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

Forums - Gaming - Console exclusives/content - your view

Ok - I for one think console exclusive games or timed exclusives are GREAT for consoles. Why? I think that gamers who really like a game aren't very patient and will buy a console if they are crazy about a game. The console maker gains a large following - but forces other console makers to raise the stakes and step their game up.

I also think it's all about business, not gamers' wants and needs. I think it (exclusives, exclusive content) gives console makers a very clear advantage, like the one the PS2 had over the superior Xbox. (The NVidia lawsuit didn't help MS either)

I also like watching the comp scramble, which makes things even better for the both sets of gamers.

For the folks who don't think it's a good idea - why? Do you feel console exclusives are unfair? Who do you blame?

I wanna see some thoughts about this matter.



Around the Network

Of course it's fair. There's no doubt about it. Exclusives spurs innovation. If there aren't exclusives, there's no purpose for a competing consoles to try to outdo the other with a better game.




If you like the idea of competing consoles fine, but there is no other media industry which forces people to buy multiple devices to be able to play all of the content. Long term its against the best interests of the industry to have too many competing standards.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
If you like the idea of competing consoles fine, but there is no other media industry which forces people to buy multiple devices to be able to play all of the content. Long term its against the best interests of the industry to have too many competing standards.

Agreed, but gaming is different in that it's also the only constantly evolving medium in terms of how one interacts with it. Regardless of the technology behind a movie, watching it is the same no matter what.

Gaming presents an interesting problem. I agree that it's not necessarily a good thing, but I think it might be necessary.

Unless it isn't. Is there a possible model where it wouldn't be?



Khuutra said:
Squilliam said:
If you like the idea of competing consoles fine, but there is no other media industry which forces people to buy multiple devices to be able to play all of the content. Long term its against the best interests of the industry to have too many competing standards.

Agreed, but gaming is different in that it's also the only constantly evolving medium in terms of how one interacts with it. Regardless of the technology behind a movie, watching it is the same no matter what.

Gaming presents an interesting problem. I agree that it's not necessarily a good thing, but I think it might be necessary.

Unless it isn't. Is there a possible model where it wouldn't be?

Its necessary for one console to win to give the best market conditions. Between generations its fine to have many competiting solutions, but once the generation starts a clear winner has to be chosen.

Consoles are unlike other networked products such as Cell phones in that they cannot and will not communicate with other brands. This in itself limits adoption because it prevents one console from attaining a critical mass to get other people on board to the network as well.

Lastly, developers who can target a single platform produce better results for everybody. If 100% of development effort is focused on 100% of potential gamers the net result is better games which everyone can play and enjoy.

 



Tease.

Around the Network

So are you saying that the system would be best served by the losers bowing out early so that development can be more focused until the next go-round?

Generations would end up being a lot longer, but I don't think I dislike the idea.

This particular generation would be problematic for that model, though. What would be the clear winner here? The Wii, for the insntall base, or the 360, for being the choice of many developers?



Khuutra said:
So are you saying that the system would be best served by the losers bowing out early so that development can be more focused until the next go-round?

Generations would end up being a lot longer, but I don't think I dislike the idea.

This particular generation would be problematic for that model, though. What would be the clear winner here? The Wii, for the insntall base, or the 360, for being the choice of many developers?

This generation has no clear platform winner which is unfortunate. Theres the HD platforms and the Wii which have roughly 50% each of the user split and thats about the best we've got.

 



Tease.

For me exclusive games and content are stupid. It is like having a Samsung DVD player and you can't watch Quantum Of Solace, cos this move is from Sony Pictures and it is exclusive for Sony players only. Yes, exclusive games force companies to develop better games, but this rush for content start to go out of control. First it was exclusive games, then time exclusive games, exclusive DC, exclusive demo, exclusive modes, exclusive characters. What will be next? Exclusive multiplayer?
Unfortunately this is how real life works and exclusives are part of the game. With the strong competition this generation we will face even bigger desire from MS and SONY for exclusives.



Squilliam said:
Khuutra said:
So are you saying that the system would be best served by the losers bowing out early so that development can be more focused until the next go-round?

Generations would end up being a lot longer, but I don't think I dislike the idea.

This particular generation would be problematic for that model, though. What would be the clear winner here? The Wii, for the insntall base, or the 360, for being the choice of many developers?

This generation has no clear platform winner which is unfortunate. Theres the HD platforms and the Wii which have roughly 50% each of the user split and thats about the best we've got.

That's very interesting, but it would be easier to concede to if Microsoft wasn't trying to hog all the HD exclusives for itself.



Squilliam said:
Khuutra said:
So are you saying that the system would be best served by the losers bowing out early so that development can be more focused until the next go-round?

Generations would end up being a lot longer, but I don't think I dislike the idea.

This particular generation would be problematic for that model, though. What would be the clear winner here? The Wii, for the insntall base, or the 360, for being the choice of many developers?

This generation has no clear platform winner which is unfortunate. Theres the HD platforms and the Wii which have roughly 50% each of the user split and thats about the best we've got.

 

You wish that true, and so do all the third parties that spent millions dev. hardware to make games exclusivly for the PS360 market, but its not and the Wii by every measurable right should have the majority of the best dev. effort and product.

Just because it hasn't got all the best exclusives, and according to Capcom etc will not, doesn't mean it hasn't ultimately won the gen. Japan was only the start of it, following EA's apology it will turn around. Its just going to take a while thats all.

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.