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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 3rd Party Exclusives are hurting the industry

Jumpin said:

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.

Actually that is wrong: Playstation is imitating Xbox, not the other way around. They are just far more successful with it.

Think about it: the PS5 is far more similar in design to the original Xbox and 360, than to PS1 and PS2. Being online, patches, DLC, online multiplayer instead of couch multiplayer, harddrives for patches, DLC and digital games, achievement system and so on. Even in genres PS has completely left the dominating genres of the PS1/2-era and switched to shooters, action adventures, action RPGs and racers (the last one were a thing always on anything). But that was the lineup the original Xbox had: Gears, Halo, Morrowind, KOTOR, Riddick and so on. The lineup of the original Xbox and the contemporary PS2 were quite differently. But while Xbox mainly kept this lineup, PS got pretty close and ditched series that were once their main thing. They sold off Crash and Spyro as they shifted their focus.

So I would argue in this ony is cloning MS. They just have the stronger brand, the more loyal fans (as this is often argued with Nintendo: look at WiiU to know the amount of loyal Nintendo fans and look at PS3 to know the amount of loyal PS fans) and better connections to 3rd-parties (as they were the saviour of 3rd-parties that wanted to escape Nintendos practices in the NES/SNES-days).

If you ask me what PS actually innovated I would be hardpressed. They are of the big three the most invested in VR, although they hardly can be said to have invented it. Other than that I am not actually sure they brought anything interesting into the console area. They excel though at refining and standardizing it.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
Hardstuck-Platinum said:
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. 

PC has by far the overwhelming majority of games. Steam had 14K games released in one year, this is a mindboggling number. Most of the console games eventually find their way to PC, with the exception of Nintendo. So on PC you barely miss out on anything. Octopath Traveler is missing PS, but is released on PC. Monster Hunter Rise, World, Stories are all on PC, even though they initially released on very different consoles. Classic japanese game series that were once console exclusive are nowadays all on PC: Persona, Shin Megami Tensei, Ys, Trails, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy. Very few games these days miss a PC release, even if it may take a year or so.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Azzanation said:
twintail said:

If company A gives company B money for a game, how is that not investing in it's development?

Also I need to ask, but why do you think these companies are accepting money for exclusivity?

Because paying to keep games that already were giving budgets and in development to be made, is moneyhatting. 

So, how do you know when in development a deal was made for every game that is exclusive? 

Also, I'm still curious why you think developers accept these exclusivity deals. 



Mnementh said:
Jumpin said:

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.

Actually that is wrong: Playstation is imitating Xbox, not the other way around. They are just far more successful with it.

Think about it: the PS5 is far more similar in design to the original Xbox and 360, than to PS1 and PS2. Being online, patches, DLC, online multiplayer instead of couch multiplayer, harddrives for patches, DLC and digital games, achievement system and so on. Even in genres PS has completely left the dominating genres of the PS1/2-era and switched to shooters, action adventures, action RPGs and racers (the last one were a thing always on anything). But that was the lineup the original Xbox had: Gears, Halo, Morrowind, KOTOR, Riddick and so on. The lineup of the original Xbox and the contemporary PS2 were quite differently. But while Xbox mainly kept this lineup, PS got pretty close and ditched series that were once their main thing. They sold off Crash and Spyro as they shifted their focus.

So I would argue in this ony is cloning MS. They just have the stronger brand, the more loyal fans (as this is often argued with Nintendo: look at WiiU to know the amount of loyal Nintendo fans and look at PS3 to know the amount of loyal PS fans) and better connections to 3rd-parties (as they were the saviour of 3rd-parties that wanted to escape Nintendos practices in the NES/SNES-days).

If you ask me what PS actually innovated I would be hardpressed. They are of the big three the most invested in VR, although they hardly can be said to have invented it. Other than that I am not actually sure they brought anything interesting into the console area. They excel though at refining and standardizing it.

Apart from internal storage, nothing you mentioned is hardware related and therefore, not what I’m talking about—as a note, none of those software conventions/features were invented or popularized by Xbox, either. And saying Sony copied hard drives from Xbox is silly; Sony already had devices for years with internal hard drives years before Xbox (such as the Vaio line). In fact, because it’s so often a step in the evolution of electronic devices dating back to the 1950s. This includes, cameras, TVs, music players, mobile phones, and numerous other electronic devices; stuff Sony and its subsidiaries were putting internal storage into by the early 2000s.

You can say Sony copied Sega and Nintendo for various elements of their design invented or popularized by those companies: shoulder buttons, analog sticks, D-pads, handheld consoles, and such; but the PlayStation was a distinct package. Meanwhile, the Xbox line is very much a line of PlayStation cloneboxes—right down to the controller which imitates the dual shock controller (a controller you’re apparently unfamiliar with). You could argue that Sony designed their original console to take market share from Nintendo and Sega, and even stretching back to Commodore and Atari, but their design was instrumental in carving out a significant portion (most of it) themselves - not Xbox. The PlayStation package (including dual shock) and its iterative approach, are distinctly Sony’s conventions to hardware used to carve out their marketplace. Microsoft isn’t trying to carve out their own marketplace like Sony and Nintendo did - rather, they imitate hardware that already exists in their attempts to cut into those existing marketplaces.

If Microsoft came up with original console hardware, they’d have a shot at being successful in the industry—but they have that corporate cowardice (since at least the 1990s) of only green lighting things targeting audiences that have already been successfully targeted. That’s why it might be impossible for them to carve out their own space without some serious cultural changes in their company.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
Mnementh said:

Actually that is wrong: Playstation is imitating Xbox, not the other way around. They are just far more successful with it.

Think about it: the PS5 is far more similar in design to the original Xbox and 360, than to PS1 and PS2. Being online, patches, DLC, online multiplayer instead of couch multiplayer, harddrives for patches, DLC and digital games, achievement system and so on. Even in genres PS has completely left the dominating genres of the PS1/2-era and switched to shooters, action adventures, action RPGs and racers (the last one were a thing always on anything). But that was the lineup the original Xbox had: Gears, Halo, Morrowind, KOTOR, Riddick and so on. The lineup of the original Xbox and the contemporary PS2 were quite differently. But while Xbox mainly kept this lineup, PS got pretty close and ditched series that were once their main thing. They sold off Crash and Spyro as they shifted their focus.

So I would argue in this ony is cloning MS. They just have the stronger brand, the more loyal fans (as this is often argued with Nintendo: look at WiiU to know the amount of loyal Nintendo fans and look at PS3 to know the amount of loyal PS fans) and better connections to 3rd-parties (as they were the saviour of 3rd-parties that wanted to escape Nintendos practices in the NES/SNES-days).

If you ask me what PS actually innovated I would be hardpressed. They are of the big three the most invested in VR, although they hardly can be said to have invented it. Other than that I am not actually sure they brought anything interesting into the console area. They excel though at refining and standardizing it.

Apart from internal storage, nothing you mentioned is hardware related and therefore, not what I’m talking about—as a note, none of those software conventions/features were invented or popularized by Xbox, either. And saying Sony copied hard drives from Xbox is silly; Sony already had devices for years with internal hard drives years before Xbox (such as the Vaio line). In fact, because it’s so often a step in the evolution of electronic devices dating back to the 1950s. This includes, cameras, TVs, music players, mobile phones, and numerous other electronic devices; stuff Sony and its subsidiaries were putting internal storage into by the early 2000s.

You can say Sony copied Sega and Nintendo for various elements of their design invented or popularized by those companies: shoulder buttons, analog sticks, D-pads, handheld consoles, and such; but the PlayStation was a distinct package. Meanwhile, the Xbox line is very much a line of PlayStation cloneboxes—right down to the controller which imitates the dual shock controller (a controller you’re apparently unfamiliar with). You could argue that Sony designed their original console to take market share from Nintendo and Sega, and even stretching back to Commodore and Atari, but their design was instrumental in carving out a significant portion (most of it) themselves - not Xbox. The PlayStation package (including dual shock) and its iterative approach, are distinctly Sony’s conventions to hardware used to carve out their marketplace. Microsoft isn’t trying to carve out their own marketplace like Sony and Nintendo did - rather, they imitate hardware that already exists in their attempts to cut into those existing marketplaces.

If Microsoft came up with original console hardware, they’d have a shot at being successful in the industry—but they have that corporate cowardice (since at least the 1990s) of only green lighting things targeting audiences that have already been successfully targeted. That’s why it might be impossible for them to carve out their own space without some serious cultural changes in their company.

So then tell me: why does PS5 look more like an Xbox than a PS2? And tell me please, in which way PS brought anything new to gaming, that wasn't copied from anything else. Also online is part of the hardware and hardware and software act as a unity on consoles.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network

MS used SEGA Dreamcasts in focus testing when making the OG Xbox. Almost used VMUs and BC with DC. While it didn't use VMUs or BC with DC games. The controller has borrowed its design from Dreamcast. Of course, MS borrowed from other consoles but not like Sony didn't either when designing the original PS1. The controller is an SNES pad with handles. No Sony didn't invent handles on the controller either.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Mnementh said:
Jumpin said:

Apart from internal storage, nothing you mentioned is hardware related and therefore, not what I’m talking about—as a note, none of those software conventions/features were invented or popularized by Xbox, either. And saying Sony copied hard drives from Xbox is silly; Sony already had devices for years with internal hard drives years before Xbox (such as the Vaio line). In fact, because it’s so often a step in the evolution of electronic devices dating back to the 1950s. This includes, cameras, TVs, music players, mobile phones, and numerous other electronic devices; stuff Sony and its subsidiaries were putting internal storage into by the early 2000s.

You can say Sony copied Sega and Nintendo for various elements of their design invented or popularized by those companies: shoulder buttons, analog sticks, D-pads, handheld consoles, and such; but the PlayStation was a distinct package. Meanwhile, the Xbox line is very much a line of PlayStation cloneboxes—right down to the controller which imitates the dual shock controller (a controller you’re apparently unfamiliar with). You could argue that Sony designed their original console to take market share from Nintendo and Sega, and even stretching back to Commodore and Atari, but their design was instrumental in carving out a significant portion (most of it) themselves - not Xbox. The PlayStation package (including dual shock) and its iterative approach, are distinctly Sony’s conventions to hardware used to carve out their marketplace. Microsoft isn’t trying to carve out their own marketplace like Sony and Nintendo did - rather, they imitate hardware that already exists in their attempts to cut into those existing marketplaces.

If Microsoft came up with original console hardware, they’d have a shot at being successful in the industry—but they have that corporate cowardice (since at least the 1990s) of only green lighting things targeting audiences that have already been successfully targeted. That’s why it might be impossible for them to carve out their own space without some serious cultural changes in their company.

So then tell me: why does PS5 look more like an Xbox than a PS2? And tell me please, in which way PS brought anything new to gaming, that wasn't copied from anything else. Also online is part of the hardware and hardware and software act as a unity on consoles.

Sony is copying MS because they made the ps5 ugly as ****?  



Chrkeller said:
Mnementh said:

So then tell me: why does PS5 look more like an Xbox than a PS2? And tell me please, in which way PS brought anything new to gaming, that wasn't copied from anything else. Also online is part of the hardware and hardware and software act as a unity on consoles.

Sony is copying MS because they made the ps5 ugly as ****?  

LOL.

I hate this design BTW, because I cannot stack the consoles with something like this in between. Why do designers assume their device is the only one you own?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:
Chrkeller said:

Sony is copying MS because they made the ps5 ugly as ****?  

LOL.

I hate this design BTW, because I cannot stack the consoles with something like this in between. Why do designers assume their device is the only one you own?

The ps5 is awful design.  One of the things I liked about consoles was form factor, exclusives and cost.  I went PC over ps5 recently because of three of things went away.

1) ps5 is the almost as big as my computer

2) ps5 games are popping up on steam

3) $500 + $70 games + hdd upgrade + $80 to play online.... consoles aren't cheap anymore.  

PC hardware isn't cheap either but a lot of the cost can be offset by free online and amazing sales on the software.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 15 March 2024

Mnementh said:
Hardstuck-Platinum said:

PC misses out on some exclusive third party games too so his point still stands. 

PC has by far the overwhelming majority of games. Steam had 14K games released in one year, this is a mindboggling number. Most of the console games eventually find their way to PC, with the exception of Nintendo. So on PC you barely miss out on anything. Octopath Traveler is missing PS, but is released on PC. Monster Hunter Rise, World, Stories are all on PC, even though they initially released on very different consoles. Classic japanese game series that were once console exclusive are nowadays all on PC: Persona, Shin Megami Tensei, Ys, Trails, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy. Very few games these days miss a PC release, even if it may take a year or so.

Yes but you need to remember that like 10,000+ of those, weren't even worth playing.
Theres cash grab, below indie level games, buggy self made games by teens, list goes on and on.....  
I'd argue theres too many crappy games (not just on pc/steam) but even on Nintendo/playstation/xbox libraries (however its worst on pc).