" 3rd Party Exclusives are hurting the industry " is wrong ,what he wanted to say was : i am hurt because my fav gaaming brand only makes shit third party deals and i wanted to play the amazing games other brands got.
I don't know. People don't have infinite money to spend on games, so if some company is winning more sales by going multiplat, someone else is likely losing.
Not always, mind, but there's probably a hard limit on how high an attach rate can realistically get that's not too far from how games currently sell.
Edit - on that line of thought, it's GAASes and other evergreen titles that are really hurting the industry since that's effectively siphoning money that otherwise could have gone to newer/smaller games directly to shareholders' pockets or some company war chest at no extra cost.
RolStoppable said:
Sony paid big bucks for third party exclusivity during the PS1 era, it's just that the official messaging of third parties was about technological reasons because they didn't want to be viewed as whores. 20 years later a former Squaresoft exec openly admitted that they got the best deal among all third parties from Sony, so there's a clear implication that it wasn't only Squaresoft that got paid off. Today's Square-Enix isn't any different. They still want to spend big on development for new Final Fantasy games despite their inability to make the series sell more, so they gladly take Sony's money once again. On topic: When I read a topic title like this thread here has, I wonder how many gamers still haven't understood that the industry and gaming aren't synonymous. What's good for the industry is commonly not good for gamers or gaming as a whole. In cases like the recent Final Fantasy games, it's certainly preferable for Square-Enix (the industry) to be exclusive to PS, because the financial viability of a FF multiplat is otherwise uncertain. |
Square is the exception, not the rule, even Enix has broken Dragon Quest console exclusivity.
I don't think Square even internally likes the deal they're in, they may have no choice due to something they signed previously. Can't imagine anyone there is happy with those FF7 Rebirth Japanese sales, judging by the fact that it's been 1 1/2 weeks now and not a single peep about its sales period from Square-Enix ... their silence says a lot. Probably not too happy about the WW sales either.
It's not 1999 any more.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 12 March 2024
Third-party exclusives are usually BS, but outside of console exclusives (which still shouldn't really be a thing either) they aren't as prevalent anymore.
How many PS5 games are truly or even console exclusive to PS5? Maybe a few dozen? PS4 now is in a relatively similar boat since a lot of its exclusives are now on PC or PS5.
One of the few recent console exclusives that is ridiculous is FF7 Remake. The games should be on Xbox as well, and Part I of the Remake should come to Switch 2 (in the likely event Switch 2 can handle it). But nope, Square Enix recently confirmed that PlayStation is the only set of consoles the remake is planned to come to.
Admittedly, licensing and developing for more systems costs money. Still, the pros seem to outweight the cons.
It makes sense that Xbox Series X/S has no true exclusives and not a lot of console exclusives. It doesn't have DualSense or JoyCons, so what would you take advantage of?
Lifetime Sales Predictions
Switch: 151 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million)
PS5: 115 million (was 105 million) Xbox Series S/X: 57 million (was 60 million, then 67 million)
PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)
3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)
"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima
| ClassicGamingWizzz said: " 3rd Party Exclusives are hurting the industry " is wrong ,what he wanted to say was : i am hurt because my fav gaaming brand only makes shit third party deals and i wanted to play the amazing games other brands got. |
You know my primary gaming platform is PC right?
| Azzanation said: Now before you jump on the hate train by only ready the headline. Hear me out. Let's talk hypothetical here. What would the industry be like if all 3rd party games released on all platforms, with the only exception of exclusives are 1st party games. 1) Developers have a larger market to sell their games on, increasing popularity and profits. Keeping the lights on. 2) It pushes Console manufacturers to focus on creating even better hardware to outdo the competition. Much like DvD player brands. You buy what's the best value for your dollar. Not what movie can play on one and not the other. Example: A console manufacture can make a poor console, money hat IPs and funnel customers into buying the console that the customer has no interest in buying however has no choice because the games they like have been paid to be exclusive. 3) It allows console manufacturers to invest even more into 1st party games, creating killer apps to sell with the hardware. This increases investments on the 1st party software front, hardware front and might even push companies to open up more studios to increase their portfolio. For companies to have the option to money hat games, it is nothing more than a short cut. It's basically paying to handicap your competition. It would be more interesting to see how all these companies fair if 3rd party games weren't able to be paid exclusives. It will focus more on 1st party content and who offers the better deals with Hardware. Nintendo is in a very unique spot. They found out they couldn't compete on the 3rd party front like Xbox and PS can, so what Nintendo did was focus on building great 1st party games and unique system designs that tend to make 3rd party games exclusives by default due to controller features, like the Wii. Nintendo have found a structure where they don't have to rely on moneyhatting developers to make 3rd party exclusives because Nintendo has an unrivaled 1st party lineup that even if you took all the 3rd party games away from the Switch, Nintendo games alone will sell the systems as we saw with Zelda BOTW literally selling more game copies than hardware devices. If this hypothetical became a reality than we would also need to put in place rules for purchasing studios. Otherwise, MS will just buy all the 3rd party companies and eat the competition. If you really think about it all, we all win. Software developers win, as they can sell more games to more people, customers win because we will be offered better hardware options and 1st party games, and console manufacturers can drive each other and the industry into the right direction much like AMD vs Nvidia. Drive the hardware innovation and we might be able to expand this console market. |
I disagree, strongly. I think developers should make the games that best suit the audiences of the platforms rather than homogenized approaches. Some games will be suitable for multiplatform, but exclusivity fosters healthy competition because of the diversification, a lack of exclusivity fosters homogenization.
1. Developers have a larger market, but also far less chance to shine. Plus they will have to conform to the general hardware standards.
2. It pushes the hardware manufacturers toward homogenization (or Playstation + imitation brands), which, as we've seen with the failure of the Xbox platform, isn't healthy for the industry. Nintendo attempted to imitate the playstation during the GameCube era as well, and it flopped. It's a failing strategy.
3. First party development studios already make great first party games and are always looking at how to make better games with new technology and interface options.
On the business front: Nintendo's extreme success over Microsoft in the console front basically shows that diversification is healthier for the industry, not homogenization. Of the three companies, Microsoft is the most unique: both Nintendo and Sony set their own hardware trends, Microsoft clones Sony's hardware. Any and Nintendo are successful. Microsoft, even with all their corporate predation, has proven to be as unsuccessful as you'd expect an imitation brand to be. Third party games don't dominate on Nintendo platforms, but the budgets are also a lot lower, and there are still third party exclusives that sell in the millions - Pokemon sells in the tens of millions.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Azzanation said:
You know my primary gaming platform is PC right? |
PC misses out on some exclusive third party games too so his point still stands.
People shitting on Switch specs. Those lower specs is what allowed smaller projects like Octopath to happen. Higher risk IP at a lower development cost. The dev kits for Switch cost only a few hundred vs the several thousand for other consoles. The lower specs lowered costs and a lower performance range and faster development.
Considering how 3rd party exclusivity is thankfully declining this is true. There's a clear trend towards multiplatform development and that should continue in the coming years.
Long story short: third party exclusive content is bad when it just exists to harm the others. If a game only exists by being funded by the console maker (Bayonetta and possibly SF5), that's a very different situation
The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
