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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Games should be made "EXCLUSIVE" for one platform again

we get enough 1st part exclusive no point really for 3rd party



 

 

Around the Network
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.

 

NFL 2k, NBA 2k, PSO 1/2, Daytona USA, Ecco, Shenmue, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Metroid Prime 1/2, Wind Waker, SSBM, Mario Sunshine, Mario Kart DD, Rouge Squadron 2, Resident Evil Remake, Eternal Darkness, Animal Crossing, Halo 1/2, Fable, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Jade Empire, KOTOR etc. etc. etc.

If you didn't own all four, you missed out big time. If all I had were a PS2, I would have been majorly depressed.



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.



Hunting Season is done...

People begging for third party exclusivity forget a lot of things:
1. Sales, especially needed sales for a defined budget. Back in the old days, game development was ridiculously cheap compared to today. 8-Bit games usually didn't have more than a handful of developers. Even many PS1 games had really small teams behind them.
Now you have to realize, that not so few classics sold way under a million in the 80's and 90's and yet were huge successes.

2. Business terms. Remember those Nintendo business terms for the NES? Those that led to many of Nintendos problems later on? Those were the main reason for so many exclusive third party games.

3. Market domination, now just look at the PS2. Sonys total domination of the console world. While Dreamcast, Xbox and Gamwecube didn't even sell 60 million consoles combined, Sony wasn't that far from 160 million PS2.

4. Differences and/or similarities in hardware. Remember some of those effects in Super Castlevania IV? Parts of that couldn't be done on a Mega Drive/Genesis. Segas console could do some stuff that Nintendidn't vice versa.
Around the 32Bit era that changed. Not totally though. Developers often had to reprogram or even redo parts of their games for PS1 or Saturn.
Today GPU-technology and API-stuff is pretty much the same if you compare it to that time. Of course, there still are differences, but not to the same extent.
If you look at game engines, it doesn't matter that much if we talk about in-house tech like Frostbyte or Unreal Engine and Unity, all are extremely scalbale and already ported to basically everything to make development for multiple platforms as easy as possible.

5. Range. Something that might be even more important for small devs. You either need many platforms or really good visibility on a single platform to get your sales. That goes even more for smaller developers.

More or less similar tech and scalability of engines basically take away almost all benefits from platform exclusivity, while developers and gamers can actually benefit from multiplat releases.
If a dev gets decent financing and/or marketing, they might benefit from exclusivity though.



Just saying I'd be perfectly fine if everything was on either PC or Nintendo portable.



Around the Network
captain carot said:
People begging for third party exclusivity forget a lot of things:
1. Sales, especially needed sales for a defined budget. Back in the old days, game development was ridiculously cheap compared to today. 8-Bit games usually didn't have more than a handful of developers. Even many PS1 games had really small teams behind them.
Now you have to realize, that not so few classics sold way under a million in the 80's and 90's and yet were huge successes.

2. Business terms. Remember those Nintendo business terms for the NES? Those that led to many of Nintendos problems later on? Those were the main reason for so many exclusive third party games.

3. Market domination, now just look at the PS2. Sonys total domination of the console world. While Dreamcast, Xbox and Gamwecube didn't even sell 60 million consoles combined, Sony wasn't that far from 160 million PS2.

4. Differences and/or similarities in hardware. Remember some of those effects in Super Castlevania IV? Parts of that couldn't be done on a Mega Drive/Genesis. Segas console could do some stuff that Nintendidn't vice versa.
Around the 32Bit era that changed. Not totally though. Developers often had to reprogram or even redo parts of their games for PS1 or Saturn.
Today GPU-technology and API-stuff is pretty much the same if you compare it to that time. Of course, there still are differences, but not to the same extent.
If you look at game engines, it doesn't matter that much if we talk about in-house tech like Frostbyte or Unreal Engine and Unity, all are extremely scalbale and already ported to basically everything to make development for multiple platforms as easy as possible.

5. Range. Something that might be even more important for small devs. You either need many platforms or really good visibility on a single platform to get your sales. That goes even more for smaller developers.

More or less similar tech and scalability of engines basically take away almost all benefits from platform exclusivity, while developers and gamers can actually benefit from multiplat releases.
If a dev gets decent financing and/or marketing, they might benefit from exclusivity though.

1.

 

https://www.vg247.com/2017/03/30/nioh-is-the-most-successful-game-koei-tecmo-has-ever-published-in-the-west/amp/

 

https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.vg247.com/2017/12/01/persona-5-has-sold-2-million-copies-worldwide-the-highest-sales-in-the-series/amp/

 

 

2. Arent you forgetting a little context? Sure you do.

 

3. Welcome to the world of competitive capitalism. But more importantly: Again, missing context.

 

4. Is missing the subject.

 

5. Or you just need less of them. More isnt equally better. See steam.



Hunting Season is done...

CGI-Quality said:
Azzanation said:

I am referring to inhouse fighting, something console gamers do to each other every generation. I rarely.. if not never hear PC gamers argue or fight over little things like games. Probably because we are too busy playing the massive libraries given to us. Its all thanks to the accessibility. Console manufacturers want to lock up games so you and others cant play them which leads to fighting and arguing. Which is the modern gaming industry today, I cannot go on any forum, thread or channel about console games without some form of war, nonsense debate or comparisons.

You are referring to the typical PC Master Race fan.

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:
Azzanation said:

I am referring to inhouse fighting, something console gamers do to each other every generation. I rarely.. if not never hear PC gamers argue or fight over little things like games. Probably because we are too busy playing the massive libraries given to us. Its all thanks to the accessibility. Console manufacturers want to lock up games so you and others cant play them which leads to fighting and arguing. Which is the modern gaming industry today, I cannot go on any forum, thread or channel about console games without some form of war, nonsense debate or comparisons.

You are referring to the typical PC Master Race fan.

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. ;)



Ganoncrotch said:
Azzanation said:

I am referring to inhouse fighting, something console gamers do to each other every generation. I rarely.. if not never hear PC gamers argue or fight over little things like games. Probably because we are too busy playing the massive libraries given to us. Its all thanks to the accessibility. Console manufacturers want to lock up games so you and others cant play them which leads to fighting and arguing. Which is the modern gaming industry today, I cannot go on any forum, thread or channel about console games without some form of war, nonsense debate or comparisons.

You are referring to the typical PC Master Race fan.

Do you not see how hypocritical this post is? Even just in the fact that you are suggesting that console gamers are "in fighting" if they're having a disagreement between Xbox or PS4, there is as much connection between a gamer who likes the PS4 over the X1 as there is the Ps4 over the PC, don't think of gaming industry as Consoles Vs PC, doesn't work like that in the slightest, just because it isn't your camp of choice that doesn't mean that every other perceived enemy of yours automatically should love each other as a console ally, it's actually insane a way to think.

Would pretty much be the same if anyone who owned a Ps4 considered it "in fighting" if Switch/X1 and PC gamers were fighting among themselves. Stop creating a Them Vs Us battle in your head , that's not how things work in reality.

Wouldn't take 5 mins to find one of total biscuits sad rants about some game not being ported to the PC from consoles or crying because a game is also going to be on the consoles btw, would link one but his channel doesn't deserve the google metric.

Haha the point isnt consoles vs PCs, its console fans vs console fans. PC fans dont argue with eachother about games and exclusives, you are bringing up console vs PC wars. Thats an entirly different issue. 

Iv made it pretty simple that PC gamers dont fight amongst themselves due to the fact majority of PC gamers have access to the same games. Where as console gamers fight between eachother on which platform and games are better. Its pretty clear to see it, just go on any topic and read or watch the bickering. 

Hope you understand my point now, i cannot make it any simpler.



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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

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.

Eh, I didn't miss any points. I just say you're wrong. Petty arguments will exist regardless of the criteria. Your anecdote about your work life is just that. A sudden loss of exclusives won't remove humans from being humans. If there is something to have an opinion about, there will always be differing of views.