By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why do some people get mad when a game goes multiplat? Or they took my games!

games compromised. end of story



Around the Network

well in the case of FF, it was delayed almost a year and had noticeable impact on the map sizes and differentiation.

FF I guess is an exception though, but for other franchises I like to have exclusives because they are optimized, get a ton of hype, and remind me that my console is the best, er, i mean, makes me feel warm and fuzzy.



KylieDog said:
oniyide said:

Since this gen is coming to a close, i was pondering something that confused for some time.  It seems some people get really mad when a game that was exclusive or announced as such goes multi.

FF13, people did not like when that was going to 360, some are still mad.


This kind of change, seeing a game when exclusive and again when multplat is a fair reason to complain.


 

Lollll... you might want to check the word "bullshots"... many devs use it. Even Uncharted which didn't go multiplat did it, the game is incredible regardless.

I think games shouldn't be exclusives at all. I pointed out once that all three should render their online services available for other platforms like Xbox Live on PSN or WiiU so they could get downloadable arcade and indy games. Games on demand should remain on the main console but still everyone should be able to play games on their console. Like every movies work on every dvd player...



Jazz2K said:

Lollll... you might want to check the word "bullshots"... many devs use it. Even Uncharted which didn't go multiplat did it, the game is incredible regardless.

I think games shouldn't be exclusives at all. I pointed out once that all three should render their online services available for other platforms like Xbox Live on PSN or WiiU so they could get downloadable arcade and indy games. Games on demand should remain on the main console but still everyone should be able to play games on their console. Like every movies work on every dvd player...

Exclusives are made to tout how amazing one platform is over another. You are saying that you do not want this?



theprof00 said:
Jazz2K said:

Lollll... you might want to check the word "bullshots"... many devs use it. Even Uncharted which didn't go multiplat did it, the game is incredible regardless.

I think games shouldn't be exclusives at all. I pointed out once that all three should render their online services available for other platforms like Xbox Live on PSN or WiiU so they could get downloadable arcade and indy games. Games on demand should remain on the main console but still everyone should be able to play games on their console. Like every movies work on every dvd player...

Exclusives are made to tout how amazing one platform is over another. You are saying that you do not want this?


When I play a game it's the game I'm playing not the console. The console only allows me to play it. If I have fun it's because the devs are talented not because the console is different from the others. The proof is that there are great games on any console and because of people's fanboyism they refrain from playing some games because it's on the "rival's" console. Also someone that doesn't have money to buy all consoles misses on great games, myself for example I can't justify buying a 300$ PS3 just to pley a few games... 



Around the Network

I guess because then people lose their bragging rights.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

theprof00 said:
well in the case of FF, it was delayed almost a year and had noticeable impact on the map sizes and differentiation.

FF I guess is an exception though, but for other franchises I like to have exclusives because they are optimized, get a ton of hype, and remind me that my console is the best, er, i mean, makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

ok, thats fair, but what about those games that get LATER ported. Its already been optimized for your console, since it was built with it in mind but later goes to another one, what would be the problem then? WOuld you have a problem with that?



I'm glad to see 3rd party exclusives fade away. I think it was a black mark on gaming at the start of this generation.

It was an interesting situation, though. I still wonder if Microsoft regretted buying all those exclusives and 1 year timed exclusives, or if they think it worked out well enough for them. I believe the way it kind of backfired is the reason they stopped doing it, however. Although, they might have simply done it to gain leverage early and intended to stop later, who knows for sure. Or they might have been trying to crush everyone else completely in classic Microsoft style.

Regardless, Sony's answer was perfect. They implemented a policy that required any game being ported over after the end of a timed exclusive contract to be a superior version with extra content. That resulted in the PS3 getting the best version, even if it was a year late.

Later they switched to buying timed exclusive map packs and DLC, which I think has worked out better for them. And in Japan, they bought a TON of exclusive games and licenses in order to bring the 360 up to par with Sony and Nintendo, but that failed completely. I wonder how much money they spent on that initiative?

I'm just glad the practice has died out for the most part. I don't think 3rd party games should be exclusive unless they are designed around what that system can do. 1st party games are, of course, different. Many of them are built from the ground up with that system's strengths and weaknesses in mind. Kill Zone 3, for example, was designed to lean heavily on the PS3's satellite CPUs, something which the 360 doesn't have, so it would take a massive overhaul to appear on a different system.

Now we just need to get rid of timed DLC, which I bloody despise.



Jazz2K said:
theprof00 said:
Jazz2K said:

Lollll... you might want to check the word "bullshots"... many devs use it. Even Uncharted which didn't go multiplat did it, the game is incredible regardless.

I think games shouldn't be exclusives at all. I pointed out once that all three should render their online services available for other platforms like Xbox Live on PSN or WiiU so they could get downloadable arcade and indy games. Games on demand should remain on the main console but still everyone should be able to play games on their console. Like every movies work on every dvd player...

Exclusives are made to tout how amazing one platform is over another. You are saying that you do not want this?


When I play a game it's the game I'm playing not the console. The console only allows me to play it. If I have fun it's because the devs are talented not because the console is different from the others. The proof is that there are great games on any console and because of people's fanboyism they refrain from playing some games because it's on the "rival's" console. Also someone that doesn't have money to buy all consoles misses on great games, myself for example I can't justify buying a 300$ PS3 just to pley a few games... 

WHat it seems like you're trying to hard to ignore about my point, is that amazing games are made in order to be competitive. First parties go balls out to bring you the best game, because that company wants you to buy their hardware. Without hardware competition, you would not have the same level of games. Just look at multiplat now. The biggest game is one that virtually has remained unchanged for 5 games (though I would argue it's actually gotten worse).



I suppose it comes down to whether you like to play games or like to fanboy platforms.