Console Exclusives: Significance and Impact *spinoff*

[Silent_Buddha]

I never said consoles are successful because they have specific characteristics, I'm ranking them by importance. In the post I originally quoted of yours, it seemed that you were saying that power is more important than exclusives. I was simply arguing against that point.

Really? For me, the original Xbox had far more interesting and better exclusives. X360 had far more exclusives, but the X360 was also on the market far longer than the original Xbox.

This thread has a good list.

https://www.giantbomb.com/xbox/3045-32/forums/i-need-a-list-of-exclusive-original-xbox-games-222254/

Standouts for me.

Star Wars: KOTOR 1&2
Halo 1&2
Fable
Jade Empire (not highly rated, but I loved this game)
Ninja Gaiden as well as NG Black (wasn't multiplatform until the next generation of consoles)
DOA 3
DOAX
Steel Battalion for sheer ridiculousness.
Otogo 1&2
Shunmue II
Kingdoms under Fire
Men of Valor
the Oddworld games
Gun Valkyrie

There were also a bunch of console exclusives (The Thief games, for example) on there that I played on PC instead. And that's only the ones that I liked extremely well, the list is quite extensive. I also don't think that forum has an exhaustive list.

X360 also had some really good exclusives (Bioshock which later became multiplatform, for instance as well as the Halo games and Gears). I played less of the X360 exclusives than I did Xbox exclusives.

With X360 some former Xbox console exclusive developers became multiplatoform. Bioware, for example.

Of course, as is the case with exclusives, it's highly subjective, so I could easily someone going with X360 as have more "must have" exclusives. But I think Xbox despite having a smaller library due to time on market holds its own quite well compared to the X360.

XBO, OTOH has been pretty disappointing with the number of exclusives. As well, 343i isn't nearly as good as Bungie when it comes to the Halo universe. However, that's balanced by The Coalition doing a respectable job with the Gears series, IMO.

Man, looking at this, wouldn't it be absolutely mind blowing if Microsoft enabled BC for Steel Battalion as well as its absolutely ridonkulous controller?

Regards,
SB

 

[chris1515]

Sure but on the flip side. X number of gamers.

• BC matters to A number of gamers.
• BC is just a perk to B number of gamers.
• BC is of no consequence to C number of gamers.

Replace BC with any number of various features. Exclusivity is only one in a long list of potential things to attract a person to a console.

And I've also stated that outside of 3rd party games, Exclusives probably have a larger draw than the other examples I listed before.

Hell, lack of multiplatform games on one platform most likely hurts a LOT more than less exclusives.

For example, there are a lot of multiplatform games from Japanese developers that get released on PS and PC but not on Xbox. In Japan, that likely hurts them a lot more than having less platform exclusives. And in other territories that effect is greater or lesser depending on how important Japanese developed games are. In the EU it's a large effect as Japanese games are relatively popular there. In the US, the effect is less but still there.

Of course, I can also see an argument being made that despite that, Exclusives matter more. That's fine, we're talking about subjective opinions of the relative value of X feature in promotion of Y console.

Or imagine for a second that GTA V was only on Xbox and PC. Would that affect sales? Hell yes it would. RDR being on PS and Xbox but not PC certainly affected the PC share of the pie.

Or look at the Wii-U, would it have done better if it was able to have all of the multiplatform games available on it that are available on PS/Xbox? All the Nintendo exclusives in the world couldn't save that platform. Yes, there was the Wii, but the Wii was an outlier tapping into a segment of the buying population that had never even seen or played a Nintendo game at any point in their life. Wii didn't explode in popularity because of its exclusives, it exploded because it got people who don't game to buy a console.

People are sure to point to it being under powered compared to the competition. That doesn't matter a single bit if Exclusives were more important than 3rd party multiplatform titles. It being underpowered is what kept it from getting those all important 3rd party multiplatform titles.

There is no objective measure that we can use as we do not have the data available. And even if we did, data can be interpreted in many different ways.

What we can agree on is that there are a variety of factors of which Exclusives is one of them and is relatively high on the list of important factors.

Regards,
SB

Nintendo sold more than 100 millions Wii mostly with Nintendo game. Matt Piscatella from NPD on GAF and now resetera told than Nintendo console live and die by Nintendo game and all Nintendo console since the GameCube Nintendo sold more game than 3rd party...

After you need to have an attractive product it was not attractive for Wii U but it is with Switch.

 

[chris1515]

Substitute goods by economics definition. As per Silent Buddha’s post. You’re not getting the same game, but there are other action/tps/stealth horror games out there.

Dark souls substitutes for Blood Borne. For instance.

God of war, gears of war. Ryse. TLOU/UC , tomb raider, assassins creed, evil within etc.

Horizon zero dawn? Witcher 3. Assassin Creed Origins. Red dead redemption. GTA 5.

List goes on.

Your earlier commentary on how releasing games of all the same type makes for basically the same as 0 exclusives, applies here. The more substitutes that the exclusives have to compete with (especially higher quality ones) the harder it is to stand out or hold value.

Dark souls why not but Bloodborne gameplay is a bit different and when you love From Software game you buy a PS4 and not an Xbox one because you can't play Bloodborne... And it is the best soul's this generation on metacritic with a score of 91, DS3 is good too with 89.

God of War has nothing to do with Gears of War in term of gameplay... Ryse metacritic is 60 we will know thursday if God of War is better but from teasing of reviewer and insider indication like shinobi602(work in marketing for an indie and many connection inside the industry) the game is huge. He said it will probably be higher than HZD(89) on Metacritic...

Tomb raider is comparable to Uncharted but again Uncharted games scored higher than Tomb Raider one... but at least here it is comparable UC4(93) and Rise of the tomb Raider (88).

TLOU is not like Tomb Raider or Uncharted, the gameplay is different than Uncharted slower pace, importance of crafting, need to take care of your inventory... And the story is much more gritty... Evil Within(75) and Evil Within 2(76) are far from TLOU(95).

Horizon Zero Dawn(89) is more valid but as much as I like The Witcher 3(92), the weakness of the game imo is combat (not bad but not great)... I think the side quest story are better in TW3( I prefer the pacing of the main story of HZD) but the fight against machine are above of TW3 combat by far... AC Origins(81) is too a good game...

GTA 5 has nothing to do with HZD or TW 3 out of been an open world, probably the same thing for Red Dead Redemption 2...

 

[MrFox]

Your earlier commentary on how releasing games of all the same type makes for basically the same as 0 exclusives, applies here. The more substitutes that the exclusives have to compete with (especially higher quality ones) the harder it is to stand out or hold value.

Yes I agree, the games they make that have competition in the same field have to be significantly better, or launch inbetween them to fill the void. Open world have the most competition right now, it's a very healthy genre. But the first parties from sony have a focus on story and characters that none of the others do. Hey I loved Witcher 3, but seriously the story isn't really a stong point, it's the open world and gameplay that is fun, the world itself have a deep history and well built. Well, we all have different opinions I guess it's a substitute.

You list games of genres which third parties are making. But I was thinking of TLoU, Journey, TLG, SSB, Zelda. In particular, because I haven't found anything that could be considered anywhere near as appreciated from gamers. Those of us who played both TLoU and the new TR reboot don't see them as anywhere similar, TR have ridiculously superficial characters and story with a good UC-style gameplay. TLoU is a very slow paced gameplay with a focus on characters and story to a level no games are even trying to replicate. Same for TLG.

Nintendo games are in a class of their own and they sell the system. Sony tried to make a SSB competitor, it just didn't work. I doubt anyone will succeed, nintendo nailed it in a way that copycats will probably always fall short.

Also I doubt Death Stranding will have a copycat anytime soon, same for Detroit. Same for whatever next game Fumito Ueda is working on for playstation 6, or 7, maybe.

 

[chris1515]

Yes I agree, the games they make that have competition in the same field have to be significantly better, or launch inbetween them to fill the void. Open world have the most competition right now, it's a very healthy genre. But the first parties from sony have a focus on story and characters that none of the others do. Hey I loved Witcher 3, but seriously the story isn't really a stong point, it's the open world and gameplay that is fun.

You list games of genres which third parties are making. But I was thinking of TLoU, Journey, TLG, SSB, Zelda. In particular, because I haven't found anything that could be considered anywhere near as appreciated from gamers. Those of us who played both TLoU and the new TR reboot don't see them as anywhere similar, TR have ridiculously superficial characters and story with a good UC-style gameplay. TLoU is a very slow paced gameplay with a focus on characters and story to a level no games are even trying to replicate. Same for TLG.

Nintendo games are in a class of their own and they sell the system. Sony tried to make a SSB competitor, it just didn't work. I doubt anyone will succeed, nintendo nailed it in a way that copycats will probably always fall short.

Also I doubt Death Stranding will have a copycat anytime soon, same for Detroit. Same for whatever next game Fumito Ueda is working on for playstation 6, or 7, maybe.

The Witcher 3 side quest story are better than HZD side quest by a huge margin out of Nil side quest... The main quest story of TW3 has a problem of pacing during the Novigrad running after ciri begin to be boring but after Novigrad it goes better.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Substitute goods by economics definition. As per Silent Buddha’s post. You’re not getting the same game, but there are other action/tps/stealth horror games out there.

Most people do not chose games based on any economy other than can they afford to buy them, they chose based on what they want to play. This is predicated on a lot of factors including genre, gameplay, narrative, period, atmosphere and tone. If I couldn't play The Last of Us, would State of Decay be a good substitute? They're both third person 'shooters' with stealth mechanics with heavy survival crafting mechanics. But they're nothing alike to play.

Your substitute list of games is so mind-boggingly bad it could well have be written bu somebody who has never played any of these games and only seen trailers. The nearest mark you get is Uncharted / Tomb Raider but tonally these are very different. I've never replayed 2013 Tomb Raider and got bored of the sequel before finishing it, the oppressive and absurdly over serious tone doesn't work for me. Uncharted? Fun, lighthearted mass-murder sims. Played them all, and replayed them. Many times.

You seem to be enjoying Sea of Theives. What if SoT was a PS4 exclusive, would Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag be a good substitute? It's not what you want but it's got treasure, pirates and combat. That's fine right?

The Witcher 3 side quest story are better than HZD and for side quest by a huge margin out of Nil side quest... The main quest story of TW3 has a problem of pacing during the Novigrad running after ciri begin to be boring but after Novigrad it goes better.

I'd argue these games are really not alike beyond being open world and third person. HZD is a sci-fi game with sublime combat, light RPG mechanics and a concise, unwavering story. TW3 - which is a game I finished and throughly enjoyed - is a fantasy game with, let's be honest, average combat (regardless of your specialisation) but a tremendous RPG with many different stories to tell but an extremely drawn out main quest.

If I feel like playing HZD but can't, TW3 is not a good substitute and vice-versa. But perhaps others are just playing games just to kill time and what they play really doesn't matter to them.

edit: spelling.

 

[chris1515]

Most people do not chose games based on any economy other than can they afford to buy them, they chose based on what they want to play. This is predicated on a lot of factors including genre, gameplay, narrative, period, atmosphere and tone. If I couldn't play The Last of Us, would States of Decay be a good substitute? They're third person 'shooters' with stealth mechanics with heavy survival crafting mechanics. But they're nothing alike to play.

You're substitute list of games is so mind-boggingly bad it could well have be written bu somebody who has never played any of these games and only seen trailers. The nearest mark you get is Uncharted / Tomb Raider but again, tonally these are way, way different. I've never replayed 2013 Tomb Raider and got bored of the sequel before finishing it, the oppressive and absurdly over serious tone doesn't work for me. Uncharted? Fun, lighthearted mass-murder sims. Played them all, and replayed them. Many times.

You seem to be enjoying Sea of Theives. What if it a PS4 exclusive, would Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag be a good substitute? It's not what you want but it's for treasure, pirates and combat. That's fine right?



I'd argue these games are really not alike beyond being open world and third person. HZD is a sci-fi game with sublime combat, light RPG mechanics and a concise, unwavering story. TW3 - which is a game I finished and throughly enjoyed - is a fantasy game with, let's be honest, average combat (regardless of your specialisation) but a tremendous RPG with many different stories to tell but an extremely drawn out main quest.

If I feel like playing HZD but can't, TW3 is not a good substitute and vice-versa. But perhaps others are just playing games just to kill time and what they play really doesn't matter to them.

HZD and TW3 have different quality I agree and seeing the GDC postmortem they know the quality of the game and the biggest default human combat and they will improve it... After I prefer the main story of HZD by far like I said TW3 it is like they can cut hours of it...

For side quest story they can improve too on HZD and they know too they can improve traversal. I think HZD 2 will probably be what Uncharted 2 was to Uncharted...

Very funny because I was not a fan of Killzone and I find KZ SF to be average and a launch title but some of the things they use in HZD were in KZ SF like audio log but it works much better in HZD. And visually robot design are really coherent with the Killzone industrial design of Killzone universe just less gritty out of of the shadow carja robot...

For sure HZD is a unique experience that TW3 or AC Origins can't replace...

For Ubi soft, they have good Open world single player games often 80+ on metacritic but never very good or excellent game. I think it comes from the rhythm of release ... Rockstar, CD Projekt or GG will release less games but of better quality...

But they are important because they filled the void between games of CD Projekt, Rockstar or now GG... Because I would have play three Open world single player games if I waited for the best one and only two real current gen games (GTA 5 coming from last gen...)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

HZD and TW3 have different quality I agree and for example but seeing the GDC postmortem they know the quality of the game and the biggest default human combat and they will improve it...

Even if the combat in The Witcher 3 is improved, it'll still be no substitute for the sci-fi HZD. It's fantasy vs. sci-fi, RPG vs. combat, 60 hours vs. 20 hours. I've been meaning to replay The Witcher 3 since I first completed it, but I'll likely never have the time. I've completed HZD twice because the minute-to-minute combat is just so damn good.

But they are important because they filled the void between games of CD Projekt, Rockstar or now GG...

Hence my comment about killing time. If people are only buying games because otherwise they're be starring blankly at a wall, then.. wow. I can't ever remember having so much empty time that I could fill it with games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indeed. The suggestion here seems comparable to wanting apple pie but that being off the menu so picking cheesecake instead. If you're just after dessert, fine, but if you went to this particular restaurant because its apple pie was so good, cheesecake is no substitute.

That said, I guess a lot of the desire to play a game is from a sort of feeling from the media, and when you can't it's not the end of the world, which is perhaps where Iroboto is coming from? All those XBox owners that want to play Uncharted or HZD can't (or PS owners wanting to play SoT). Do they sit around looking at a powered off TV holding a powered-off controller imagining they are playing UC or HZD? Nope - they play something else. So there's maybe two mentalities (perhaps a scale of)...

"I've got to play that game! It's not available on Box A? Right, I'm getting Box B."
"I want to play video games. That one on Box B looks great. Oh, it's not coming to my Box A? Boo. I'll play something else instead."​

From that second perspective, Iroboto's initially shocking comparisons make sense - it's not that these games are similar but that if you can't play one of the titles, you'll be happy playing something else. Thus,

Your substitute list of games is so mind-boggingly bad it could well have be written bu somebody who has never played any of these games and only seen trailers.

Is true for most consumers - they can't miss HZD's gameplay or whatever because they haven't experienced it, in the same way they can't miss skydiving having never tried it and instead consider golf a suitable substitute.

However, the platform that offers more of the first perspective, the must have, system-seller games, is going to be the preferred console for an increasing proportion of people.

TBH this discussion is pretty much done I think. To go forwards we really need a market appraisal of the value of exclusives with some indicator what the impact is. Only pattern I can see is PS has been really popular and PS has had a massive library with lots of exclusives. The one generation it wasn't massively more popular than the rival is the one generation it didn't have lots more exclusives, but that's enough to draw conclusions.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Only pattern I can see is PS has been really popular and PS has had a massive library with lots of exclusives. The one generation it wasn't massively more popular than the rival is the one generation it didn't have lots more exclusives, but that's enough to draw conclusions.

PS3 also launched later and more expensive than Xbox 360. Exclusive-wise, I think it stood up well with a mix of new IP and old: Infamous 1 and 2, Gran Turismo, Uncharted 1-3, The Last of Us, Little Big Planet 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Motorstorm 1-3, Resistance 1-3, Killzone 2, Disgaea 4, Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls, Demon Souls, God of War III, Ratchet & Clank, Valkyria Chronicles then lighter exclusives like Wipeout HD, Flower, Journey, Super Stardust and a bunch of remastered collections that were also exclusive.

It's impossible to know why people bought the console they did without asking them and hope they're honest with the answers and that's a null program.

 

[Jupiter]

For Ubi soft, they have good Open world single player games often 80+ on metacritic but never very good or excellent game. I think it comes from the rhythm of release ... Rockstar, CD Projekt or GG will release less games but of better quality...

Recently an engine programmer who was/is still working on one of the fastest running console engines that he could get 20% performance out of Witcher III within a week because it has no depth prepass and they don't sort their G buffer by shaders, depth and then render the terrain last. You can't really say that Witcher III has a better quality when they have such educational gaps.

 

[chris1515]

PS3 also launched later and more expensive than Xbox 360. Exclusive-wise, I think it stood up well with a mix of new IP and old: Infamous 1 and 2, Gran Turismo, Uncharted 1-3, The Last of Us, Little Big Planet 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Motorstorm 1-3, Resistance 1-3, Killzone 2, Disgaea 4, Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls, Demon Souls, God of War III, Ratchet & Clank, Valkyria Chronicles then lighter exclusives like Wipeout HD, Flower, Journey, Super Stardust and a bunch of remastered collections that were also exclusive.

It's impossible to know why people bought the console they did without asking them and hope they're honest with the answers and that's a null program.

I am in the middle. I think it is important but brand powers price comes before. For example we never see a real battle between the Xbox division and the PlayStation division. With no error from one side.

Sony will not come like a newcomer next time, all the goodwill of this generation will come to play. And we will see if ecosystem is important with backward compatibility from the get go.

 

[chris1515]

Recently an engine programmer who was/is still working on one of the fastest running console engines that he could get 20% performance out of Witcher III within a week because it has no depth prepass and they don't sort their G buffer by shaders, depth and then render the terrain last. You can't really say that Witcher III has a better quality when they have such educational gaps.

A game is not only graphics, it is much more than that. And visual is the blend of art and graphics technology I find HZD better looking than TW3 or AC Origins but artistically TW 3 is good.

 

[Jupiter]

Of course, but graphics/performance ratio is an objective point. In general, I'm not interested in ratings. Last generation I just saw enough 90%+ games which had 20/25fps which is unplayable for me. That's one of the reasons why I can't take something like Metacritic seriously at all. 90%+ should be almost perfect.

 

[BRiT]

Does Metacritic even have a way to verify the person submitting a score even played the game? If not, they should link the reviewer to their gamertag and ensure they have played it for at least an hour. I know the XBL system has APIs to check for that, not sure about the other platforms. If they don't allow for that, then perhaps ensure they unlocked at least 1 Trophy?

 

[chris1515]

Does Metacritic even have a way to verify the person submitting a score even played the game? If not, they should link the reviewer to their gamertag and ensure they have played it for at least an hour. I know the XBL system has APIs to check for that, not sure about the other platforms. If they don't allow for that, then perhaps ensure they unlocked at least 1 Trophy?

The gamertag or PSN id of the reviewer are public it is easy to verify they play one game...

 

[chris1515]

Of course, but graphics/performance ratio is an objective point. In general, I'm not interested in ratings. Last generation I just saw enough 90%+ games which had 20/25fps which is unplayable for me. That's one of the reasons why I can't take something like Metacritic seriously at all. 90%+ should be almost perfect.

Last gen the only game with not locked 30 fps with more than 90% coming from Sony was TLOU and it was playable imo.

I like rating because it is the opinion of many reviewers and most of the time it is objective and ok...

Maybe opencritic have more transparency but most of the time the difference is only one or two point maximum...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I am in the middle. I think it is important but brand powers price comes before.

I think that within each console use base, there are large sections of that user base that have chosen that console for different reasons. That's why it's not always one brand dominating, or the cheapest console dominating or the most powerful console dominating. And many people will game on a console for many generations and their priorities and factors will be re-evaluated over time.

 

[Jupiter]

GTA IV had 98% and often 20fps and there are many other examples.

Just because many see it that way it's not better from my point of view. Something controversial (which is not liked by everyone) doesn't have to be worse.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Just because many see it that way it's not better from my point of view.

That's because you're not remotely representative of the console buying public. Sub-30 framerates are a red line for you, but aren't for the majority content with a lower level of performance on their cheap console.