider the highest priority as the game and vision, money cannot take a back seat. The game is the engine and chassis Money are the wheels and steering wheel. Having said that. Exclusivity sucks. It essentially defines that sharing my vision becomes less important. I want my vision to go to as many people there are. That way more people/gamers/consumers know what I make. In pointing out the OP "For me yes. Exclusivity drives the market and sets brand recognition." This explains a lot of the consumer point of views. Who's Brand Recognition? my game? or the platform? TMNT, Mega Man have appeared on multiple console brands. Clearly in the case of the OP the Platform is more important than my company or the game. Where as what really drives the market is the reverse. Exclusives don't drive the market. The Market is based on supply and demand. A game produced in a limited scope of potential demand does not need more supplies. As is the last Generation the GC has the minimal potential demand. How could that drive the market in anyway? It can't and doesn't. What the OP is actually saying is this. "I want MY preferred console to have higher demand. That requires more exclusives to MY console." So in the end. Exclusives only support a console, but hold back the industry as a whole. In many ways. As others have pointed out elements that are considered positive in light(as in graphics) generally have the cost that the code is not as portable and come next generation there is a lot of building from scratch again. So yes PS3 Exclusive can and will do fabulous graphical games, but at the cost that all the hours spent working on the games engine is borrowed from the next generation. So Exclusives make bragging, fapping rights are in overall more harmful to the gaming console industry than helpful. Eloquently stated. Who wins if Street Fighter 4 or Call of Duty:  Modern Warfare were exclusive?  Certainly not the gamers.  For me, multi-platform gaming means that I can choose the "best version" (being a multi-console owner) and people who only on one console can play some version of a game.  What's wrong with that? But I still don't get how the gamers "win" if all the resources going into these games go into the SAME games for multiple systems. How do we wi, we're actually losing on games. The bigger the library of one console is, that is unique, the better it is for people looking for a particular system. Are you guys saying it would be cool for the 360 & PS3 to have a library that's 100% the same? OK, if so, that's your opinion , no problem, then what would be the point of mutliple consoles? I think you guys are not looking at the big picture. Fortunatley, folks like Nintendo and Sony ARE looking at the larger picture, and know you're console is only as good as it's games (meaning what it offers on it's own). This gen would be pathetic if the Sony was like: "look at what we have, these awesome games. See our buddy over there (the 360), look what he has, oh wait.................he has what we have". "Buy our product though, we're still different" (even though there's virtually no difference in the libraries). See how that sounds/looks? This idea that "more gamers get to play" is bullocks to me. As long as the system a game is on is available, gamers get to play. It's always been that way. We don't need two consoles with the same damn games to prove that. It's not just about "optimization" for me, but difference. I bought a 360 to play 360 games, not to know the majority of what's available is also available on ANOTHER console that I bought. As I've said, this subject will keep people split.

Let's just lay it all out on the table.  The PS3 and the 360 are very similar as far as their performance.  Maybe there is some slight performance upgrade for one system over another.  Maybe.  Maybe if a developer focussed an extra few million dollars on one console, the game that they're designing will look 3% better than if it were a multi-plat.  Is that worth losing another million units sold by going multi?  Is it worth it to gamers who honestly don't care (most aren't performance whores like us). 

This is just an analogy but:  What makes one car stand out from another?  Air conditioning is now exclusive to Honda.  Honda has bragging rights.  Everybody else loses.  Only Samsung TV's can connect to DirecTV.  Samsung gets bragging rights.  Everybody else loses.

To play Metal Gear Solid 4, you HAVE to buy a PS3.  It's all well and good for Sony.  They have their great exclusive.  PS3's sell......but then there are those people who would've bought MGS4 but didn't buy a PS3.  They'll never buy a PS3.  Konami lost those sales.  Gamers lost that game.  There are those gamers that would but Lost Odyssey but don't own a 360.  Good for Microsoft and Xbox fans.  Bad for everybody else.  Those people will NEVER play that good game.  They won't even consider it.  It's not on their platform.  Could these games have been multi-plat?  Yes.  They aren't. 

Think back to the HD DVD/Blu-Ray war.  Some movies were only being released in HD for only one format despite the fact that both formats were capable.  When that format war ended, there was a huge sigh of relief.  Movie studios didn't have to pick a side anymore.  People were free to buy their movie players without fear that they'd have to shell out money for another device that did basically the same thing.

--It doesn't matter to me.  If there's something I want, I'm gonna get it.  Most people don't have that luxury.  And the arguement of "That's the way it's always been":  I was knee deep in the 8-bit/16-bit wars.  There was a huge difference between what a Genesis and a Super Nes could do.  Not so much, now.  Things change.  CD's are dead.  VHS is gone.  Magazines are dying.  The old ways of thinking tend to die off as things evolve.  Gaming and the mentality of gamers seems like it's in need of a little evolution........