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

[Prophecy2k]

The thread title is asking for my opinion

I can rephrase a bit, exclusives seems to have more freedom to experiment, because they want to stand out as a beacon for their platform.

As for games being boring, I agree, any game can get boring or repetitive, and some that at the outlook seem very repetitive and/or a grind fest can be super fun.

Look at Heavy Rain (I have not played QDs other games) it was different and peeked my interest a lot. As a game I felt it was very restricted (I never finished it) and the phasing was weird. But I really do applaud Sony/QD for trying it and it seems to have sold decently since they got to make new game

Would any none exclusive publisher take on a game like Heavy Rain, Puppeteer and Journey? I do not know the industry except from being just another game player, but my understanding is that probably wouldn't have taken the risk.

So I am for exclusives because we get more diverse fauna of games to play

This really is a point that resonantes with me. And I think it really does ring true.

Look at Sunset Overdrive for example. It's a game you cannot adequately fit into a specific genre category or convention. It's wild and out there, and we know for a fact that most multiplatform publishers turned it down for that very reason (i.e. it would have been too much of a risk).

Hence here is where it makes sense for a platform holder to take it up as a platform exclusive, because by reason of it being exclusive, the primary intention for publishing the title is to create game variety in the platform library, and not to reach the widest consumerbase possible. First Parties also do the latter, but that does not in anyway invalidate their efforts in pushing after the former; which they do inarguably far better and with larger budgets than the normally risk-averse multiplatform publishers.

It's why I don't get the arguement that tries to ague this away with, "b-but indies on PC", which by their definition are low budget and thus low risk venures. Heavy Rain for example would have cost significantly more to make than the vast majority of indie games, and whilst it may not be everyone's cup of tea, millions did play and enjoy it, and thus I think more than anything, games like this demonstrate quite clearly the relevance of platform exclusives.

I mean which third party multiplatform games even remotely look/play like Ico or Shadow of the Colossus? Both of which never really set the house on fire sales wise, and yet Sony seems to continue to dump money into their dev team to push out their next game (funded for an whole generation in fact, with nothing to show for it). Whilst business-wise it could easily be criticised as unwise for Sony to still pour money into the Last Guardian, as a gamer it makes me happy to know that Sony is still actively trying to support games like than and Rime in order to fill a space in their platform library that no other multiplatform game can occupy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shifty I think it's practically impossible to have a discussion about the value of platform exclusive games whilst keeping all discussion entirely objective. It's an inherently subjective topic, since people value different things.

That's true. However, one can't argue against a person's subjective opinion. Citing a few games as 'proof' that exclusives are better or worse just doesn't work. All one can say is, "For me, these games are among the best and make exclusives worthwhile," or somesuch.

Joker said, "I find exclusives to be boring." You can't argue against that. He's just stating a POV.
SlimJim said, "For example: Uncharted series, The Last of Us, God of War 3, are all games with best graphics, and best gameplay." That's a 'factual assertion' to try and counter Joker's personal view, which 1) won't change Joker's opinion and 2) will lead to people posting reams and reams of game comparisons all based on subjectivity. SlimJim posts '3 best games in the world that are exclusives'. Joker replies with '4 best games (completely different) that are multiplat'. Someone else adds other exclusives and that's followed by more multiplats, and all we get is a trade in game names that can't lead to anything meaningful.

By all means, post what one does or doesn't like about exclusives, but no-one should be trying to use their preferences to argue that someone else's preferences are wrong.

 

[JPT]

as a gamer it makes me happy to know that Sony is still actively trying to support games like than and Rime in order to fill a space in their platform library that no other multiplatform game can occupy.

I snipped a lot of your comment since we seem to agree

As for a multiplatform can not do it, I think the phrase should be that no 3rd party publisher is willing to risk it.

Or can they actually risk it?

I mean if a 1st party exclusive flops, its still PR, and the platform holder still get paid by the 3rd party to have their games on their respective platforms. But the 3rd party would rely on their other titles to earn up the loss. In the end its a business and making money is quite important ;P

But a 1st party game is there to bring attention to the console and also sell a lot of copies.
While a 3rd party game is there to only sell a lot of copies.

At least thats my cynical business pov on it.

/ramble off

 

[Prophecy2k]

I snipped a lot of your comment since we seem to agree

As for a multiplatform can not do it, I think the phrase should be that no 3rd party publisher is willing to risk it.

Or can they actually risk it?

I mean if a 1st party exclusive flops, its still PR, and the platform holder still get paid by the 3rd party to have their games on their respective platforms. But the 3rd party would rely on their other titles to earn up the loss. In the end its a business and making money is quite important ;P

But a 1st party game is there to bring attention to the console and also sell a lot of copies.
While a 3rd party game is there to only sell a lot of copies.

At least thats my cynical business pov on it.

/ramble off

And that's my point JPT. Third party multiplatform games cannot be like games like Rime and Ico because of the practicalities of multiplatform development and the nature of the publisher's business and business model.

Third party pubs ideally need every game they make to provide a reasonable ROI, or else the opportunity cost for such a project might mean that there is no justifiable business case for it to be made.

Platform holders however, can make a game knowing it will only have a chance at reaching a niche audience, but by doing so will enrich the quality and variety of their platform game library. They can get away with greenlighting projects they project will only have a low ROI, given that the expected return on said investment is not only limited to a monetary reward, but also a more qualitative strengthening of their platform brand and its perception in the marketplace.

Last gen Sony put out a crap load of exclusive games on their platform. Some were AAA blockbusters intended to reach the biggest audience they could (e.g. KZ2, Uncharted, Resistance etc). And some were intended to enrich the library of games on offer by broadening their offering of games and game genres on their platform, by creating diversity (e.g. singstar, Heavy Rain, Buzz, Demons Souls, WarHawk etc).

 

[JPT]

And that's my point JPT.

I miss Buzz, I want it for the PS4

As for the other points, we agree then, not bad for an internet forum

 

[joker454]

So I am for exclusives because we get more diverse fauna of games to play

That's interesting, it's always good to hear peoples opinions because it can be surprising how opposite we can see the same thing. I left console gaming for a host of reasons, but one of them was simply the games, where they just got to be very stale and predictable to me to where my interest level in them fell far behind whats available on pc gaming. Oddly for me it's exclusives in particular that were the worst offenders which is why I said your comment was interesting as we see the same things so differently. I felt I always knew what I was going to get with an exclusive, a game so focused on getting people to say "wow" over the graphics that's its gameplay will fall behind all the rest. To a point it was understandable since exclusives are almost expected to look better and would be more heavily criticized if they didn't, but as a gamer ultimately that wasn't really my concern. I just wanted something new and unique and console games, especially exclusives for me could not deliver anymore.

One of the reasons I like indies and pc gaming so much more is that there are so many unique games on that platform that put the *idea* first. With console exclusives it's about winning points with magazines or trying to impress MS/Sony with "Look our graphics are the best!", whereas with indies it's all about the game first and foremost. Sometimes the results come out bizarre or downright bad sure, but often you find gold and something truly new and unique. Another reason for this is game pricing. Console exclusives are hamstrung by the fact that they will be sold for $60 so there is almost no choice but to focus a ton of the budget on graphics, and also as a result they can't take anywhere near the risks indies do. Indie games can be priced anywhere and therefore aren't obligated to break 90% of their budget just getting things to render better than everyone else. Graphics quite frankly in many case end up being very secondary or even tertiary on the priorities list because it's about offering something new, there is no platform holder to appease nor is there a platform holder to whom the developers need to justify their existence. I mean let's face it, a console exclusive developer won't remain that way if their graphics don't impress the console owner. It's one thing for a multi platform game to falter on graphics, but if an exclusive game falters on visuals then their entire existence comes into doubt as console exclusives are more promotional items than they are games, so they have to first and foremost look great in marketing with gameplay coming second.

But that's just my always humble opinion on it and why this is the first generation of console ever in which I own none. The gaming selection on the new consoles is just poor to me, very weak derivatives of stuff I've already seen and played a million times with exclusives being a big part of that problem. So yeah it's interesting how we see things so differently, but there you have it.

 

[SlimJim]

To be honest: I havent played multiplatform games for a few years now.
This is because I know the graphics are subpar and the gameplay is bad; they are just created to fill the shelves and they are all mediocre so that they won't compete amongst each other.

Again: these past few years I havent played any multiplatform games so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about and have a valid opinion at that as well.
You don't need to actually play a game to form an opinion about it. In my gaming circle we have a saying:
you play 1 multiplatform title, you played them all.

So no, in my valid opinion multiplatform titles are useless.

 

[Davros]

Would any none exclusive publisher take on a game like Heavy Rain,

yes Eidos did when they published Omnikron the nomad soul,
Atari did when they published Indigo Prophecy.

Heavy Rain for example would have cost significantly more to make than the vast majority of indie games, and whilst it may not be everyone's cup of tea,
millions did play and enjoy it, and thus I think more than anything, games like this demonstrate quite clearly the relevance of platform exclusives

Except it was a pc game, until sony stepped in with loads of cash.
before that Quantic Dream were in talks with microsoft to make it a 360 exclusive but that fell through because of due to its child kidnapping theme.

To be objective a multiplatform game can do anything an exclusive game can do unless the platform has an exclusive feature. do any platforms have exclusive features ?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think most people would tend to agree that if specialized and/or experimental titles are your thing, the PC would be the first stop over console exclusives. What with the thousands of Indie games released every year and all.

I think this may be at the root of why I don't see platform exclusives as terribly interesting most of the time.

None of the console exclusives for example, can hold a candle to the vast array of indie titles available on multiple platforms in terms of new and emergent gameplay.

While for people that are tied to consoles, those big budget exclusives (compared to most multiplat indie titles, even Journey is big budget ) don't come across as terribly exciting. And for some of them, I'm of the same opinion as Joker, boring gameplay even if the presentation is very slick and polished.

It's probably why the last console I bought purely for the exclusive was the X360 (For Gears of War). I'd be unlikely to do the same again. Well, I suppose XBO for an entire almost exclusive genre (fitness titles) and a more polished experimentation with alternate input and control schemes (voice and motion).

That said, there are some gems that are exclusives. They just don't happen to be better than the best multiplats, IMO. And I when I do get them, I very rarely put as much time into them as I do the best multiplats (MMO's being the exception, except the one I'm currently playing is actually multiplat - FFXIV).

I can, however, still be drawn in by exclusive "experiences." Like the aforementioned voice and motion input and control experiment that MS continues to evolve.

BTW - I still have a hard time thinking of PC exclusive games as "exclusives." And that may be a part of it as well. As, IMO, the best exclusives on the planet are all on PC. I'm sure others will be happy to disagree.

Regards,
SB

 

[pjbliverpool]

To be honest: I havent played multiplatform games for a few years now.
This is because I know the graphics are subpar and the gameplay is bad;

What an utterly absurd statement.

 

[SlimJim]

What an utterly absurd statement.

Is it?

Change "multiplatform games" to "exclusive games", and "graphics are subpar" to "graphics are the only thing the games have going because the developers want to impress people";

and suddenly you have Joker454 or Silent_Buddha 's opinion.

If somebody can claim that exclusive games are boring without having played them, then it's also possible that there are people who have the same knowledge about multiplatform games. That is far from absurd. It's just that some gamers are more knowledgable then others.

For me it's really easy to know how a multiplatform-game plays: I don't even need to play it; I just watch it on youtube. From there I can tell how it plays. I am "the joker454 of multiplatform games", so to speak

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Is it?

Like anybody, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you'll find yourself in a relatively small minority unless other people's experiences have failed to include GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Bioshock, Tomb Raider and a bunch of others that I can't think of off the top of my head but nonetheless have received considerable critical acclaim.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What an utterly absurd statement.

It was a parody of Joker's position. Originally I was going to ban SlimJim's ass for the madness of his post, but then I noticed the connection with Joker's position (doesn't play exclusives because he knows they're no good without playing them as all exclusives are crap and shallow graphics-fests). If Joker's entitled to express that opinion, SlimJim's entitled to the converse.

Like anybody, you're entitled to your opinion but I think you'll find yourself in a relatively small minority...

You missed it too.

 

[joker454]

and suddenly you have Joker454 or Silent_Buddha 's opinion.

If somebody can claim that exclusive games are boring without having played them, then it's also possible that there are people who have the same knowledge about multiplatform games. That is far from absurd. It's just that some gamers are more knowledgable then others.

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? I've played a ton of exclusives including all the ones you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. I finished quite a few of them as well. Yes I've finished multiple Uncharted's, Gow's, Infamous's, Little Big Planets, I've played GT's, Warhawks, and on and on but like I said I didn't want to get into stupid lists but now you drag me into this shit yet again because of a wrong accusation. If you are going to make an accusation then back it up with data so you don't look like a fool.

It was a parody of Joker's position. Originally I was going to ban SlimJim's ass for the madness of his post, but then I noticed the connection with Joker's position (doesn't play exclusives because he knows they're no good without playing them as all exclusives are crap and shallow graphics-fests). If Joker's entitled to express that opinion, SlimJim's entitled to the converse.

I play exclusives, most likely far more than anyone else here ever has given that just about every exclusive game last gen was made available to me either free or really low cost. The difference is that I don't pray at the altar of exclusives and worship the god of exclusivity. They are games like any other, I just happen to find them in most cases unable to stand up to multi platform games. The other difference is that unlike apparently many here I've actually played a ton of multi platform games as well. Hell I've bought over 100+ games on Steam just this year so far. So if anyone wants to get into a list challenge and see who has played more exclusive, multi platform and indie games then bring it on. I don't talk out of my ass, I actually make sure I've played said games before commenting on them.

And for christs sakes just because someone doesn't have a PS4 in their house doesn't mean they are unable to play PS4 games! Is it that hard to figure out how that's possible or do I also need to explain how that works? Heck I have a PS4 in my film house because a model requested it so I suppose yes I do "officially" own one...it's just not in my house because it's games aren't that impressive so I don't feel like I'm missing anything, certainly not when compared to indie or multi platform games. What can I say, remasters and rev 4 of some given exclusive franchise doesn't make me run around waving my arms in the air yelling out how much better exclusive games are. I'd rather play $10 indie games quite frankly, at least they offer something new because oh yeah, I've played a ton of indie games as well. Have others here done so? People knock indie games here all the time, but how many have they played really? Because if you don't also game on pc then please, don't comment on indie games because you have no idea what's really available in the indie scene.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I play exclusives, most likely far more than anyone else here ever has given that just about every exclusive game last gen was made available to me either free or really low cost.

Yeah, fair point, I'm well wrong here. I didn't check back far enough in the content to see what you said exactly. You posted that you played a lot of exclusives and found them dull. I mistrusted SlimJim to be making a fair and logical observation in the content of the arguments thus far.

That's not a mistake that's going to be repeated...

 

[orangpelupa]

To be objective a multiplatform game can do anything an exclusive game can do unless the platform has an exclusive feature. do any platforms have exclusive features ?

Wii U, PS3, Xbox 360. They have their own exclusive features and Multiplatform games will use their exclusive features

secondary screen - wii u
voice command - xbox 360
motion gamepad - ps3

i think call of duty or batman do that thing. but i dont really remember.

 

[joker454]

Yeah, fair point, I'm well wrong here. I didn't check back far enough in the content to see what you said exactly. You posted that you played a lot of exclusives and found them dull. I mistrusted SlimJim to be making a fair and logical observation in the content of the arguments thus far.

Hey just so you know that last paragraph in my reply wasn't directed at you even though it followed your post quote, that was more directed at everyone in general. One of the reasons I made that indie comment at the end is because people focused so much on exclusives often think they created new gaming ideas and miss out on the reality that other multi platform or indie games did those same things long before any exclusive did. For example I believe Gear Of War often gets credit for introducing the concept of simplified cover to fps games but if I recall there was a Nintendo 64 game that did that sort of cover system in the 90's. I can't remember it's name offhand (been a while) but I believe it was ported to Playstation 1 as well. New concepts often start in indie games as well because those are bastions of experimentation, so if you don't frequent that scene and mostly play exclusive console games then yeah you may feel exclusive games have contributed more to the industry than they really have. As far as gaming buzz goes exclusives will always punch above their weight for the simple reason that they will be backed by the console maker to a far more significant extent. Hence they will often come across as a more epic event than they really are.

 

[AzBat]

plus gears wasnt exclusive,

It was the first year it was out. I think people tend to forget that exclusives are not always permanent. I suspect that to happen more & more going forward.

Tommy McClain

 

[onQ]

Wii U, PS3, Xbox 360. They have their own exclusive features and Multiplatform games will use their exclusive features

secondary screen - wii u
voice command - xbox 360
motion gamepad - ps3

i think call of duty or batman do that thing. but i dont really remember.

PS4 has voice command aslo & you left out multi touch.

Wii U pad also has motion controls.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Except it was a pc game, until sony stepped in with loads of cash.

Except that it wasn't? Otherwise, please post a link to where I might buy the PC version. Regardless of what the original target platform was, it released as a platform exclusive on PS3. There were reasons why Quantic Dream pursued a platform exclusive contract for the game. Mainly, third party publishers likely already made the judgement call that it wouldn't sell enough units to be a commercial success for them.

The point I'm making isn't that exclusives are great because they are the ONLY games that are able to take creative risks. It's that in general, becuase game dev budgets have skyrocketed so high, thus AAA games have become terribly risky ventures in their own right; third party publsihers have become more risk-averse about what they publish and develop. It's no surprise that a huge majority of AAA games released last gen were shooters, and genres like RTS games, platformers and JRPGs all but died out in the AAA space within the same generation.

So it's pointless looking back at games like indigo prophecy and Omikron and saying they were published by third parties at their time of release, when it's extremely highly unlikely that if such games were to be made today, the devs would struggle to secure a AAA third party publishing contract outside of a platform exclusive one.

The question as to the value of platform exclusives is not one that will evoke the same response throughtout the ages of time. In the PS1 to PS2 and Pre-PS1 eras, first party exclusives' only real value was to differentiate platforms, and even that could be argued since many third party games were exclusive and did just that. That was no longer true in the PS3 gen, which saw the PS3 turn-around a catastrophic launch and handicapped HW, to eventually sell the same as its closest competitor, due in the most part to its breadth of diverse and high quality exclusive games. It will equally be even less true this gen.

before that Quantic Dream were in talks with microsoft to make it a 360 exclusive but that fell through because of due to its child kidnapping theme.

Which only goes to support the idea that QD felt they had to pursue an exclusive contract in order to launch their game. Hence my point.

To be objective a multiplatform game can do anything an exclusive game can do ...

In principle, yes. But in practice we don't see this anymore. Big budget exclusive games can do things that would make a big budget multiplatform game less commercially viable and marketable in the perception of the risk-averse third party publishers funding the project. That's an increasingly frustrating fact of the modern game industry. And it's becoming even worse.