I feel like that's a subject that has rarely been touched upon on here, let alone anywhere else on the net in eyars. I think a large majority of gamers fail to realize that PC has never really had as big of a marketing push for an exclusive, to sell ahrdware, but software wise, I'd say the only one that really had some good marketing, was World of Warcraft, due to the original release having many celebs like ozzy, Shatner etc. Outside of that game,w e haven't really had marketing ads that advertise PC exclusives in the same vein as consoles today. We haven't had F76 style building ads, or subway metro train ads like RDR2 got either.

That's also likely why most console gamers don't know about some PC games releasing in and out each month, because they are used to seeing insanely pushed out the door ads all over the place. PC just gets reddit, youtube, some social networking and a store front page ad. 

Does that really translate well on PC?. I feel like that's largely a console related thing, than a PC one. Sure we got Crysis, which melted hw left and right, but since then we haven't really had an exclusively funded for PC game, that's actually been innovative, while also making very good use of the hw at the time it was released. 

Not sure how PC gamers are the "!actual definition of entitled".

I find it a bit hypocritical though how PC gamers are somehow "entitled", but you feel entitled to games not released on Switch...

OT:

I think exclusives are anti-consumer, but at the same time, I realize that 1st party are owned by the platform creator and are thus the ones who run and own that show. When it comes to third parties though, I'd have to say that they are outright anti-consumer. When we had RottR being temp exclusive to MS, that did actually ruffle feathers, the same way EGS is currently ruffling feathers of gamers on PC. What EGS is doing is effectively watering down the general experience, claiming what we've had is what we "don't need", and paying more for less is somehow "saving the industry". Epic are basically taking consumer choice and voices away, and that's just flat out anti-consumer.

I'm actually glad that Frostpunk is releasing soon for consoles, because they get to experience the same dread I did when I made decisions within that game, that I thoughts were the right ones. I'd also be happy if Two point Hospital was released as well. 

I don't mind PC exclusives going to console. My only desire is that said exclusives on PC, are made entirely for PC first, to make the most out of it, then scaled down later on to what console level hw can actually handle. That also includes consoles having to support K+M, if the game was designed for it. I use gamepads for games designed on a console, so really there shouldn't be much issue in a console supporting M+K and enforcing it, rather than having the entire game being centered around just gamepad support, UI and all (because that really just suits one party all the time, but not the other).

When someone buy the exclusive chance to have that game, sure it's anti consumer for the others but pro consumer for your client base. On the other hand, if some developer/publisher is owned or just choose one platform to launch their game it is not. No one should be forced to launch on all platforms if they don't want to.

Is it more pro-consumer to be able to buy one console to play all the games you're interested in or is it more pro-consumer to have to buy five different consoles to play all the games that you're interested in?

This isn't a particularly difficult question to understand, and yet 75% of people polled have not quite figured it out, quite baffling.

Technically yes.
They limit the options of the consumer, there is no other logical way to analyze it.

Do I want them gone? No because I think platforms are interesting when they are as different as possible, but that's just my personal feeling. Looking at it strictly logically, they make consumers less free to choose, and are thus anti-consumer by definition.

Agree, I'm fine with including third party in the first party bunch when a first party publisher completely funded the development of a game, particularly if it was the only chance for a game to ever exist. Other cases, in which the game would have been made anyway, sadden me if they become exclusives, although in such cases, a first party becoming the sole publisher and funder of a third party, although being a more irreversible action, is surely less anticonsumer than moneyhatting a formally independent third party for exclusives. Very often, btw, the short term benefit of moneyhatting isn't even worth giving up other platforms potential revenues in the long term, and it's not surprising that in the past, outside of gaming market, execs responsible of choices in favour of MS and Intel that in the end damaged or even killed their companies, most probably were Intel and/or MS "moles", like Rick Belluzzo at HP and SGI and Stephen Elop at Nokia (almost sure, I'd say, as MS wouldn't have hired them for important and princely paid roles just after they killed or almost killed their companies if they had done it due to incompetence).

The reason that PS4/XBox1/PC game releases anger nintendo fans is because, frankly, the Switch has performed plenty well enough to have people go 'hey, this system will sell your games on it', yet even at this point projects are still not releasing for it. Projects that would have had plenty of times to set up for the system, and we have long gotten past the point of 'too late in development'. 

An exclusive is generally made with a single system in mind, or paid to be there a la Tomb Raider or an Epic Store game. Yet look at all the games people are complaining about missing expectations. 

Businesses reporting bad quarters....and all of them aren't selling Switch titles that could very easily alleviate the problem. 

I haven't read much past the first page but I'm gonna reply anyway...

Only when they're bought. Certain exclusives were exclusives because they had to be. Like for instance, Final Fantasy VII. It was PS1 exclusive because of the disk drive. Square couldn't have made that game on the N64. And because the Saturn's video codec was inferior to PS1's, it likely couldn't have been done on Sega's console either.

Also, games that are first party and are made around the console they're exclusive for. Like Super Mario 64, Zelda OoT. Etc..

However, if the console manufacturer buys the exclusives, then yes. I'd consider that anti-consumer.

I disagree. It depemds on your taste. When jt comesto third party games than xbox .Ine xis the best place to play them as gameslook and perform  better. Not everyone has  cgi computer to play 4k at highest setting 😂 

That also includes xbox one exclusives that are also on pc. They are all enhanced for 4k. So really u only need is all 3 consoles 😂  and if u have money to burn then also a pc.

To answet the thread question, there shouldnt be any exclusives. All games should be on all platform. It should just come to service to the gamers, specs of the consoled and online quality. At the end of the dsy if games come out on all platfos then devs can get more sales which innturn means more studios surviving rather than shutting down.

Totally agree. I can accept controls scaled down to fit a gamepad on console, possibly using more automatic helps, if the PC original version keeps its full-fledged controls, possibly offering simplified ones only if the player prefers them. At the same time I could see even some PC games to benefit from a gamepad, heck, mech games would be finer with a true gamepad instead of the virtual one on phones and tablets too (but the best for the most complex PC ones would be two joysticks, of which at least one with three axes).

How would everyone like it is Sony published Horizon Zero Dawn 2. Made it available on all consoles and PCs and all the sales of that game all went to Sony? I'm game if that's the way people want to play.