PS4 And Xbox One Have An 'Exclusive' Problem

[FarticusMaximus]

I haven't found any exclusive game problem so far, and as mentioned above we are barely started on this gen.

I have no experience of the PS4 but I do have several friends with PS4's who are enjoying it well enough (which for me is a far better metric than any forum or review site)

On the Xbox side, the launch lineup of Dead Rising, Forza, Powerstar Golf, PvZ, Killer Instinct, Max and Titanfall was superb IMO. There's plenty of variety and all have deep gameplay and progression systems with plenty of content.

I thought Ryse was great too, although the nature of the game meant it was always going to split opinion.

Later on, Sunset Overdrive and Horizon have proved to be very high quality titles with huge amounts of content.

Personally I'd include MCC, but how well you rate it would depend entirely on whether you play competitive multiplayer or not. As a SP/co-op player I found it to be ridiculously good value and have had very few problems, but I can certainly understand peoples frustrations at MP issues.

As for upcoming titles, both platforms have plenty to look forward to, including games that I believe have the potential to be genuine classics (Quantum Break, Halo 5, Bloodborne, UC4) and games that could really be pushing innovative new technologies and gameplay (No Mans Sky, Crackdown).

The article is absurd, and is clinging on to the unfounded negativity that pervaded the launch of this gen, which is shaping up to be the most successful generation of consoles yet. It's also sitting squarely in the "if it don't sell 10 mil it ain't worth sheeeet" camp, which is populated entirely by morons.

 

[FarticusMaximus]

Three Forza's, that's telling.

Telling of what, exactly? Drive-by posts like this aren't particularly conducive to discussion.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who even cares if there's an exclusives shortage if the games you want to play are available? If Uncharted, Quantum Break, Forza, etc. were multiplat, would console gamers be worse off??

 

[Cjail]

Nintendo. But then again they just keep remaking exactly the same games with slightly better graphics.

And MS and Sony don't!?
I frankly don't see "novelty" in any of the Sony and MS exclusives announced/showed so far.
Quantum break space-time bending/manipulation mechanics might help him stand out a bit but they are nothing new.

But this is probably off-topic.

Anyway I think that Forbes is dooming the The Order solely based on reviews and not sales, which is quite unprofessional, to say the least, for a financial journal.
As for their prediction about MS and Sony incoming exclusives they are just as good as ours.

 

[Nesh]

Who even cares if there's an exclusives shortage if the games you want to play are available? If Uncharted, Quantum Break, Forza, etc. were multiplat, would console gamers be worse off??

Exactly. There are various blogs and articles floating around (especially during the holidays) saying that because the PS4 and XB1 dont have AAA exclusives yet or true next generational games, they arent worth buying, ignoring the more important question "do they have games we wanna play?". They conclusion was"Buy a WiiU instead" for its very few Nintendo exclusives ignoring the important question one more time and ignoring the fact that the Wii U isnt next generational to begin with. The arguments are often silly and self contradictory.
At the same time I was wondering "if my PS4 (or someone else's XB1) werent worth buying, then why am I enjoying it and how would my older console or Wii U fit in?"
Even games that are cross generational are better played on a newer gen console in the form that it was intended to, not the form that was downgraded to fit the needs of those that still own the older consoles.
Both of these consoles regardless how many exclusives they have, they offer an experience that is not found at the same quality or at all on older consoles. It doesnt make sense to not experience good games at all on a PS4 or an XB1, simply because none of the two has a swarm of AAA perfect exclusive games yet. And it doesnt make sense to assume that they wont be getting superb exclusives later or games that are significantly better than what we got so far in the future

 

[London Geezer]

If Uncharted, Quantum Break, Forza, etc. were multiplat, would console gamers be worse off??

Yes. Of course. They would lose exactly 19% of their attractiveness.

 

[Sigfried1977]

We have The Last Guardian on the horizon.

*duck*

If only

 

[Prophecy2k]

Exactly. There are various blogs and articles floating around (especially during the holidays) saying that because the PS4 and XB1 dont have AAA exclusives yet or true next generational games, they arent worth buying, ignoring the more important question "do they have games we wanna play?". They conclusion was"Buy a WiiU instead" for its very few Nintendo exclusives ignoring the important question one more time and ignoring the fact that the Wii U isnt next generational to begin with. The arguments are often silly and self contradictory.
At the same time I was wondering "if my PS4 (or someone else's XB1) werent worth buying, then why am I enjoying it and how would my older console or Wii U fit in?"
Even games that are cross generational are better played on a newer gen console in the form that it was intended to, not the form that was downgraded to fit the needs of those that still own the older consoles.
Both of these consoles regardless how many exclusives they have, they offer an experience that is not found at the same quality or at all on older consoles. It doesnt make sense to not experience good games at all on a PS4 or an XB1, simply because none of the two has a swarm of AAA perfect exclusive games yet. And it doesnt make sense to assume that they wont be getting superb exclusives later or games that are significantly better than what we got so far in the future

Absolutely,

I think alot of folks underestimate the unwaivering desire that gamers have to always being playing the most current and best versions of games that they can afford.

I mean, no one wants to settle for the class hottie's uglier younger sister, when you know the class hottie is single and available. Even if you have to shell out to take to more expensive restaurants in order to get her, you still feel vindicated at the end of the day when the class hottie is hanging on the end of your arm at school and making you look good.

Bottom line is, as soon as the XB1 and PS4 launched, the PS360 became old news. They stopped getting VG media discussion space and air time. It's so bad that I sometimes feel a little ashamed to let my PS3 appear visible on my entertainment centre, in case anyone asks and I have to say "no, that's a PS3 not the PS4" (the PS4 is hid snuggly out of sight).

 

[dobwal]

Quantum Break, new Gears title, new Crackdown... How come you guys always forget about some?

Cause its so many and the author of the article seems more interested in driving hits than stating anything factual.

 

[iroboto]

I originally avoided this thread because I thought it would degenerate into a console war really quickly - especially how Forbes setup the article. I'm glad to see it hasn't.

I don't like the way the article lined up games vs each other; imo, it is better to look at the whole catalog, and if MS and PS4 are doing less with their first party games, then it's a testament that 3rd party games are doing a great job filling out the rest of the library such that MS or Sony no longer need to. In my opinion MS and Sony should be responsible for rounding out their own libraries, but I disagree with the statement that because the public didn't like the game they didn't do a good job with trying to round out their library. What if the game is successful? Then they're heroes. Games often are pitched one way and over the course of development become something else, lots of things go wrong in games. But they green lit the original concept, so... whose really to blame here? imo Sony and MS are doing their jobs.

It's important to look at both publishers separately, since I don't see how having UC on PS4 has any sort of effect on MS' library. That being said looking at MS - now that 3rd party has dominated FPS space, you can see MS moving away from competitive FPS a bit more as they should; Destiny and Titanfall with COD and BF, makes for a saturated market. imo Halo will be the only FPS MS likely will ever green light for first party from here on out. I also think we see the same for their TPS as well, Gears will likely be the only TPS competitive shooter they have as well. We see MS continue to green light first party Kinect games because 3rd party won't do it (KSR, FRU, Dance Central, Fantasia). MS is sorely missing indie titles (but will receive some great looking ones this year), and generally missing titles that are super hits, ones that marry narrative and gameplay together well. So I think we see an attempt here to fill that aspect of their library with ROTR,QB, Ryse etc. I want to be careful here in suggesting ROTR since it used to be 3rd party. But I do believe when a game goes first party the game is given much more support and the tweaking and fundamental optimizing is done for only 1 console meaning the development experience is much more curated creating an overall better title. The need for exclusives from the standpoint of the developer makes sense, though the need for exclusives from the aspect of the gamer doesn't. They are probably missing more or I could be wrong, maybe they have a lot, but honestly I've never really started playing Xbox until this year, 360 was a dedicated Mass Effect, Gears, fighting game machine.

Sony generally has a bit weaker of a library in the competitive FPS and TPS space, but it did a great job rounding out those parts with 3rd party games. They are marketing partners for Destiny, and Titanfall will (I think) work it's way to PS4. Other than competitive FPS (which imo is saturated by 3rd party), they're doing pretty well. They lost some of their peripheral games like DDR and Sing Star and other Move games - but nothing major. Rock Band is coming back and we'll likely see Sing Star for PS4 again. They should be and will likely be heavily involved with the Morpheus 1st party games going forward.

Both could use some more strategy games? I dunno if anyone agrees with that.

 

[DrJay24]

What is a "competitive FPS and TPS"? :Like professional competition? I'm guessing games like COD and TF fit that description, both of which are 3rd party. How does MS excel in competitive shooters? I would think Halo 5 or Gears 4 might be the first venture they make into competition this gen. Sony has Killzone competitions.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What is a "competitive FPS and TPS"? :Like professional competition?

Competitive multiplayer means you compete with other players rather than co-operate with them.

 

[iroboto]

What is a "competitive FPS and TPS"? :Like professional competition? I'm guessing games like COD and TF fit that description, both of which are 3rd party. How does MS excel in competitive shooters? I would think Halo 5 or Gears 4 might be the first venture they make into competition this gen. Sony has Killzone competitions.

It does mean competing. As for professional play, Halo has been in MLG since Halo 1 and was only removed from the play cycle after Halo 4 bombed. H5 would be its return to the professional scene. I don't think Gears has quite made it yet.

edit: Gears is part of the MLG scene since Gears 1.

MS excels because of these two franchises, both are definitive titles for console gaming.

 

[eastmen]

Quantum Break, new Gears title, new Crackdown... How come you guys always forget about some?

I tried to list stuff with more solid dates I'm excited for quantum , gears and crackdown but I have little hope for the second two to launch before fall 2016 and I think quantum may be an early 2016 title

 

[Prophecy2k]

Mirroring Dsoup's final statement, I'd definintely like to see more strategy games appearing on console.

It's great to see Tropico 5 coming to PS4, for example. But things like the upcoming next big Warhammer RTS, or empire total war.

I'd like to see more japanese games on both boxes, but it seems Sony is doing a much better job at that than MS.

In general I agree with DSOUP's premise that the platform holder's job is to make the games, regardless of how they're being recieved. I'd be glad to see Sony contract RAD for another bgi AAA game, since despite the flaws of The Order, they're clearly a telented team.

First parties absolutely must invest in funding game development this generation. As the sheer number of third party pubslishers switching their focus from AAA console developement to online PC and mobilke platforms is exceptionally worrying... escpecially Japanese pubs.

 

[upnorthsox]

Competitive multiplayer means you compete with other players rather than co-operate with them.

So F U instead of F Us

 

[DrJay24]

Competitive multiplayer means you compete with other players rather than co-operate with them.

That would be "multiplayer", you only need the "co-op" distinction when it is not versus.

If that was his point, I still don't agree. Sony has multiplayer components in most of its games. Uncharted has it in 2 & 3, God of War added it in Ascension, TLoU, Driveclub, Killzone, etc. I guess we need Knack on Knack violence now?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That would be "multiplayer", you only need the "co-op" distinction when it is not versus.

The term 'multiplayer' doesn't implicitly mean competitive play. It only means multiple players.

 

[iroboto]

That would be "multiplayer", you only need the "co-op" distinction when it is not versus.

If that was his point, I still don't agree. Sony has multiplayer components in most of its games. Uncharted has it in 2 & 3, God of War added it in Ascension, TLoU, Driveclub, Killzone, etc. I guess we need Knack on Knack violence now?

My definition of competitive is a little more than just multiplayer, you're always going to be competitive locally in any multiplayer game ie Mario Kart, playing a board game, _insert any multiplayer game here_.
Competitive gaming is a bit more restrictive, the game is being balanced and patched, maps are being tweaked for fair play. Leaderboards of some form are involved and your competition in this case is the world/region.

It is the difference between playing Ranked matches and unranked/exhibition matches for games that support that.

When you are playing competitively you are playing to win, you are playing for rank, you are playing for progression in some form of ranking online, to ideally reach for your limits or the top, money, or some prize pool reward. This can be through some internal leaderboard, or an external leaderboard that is governed by some sort of competitive gaming service. It can also include tournaments where there is some sort of 'stake' on the line for both victory and loss.

But for the general discussion of what is a competitive game - I'd like to stick to titles that we're designed with those factors a little more in mind - or at least have huge support for it to operate in that fashion. ie Counter-Strike, Quake, Call of Duty, SC2, LoL, Dota Halo. Gears..

 

[AlNom]

Another semantics discussion

Carry on.