Are paid exclusives from console manufacturers good?

Should paid exclusives be made illegal?

Cows looking at that poll choice,

@onesiphorus: if paid exclusives were made illegal, then that would totally destroy the idea of having a free economy where people can do whatever they want with their money. Might as well go back to communism if that’s what people really want, lol.

If it's just cosmetics, I'm fine with it.

But if it's real content, nah. (Exclusive missions, exclusive stories/quests, p2w shit)

Allowed? Yes. A chump move? Yes.

Folks cheering for the government to block this stuff don’t understand the ramifications. There’s a reason governments with too much power always fall… Asking the Feds to fix video games isn’t the answer. As consumers, why not actually vote with your fucking wallets for the first time in human history?!?! Every time y’all have tried that in the past, you just ended up falling in line with the evil corporations you claim to despise… 🙄

@ghostofgolden: exactly, there are so many people who say things like “giant supermarkets are evil for destroying the smaller shops”, yet those exact same people will buy most of their groceries from the exact same giant supermarkets they claim to hate. Similar to the games industry.

Regarding the reply posts above me, I don't see anyone arguing that govt should take a role in limiting paid exclusives. Moreover, that isn't the question being asked.

Regarding the question, I have consistently been on the side of consumers. All exclusives (first party, 2nd, or 3rd, paid or not) are inherently anti-consumer. Period. Full stop. The effect is to force us to have to buy multiple boxes of plastic and potentially pay multiple fees to access multiple closed online gaming communities just to have potential access to all of the games.

Insane people keep posting....but, but, how would my plastic box of choice be differentiated? Who gives a fcuk about brand, per se? Buy it based on resolution, FPS, etc. Anyone with a brain knows that the PC business model is inherently superior. But personally, I don't want to play on PC. I want my dedicated plastic box beside my TV. Multiple manufacturers could produce generic boxes at different price points, just like PC. Just like TVs, stereo receivers, etc. Moreover, every game should be playable cross platform/ecosystem.

It is the stupid tribalism of SWs crackheads that perpetuates this situation. Your fcuking nonsense about...but, but, but who would make the great games is pure bullshit. Great developers who are passionate about making games. That is who, and I don't give a shit who writes their paycheck.

I hope that is clear :)

Edit: Almost forgot. TC is trolling cows about their inherently fcuked up and shifting positions on exclusives, depending on whether they are fondling their Sony blowup dolls or trying to follow regulatory proceedings.

Just play the games and forget about it. You guys get too caught up in this shit.

@SUD123456: but exclusives provide incentives for console manufacturers to make games in the first place. If Sony was going to release God of War on Xbox, then they would lose interest in making these games and just abandon the franchise. Why bother spending millions of dollars to develop a game to sell a rival console? Makes zero business sense.

Also, you mention that the PC business model is superior. Yeah good luck with that, considering that Valve has totally monopolised the PC gaming market, and Epic Games Store is simply eating up the leftover crumbs. PC market is way worse than the console market. Three companies sharing control is still much better than one company grabbing everything for themselves.

This is something that has existed in every facet of the industry and every corner of the market since the beginning of time. Competition breeds competition and this is no different.

You don't have to like it but understanding it is another level altogether. We need a competitive market or things stagnate and growth ends.

Folks that are against exclusives would have had a tough time during the Genesis/SNES era.

Were it so easy😞

I really have no problem with it, but I game on every console and PC. So, it's not an issue for me.

@lavamelon: You are one of the people I was talking about with your backwards logic. The money is in the software....like I dunno...like for every other damn developer/publisher. If Sony went out of business today their IPs would be bought by another publisher and all their great people making great games would continue doing so because that is their career choice. IPs are bought and sold all the time and great developers move around all the time. If it was required to own a hardware platform to make games then why are most games made by non-platform holders?

Do you have to own television shows to make televisions? Music rights to make receivers? No you don't. However, Sony owns both hardware and content in TVs and receivers (and video games). Do you need to have a Sony TV to watch a Sony movie? Sony receiver to listen to Sony music? Are Sony movies and music somehow better because they make TVs and receivers?

Talented developers like Naughty Dog have been able to make very good games across multiple different hardware boxes....which should clue you in to the fact it is the developers not the boxes. All the boxes do is reflect changes in the core technology that goes into them.

All that Valve has done is find a way to monopolize the retail point of sale distribution. It is the equivalent of BestBuy, Amazon, or Sony/MS/Nintendo. Arguably, there could be more competition in the PC space but that has zero to do with either the quality of the games or access to ALL games.

@SUD123456: you seem to be forgetting something. The reason why console manufacturers like Sony make consoles is because they want to make money from third party developers paying them licensing fees. Apple and Google make billions each year from game developers paying them licensing fees, even though they never make games themselves. It would be silly to think that Sony cares about God of War franchise more than the entire PlayStation ecosystem. Sony makes games to encourage people to buy PlayStation consoles, not the other way around.

Exclusives are awesome just not when Microsoft steals them and claims them for themselves. Greedy, incompetent fuckers

@randy_lahey: buying is not stealing.

@ghostofgolden: I lived in the Pong time. We now live in the time of a mature industry that uses PC parts. There is no excuse.

There ìs only corporate greed that seeks to suck as much money out of the consumer as possible by forcing you to buy their hardware when all you really want is their software. Therefore you must buy 2 or 3 pieces of hardware. Do you buy different TVs for cable, Netflix, and Disney? But, but, but way back there were only 2 channels in black and white....cries. Even then, content wasn't hardware locked...although arguably RCA had a near monopoly run for a while.

@SUD123456: actually we do like console hardware, mainly due to simplicity compared to PC gaming. I like playing my Switch more than my iPhone, I like my PS4 more than my gaming laptop.

Exclusive are good for competition

I think it's getting to the point where I don't think it should be allowed.

The CMA telling MS that they're concerned with the "rivalry", yet there are big 3rd party games from genres which put the the competitiveness out of balance when made exclusive, especially when the market leader by a considerable margin is doing it.

It's a big problem when someone can get deals for games like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter. How could that not have an impact. And this impact is going to be a factor in companies like MS looking to make big buy outs that people don't like.

but sony total ok to do???

also most exclusives are not system sellers/dont make their money back.

@randy_lahey:

You and Sony said f@#k all when Xbox took all them huge franchises off PlayStation,so don't start pissing your pants now son 🤣

It's pretty stupid.

Where is the "It Depends" option? :P.

I would call them more a necessary evil sometimes rather then just flat out Good/Bad.

Speaking specifically on the MS/Activision deal: It's a huge amount of consolidation and gives MS an awful amount of IP power very quickly. If it goes through then we could be at a point where a device has to have Gamepass support to have any sort of 3rd party support since MS would control a colossal ton of it (They are not stopping at activision whatever happens). It sniffs of the Nvidia/ARM deal......a bit dodgy. Great for MS (regarding activision). Good for us? I don't think so.

It depends on the type of paid exclusive. Two examples.

1. Sony pays a publisher/developer to only put the game out for PlayStation. - Bad

2. Sony funds a games development and it comes out only on PlayStation because that’s what was funded. - Good

If a game is only made because of funding from on of the big three then I have no problem with it being exclusive. Paying to keep a game exclusive is bad.

First party? Sure. Nintendo can keep Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/Kirby/Metroid/etc sanctioned to their hardware. Sony and MS can port to PC. Up to them. They own the IP and should know what's the best for both instances.

Third parties? Hell! No!

If I invest in something you best believe I want a return on that investment. In the video game industry that means game sales AND hardware sales. Companies should be allowed to do this.

People also seem to not understand that that’s typically what happens in these exclusivity deals. They don’t simply pay money for it to not get made on rival systems. They help pay development costs, they send engineers to these studios to optimize the game, they pay for and run marketing campaigns.

Sometimes, without this kind of support, games just don’t get made at all. And that’s worse don’t you think?

One argument from the big three is that there should be adequate protection in place for full and equal access to games.