Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*

[iroboto]

Except your argument above is that one doesn't need more games because one hasn't time to play all the games. Less games means less choice. The argument in favour of more exclusives is an argument in favour of more choice when those exclusives are ones that appeal, especially when they have no direct parallels.

The logic is sound, but,
I'm willing to bet that if we went around a merry go round of reasons, it would eventually end up about being the quality of the titles themselves. I'm just trying to go directly to this point. It's not that I don't heed your points, I do, but I think a majority of the posters who engage in this discussion don't care about the quantity of Kinect exclusive games there are because no one wants to play them, and thus those exclusives are not even part of these 'list wars'.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Dolby Atmos, Windows Sonic? Virtual Surround over head phones? You never heard of these critical features that improve the enjoyment of your game play?

I have. Do you know what each of them means?

Dolby Atmos is a surround stream with object-oriented sound sources. Since pretty much every 3D game launched in the past 10-15 years already uses object-oriented sound engines, Dolby Atmos is useless for games.
Windows Sonic and Virtual Surround are HRTF-based downmixers for stereo speakers and headphones, and pretty much every 3D game launched in the past 10-15 years uses an audio engine (FMOD and Wwise mostly) that has it.

The only breakthrough we might have in the near future for headphones is Creative's Super X-Fi that actually scans your outer ear and adapts the sound output to your own phyisical pre-equalization.

Other than that, none of that is either new, nor is a replacement or atenuator for the pretty large abyss that exists between the quality of exclusive titles of Xbone and PS4. Especially if we're talking about single-player story-driven games.

 

[iroboto]

I have. Do you know what each of them means?

Dolby Atmos is a surround stream with object-oriented sound sources. Since pretty much every 3D game launched in the past 10-15 years already uses object-oriented sound engines, Dolby Atmos is useless for games.
Windows Sonic and Virtual Surround are HRTF-based downmixers for stereo speakers and headphones, and pretty much every 3D game launched in the past 10-15 years uses an audio engine (FMOD and Wwise mostly) that has it.

The only breakthrough we might have in the near future for headphones is Creative's Super X-Fi that actually scans your outer ear and adapts the sound output to your own phyisical pre-equalization.

Other than that, none of that is either new, nor is a replacement or atenuator for the pretty large abyss that exists between the quality of exclusive titles of Xbone and PS4. Especially if we're talking about single-player story-driven games.

There are titles that are Dolby Atmos, and in time I suspect there will be more.
I'm not sure how you can say useless when reviewers and myself disagree:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...review-microsofts-secret-weapon/#671f43ea198a
https://medium.com/@Xander51/dolby-...-game-on-xbox-one-and-windows-10-6135c686b3d5
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-xs-dolby-atmos-games-full-list/#345fa5c92961

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'm not sure how you can say useless when reviewers and myself disagree:

Well ok, if you are one of the very few people who have an A/V Receiver compatible with Atmos together with a (very expensive) speaker set with units mounted on the wall (the case with that Forbes blogger) then I guess the only way to get those top firing speakers to work is through Atmos encoding because AFAIK there's no way to configure a LPCM output for those speakers.

But the Atmos for headphones won't be any better than most in-game audio engines with object-based sources and a FMOD or Wwise downmixer.

Naughty Dog's titles even use their own calibration settings:

 

[iroboto]

Well ok, if you are one of the very few people who have an A/V Receiver compatible with Atmos together with a (very expensive) speaker set with units mounted on the wall (the case with that Forbes blogger) then I guess the only way to get those top firing speakers to work is through Atmos encoding because AFAIK there's no way to configure a LPCM output for those speakers.

But the Atmos for headphones won't be any better than most in-game audio engines with object-based sources and a FMOD or Wwise downmixer.

Naughty Dog's titles even use their own calibration settings:

I don't unfortunately, but I find the virtual surround sound options especially with Dolby Atmos titles significantly more accurate than if the option is turned off. I would need to listen to compare the differences myself, but before windows sonic came onboard it was never nearly as accurate as it is now. To turn off the feature seems like a terrible idea to me.

B3D topic here if you want to continue: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/virtual-surround-on-xbox-one-with-headphones.59870/

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Throwing this in here instead of the other thread so I don't clutter up that one.

OK, so the 1p poll thread has actually made me think more in depth about why I no longer feel attraction to most 1p exclusives that are only available on console (had to put that disclaimer in as I love Ori and the Blind Forest) while I still have attraction to some 3p exclusives.

Prior to the rise of YouTube and Twitch playthroughs of games if I wanted to experience the story of a game, I'd have to actually play the game or watch a friend play a game. As I wasn't at friend's houses 24/7, that often meant that even if I watched them play part of a game I'd still sometimes feel compelled to play the game even if I absolutely hated the gameplay of the game.

Going by that, I can't think of a single 1p game anymore that has gameplay compelling enough that I'd want to buy the associated console. God of War 1-3 comes close (4 doesn't interest me in the slightest due to the deviation from 1-3) however, I absolutely hated the unavoidable QTE segments not to mention the story. While I finished the first 2 games and loved the non-QTE gameplay, the QTE segments meant I've never been tempted to play through them again. It's also why I ultimately never finished the last 10-15% of the 3rd game.

Halo games used to be must buy games for me, but ever since 343i has taken over, that's no longer the case. They have failed miserably, IMO, to recreate the gameplay that Bungie so masterfully crafted into the series. And to add insult to injury, they've ruined the story and universe. Bleh.

Which makes for an interesting, side note. If Bungie were still making Halo, and the series was still as good as it was, would it be able to tempt me to get a console just for Halo? I'm leaning towards no, but I might be very tempted.

So, what are the things I now value above all else? Gameplay. Story is always something you can watch without losing context as long as the player is thorough and competent. Gameplay can still be watched, but gameplay that resonates makes you want to play the game.

Some examples,​

• Dark Souls - Not interested in the game in the slightest until I watched a play through by Strippin. Now I buy and play all the games.
• Darkest Dungeon - Not interested in the game in the slightest until I watched a play through by ForceSc2Strategy (back when he was a variety VODer, which he's slowly getting back to).
• Defenders Quest - Not interest in the game in the slightest until I watched someone play it. It's now one of my top 10 games ever.
• Battletech (upcoming release) - Only slight interest, immediately pre-ordered after watching CohhCarnage play it.
• Persona 5 - Very slight interest before release. After watching multiple people play it, I absolutely want this. But not enough to buy a console just for this game.
• lots of other examples.

No need to make a list of all the games that I was interested in or only slightly interested in, but lost interest in the gameplay after watching a stream or VOD of it. No point, and I'm sure a lot of people would get upset at some of the titles.

VODs and Streams are a key tool that I use to determine how best to spend my limited gaming dollars. And as such it also allows me to experience the story of a game without having to force myself to trudge through gameplay I either don't like or actively makes me want to puke.

And even more importantly not have to waste valuable time to wade through unpleasant or mediocre gameplay (again, FOR ME, before someone gets upset that I might not like the gameplay in X game they love). I can watch while cooking, eating dinner, exercising, etc. So now, when I play a game, afterwards I no longer feel like I wasted my time because I forced myself to play it just for the story. Because now, I only play games where I enjoy the gameplay.

What this is showing to me is that for a variety of reasons, gameplay for almost all 1p games just isn't a draw for me. HZD's mechanics are pretty good, but its an open world game, I know I'm most likely never going to finish. For example, I bought all 3 Witcher games, but never finished more than 20% of any of them. Add to that it's only 30 FPS which is unpalatable for me for an action game. If HZD were not open world and 60 FPS, it'd probably be much more compelling for me, but then it'd lose some of it's attractiveness to a lot of other people.

On the flip side, PC exclusives offer the type of gameplay I crave. RPGs, Strategy games, old school-ish shooters (roots in Doom, rather than roots in ADS and limited weapon like systems which COD made popular), experimental genre mishmashes, etc. As well as control over things that annoy me in games to the extent that it actively takes away from the gameplay (ability to disable DoF and Motion Blur, for example). For example, Total War: Warhammer is near the top of my list and I doubt it's coming to console anytime soon. On a side note, console gamers are in for a treat when the currently PC exclusive Divinity Original Sin 2 comes to console.

That said. That's a very personal thing.

If someone is into open world games, unlike me, then a game like HZD is going to be a huge draw. While for me, the open world nature for the game immediately makes it difficult for me to want to play the game. Or using Nintendo. Zelda I find incredibly impressive (far more than HZD) for a variety of reasons. I still haven't bought it because it's an open world game.

TL: DR - Neither MS, Nintendo, nor Sony make 1p console exclusives with gameplay that I want to play. PC has far more and far more interesting exclusives (FOR ME, this is purely subjective and other people will value different types of exclusives) for me making consoles rather redundant.

If PC didn't exist, that wouldn't change anything. 1p exclusives still wouldn't matter in the slightest for my purchasing decisions.

Regards,
SB​

 

[Recop]

You have choice, if you only have time for 10 games, then you have time for 10 games. There's nothing wrong with that. Whatever drives you to select those 10 games is what drives you. Telling me you have 100 games to choose from doesn't necessarily make for a better argument of choosing the best 10 games. Quantity and Quality aren't directly correlated here, selecting the top 10 games to play is a statement about quality/value.

People always prefer to have more choices because that greatly increases their chance to find something that correspond to their taste.

And since everybody has different tastes, it's always a good strategy until a certain limit. Obviously, at some point, it makes no sense to produce always more.

When people go in a restaurant, they tend to like those with more choices even if they will only eat one meal...

 

[zed]

devils advocate (I dont agree with it in this case though)

People always prefer to have more choices

not for all things but for some things theres truth in the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
IIRC theres been a lot of studies that show ppl have been happier given less choices

 

[iroboto]

devils advocate (I dont agree with it in this case though)

not for all things but for some things theres truth in the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
IIRC theres been a lot of studies that show ppl have been happier given less choices

lol.

I think I feel this way when I see some restaurant menus.

 

[Recop]

The Kokatu article is quite interesting though.

If Sony doesn't find a way to reduce the cost of its exclusives titles, they may be too risky in the future.

Games that base their economic model on microtransactions have a much higher chance to become profitable in the long run.

But i tend to think that technology at a certain point will drastically lower the cost of games developpement.

So, the position taken by Sony could be excellent in the future. They could be basically the only ones that occupy this sector of gaming while most other companies will propose multiplayer games.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If Sony doesn't find a way to reduce the cost of its exclusives titles, they may be too risky in the future.

Last quarter Sony's G&NS (which is mostly PlayStation) posted a little under $800m in profit, which naturally includes all the ongoing costs on first and second party studios. I think they're fine

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If Sony doesn't find a way to reduce the cost of its exclusives titles, they may be too risky in the future.
Games that base their economic model on microtransactions have a much higher chance to become profitable in the long run.

Not only does Sony make money from the software sales, but they also sell hardware on the strength of their first-party exclusives. The rewards will be hard to quantify, even from games that fail to turn a profit.

But i tend to think that technology at a certain point will drastically lower the cost of games developpement.

We've been told that year after year for decades. We're also only going to have to work 3 days a week some time after the 1950's because technology will do all the work for us. In reality, no matter how far tech will take us, we'll want to reach further and make up the difference through hard work - it's human nature (and even if not individually, one will be swept along by society).

 

[Recop]

We've been told that year after year for decades. We're also only going to have to work 3 days a week some time after the 1950's because technology will do all the work for us. In reality, no matter how far tech will take us, we'll want to reach further and make up the difference through hard work - it's human nature (and even if not individually, one will be swept along by society).

This still doesn't change the fact that productivity is way higher today than it was before in almost any field... this is why the world is wealthier each year : https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png

Thanks to the technology that helps productivity.

And actually, technology already reduced the costs in the gaming industry. It's just that developers' ambitions may grow even faster than the gain in productivity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And actually, technology already reduced the costs in the gaming industry. It's just that developers' ambitions may grow even faster than the gain in productivity.

Which is what I pointed out....?

 

[Recop]

Which is what I pointed out....?

Indeed, but if you wtach this table : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...Most_expensive_films_(adjusted_for_inflation)

You see that the cost of modern movies tend to decrease. Same for the risk.

For instance, Titanic is the third most expensive movie ever produced (adjusted for inflation). Today the movie market is far bigger than it was in 1997 and yet producers still spend less money.

Today blockbusters need less money while they aim a larger market = much higher profits.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not saying your wrong with movies, but a list of the most expensive isn't going to give you the average movie price. Here's a graph I've linked before that shows the wide range in game cost with a clear average trend upwards.

You'd need something similar to compare movie costs. And as mentioned, better tools just means reaching higher goals, not spending less to achieve the same goals. Yeah, a PS2 era game could be made for a fraction of the price now, but we want games 100x the size and quality.

At no point in the near future, now through PS5 generation, will Sony's first-party costs decrease due to tech (unless there's a shocking break-through such as AI writing games for us!). What we might see is just an economical cap where a game can't cost more than a certain amount for business reasons ($300 million?), and then we'll see more achieved within those limits as tech improves.

 

[Recop]

Not saying your wrong with movies, but a list of the most expensive isn't going to give you the average movie price.

You're right. Also my comment on profit is wrong because, even though the movie market is larger today, competition is much tougher : Netflix, internet, more people have TV, piracy, etc.

And as mentioned, better tools just means reaching higher goals, not spending less to achieve the same goals. Yeah, a PS2 era game could be made for a fraction of the price now, but we want games 100x the size and quality.

But at a certain point it will make no sense :

- You can't have always bigger games.

- You can reach a point where a higher budget won't make an appreciable difference.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

- You can't have always bigger games.

- You can reach a point where a higher budget won't make an appreciable difference.

Yes, as I eluded to in my second line. It's just not happening any time soon, where you seemed to suggest that tech would stop increasing game costs for Sony's first party games after suggesting they'd get too expensive, implying you're talking near term and not 10+ years from now. Sony faces increasing development costs, same as every other dev/pub. Sony can turn a profit from them regardless, same as any other dev/pub (it's hit and miss). At some point, somewhere in the future, there'll probably be a clear economic barrier that won't be crossed and development costs will likely plateau.

 

[DrJay24]

There are some things one doesn't need to experience directly to know they won't like it or it's not for them.

I find the whole thing disingenuous. People claiming they watch streams and call the game play of some of the highest rated games mediocre.Saying they are not interested in God of War (95% MC) because of some character history shit? What we really have here is bias, plain and simple. You can't claim you like TPS like Gears and then say you don't like Uncharted and TLoU. They are the same genre and top rated games at that. If you run everything through a "I hate Sony" filter then you will find or exaggerate reasons not to buy or play them. "I don't like the story or the character". Sure....

How can someone say Dark Souls 1-3 are their favorite games and not mention Demon Souls or Bloodborne as top games to play? Oh ya, they are Sony games.

I'm calling bullshit, sorry if that is not PC.

 

[MrFox]

I find the whole thing disingenuous. People claiming they watch streams and call the game play of some of the highest rated games mediocre.Saying they are not interested in God of War (95% MC) because of some character history shit? What we really have here is bias, plain and simple. You can't claim you like TPS like Gears and then say you don't like Uncharted and TLoU. They are the same genre and top rated games at that. If you run everything through a "I hate Sony" filter then you will find or exaggerate reasons not to buy or play them. "I don't like the story or the character". Sure....

How can someone say Dark Souls 1-3 are their favorite games and not mention Demon Souls or Bloodborne as top games to play? Oh ya, they are Sony games.

I'm calling bullshit, sorry if that is not PC.

The question is much simpler. The proof is in the pudding. One purchase is worth only one in the stats.

The poll I made was precisely designed to filter out that noise.

People will play whatever they want, and will purchase whatever they want, they will buy what interest them, whatever the reasons (and brand interest is a real thing, for all platforms).

If the question is about "impact", the unique snowflakes with surprisingly aligned interests (it's and interest, not a review) are only statistically impactful if they are widespread. And they are not.

It doesn't matter if someone is "biased" for one platform or the other. The purchase was made anyway, so it's part of the result. The user base is what counts.