Does 3rd Party Exclusivity Annoy You?

Having been gaming for quite a few generations now, I've seen the industry evolve exponentially. One of the things I've seen go in and out of "style" is third party exclusivity.

Does it annoy the gamers though?

It didn't used to annoy me as much. It really started when Eidos got in Microsoft's pocket with Tomb Raider last gen. Then Resident Evil on 3DS when PSP was promised an RE game that never released. The reason for the annoyance was because of those being my two favorite series since they had been originally released and now, regardless that I had supported both series for over a decade, wouldn't get the full experience simply because I had PlayStation.

This isn't a thread about why 3rd party companies do this, its me asking you if you've ever been annoyed by the practice and what game or series it was that annoyed you the most.

No. Because if you really want the game, you must accept that you have to buy the system its on to play it. You aren't entitled to having every game on your desired platform.

AFTER READING FOOTNOTE:

eh, not really. A few Xbox exclusives caught my eye (tales of vesperia), but I have a friend who will let me use his xbox.

If I want to play a game and it's not on my platform, I either buy the platform or go without. Plenty of other stuff to play, I don't need to whine about it.

It's hard to keep up sometimes. Also, cases where it goes multiplat and it ends up getting more content is a bit annoying.

Just a lot of jumping around.

Third Part Exclusivity was much more rampant in the 80s and 90s, be glad that it's not the case now.

I like third party exclusives. Gives me more reason to actually want other devices other than first party titles.

Yes, I don't like it.

I once bought the 360 version of GTA 4 because of the timed-exclusive DLC (I didn't know it was timed) which was released on PS3 at a later date, then ended up selling the 360 version...

Never again... never again, and **** DLCs. Not going to bother with them again.

The above is about DLCs, now on the real subject - yes, it annoys me because I don't want to buy a console for certain games. I want all of them on my PC. I'm looking at you, Red Dead Redemption. I have no respect for Rockstar because of this, late GTA releases on PC and they are also buggy.

I actually wish there were more 3rd party exclusives like we had in the snes/genesis, PS1/N64 days. It actually gives a person a clear reason to pick one console over the other. Now a days there are only a few titles a year exclusive to each console and the best games are usually multiplat.

hello sexy

I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to play all of the Kingdom Hearts titles, thank goodness, but if I didn't I would have always been missing a piece of the story which would have been rather annoying. And it wouldn't bother me that much if Square-Enix didn't separate releases onto every console they can.

I also don't watch Let's Play videos on Youtube or watch the cutscenes to get the story out of a game I don't play, just not my thing, so it would have bummed me out a bit.

Otherwise, I just go without the game. It's not too big of a deal to me as I have always had a bit of a backlog to get through.

Were you annoyed by the exclusivity that Playstation has had over the years?

No, I can just focus on what the console or consoles I am supporting have to offer and I feel I will be okay.

No.

No, gaming generally isn't an expensive hobby so if a system has the games I have no qualms buying it. Now the time to play it all... that's a different story.

Used to... A LOT (back then, I was one of those who was disappointed that Soul Calibur III wasn't on the GameCube despite SC II still selling well on that system). Now? Not so much.

Yes, it's stupid. Each console should have a mascot that's exclusive, but that's it. Ya know, Master Chief for Xbox and Mario for Nintendo. Sony doesn't have a mascot; pretty stupid branding.

Not that I remember, TC. If I really want to play something, I buy what's needed. Some say "its stupid to buy a console for one game". Well, I have been at this for over 30 years now, and one thing I learned is: one game can trigger me to buy, and as surely as night follows day, more games get released for the platform.

It only bothers me when they do it for seemingly no reason. Like the Gears of War series excluding the first one.

So you must really hate the PS3 and Xbox.

No, it doesn't bother me at all. However, with that said, I do dislike "timed exclusivity" especially in relation to "exclusive window" poo that Microsoft went with which caused me to wait a month--twice mind you--for Skyrim DLC. :(

Nope. Gaming for me is a hobby. For Sony and MS its a cut throat business. Doesn't matter to me in the least.

What I find weird is having an exclusive game to a serie on another console. I'm thinking of Kingdom Hearts or Final fantasy XII

I have no issue with timed exclusivity. I mean no reason anybody shouldn't just be patient to get the content. If you ask me, the biggest evil of exclusivity is retail exclusive content. We've seen this where certain materials can only be obtained by purchasing from different retailers; Gamestop, Bestbuy, Futureshop, Walmart, Amazon, and each with a different item.

When content is exclusive by platform, it's tough for some gamers to decide which version of the game they'll pick up. For single system owners, they'll end up getting the pre-determined copy of the game no matter what.

But the separation of material between retailers is far worse. While some gamers might be willing get multiple copies to play on each system, having to rebuy the same game on the same platform is detestable when the same platform user base has to be divided on the goods.

That is a fair point indeed, and I would add on to that the lame "preorder" bonuses that come with that exclusive content. I hate preorder exclusive bonuses.

only annoys me when the third party had no intentions in being exclusive but a certain company pays them off to not have their game on other plat forms.

Third party companies like Insomniac with Resistance/Ratchet and Cryteck with Ryse, doesnt annoy me cuz they had the intentions since day one to make an exclusive game, but shit like Titan Fall where they had everything ready then came M$ and paid them off.

sometimes exclusivity is the only way for a game to garner any attention at all, sometimes it's harder for a multiplat to sell on its merits alone so going exclusive is bound to get something a lot of attention

I don't feel Eidos favored MS last gen, the PS3 wasn't out when Legend released and many devs had problems bringing games to the PS3 early on when Anniversary released. Eidos still brought both games to the PS2 and brought both to PS3 when they released the trilogy. Neither games were exclusives.

Not really, it's their game, they can release it for any platform they want.

It depends, Wonderful 101 and Bayonetta 2 exclusively on Wii U doesnt bother me at all because Nintendo was the only publisher willing to pay for the games.

Not really because I don't feel entitled to anything. Nintendo fan here that typically ends up buying a companion system for 3rd party games. Though this generation i'm being a little more patient to see where the 3rd party games I care about go.