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

Forums - Gaming - Console exclusives/content - your view

Squilliam on 14 March 2009
megaman79 said:
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.

 

The Wii doesn't have 50% of the overall market. It also doesn't have anywhere near as much of the traditional console market that we belong to.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
megaman79 on 14 March 2009

So you don't own a Wii then Squiliam? There is a reason why the term duel console owners has become Gametrailers most often repeated excuse.



“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.

badgenome on 14 March 2009

I think it's great to have games which are exclusive to certain consoles. It sets them apart. It kind of sucks being a PS360 owner when they've been basically interchangeable for so long.

I'm not so much of a fan of timed exclusives, at least on Microsoft's end. They rely quite heavily on this semi-exclusive business of timed exclusives, PC/360 "console exclusives," and exclusive DLC. But people don't really seem to care much about EXTRA TOOM RADER LEVELZ!!! (granted, they didn't much care for Tomb Raider itself), and at this point, most third party exclusives for the 360 are going to be assumed timed exclusives if they're not published by MS itself. If they're going to buy exclusives, that's totally cool, but they show throw in the extra $10 million or whatever and get themselves a real exclusive.

Oh, and console exclusives are meaningless because every single person who doesn't have a 360 has a high-end gaming rig.



Kantor on 14 March 2009

I think exclusives are great. They help to define a system, and help people choose the system. There are a couple of things I don't like, though:

-Exclusive DLC: Why? You're making one version of a game better than another, and you shouldn't be.

-Timed exclusive/exclusive demos: Do I even have to explain why this is stupid? We all get the game at the same time, why do they get to try it before us?

My feelings about timed exclusives are mixed. If it's a great game, like BioShock, and they decide that PS3 owners should be able to play it, I'm happy. If, however, the company is thinking "Hmm, what gets us the most money?" *coughSquareEnixTheLastRemnant*, I am a little ticked off.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

786_ali on 14 March 2009

exclusive games are fine because they encourage competition. but exclusive DLCs for multiplat games is just not right



Initiating social expirement #928719281

Around the Network
madskillz on 14 March 2009

Why aren't exclusive DLCs fair? I think in the case of GTA IV and even Fallout 3, DLCs offered an advantage for the 360. It definitely helped boost sales, and based on the success of Lost and the Damned, even though MS couldn't get the game exclusively on the 360 or even a timed exclusive, the DLC made a world of difference, especially for gamers on the fence.



Reasonable on 14 March 2009

Exclusives are fine. Timed exclusives however I disagree with - they simply suck and annoy the end consumer.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

.jayderyu on 14 March 2009

I think it is the most brain dead thing for third party company to do. It's essentially saying "we don't want more money".

If more companies produced all multi-platforms we wouldn't constantly be hearing about losses and closures.

For example if say Haze was on 360 and Wii then it would have access to more people. Including less picky people on the Wii. The fact that Haze has to compete against other seriously well developed 1st and second party games on just the PS3 means it has to fight. hard. Haze was second party wasn't it. So I know it wouldn't it's just an example.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

badgenome on 14 March 2009
.jayderyu said:
I think it is the most brain dead thing for third party company to do. It's essentially saying "we don't want more money".

If more companies produced all multi-platforms we wouldn't constantly be hearing about losses and closures.

For example if say Haze was on 360 and Wii then it would have access to more people. Including less picky people on the Wii. The fact that Haze has to compete against other seriously well developed 1st and second party games on just the PS3 means it has to fight. hard. Haze was second party wasn't it. So I know it wouldn't it's just an example.

Nope, Ubisoft published it. They canceled the 360 version, but I don't remember why.

 



SickleSigh on 14 March 2009

Haze was third party by Free Radical. Exclusives are fine differentiate consoles, without them there wouldn't be any point for more then 1 console to compete. Exclusive DLC is a problem.