Console Exclusives: Are you for or against them & why?

[onQ]

Every once in awhile I see people complaining about games being console exclusive. But in my opinion console exclusives has always been good for the industry all around.

Personally I'm for console exclusives & my reasons are...

• They give the consoles personality & set them apart from each other.
  
• It's easier on smaller dev teams that don't have the resources to work on multiple platforms at a time.
  
• Devs get to take advantage of the hardware that the game is exclusive to & they have more time to optimize the game to make it the best game it can be, Instead of cutting one platform short so they can work on the other platforms.

I'm sure most of you see things different from me & that's good & it's the point of this thread. I want to know other people's thoughts on this matter & why they like or dislike platform exclusives?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Consumers -

For : they bring out the best in a console and give it identity
Against : an exclusive on a platform you don't own means you go without or have to buy a whole other box that otherwise does the same as the box you already own.

Devs -

For : they let hardcore devs push the hardware, although most smaller devs are on middleware and don't care to optimise beyond good, basic performance.
Against : it greatly diminishes the market and potential returns. It adds complexity.

Conclusion -
Platform exclusives have upside and downsides in equal measure such that I don't prefer either.

 

[Billy Idol]

Definitively pro! Exclusives is one of the two reasons consoles are advantageous to PC:

1.) Exclusives: highly optimized tec with typically high production value

2.) ease of use: consoles imo still have a plug and play advantage compared to PCs.

Without exclusive titles, without exclusive devs...I probably wouldn't be intetested in console gaming at all!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm also pro-exclusive. Games and their engines that can target one platform and get the most out of it can offer better experiences than multi-platform. Not always of course, but there's scope for something greater than when the engineers don't have to factor in the lowest technical denominator.

Prior to the One I've always had friends with an Xbox or Xbox 360 so have never missed any must-play exclusives. Until now, so an Xbox One is in my imminent future

 

[Rurouni]

Exclusive from 1st party is always good since it can show the hardware potential to the fullest. Of course not all 1st party is created equal, but as 1st party the access to technical insight into the hardware should be above those 3rd party.
But that's for 1st party alone. I don't like 3rd party exclusive at all unless the IP belongs to the platform owner (which basically means using 3rd party to develop 1st party games, making it 2nd party?). The reasoning is you might see the 1st game on console A then 2nd game on console B, and that kind of thing is annoying. Timed exclusive is fine if it meant the devs could have more money to develop their game. I'm on the fence on something like Bayonetta because I definitely don't like it goes exclusive but on the other hand they couldn't make it without the help from Nintendo. I'm hoping that it was only a timed exclusive, no matter how long it is.

Edit: As I'm touching Bayonetta, do you guys think it will ultimately did good for the dev (Platinum) to go exclusive for Bayo 2? Meaning that the potential loss of sales by going to a much smaller platform paid of by receiving Nintendo's money? Of course we don't know the number since it hasn't came out yet, but Platinum definitely trying their best to make their game successful by releasing a Bayonetta anime and its manga adaptation (from the anime).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

(which basically means using 3rd party to develop 1st party games, making it 2nd party?)

Yep.

 

[Scott_Arm]

The best multi-platform games are at least the equal of exclusives in terms of tech. Most of the best games are multi-platform. I'm not anti-exclusives, but they don't carry the same weight they used to. That isn't to say there aren't really good exclusives. I did choose Xbox One partially because of some of the exclusives it will have. Honestly, I wish everyone could play them. I don't really care how much technology gets pushed. Good games are good games. If you get an extra 5-10% out of the hardware by being platform exclusive, I don't really care. The good games would still be good even if they had minor graphical downgrades. Last gen it didn't seem like the exclusives really had significantly better visual results anyway. It would be better if everyone could play them. That said, first party studios aren't exactly going to go multi-platform, and I can't exactly stand against the console makers trying to develop good games for their systems internally. They have to make a best effort to make sure there are quality games on their platforms.

 

[Davros]

So what do people think of exclusive franchises jumping ship ?
I know there was some uproar when bayonetta 2 became a wii-u exclusive

 

[Grall]

Generally against. I'm a gamer, I love games and I want all other game-loving gamers to be able to play games. Artificially locking a game to a platform which inherently only a minority owns is...not ideal, in my eyes.

It can have the beneficial effect of catering specifically to whatever gimmickry is unique to the platform in question, but overall this does not outweigh the downsides. IMO, YMMV etc, as always.

 

[Billy Idol]

The best multi-platform games are at least the equal of exclusives in terms of tech. Most of the best games are multi-platform. I'm not anti-exclusives, but they don't carry the same weight they used to. That isn't to say there aren't really good exclusives. I did choose Xbox One partially because of some of the exclusives it will have. Honestly, I wish everyone could play them. I don't really care how much technology gets pushed. Good games are good games. If you get an extra 5-10% out of the hardware by being platform exclusive, I don't really care. The good games would still be good even if they had minor graphical downgrades. Last gen it didn't seem like the exclusives really had significantly better visual results anyway. It would be better if everyone could play them. That said, first party studios aren't exactly going to go multi-platform, and I can't exactly stand against the console makers trying to develop good games for their systems internally. They have to make a best effort to make sure there are quality games on their platforms.

I personally don't agree...I think that exclusives are more important than ever and are typically better games. My favorite games last gen were exclusives...like Gears series for instance! Gears imo really defined the first phase of last gen and was an outstanding experience. At the end if the fen, we got TLoU, which won all awards around the world. A new IP at the end of the console cycle!!

This gen, it is the same for me: I enjoyed Ryse and inFamous the most. I am waiting for Drive Club, Sunset Overdrive, The Order 1886, Uncharted 4, Bloodborne, Halo 5. Imo, those games have the biggest potential atm to bring the biggest gaming joy

Exclusives are of major importance for me to stay a console gamer.

If you want Halo, buy a box.
If you want Uncharted, a station it should be.

I bought both consoles to have access to their exclusives...and I like it that way

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My favorite games last gen were exclusives...like Gears series for instance!

There was nothing about Gears that required it to be exclusive though. That was just a business deal - it could have happened on PS3 (if Unreal could master Cell in time for launch!). Even had a PC port. TLoU by comparison was a first party title on a custom engine that could be finely balanced to the HW. That's what a platform exclusive should be if it's to justify inaccessibility to non-platform owners. Otherwise the restrictions exist only to try and pressure people into a platform.

 

[Billy Idol]

There was nothing about Gears that required it to be exclusive though. That was just a business deal - it could have happened on PS3 (if Unreal could master Cell in time for launch!). Even had a PC port. TLoU by comparison was a first party title on a custom engine that could be finely balanced to the HW. That's what a platform exclusive should be if it's to justify inaccessibility to non-platform owners. Otherwise the restrictions exist only to try and pressure people into a platform.

Gears strength back than was online multiplayer. A flawless working and easy to use online infrastructure was key to its success - party, chat, friendlist. Imo, Gears made great use of the online structure besides offering a fresh and fantastic game.

 

[steveOrino]

So what do people think of exclusive franchises jumping ship ?
I know there was some uproar when bayonetta 2 became a wii-u exclusive

Pretty hard to get upset over a game that would have never existed if it wasn't backed by some kind of outside funding (Nintendo).

I mean in general its hard to get upset over exclusives because platform holders need to give incentive so consumers will buy their box over the the competition.

Same thing happens in television services HBO, AMC, Netflix etc where high profile shows draw a lot of viewers. Not much you can do about it other than suck it up and pay the entrance fee.

 

[Billy Idol]

Pretty hard to get upset over a game that would have never existed if it wasn't backed by some kind of outside funding (Nintendo). I mean in general its hard to get upset over exclusives because platform holders need to give incentive so consumers will buy their box over the the competition. Same thing happens in television services HBO, AMC, Netflix etc where high profile shows draw a lot of viewers. Not much you can do about it other than suck it up and pay the entrance fee.

Yeah...I never get upset about exclusives.

 

[onQ]

There was nothing about Gears that required it to be exclusive though. That was just a business deal - it could have happened on PS3 (if Unreal could master Cell in time for launch!). Even had a PC port. TLoU by comparison was a first party title on a custom engine that could be finely balanced to the HW. That's what a platform exclusive should be if it's to justify inaccessibility to non-platform owners. Otherwise the restrictions exist only to try and pressure people into a platform.

I don't think Gears would have been as good of a game as it was that early in the Xbox 360 & PS3 life if it wasn't exclusive. Epic was able to push to Xbox 360 earlier than anyone else & I'm sure it was do to being able to focus on one platform.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I personally don't agree...I think that exclusives are more important than ever and are typically better games

I'd strongly disagree with that. There are obviously a few very good exclusives but can you seriously say those games are better than the best third party games? GTA, Assassins Creed, Skyrim, Farcry 3, Call of Duty... just a few examples of high quality 3rd party games that can hold up to ANY exclusive.

 

[Billy Idol]

I'd strongly disagree with that. There are obviously a few very good exclusives but can you seriously say those games are better than the best third party games? GTA, Assassins Creed, Skyrim, Farcry 3, Call of Duty... just a few examples of high quality 3rd party games that can hold up to ANY exclusive.

I agree, multiplats did catch up. But for me personally, my opinion and my experience, I still had the most fun with the exclusive titles (SP) on both last gen consoles - except for online play, which was either BF or COD for me (both on PC) in the last years.

But yeah, the games you mention are really good ones with high production value! I also want to add e.g. Castlevania Lord of the Shadows...multiplat and insanely high quality game and tremendous amount of fun.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'd strongly disagree with that. There are obviously a few very good exclusives but can you seriously say those games are better than the best third party games? GTA, Assassins Creed, Skyrim, Farcry 3, Call of Duty... just a few examples of high quality 3rd party games that can hold up to ANY exclusive.

Have to agree with this. There were so many great multi-platform games last-gen. It definitely seemed like a shift from previous generations where the best games were almost always exclusives. Looking at this gen, there are very few exclusives I'd get excited about, and most of the games I'm excited about are multi-platform.

 

[rockaman]

I think there can be an argument also for exclusive games that brings more profit to the industry and fosters a sense of competition as well, for better and worse.

I think that the companies making consoles have money to make exclusives for their own platforms, or publish and fund their development, is a sign of good health for the industry as a whole, that the investment of companies into those platforms is strong and so is the consumer excitement for those exclusive games and platforms.

No numbers, just hazarding a guess.

 

[Sonic]

I believe exclusives are largely a good thing for the industry and is one of the primary factors that separates the consoles. I support console manufacturers providing funding for game development in return for the game being exclusive to the platform. That specific game might not have been made otherwise and if it ends up being a hit then even better. I also don't mind if games become exclusives by default if one console ends up dominating the industry like the PS2 did. If one console is able to carry the largest share of revenue and it ends up getting more exclusives because of it I do not see it as a bad thing as long as devs and pubs are making money. A lopsided market may actually be preferable when it comes to the amounts and quality of exclusive games because it means the underdogs needs exclusives just as much to draw customers in. Both Gamecube and Xbox had really awesome exclusives that just couldn't be found on a different system. I'd say the quality of exclusives in the PS2/GCN/Xbox gen was ahead of the quality of exclusives in PS360 gen.

But the reversal of that is when consoles have relative equal market share (US + Europe combined) that have similar buying habits then the quality of multi-platform games has gone up with the PS360 gen. It forced devs to treat both consoles with care, at least later in the gen, and quality of those games went up as well. The dev can sell hundreds of thousands to millions of titles on two systems instead of one so it makes sense they'd focus on getting both to be up to par. I don't mind this kind of market split but it's not one I find to be that advantageous to me as a consumer. I have less choice with more devs going multiplat.

This may change later on if one console ends up having dominance so a dev can make the financial decision to focus on the dominant console by default and release on the other system later. This would surely suck for those who bought the lesser selling system, but it could benefit them in that the console maker needs to get an alternative or exclusive on the system.