Only third party I can think of not on steam is FF16, Rebirth, bayonetta (2+3) and Unicorn overlord. Granted all those games will hit steam, outside bayonetta 2+3. Not sure what major third party steam doesn't have.

Edit

Bloodborne and Demon are missing from steam.  Though I hope Demon Remake finds it's way at some point.  

True, the hurdles to release on PC are lowest, which also means the crap filter is nearly non-existant. Still PC outdoes every other platform in games, yes worthy games.

Bayonetta 2 and 3 aren't third party games, because Nintendo shares the copyrights for these two games with Sega. Without Nintendo's OK, the games won't be appearing on a non-Nintendo platform and it's obvious that Nintendo has no intention of putting any of their games on the PC.

Likewise, Bloodborne and Demon's Souls aren't third party games either, because Sony has their hands in it. However, there's a very real chance to see these games on the PC because Sony has the intent to step up their support of the PC after having already released several of their first party games before.

Eh SEGA fully owns the Bayonetta IP but Nintendo owns the rights to 2 and 3 and Origins. Can't believe we have to keep repeating this a decade later but PG pitched Bayo 2 to MS and Sony. SEGA didn't want to fund it. Nintendo did. Kamiya said plenty himself Bayo series dies without Nintendo.

I personally don't, but these companies do. For example: Capcom is making a game, its half way in development, Company A steps in, pays them money to keep it off company B's platform. Capcom accepts because its easy money. Capitalism.

Why do companies accept exclusivity deals? Same answer applies to why people accept bribes. 

In my opinion, majority of companies accept these deals because it's the easy way to cash in. Paying to stay ahead isn't healthy competition. What is healthy competition is companies competing on making as many 1st party games as possible and the best hardware they can make over their competition. Instead, what we have is companies taking short cuts to fill holes and paying for an edge instead of investing into making better products.

My thread is about a hyperethical. A "what if" we had rules in place to stop companies from moneyhatting and bribing developers to compete for a sale. My views on this isn't about the business themselves but more about us as customers and the gains in return if these console makers couldn't money hat their way to your wallet. 

For example: If Sony and Microsoft can only compete for your wallet, its to create even more and better 1st party games and to focus on making even better hardware. Today, we get mid gen upgrades, instead of making the OG console that much better to begin with. Look at AMD vs Nvidia, they solely focus on competing by building the best value products. 

Buying exclusivity rights to games is basically bribing and a short cut to these brands to stay ahead. Why do they need to make better hardware? Why do they need to make more 1st party games? They don't, because both PS and Xbox customer base is heavily reliant on 3rd party games. Unlike Nintendo which is the complete opposite. This is why PS and Xbox hardware are basically identical, they play it safe because as long as they have deals in place with 3rd party devs, they know you will buy their product. 

In my personal opinion, the best competition was when it was Nintendo vs Sega. Both companies fighting for your wallet by constantly innovating the industry as well as building a plethora of IPs to win a sale. These days, its all about who controls the 3rd party market, by simply paying for it. Removing the pressure of actually building to innovate and offering the best value. 

There are exceptions to this rule obviously, like 2nd party games and actual funding of a game before its already in development to help get it made. 

In response to the bold. I am referring to money hatting games that have already the budget and are in development without the need of a deal. Plenty of companies release games without exclusivity deals, you have jumped on a massive assumption that they all wouldn't exist without these deals in place. Which console is GTA6 exclusive to? Companies have their own investors and budgets'. I as a customer would prefer to see a 30% increase in sales on another platforms than a 30% money deal to keep a game off a platform. The more people know about an IP and play an IP, is better for the IP and its sequel. 

I deleted everything that was irrelevant to the point. Which means, literally everything you just said.

Let me remind you of the point that you made.

"1) Developers have a larger market to sell their games on, increasing popularity and profits. Keeping the lights on."

Your first point was strictly about the profitability of third party developers. I don't know why you're pretending that you did not make this point but there it is in your own words.

Now, here is a counter argument. In actual argument form.

1: Third parties engage in deals as a result of free bargaining.

2: Third parties would only engage in such deals if they believed it would be beneficial to their business. 

3. Considering these deals have been going on for 30 years, third party developers have enough evidence to reasonably conclude they are beneficial. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that these deals are in fact beneficial to third parties.

Therefore your argument that an end to third party exclusives would increase profits of third party developers is false.

Pretty sure the the logic there stands on its own, but as a formality, do you accept that your first point has been disproven? If you acknowledge that, or can explain why my logic here is flawed, then I might be willing address another point, but I'm not going to engage any further in a conversation where when one argument is proven wrong you just make 10 new bad arguments. That's just a waste of time.

First off, multiplatform games DO have a larger market to sell their products on which would also mean they have a larger profit margin long term. If a game is exclusive, the devs take the safer option and will take the money and run. Sure it's an easier business option but as consumers, we would rather have games sold to more people increasing popularity over cash grabs. Bigger popularity increases game population (Especially MP and Online games) increases the chances of sequels and pushes brand power of the IP. Money doesn't create that. A major benefit for selling games on multiple platforms is IP recognition. Widens the brand and IP, creating a bigger community for that game. 

Also not all 3rd party companies have deals in place which makes your point debatable. Plenty of big and small games release with no deals attached. As consumers, we would want to push the 1st party output and better-quality hardware because that should be the sole purpose on buying a platform over the other, not which platform has exclusive deals in place. 

My hypothetical is about how would it be if companies had to solely rely on their own products and ideas to sell to the consumers and not rely on moneyhatting IPs that they don't own or make. As consumers, we will benefit from that notion because we will see more 1st party game output and better hardware created because that's the main selling point over the other.  

You don't need to keep posting it.  You and Rol aren't saying anything we don't know.  I was listing out third party games not in steam, which includes Bayo series.  For some reason you all thought I didn't know why it was Nintendo exclusive....  I'm fully aware as to why, same with BB and Demon.  

ggg