Are exclusives a good or bad thing?

People hate exclusives when their system of choice does not provide any. And people love them when their system does have them.

Me? PC gamer and I still prefer a system that has them, gives it a purpose. Although, would save me cash if all were available on PC.

I'm kinda fine with first parties. But 3rd party exclusives? Nah.

Anti consumer.

I voted for "Let the companies do as they wish!"

I'm fed up with the closed ecosystem, charging for online and that 30fps nonsense. The only way Sony will ever see my money again is through a proper pc version of their "exclusives". Microsoft actually did a wise move with that, otherwise the only money they'd see from me would be for their gamepads...

I'm fine with first-party exclusives. That's the only reason I'd buy a console for.

Third-party exclusives are shit.

I think all games should be available on all systems it's just leaving money on the table for the devs.

Good for fangirls, bad for gamerzz. :P

I think third party devs need to not do exclusives; timed or not. As for first party studios, their exclusives are essentially the reason to buy their system.

The only ones not wanting exclusives are those that want to play them without forking over the money to get the system they're on.

Let the companies do as they wish!

1st party exclusives are good for gamers. It breeds competition and makes console makers create new IPs and put more quality into the games because they have to be good and exciting games to get consumers on the platform.

If console makers didn't have that exclusive competition we would never have games like God of War, Spiderman, Halo, forza, and Mario Kart. Sonic Was even created to combat Mario. None of this would have happened if they didn't have to push gaming to get gamers to pick their console.

Like Random Matt said, people who hate them have chosen a platform that doesn't give them what the competition is offering. It's up to the consumer to buy a product that has something that interests them. It's not up to the console manufacturer to fork over millions of dollars in development costs to develop, advertise, and publish a game then release it to it's direct competition company just because little Timmy is too lazy to get a job or do chores to save and earn a measly 400 bucks for a console.

Agreed. The market has always been about competition and what vision each company has for a platform. That is exciting to me!

Exclusives are good for competition. Competition is good for gamers.

1st party exclusive games like on Nintendo & Sony are fine, its 3rd-party timely exclusives is the real problem and for that, 3rd-party exclusives shouldn't be a thing at all and looking at you Epic Games.

I choose the last option: Let companies do as they wish.

Gaming is a privilege and a hobby, not an entitlement as some gamers want.

Exclusivity is a choice

I love Nintendo exclusives, don't care about Sony and MS exclusives, they're the place to play multiplats

Would you be ok with Nintendo games going multiplat?

No producer in the world care as much about their games as Nintendo and Sony do about their first party exclusives. I think that if there were no exclusives we would miss out on some the highest quality games.

If I like a game, I want everyone to play it. Its particularly shitty recommending a game and it requires the purchase of new hardware. Exclusives just cost gamers more money with NO added benefits.

I think all games should be available on all systems.

So, they wouldn't make games if they can't make it for their specific platform?

It sucks for gamers and games when big companies pay for exclusivity. Usually.

This is just an observation.

I think they would make different kinds of games.

If you only make games you want to maximize profits on every game. That's how EA thinks. But if you are a platform holder you want to offer unique qualities to get people into your eco system. That's how Nintendo and Sony thinks (and MS are getting their next gen).

The different incentives leads to different games. Sony and Nintendo are more quality focused. They do not care as much about squeezing out that MT-money.

So, you are saying that Nintendo and Sony do not make games to maximize profits? Also what different games would they make?

Not a fan. Don't like buying up multiple boxes just to play a handful of locked up games. And it's extra annoying when a well designed game suffers technically due to the hardware its locked behind.

Yeah, without exclusives there are some IPs that likely wouldn't exist. Small trade off imo. And in all honesty, that would have been a much bigger deal way back when. The big budget new exclusive IPs these days are typically more like a new coat of paint on some shit we've already had forever. Not like we'd be missing out on something that pushes gaming forward. Look at that Sushi Ghost footage from today for example. Looks fantastic visually. Also looks cookie cutter af from a gameplay standpoint. The industry would have lost nothing if that game didn't exist lol.

Back in the day, had no issues with exclusives. When platforms were wildly different from one another. When you could tell what system a game was on just by seeing and hearing it. And as a result, each system had plenty of its own unique games. So owning all the systems felt worth it.

These days? Basically just buying varying power levels of the same shit, just to have access to a handful of locked up games. And at this point, most of these games would still exist with or without exclusivity. Not like Zelda would suddenly vanish lol.

They do make them to maximize their overall profit of course. But since they are platform holders the math is a bit different. It's much more important for them that their games lead to players buying their platforms. So they want to create unique stuff of the highest quality.

They would make games more similar to EA/Ubisoft/WB. More GaaS types of games. More MP focused. and so on.

I can agree with this. These systems are literally just the same systems with difference performance levels. Any game on any system can run on any of the current gen systems. The Switch is the exception in some case because its the weakest of the three but most games can have a Switch version.

Fortunately, exclusives have been trending down and I hope it keeps heading down. Gamers should always be able to pick the platform of their choice and play the games of their choice.

@ConanTheStoner: daaaaammmnnn, taking shots at Ghost of Tsushima. But isn't the setting very unique? Also, what Western made game features a Japanese voice over option? The reliance on environmental cues is pretty cool. Cookie cutter this game is not!

Whether you like it or not, it's part of the culture. It's always driven sales of systems and will continue to do so for most companies.

I mean sure, it would be great if we always had all products available from all sellers, but you'll never be able to buy a new Ford at a Chevy plant, a Big Mac at Wendy's etc.

So, they are doing what you said EA is doing. Trying to maximize profits. The argument about GaaS is pretty weak argument. The vast majority of games made across the board are not games as a service. Yet, this falsehood is repeated to the point where people actually believe its true. Take any of thee companies portfolio that your are demonizing and you will see the majority of their games are not multiplayer focused.

Bad.

• Well, first and foremost, I have to ask: why? Why do we need or want exclusives? The consumer gains nothing from their existence. Nothing. Maybe bragging rights? But that's dumb.
• They create false competition; instead of honestly competing based on hardware and other things, they instead take the easy and dishonest way out and simply pay for exclusivity.
• Forces people to pick a platform they might not otherwise actually want; if you don't like platform A, but all the games you love are on platform A because of exclusivity, you're sort of screwed.
• Deprives others of access to a game.
• Not consumer friendly.
• It's sort of dumb and silly. It's like buying a car not because a car is good, but because if you buy it you get access to a special gas station *shrug*. You should buy a platform because it appeals to you as a platform, not because they've licensed certain game franchises.
• It just sort of goes against the whole idea of capitalism.

You are confusing gaming to the purchasing of cars or food. Gaming is entertainment that is more in line with movies and music. You can play and watch movies on any device of your choice. Shows on Netflix are exclusive to Netflix but Netflix is not exclusive to any particular hardware.

Oh yeah, I definitely said gameplay man.

Setting isn't exactly unique lol. Incredibly well done tho. Don't think a western game having Japanese VO is earth shattering, but that's cool, not criticizing that at all.

Environment cues, while appreciated, are just a coat of paint on existing systems.

Very much getting away from my point tho. As a game, it's gameplay systems, the way you interact in Sushi Ghost... yes, what they showed us is very much cookie cutter. And that's fine. Not even shitting on the game really. My point is that the industry wouldn't be at a loss without this exclusive existing.

Anyways, was just an example that was fresh on my mind. As I said in the lounge, would like to be wrong about this game, and will watch more footage as it comes. Hoping there's more to its gameplay than what was shown. Because I'd hate for that setting with those production values to be wasted on something so bog standard.

But what if it does become a success. What if it gives Assassins Creed a run for its money and inspires Ubisoft to make better games? What if it leads to more samurai games? What if people like those visual ques and developers adopt similar things? What if the combat has interesting twists to it? What if people like that film grainy look lol. Maybe the story will.be incredible. I get it, you don't see any of that lol..but saying the industry would be fine without it? Well damn.. why bother making anything if half of gamers play Fortnite anyway lol.

I mean, that's a bunch of "what ifs" that you can apply to anything man. And I'm almost certain it will be a success.

My mistake for bringing up that game in particular, as we're getting way way wayyyy far from the point. Could swap it out for just about any other AAA exclusive. Could just as easily bring up the latest Halo, or Uncharted, or Mario. Or for a more comparable new IP, Days Gone. The quality hardly matters.

but saying the industry would be fine without it? Well damn.. why bother making anything if half of gamers play Fortnite anyway lol.

Absolutely not my point either man.

What I was driving at in my initial post:

> The biggest trade off (as a gamer) to not having exclusives is that some IPs may not come into existence.

> The days of big 1st party titles bringing something truly new to the table gameplay wise are all but extinct.

It's just not like back in the day. The AAA space is incredibly iterative, especially so with 1st party exclusives. Shit I think the last landmark exclusive we had was probably Demons Souls? Not like that game was built out of a need to push PS3s anyways. From would've made a game of that type, with or without exclusivity.

Circling back to Sushi Ghost for the hell of it. I'm not the type to give gamers too much credit on surface level takes. This is afterall, the same group of people who saw Demons Souls for the first time and thought it was a generic rip off of Oblivion lmao.

But people are already seeing comparisons to Assassins Creed, which is as cookie cutter as it gets. Even you mentioned it. A higher quality ass creed isn't equivalent to a paradigm shift in design.

I'm not saying Sushi Ghosts won't leave a mark in some way, of course it could. But nothing substantial. Not something that will have a long lasting ripple effect on game design.

To wrap up. I simply don't see the loss of a few new IPs as a bad trade off for platform agnostic gaming.

I'm on the let company do as they wish. If they invested in whatever ecosystem they building, they can do whatever they want with that ecosystem.

Well I’m not really opposed to either/or so let the companies do as they wish I guess. I can see why console manufacturers want exclusive games for their systems, in order to sell them. I can also see why some developers would want to make a game exclusively on one system over others. Outside of simply being paid by the console manufacturer they may not have the resources to port the game over to various other platforms. Perhaps there may be certain platform features that aren’t available on the other systems or certain functionalities that just don’t translate over as well. I think that if we really want platforms to be agnostic then the gaming industry is going to need to be much more standardized then it currently is.

Its a really hard question. Its almost a competitive necessity isnt it? Every system would be the same if they had all the same games. But of course I hate it- I want everyone to be able to play everything on any system. It really sunk Xbox this gen- badly. Its making me go PS5 next gen and Ive been an Xbox honk since 2005.

Quite the opposite. Gamers might hate it, but it also breeds more competition. Im in the exclusives are good camp.

Games compete with games whether they are exclusive or not. Its a falsehood to claim that the absence of exclusive equates to the absence of competition.

I don't know if the trade off would be big or not without exclusives, or hurt me in any way. But of course I'd rather not buy hardware I don't really need. I'm not crazy.

Timed exclusives are a good thing, as in most cases the deal funds the game development.

First party exclusives are fine.

Third party exclusives are pure bullshit.

I actually don't play Assassins Creed games lol, but I have read comments about how people have always wanted an AC game in Japan. This game actually reminds me of Breath of the Wild more. Where there is a focus of nature and exploration, but then there's enemy camps. Except this game I think will have a way better story. When I think of AC games, I think of loads of crowds and buildings and just going from point a to point b and some weird plot. All in all - Sony games tend to take some of the best elements in the industry and then come up with their own. But back to your point - if you don't care about a loss of a few new IPs, then how is that different from them existing? Just don't play them 😉

lol

Really not sure if serious.

It's a hypothetical man. And this is missing the forest for the trees.

I think if you go back to my original post, and just switch out Sushi Ghost for any other new IP, you'll get what I'm saying.

Don't concentrate too much on Ghost, it was only an example. One that you seem to be looking forward to, which has kinda put you on the defensive rather than responding to the point I was making.

But no. Choosing not to play an exclusive vs. an industry that does away with them. Two entirely different things man.

Exclusives were great until there were so few of them. Now its just annoying.

You said the loss of a few new IPs, and now you're saying your argument is hypothetical. So it sounds like you're not really sure what you're saying yourself. You brought up Days Gone as a better example. I guess to you it's just another cookie cutter zombie game. So you're saying if it wasn't exclusive, then maybe it would've been multiplat, or maybe not. And it sounds like to you, you wouldn't care if it existed anyway. I don't know what Days Gone would be like if Sony wasn't in charge. Sony makes games that caters to their audience, the people who bought their console. But it seems like in either scenario you wouldn't have bought the game, a game that you decided on because you thought it was cookie cutter, and either had no interest in that genre to begin with, or are just simply judging the game at face value. Which brings us back full circle to your main argument - which is that you just don't want games to be exclusive to a system. Aren't you the guy that bought an Xbox Series X just to play Ninja Gaiden? lol. Well guess what, Xbox brought it back, because it was part of it's BC program, a program they created to be competitive against Sony. And they remastered it in 4K 60FPS too. What incentive would they have had to do that if it wasn't for their console? Just put it on the PC store so it gets pirated? or so that 5 people buy it?

Ideally, in some Utopian reality, I'd say I prefer having any game available on my system of choice. We're somewhat approaching something close to that with ecosystems instead of platforms so that's kinda cool.