Exclusive Wars - good or bad thing?

I say good. It gives more value to the systems and makes them more unique. It will also make gaming better. Tomb Raider will get better so it can compete with Uncharted. Killer Instinct will get better to compete against Street Fighter. What about you, SW? What do you think?

Tomb Raider can become better to compete against Uncharted 4 without being an exclusive. Same goes for Street Fighter 5. It just restricts a lot of people from playing a game that was supposed to be Multiplatform.

This.

It's annoying.

bad.

It's good for SW... This place was getting boring.

Tomb raider for XBox one is only timed exclusive, but yeah few exclusives is good to seperate the systems

You can do that wiht your first party line up. If consoles need to buy exclusives like this, than maybe they're just not different enough from each at the core.

And it's nto makign SW more interesting either, since it's just giving PC a larger victory in the end

It's good for the goose if it's good for the gander, eh, that's all I got. :P

I hate when they buy 3rd party exclusives. It's shitty for my wallet.

But seriously, I'd rather them spend money on creating 1st party studios, creating new 1st party IP's. In the long run, as history has proven; nothing stops those 3rd party franchises from branching out onto other platforms in the future. So what's the point?

Its the best thing for gaming. Lets face it if it was up to first party development for the twins, Sony would be pretty much forgettable without ND and MS is spotty. Nintendo would automatically destroy the both of them. Sony and MS buying exclusives is the only way they can make their nearly identical systems stand out this generation.

Right... Because making your system feel unique and special is more important than being able to have access to any game available.

This and this.

TR isn't exclusive though.

Console exclusives from first party devs or collaboration with first party devs, fine. Paid exclusives from third party devs, not fine. End.

You guys realize this has been going on since the PS2 days right? IDK why all of a sudden its something "new" Sony paid to keep GTA off XBox, MS funded development of saints row to compete, Sony paid to keep MGS off Xbox, MS funded splinter cell. Most of the flagship sony franchises that define the name brand were 3rd party games paid to keep away from MS and Nintendo. Resident evil was that way for a while, until sega brought code veronica and it was a dreamcast exclusive. Devil may cry, tomb raider, final fantasy, MGS, GTA, KH, all games sony paid to keep away from other platforms.

Yes. And it's annoying.

This forum wouldn't exist without them. What would be the point? Counting pixels? I like my Xbox favorites and my PS favorites. Its why I buy these consoles, but the WiiU and its games looks to be the Shiite this gen. Cant wait for that Zelda.

? Win by a point or by a thousand, a win is a win.

Buying third party exclusivity is bad (specifically, taking a series that is multi-platform and then trying to make it exclusive. not hiring a third party to make you a game), but if it's to give you time to grow your first party, then that's not so bad.

Without exclusives, console gaming with die. Exclusives helps consoles with weaker hardware be attractive.

Exclusive games need to exist to give people a reason to buy a console over another. Most people aren't like me and just buy every console, I spent a lot of money on gaming.

I like what Sony is doing and pumping up the number of F2P games on the PS4. It gives the console more value as you do not need to spend extra money to game on it. When Planetside 2 hits, you could buy a PS4 and not buy a single game and still get hundreds of hours of gameplay on the PS4 out of games like Warthunder, Planetside 2, Loadout, and Warframe. H1Z1 and Everquest Landmark are heading to the PS4 as well which will diversify that list of F2P even more.

...Tomb Raider isn't exclusive.

Exclusivity can allow for a more polished, feature rich game if the devs choose to invest further resources into the title. Timed exclusives, less so and often not at all.

Of course, any potential advantages of exclusivity (real or imagined) would also be accomplished by ditching proprietary hardware all together and everyone just making games on PC. And there would be a lot more advantages for the consumer going that route...

The point? Basically its known that the majority of a games sales are in its first 60-90 days on the market so there is only one place to get it at that time; and afterwards the console manufacturer doesn't have the costs of running, paying, operating a dev studio. Business wise it makes sense. I agree with you and would rather them make 1st party studios and new IPs, but we don't run billion dollar companies in a billion dollar industry for a reason.

Pffftt.........you don't know nuthin...........

@darkangel115:

No one said it's something new. We said it's not good for gamers when multiplats go exclusive. It limits the number of people who can play that game. Doesn't matter if it's old or new.

yeah except what people don't seem to realize is that when you have 2 very similar devices each company will need something to set it apart from the other and in gaming its by offering games that can't be played on its competitors device. So the other option would be 1 devices only and giving a company a monopoly would be way worse. The issue is the "entitlement" people have where I purchased this so i should be able to get every game i want. No the thing is you purchased a device so you have access to that device's library only. If you want access to everything you need to buy all 3, if you choose not to or can't afford it, you'll have to accept there are games coming out that you might want but won't be able to get.

Bad thing. Instead of putting resources into their own inhouse projects, they are picking up the best third party have to offer to boost the quality of their library. All it does is effectively restrict certain people from getting those games. The quality of game doesn't actually go up, there is no reason to believe it would as plenty of multiplats have clowned exclusives before.

Then focus on First Party and stop turning franchises into exclusives, that had always been multiplatforms. You are hurting its fanbase . That said, these exclusives are profitable for corporations but it doesn't benefit gamers. That's why I used the word "gamers" in my original post. It limits number of gamers who can access the game.

nah i don't like these types of exclusives

again that comes to "gamer entitlement" in the sense of I've played X franchise for 5 years on Y console and now i can't because Z console purchased exclusives. how many 1st party studios do you expect companies to have? It takes time and money to make these studios and they are a huge risk. You can buy a studio like sony did with GG, ND, and SP last gen and like MS did with rare and bungie. but in the sense its the same thing as buying exclusive rights to a game. Put it this way. lets say you build 3 new studios. a gen last 9 years, a game takes 3 years to make that's 9 games over the course of a gen or 1 exclusive a year. and you had to build 3 studios and what if the game bombs completely? Do you know how many studios MS and Sony have shut down? especially sony? probably close to 6 last gen. Capcom is hurting financially as is crytek. outside of EA and ubisoft and activison, most companies are struggling to stay in business. Games cost so much to make and take so long these days, its a major risk. When was the last time Sony or MS formed a studio? maybe in the last 5 years i can think of 343 and black tusk. thats about it.

And my point stands. It limits the number of "gamers" who can access the game. If these Mega Corps are indeed "struggling" then they should make 3rd party exclusives since the very first game. Making a multiplat an exclusive isn't good for "gamers" . They just want to play games. Demon Souls is a good example of doing 3rd party exclusive. Not Tomb Raider or Street Fighter.

I never said its good for gamers. You know what else would be good for gamers? free DLC, free online play, Price decrease in games from 60 bucks to 30 bucks, etc etc. The problem is, they need to make money. in the end they are businesses. And if they don't make money they can't stay open. MS and Sony are trying to push consoles and sell as many as possible and they sell them at a loss to make money in accessories, game sales, online fees and such. So they need to give gamers a reason to own their console. Securing popular franchises can give them an edge. I feel too many people here seem too naive to understand business.

And this doesn't just happen in games. DirecTV Purchased the rights to the NFL package, ESPN purchased the rights to Monday night football, If something is popular, a big company can see it as an opportunity to use that to push their product. Hell even Sony is using the PS4 to push its PS TV and Vita and TVs. Its business as usual and there isn't a reason to get upset. again its entitlement. If DirecTV loses the NFL package I'm not going to complain about it, I'm going to get the service that offers it. Nobody is forced to only own 1 console, if you choose to own 1 only for whatever reason, you have to understand that that choice comes with the possibility that you can't play everything you want to.

for XposBone players a bad thing

Bad thing. It's anti-consumer to limit which platforms a game appears on strictly due to contractual reasons.

in the current console market its a good thing for the company and is also a requirement. a strong protfolio of exclusive games is an absolute must.

not so good for the end user but when did that ever matter? same thing in the TV world where the premiere league (soccer) is now split amongst providers. so anyone who wants to see all games live needs to pay for more services.

at the end of the day the current console structure is lunacy. it is completely mad. its pretty much the most anti competative structure ever. what we have now between MS, sony and nintendo can barely be called compaeition. its all just about vendor lock in and keeping a tight leash on the customer.

ideally there would be no such things as exclusives. instead consoles would be built to at least a certain spec, developers would make games for that spec, publishers would provide their own servcies (or perhaps 3rd parties could do it for them if they are small, like steam) and people would onyl need to get one console. like the DVD player market essentially. you could still range from the cheap and nasty console to the console that does the basics but does them well to the all singing all dancing wonder console (like the DVD player market).

im not going to say like the PC because the PC is a lot more chaotic. the dvd player market is a more apt comparison because its a fixed point.

the console market should not be the exclusive playground to only massive companies. it shouldnt require that.

If it's a new IP, sure, whatever, it's fine. Taking a multiplat and making it an exclusive, however, reeks of desperation, and just pisses people off.

And I never said it's not good for corporations. Then why are we having this discussion then. Exclusivity is not good for gamers, end of story.

Good for SWs entertainment.

I always felt that last gen third party exclusives were not as numerous as they were in the past. I don't have a problem with it since it helps me decide which console I want to buy but I hope this doesn't happen too mucb with games that were multiplat.

From the reactions that I've seen from PlayStation fanboys, it is apparently good when Sony does it, but evil when Microsoft does it. /cow logic

For me, I like it because it gives each system a more unique identity like consoles had in the old days. One of my biggest disappointments about last gen was that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had 95% of the exact same games, so it was hard for them to have a unique identity beyond Xbox 360 = online gaming and PS3 = bluray player. I hope Microsoft and Sony continue to buy exclusives so that each console can have a unique library of games that I can associate with it.

It can be a good thing if Nintendo,Sony, and MS can help fund games. Also they can differentiate the systems more so than lastgen. Making AAA games can be a risk even for the biggest publishers, so I can see why some would opt for this type of business practice. Also it can be a good thing if said game gets more attention now that its an exclusive. I would prefer all 3rd party games to be on all systems, but maybe that option is not as viable as its been in the past.

Exclusives should be limited to first party devs. There shouldnt be exclusive Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, etc, etc

But those reasons are very delusional and actually add nothing of value in reality. That's pure fanboyism mentality. In the real world, making third party games exclusive is just withholding games from players. Really, a game should be on a platform if it can and makes sense. For example, Street Fighter 5 isn't limited by Xbox One's graphical prowess or functionality. It is perfectly capable of running on the system, as opposed to a Wii U, where there is no demographic and may be held back in other ways. This game being exclusive is just taking away games from gamers (assuming that Capcom had the capacity to make the game without Sony, if they needed Sony, then that's another story (similar to Bayonetta 2)).

The few exclusives they get is all consoles have going for them imo. Tired of this gen already, it's just BS after BS now.

OK i take it back, it is good for gamers. Now you think I'm crazy right? well gamers don't tie themselves into 1 eco system, so the exclusivity doesn't really matter. But when 2 companies compete for business, the gamers will win. Who will lose are the fanboys, fakeboys, cows, lems, hermits etc. But the actual gamers that don't really care about the BS here and just want to play games because they enjoy them, Its good for them.

Its good for lems, let them taste a different kind of exclusive experience other than halo

Both Tomb Raider and Killer Instinct were great. Uncharted is my favorite series.

Third party exclusive wars is a shit practice that only hurts the fans. Those of you that are so wrapped up in the system wars mantra of destroying each other are missing the far bigger picture than your petty interests.

None of the series will get better because of each other as they are arguably built for different groups of gamers and tastes. I can tell you right now that Microsoft doesn't give a shit about Tomb Raider if it won't sell systems for them and I don't see it being their killer app. Same for Sony not caring about Street Fighter.

Companies win. Gamers lose.

@darkangel115

That doesn't make any sense at all..... I'd think non-fanboys would be much more upset that they would have to fork over $300 to get a game thats not on whatever system they have..... How is that good for them..... In that scenario the companies win since they both managed to sell their systems but the game is $300 out of pocket, plus whatever monthly subscription both machines are going to need to be even remotely usefull, you have 2 accounts, doubling the chances you could get hacked and whenever you have casuals over you have to explain to them how exclusivity works (yes, this happens quite often) which is very very embarrasing since they live in the world of Universal Hardware.

Gamers lose, Developers lose and Console Makes laugh all the way to the bank.

^ This

They should spend more time on making exclusives than buying them. Its all moneyhat companies. Seriously.