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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Death of Platform Exclusive Software

Mar1217 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

A bunch of opinions regardless of who they're from are still just opinions so... don't pretend they're facts.

If you're gonna make such an argument, at least name a quality studio that does more than one title per generation ...

No. I don't need to name anything to call somebody out for citing something subjective as an objective fact. They were wrong, end of.



Around the Network

My top 3 games of the generation are all third-parties, though one of them was financed by a first-party company (not Sony or Nintendo) and one of them is (for now) an exclusive. Extend that to top 4 and you get one first-party exclusive game from Nintendo, which by the way is best experienced on PC via emulation.

(Edit: By the way, two of these games are in the top 5 best-reviewed games of 2020, with one of them being the year's #1. The other game, despite not being as well-received and barely being even nominated for any awards, has gone on to become incredibly successful with audiences everywhere as well as massively impactful in the gaming industry as a whole. Goes to show how much critics dictate the tastes of people, right.)

I get what you're saying about critics and awards @Cerebralbore101 but treating subjective opinions as fact isn't the way to go, even if it's the opinion of professional critics.

Last edited by mZuzek - on 23 January 2021

I like the idea of people having the freedom to play games on whatever platform they choose. Less games being taken hostage, more people having access to said games, that's a plus for me.

Just ensure that if your game is being developed to run on a potato, then that mandatory potato version of the game doesn't result in creativity and features being compromised across all other platforms.

Last edited by NyanNyanNekoChan - on 24 January 2021

Cerebralbore101 said:

Well, game awards and critics tend to agree with me so...

Do they represent everyone else on the planet, let alone the userbases on PC/Xbox?.


You're taking one side over the other here at this point, completely disregarding the other.



curl-6 said:
freebs2 said:

In that sense, exclusives help certain hadrware manifacturers to grow their userbase. Exclusivity doesn't help the market as a whole to grow larger and healthier, actually it could be argued the opposite. Going by the assumption that every gamer has a limited budget, by forcing to buy multiple system to access all games you're actually deminishing the value of the game software market (number of gamers * thier budget), so it actually hurts developers of non-exclusive game titles.

On the other hand, exclusivity is beneficial for game studios that make the exclusive title, since they get a co-marketing push from the platform manifacturer.

Exclusivity can only be beneficial for customers if exclusive games are designed to take great advantage of platform specific features; that was the case of games designed for the Wii or DS, but imo it doesn't apply very much to the Switch or to PS4 vs Xbox One. It can make sense for next gen games that require processing capabilites above what was avaliable on older gen systems.

Looking at games released in 2020, the only one that really can fit into that category was Half Life Alyx, probably.

If a game is Switch exclusive and helps move Switch hardware and grow the userbase, then that benefits me and others like me as Switch owners because then we get more games to play on our platform of choice.

Switch owners, myself included, are getting a benefit from the fact a formerly exclusive games (from Microsoft) are being released on Switch (Ori and the Blind Forest, Ori and Will Of Whisps, Cuphead, etc.). The same way, as a PC gamer, I'm getting a benefit from the fact Sony is releasing some of their games on PC (Detroit, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding). The fact I'm enjoing these games on different platforms doesn't hinder the enjoyment of Xbox or PS4 players, so from a genereal consumer perspective (regardless of the platform I own), in the worst case I'm not losing anything, in the best case I'm getting a benefit.

Without exclusivity you could just choose the platform with the hardware specs and features you like the most and play the games you like regardless. The userbase of a specifc console would soley depend on hardware features and not depend on artificial paywalls to access specific games.

That said, I don't realistically expect exclusives to go away anytime soon since Nintendo, MS and Sony are all getting benefit from it. At the same time as consumer, exclusives are hurting me in two ways: by making me spend more money and by limiting my choice.



Around the Network
freebs2 said:
curl-6 said:

If a game is Switch exclusive and helps move Switch hardware and grow the userbase, then that benefits me and others like me as Switch owners because then we get more games to play on our platform of choice.

Switch owners, myself included, are getting a benefit from the fact a formerly exclusive games (from Microsoft) are being released on Switch (Ori and the Blind Forest, Ori and Will Of Whisps, Cuphead, etc.). The same way, as a PC gamer, I'm getting a benefit from the fact Sony is releasing some of their games on PC (Detroit, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding). The fact I'm enjoing these games on different platforms doesn't hinder the enjoyment of Xbox or PS4 players, so from a genereal consumer perspective (regardless of the platform I own), in the worst case I'm not losing anything, in the best case I'm getting a benefit.

Without exclusivity you could just choose the platform with the hardware specs and features you like the most and play the games you like regardless. The userbase of a specifc console would soley depend on hardware features and not depend on artificial paywalls to access specific games.

That said, I don't realistically expect exclusives to go away anytime soon since Nintendo, MS and Sony are all getting benefit from it. At the same time as consumer, exclusives are hurting me in two ways: by making me spend more money and by limiting my choice.

I wouldn't be able to play the games I want on the platform I want though, if exclusives weren't there to build the userbase of my preferred platform to the point of it being worth supporting.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
freebs2 said:

Switch owners, myself included, are getting a benefit from the fact a formerly exclusive games (from Microsoft) are being released on Switch (Ori and the Blind Forest, Ori and Will Of Whisps, Cuphead, etc.). The same way, as a PC gamer, I'm getting a benefit from the fact Sony is releasing some of their games on PC (Detroit, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding). The fact I'm enjoing these games on different platforms doesn't hinder the enjoyment of Xbox or PS4 players, so from a genereal consumer perspective (regardless of the platform I own), in the worst case I'm not losing anything, in the best case I'm getting a benefit.

Without exclusivity you could just choose the platform with the hardware specs and features you like the most and play the games you like regardless. The userbase of a specifc console would soley depend on hardware features and not depend on artificial paywalls to access specific games.

That said, I don't realistically expect exclusives to go away anytime soon since Nintendo, MS and Sony are all getting benefit from it. At the same time as consumer, exclusives are hurting me in two ways: by making me spend more money and by limiting my choice.

I wouldn't be able to play the games I want on the platform I want though, if exclusives weren't there to build the userbase of my preferred platform to the point of it being worth supporting.

It's a bit like the chicken and egg problem...what made you choose your current platform of choice? The hardware features or its exclusive game library, or both? If you hypothesize a game market without exlcusives you can just leave one variable out of the equation, in other words regadless of what console you choose you could still potentially play any Nintendo, Sony or MS games on it. Your choice would be based just on hardware features: your favourite form factor, your favourite controller, your favourite online service, the most suitable price point, etc.

If a console, in that specific scenario, doen't get enough traction to get software support, the reason must be because its features are unappealing to the market. In that scenario, even if you 'bet on the wrong horse', the cost of switching to another console would be lower, since you don't lose access to any exclusive title.

Now, consider the same console (with the same unappealing hardware features) in the current market. Thanks to exclusives it could expand the userbase in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise. This means players are accepting to buy a console with sub-optimal features in order to gain access to its exclusive library...I don't see this as a gain from the consumer perspective.

Last edited by freebs2 - on 24 January 2021

freebs2 said:

It's a bit like the chicken and egg problem...what made you choose your current platform of choice? The hardware features or its exclusive game library, or both? If you hypothesize a game market without exlcusives you can just leave one variable out of the equation, in other words regadless of what console you choose you could still potentially play any Nintendo, Sony or MS games on it. Your choice would be based just on hardware features: your favourite form factor, your favourite controller, your favourite online service, etc.

If a console, in that specific scenario, doen't get enough traction to get software support, the reason must be because its features are unappealing to the market. In that scenario, even if you 'bet on the wrong horse', the cost of switching to another console would be lower, since you don't lose access to any exclusive title.

Now, consider the same console (with the same unappealing hardware features) in the current market. Thanks to exclusives it could expand the userbase in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise. This means players are accepting to buy a console with sub-optimal features in order to gain access to its exclusive library...I don't see this as a gain from the consumer perspective.

This reminds me of the time when Ninty itself tried to dabble in VR years ago. They had exclusive games for it, but the device itself was such utter garbage that hardly any Ninty or non Ninty fan likes to talk about that device. The device itself is a prime example of it not having goo features or the device itself being good enough to use, even with it's exclusive games, so you'd be correct, it isn't exactly and primarily down to just exclusives, but it's the device itself that has to prove it's worth. 


Then there's the PS Vita, which has proprietary memory cards, and I know a lot hated that back then. Sure it didn't have many first party games on it, but the device itself wasn't doing much of anything new, compared to DS to 3DS evolution, and the Vita lacked enough third party support and it suffered. That could be taken as a slightly different example, but things like the forced proprietary  mem cars part does add up.

I think that if the device itself isn't at all appealing, then I wouldn't buy it, even if it had exclusive software. I'm not sure why anyone would force themselves to use a device they wouldn't like, just to play something exclusive.



Chazore said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Well, game awards and critics tend to agree with me so...

Do they represent everyone else on the planet, let alone the userbases on PC/Xbox?.


You're taking one side over the other here at this point, completely disregarding the other.

You realize that many critics are multiplatform gamers right?

What are the sides you are referring to? I think I know what you mean, but I just want to make sure we are on the same page here, before I go any further.



Cerebralbore101 said:

You need a phone, but you do not need a phone costing $500 and up. I have a $30 POS ZTE branded phone that does 90% of what those $500 to $1000 phones do.

Did you get the $30 phone in combination with your phone contract?

If yes, how much does that cost per month and how many months are you bound to that contract? I'm pretty sure, a lot of the hardware costs are hidden in the monthly payments.