Why doesn't everyone want the end of exclusives? Gamers are anti consumering themselves - I have a solution

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Xplode_games
Xplode_games

2439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Xplode_games
Member since 2011 • 2439 Posts

There are no exclusives on PC. If you buy an Nvidia GPU, you don't get any exclusives, same with AMD. There are no exclusives for Intel or AMD CPUs. It wasn't always like that. When 3Dfx cards first launched, they had exclusive games because their glide games only worked on their GPUs. PC gamers are adults so they hated that and bought Nvidia GPUs of the day. I remember the Riva 128 cards that had two major advantages, one they were 2d and 3d cards in one. Second, they used Microsoft's directx api. Very quickly they killed off the anti consumer 3DFX 3D cards and Nvidia then purchased the company 3DFX and now Nvidia is anti consumer compared to AMD but that's another story.

I understand why they exist in the console space but why do gamers want this? Just to claim ownage on social media?

In an ideal world, you would play any game on the platform of your choice, be it PC, Playstation, Xbox or PC. Also Switch if it can handle the port.

I have a solution, what if there was a console "tax" of sorts for first part games of another company. For example, if you want to play Sony or Nintendo first party games on your Xbox or PC, you have to pay $30 on top of the MSRP. Or if you want to play a Microsoft first party game on Playstation, or Switch, again $30 "first party tax" over the MSRP. This first party tax would only apply let's say for the first year or 6 months then it would go away.

This way you wouldn't force a gamer to buy a console they don't really want just to play one or two games and the companies such as Sony and Nintendo would still offer an incentive to buy their console because you save on the first party games by not paying that tax.

Avatar image for hardwenzen
hardwenzen

9611

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By hardwenzen
Member since 2005 • 9611 Posts

I don't want it to end because if it does, it will end my cow career. How am i supposed to buy a PS6 when everything on that system is available on pc with better visuals, fps and have access to mods/reshader? I don't want my successful cow career to end.

Avatar image for NathanDrakeSwag
NathanDrakeSwag

16264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 NathanDrakeSwag
Member since 2013 • 16264 Posts

Nintendo will never make their games available on other platforms because they don't want competition from 3rd parties and they know if people have an option to play their games on other platforms they would never be able to sell underpowered overpriced hardware again.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

51228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 69

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Pedro
Member since 2002 • 51228 Posts

Gamers want it because Sony, Nintendo...."Microsoft" told to. It is clear folks have been brainwashed in to nonsense such as no exclusives means no competition. They live in a world where exclusives only compete with exclusives and not every other game. Maybe one day, these same shills will come to the basic realization that games compete with games and good games are good games because they are good games not because they are limited in their availability. None of this is going to change these folks perceptions. 😂

Side rant. Now we have this new fake concern about profitability of exclusive all because MS purchase Zenimax. Freaking tools. The media and gamers have been whining about Xbox exclusives all gen and now that they are going to do that, they are complaining. 🙄

With that said, it benefits companies not consumers.

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
HalcyonScarlet

10068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 HalcyonScarlet
Member since 2011 • 10068 Posts

Agree, it only benefits the company by forcing people into their ecosystem. But when you grow up with the vs mentality it's a hard habit to break. I only stopped caring about exclusives when I went to the PC.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

37411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 37411 Posts

I can't wait for Intel's exclusive 'Project Offset'

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

51228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 69

User Lists: 0

#7 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 51228 Posts

@R4gn4r0k:

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
SolidGame_basic

31818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 SolidGame_basic
Member since 2003 • 31818 Posts

I like exclusives. I like companies trying to sell me their hardware with exclusives. Sorry that bothers people lol #sorrynotsorry

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

16296

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 osan0
Member since 2004 • 16296 Posts

Is there many actively wanting exclusives? I think its more just an acceptance that this is the way things are.

Exclusives exist because they have proven time and again to be the most effective way to generate hype, sales and make money. if game X (which is highly desired) is exclusive to platform X then people will buy platform X instead of Y. if they get platform X then they are less likely to get another platform. they will then buy more games (first and 3rd party) on platform X which makes its creator more money.

This is a strategy that has proven to be very effective. just ask Nintendo and Sony (Sony can also tell you just how bad it can get when expected exclusives are no longer exclusive. ref the PS3 era). Deviations from this have ended in tears...as MS will attest to. stadia looks to be the latest casualty from the "we do the service and 3rd parties make the game" school of thinking.

As a gamer i absolutely want games to be both platform and service agnostic. i just want to buy and play a game. i don't want to "invest" in a service or be locked into any platform. if i had my way the games industry would look very different (and many probably wouldn't like all the changes but it would be better overall imho).

However Gaming is a content business. there are business realities that mean exclusives are not going to disappear. if they are not exclusive to a piece of hardware then they will be exclusive in some other capacity. games sell hardware. games sell services. content is king.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

51228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 69

User Lists: 0

#10 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 51228 Posts

@osan0: I don't think people mind content being exclusive to a service that much. But, content being locked to hardware needs to go.

Stadia failed because they didn't know what the hell they were doing. The technology works but everything around it is mediocre even to this day. It had exclusives and that didn't change anything because exclusives to fix problems.

Avatar image for hardwenzen
hardwenzen

9611

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11 hardwenzen
Member since 2005 • 9611 Posts

Lets say that the PS5 did not have any exclusives. Why would anybody buy the system? Its underpowered compared to the X. Doesn't have access to the straight-to-dvd gamepass. And is harder to find in stock than the X. They don't offer anything that isn't available elsewhere. I really don't see how they could give away its exclusives for more game sales while severly hurting in the hardware sales.

Avatar image for Livecommander
Livecommander

1388

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Livecommander
Member since 2009 • 1388 Posts

The concept of style and swagger would not exist if not for concept of exclusivity. It would affect the business in ways yall can't imagine.

Pc is brand less so idk how it could be used as an example for anything in general.

The saying " be careful what you wish for " comes to mind when I see threads like this.

Oh and lol at lems comparing owning a parent company to singular ips.

That's a whole different type of exclusivity in itself.

Until sony buys marvel or something save that level of greed talk for xbox only lol

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

16296

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 osan0
Member since 2004 • 16296 Posts

@Pedro: the implications of being locked into a service just haven't sunk in yet. Give it time. all 3 will find a way to make it really stink in the long run as they look to maximise spending from its userbase. chances are its going to be several services that will need a paid subscription, all with their exclusive games and all tying lock people into these services.

i wouldnt be surprised to see them take the disney+ approach for example and demand an extra fee on top of the usual sub for some "premium" content for example.

a step in the right direction....maybe. the up front cost will certainly be lower which will tempt many. but it's still a bit pants though.

Stadia failed because it didn't have the right content to draw people in. thats the bottom line. we can talk about a lack of features and some bizarre business decisions and so on and so fourth.....all that is completely irrelevant. plenty of platforms arrive undercooked. hell the switch is arguably still undercooked (no netflix, minimal non gaming features, very basic online) yet its selling gangbusters and making a shed load of money. it has content that appeals to a lot of people and that content is only on the switch.

if google invested in some big exclusives (500+ million spent in some games ranging from AAA blockbusters to a farming simulator or whatever), promoted the hell out of them and had them ready for stadias launch then who knows. it would certainly have stud a better chance. but google dont want to make games. they want to do what MS wanted to do with the X1: leave it to 3rd parties and just provide the services (a strategy which was a complete disaster for MS).

Avatar image for Xplode_games
Xplode_games

2439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Xplode_games
Member since 2011 • 2439 Posts

@Pedro said:

Gamers want it because Sony, Nintendo...."Microsoft" told to. It is clear folks have been brainwashed in to nonsense such as no exclusives means no competition. They live in a world where exclusives only compete with exclusives and not every other game. Maybe one day, these same shills will come to the basic realization that games compete with games and good games are good games because they are good games not because they are limited in their availability. None of this is going to change these folks perceptions. 😂

Side rant. Now we have this new fake concern about profitability of exclusive all because MS purchase Zenimax. Freaking tools. The media and gamers have been whining about Xbox exclusives all gen and now that they are going to do that, they are complaining. 🙄

With that said, it benefits companies not consumers.

This is what prompted me to make this thread. Gamers are not only screwing themselves by wanting exclusives, the future looks much worse because they are also pushing Microsoft into doing horrible anti consumer moves such as purchasing Zenimax and making the games exclusive.

Right now Microsoft has been good in terms of their games being available on PC and other consoles, especially compared to Sony and Nintendo. But imagine a future where Microsoft is encouraged to do the wrong thing and they keep buying out companies and making games exclusive. That would be horrible and it looks like it will happen because fanboys are getting their way.

Of course they will cry at the end and pretend they didn't cause this.

Avatar image for AcidTango
AcidTango

2233

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 AcidTango
Member since 2013 • 2233 Posts

@SolidGame_basic said:

I like exclusives. I like companies trying to sell me their hardware with exclusives. Sorry that bothers people lol #sorrynotsorry

I will admit that sometimes I do like exclusives since it makes each consoles and the PC unique from each other. Plus it's the reason to buy those systems in the first place. For example I bought the Playstation 4 because if Bloodborne and the Nintendo Switch because of Mario Maker 2. If both games had been on PC I would never bought any of those consoles. Since Microsoft is releasing their games on both their Xbox consoles and PC these days, I don't need to buy their consoles since I play them on my computer.

Avatar image for Xplode_games
Xplode_games

2439

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Xplode_games
Member since 2011 • 2439 Posts

@osan0 said:

Is there many actively wanting exclusives? I think its more just an acceptance that this is the way things are.

Exclusives exist because they have proven time and again to be the most effective way to generate hype, sales and make money. if game X (which is highly desired) is exclusive to platform X then people will buy platform X instead of Y. if they get platform X then they are less likely to get another platform. they will then buy more games (first and 3rd party) on platform X which makes its creator more money.

This is a strategy that has proven to be very effective. just ask Nintendo and Sony (Sony can also tell you just how bad it can get when expected exclusives are no longer exclusive. ref the PS3 era). Deviations from this have ended in tears...as MS will attest to. stadia looks to be the latest casualty from the "we do the service and 3rd parties make the game" school of thinking.

As a gamer i absolutely want games to be both platform and service agnostic. i just want to buy and play a game. i don't want to "invest" in a service or be locked into any platform. if i had my way the games industry would look very different (and many probably wouldn't like all the changes but it would be better overall imho).

However Gaming is a content business. there are business realities that mean exclusives are not going to disappear. if they are not exclusive to a piece of hardware then they will be exclusive in some other capacity. games sell hardware. games sell services. content is king.

The guys who are pretending as if just for a game being exclusive it makes it so rich and excellent and the thing to want. Then they say Microsoft is a piece of crap because they don't have exclusives. To the point Microsoft has bought a lot of game studios and if this continues, you will see them just shutting out everyone else and then you will know what anti consumer is. This is caused by the fanboys with their stupid bs.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#17 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4035 Posts

Do you know why PC outsells all other consoles? Because none of the consoles make an exclusive worth a damn, the one coming the closest being Nintendo. If all games are on all platforms, most people will opt to play them on the best platform available, PC. Good exclusives are why Nintendo with the least powerful system of the generation is demolishing their competitors combined for sales. I see nothing wrong with console makers looking out for their brand.

Avatar image for iambatman7986
iambatman7986

3605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#18 iambatman7986
Member since 2013 • 3605 Posts

I hate exclusives. It forces people to buy into an ecosystem that they may not want to buy into. I love what MS is doing with releasing games day/date on pc. MS makes money off the game either way and I can play the game on my preferred platform. One can even argue that MS don't have to lose money on the console in order to sell a game due to pc. I am happy to see Sony starting to release their games on pc, even if it is a year or two after the initial release. I can only hope they see the light and begin releasing their games in a similar fashion to what MS does.

Fanboys will always want exclusives though. It let's them feel good about their purchase, even though someone else enjoying the game on a different platform should not hinder their enjoyment of said game on the console they choose to play it on.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

4035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#19 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 4035 Posts

I think what M$ is doing is a great idea. They realize that PC is going to take over as the dominant gaming platform, so they're expanding Game Pass and Xbox titles on PC. But they also realize where consoles fall into it all. There are still people who will want something for their living room. They've pretty much integrated the two. Same gamertag, same friends list, same games, GP works on both, and they're even implementing features where you can pause a game on PC and continue it on the console in the living room. With services like that, people gaming on PC considering a console are more likely to go for Xbox, as Sony offers pretty much nothing to anyone outside their own ecosystem.

Avatar image for Epak_
Epak_

11618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 Epak_
Member since 2004 • 11618 Posts

End of exclusives = death of consoles for me, would still get handhelds though.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

51228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 69

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Pedro
Member since 2002 • 51228 Posts

@osan0 said:

@Pedro: the implications of being locked into a service just haven't sunk in yet. Give it time. all 3 will find a way to make it really stink in the long run as they look to maximise spending from its userbase. chances are its going to be several services that will need a paid subscription, all with their exclusive games and all tying lock people into these services.

i wouldnt be surprised to see them take the disney+ approach for example and demand an extra fee on top of the usual sub for some "premium" content for example.

a step in the right direction....maybe. the up front cost will certainly be lower which will tempt many. but it's still a bit pants though.

Stadia failed because it didn't have the right content to draw people in. thats the bottom line. we can talk about a lack of features and some bizarre business decisions and so on and so fourth.....all that is completely irrelevant. plenty of platforms arrive undercooked. hell the switch is arguably still undercooked (no netflix, minimal non gaming features, very basic online) yet its selling gangbusters and making a shed load of money. it has content that appeals to a lot of people and that content is only on the switch.

if google invested in some big exclusives (500+ million spent in some games ranging from AAA blockbusters to a farming simulator or whatever), promoted the hell out of them and had them ready for stadias launch then who knows. it would certainly have stud a better chance. but google dont want to make games. they want to do what MS wanted to do with the X1: leave it to 3rd parties and just provide the services (a strategy which was a complete disaster for MS).

I don't see locking games behind a service (the exception being online games) being more viable than having both. Having a service to access a variety of games and the ability to purchase these games is maximizing players spending. DLCs are not including in most of the games via the subscription service, so that model is already present.

The best content would not have drawn gamers to Stadia. Stadia is a service. Its not hardware in which gamers can purchase games and be assured that their games are always available to them. Game streaming has a huge stigma attached to it. If they spending 500 million on making games, which not only would take time, it would not have made a difference. Stadia needed a stronger launcher, a clearer public plan/roadmap, a freaking search feature and a more meaningful strategy to bridge the gap between dedicated hardware and streaming. Most gamers were not going to jump on to Stadia because of exclusives because of these problems. They didn't have a solid plan and faltered because of it. I would like to draw attention to Stadia is what happens when games are locked behind a service. If they took the route of working with existing platforms such as Epic Store and Steam to allow gamers who already own games to play on their service in addition to exclusive content they would be in a much stronger situation.

Also, lets not create an alternate reality in which MS abandon making first party games and left game development solely 3rd party developers.

Avatar image for NathanDrakeSwag
NathanDrakeSwag

16264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 NathanDrakeSwag
Member since 2013 • 16264 Posts

@Pedro said:
@osan0 said:

@Pedro: the implications of being locked into a service just haven't sunk in yet. Give it time. all 3 will find a way to make it really stink in the long run as they look to maximise spending from its userbase. chances are its going to be several services that will need a paid subscription, all with their exclusive games and all tying lock people into these services.

i wouldnt be surprised to see them take the disney+ approach for example and demand an extra fee on top of the usual sub for some "premium" content for example.

a step in the right direction....maybe. the up front cost will certainly be lower which will tempt many. but it's still a bit pants though.

Stadia failed because it didn't have the right content to draw people in. thats the bottom line. we can talk about a lack of features and some bizarre business decisions and so on and so fourth.....all that is completely irrelevant. plenty of platforms arrive undercooked. hell the switch is arguably still undercooked (no netflix, minimal non gaming features, very basic online) yet its selling gangbusters and making a shed load of money. it has content that appeals to a lot of people and that content is only on the switch.

if google invested in some big exclusives (500+ million spent in some games ranging from AAA blockbusters to a farming simulator or whatever), promoted the hell out of them and had them ready for stadias launch then who knows. it would certainly have stud a better chance. but google dont want to make games. they want to do what MS wanted to do with the X1: leave it to 3rd parties and just provide the services (a strategy which was a complete disaster for MS).

I don't see locking games behind a service (the exception being online games) being more viable than having both. Having a service to access a variety of games and the ability to purchase these games is maximizing players spending. DLCs are not including in most of the games via the subscription service, so that model is already present.

The best content would not have drawn gamers to Stadia. Stadia is a service. Its not hardware in which gamers can purchase games and be assured that their games are always available to them. Game streaming has a huge stigma attached to it. If they spending 500 million on making games, which not only would take time, it would not have made a difference. Stadia needed a stronger launcher, a clearer public plan/roadmap, a freaking search feature and a more meaningful strategy to bridge the gap between dedicated hardware and streaming. Most gamers were not going to jump on to Stadia because of exclusives because of these problems. They didn't have a solid plan and faltered because of it. I would like to draw attention to Stadia is what happens when games are locked behind a service. If they took the route of working with existing platforms such as Epic Store and Steam to allow gamers who already own games to play on their service in addition to exclusive content they would be in a much stronger situation.

Also, lets not create an alternate reality in which MS abandon making first party games and left game development solely 3rd party developers.

Stadia also had comically bad ads like this

Loading Video...

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

11689

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 JoshRMeyer
Member since 2015 • 11689 Posts

I just feel like exclusives usually get a higher budget and more "love" in development. I doubt you'll ever see a naughty dog or Nintendo game as buggy of a mess like cyber punk was or many other multiplat games. I'm not too familiar with MS exclusives, but Sonys and Nintendos are usually good quality. Doesn't always mean the games great or fun but at least I know the quality is there.

Avatar image for Epak_
Epak_

11618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 Epak_
Member since 2004 • 11618 Posts

@joshrmeyer: That's usually the case.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
GoldenElementXL

5833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 GoldenElementXL
Member since 2016 • 5833 Posts

Gamers are a strange breed. But they’re not anti consumer in the sense most think. It’s more like Gamers vs Consumers. Gamers don’t want to spend money, instead they spend hours on message boards expressing their opinions which are largely based on anything other than actually playing games. Consumers spend money on what they want, which usually contrasts with gamers opinions. And the industry reacts to the consumer trends, further upsetting the gamers.

Gamers - play niche games

Consumers - spend money

Consumers don’t want exclusives. Gamers need exclusives in order to feel special.

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
SolidGame_basic

31818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 SolidGame_basic
Member since 2003 • 31818 Posts

@goldenelementxl said:

Gamers are a strange breed. But they’re not anti consumer in the sense most think. It’s more like Gamers vs Consumers. Gamers don’t want to spend money, instead they spend hours on message boards expressing their opinions which are largely based on anything other than actually playing games. Consumers spend money on what they want, which usually contrasts with gamers opinions. And the industry reacts to the consumer trends, further upsetting the gamers.

Gamers - play niche games

Consumers - spend money

Consumers don’t want exclusives. Gamers need exclusives in order to feel special.

It's nice to know that you're the speaker of the people 😆

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
GoldenElementXL

5833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By GoldenElementXL
Member since 2016 • 5833 Posts

@SolidGame_basic: I’m just here letting the hot takes fly

But seriously though. “Gamers” hate sports games, COD, Nintendo, micro transactions and loot boxes. What are the most popular things in gaming? (Everything I just mentioned)

Consumers are driving the industry away from what “gamers” want

Avatar image for davillain-
DaVillain-

46930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#28 DaVillain-  Moderator  Online
Member since 2014 • 46930 Posts

@Pedro said:

@R4gn4r0k:

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

39300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 39300 Posts

I imagine exclusive strategy going forward isn't about keeping games to just one system but keeping them off the chief competitor's system, or so has been the case since last gen. Probably cheaper to negotiate deals that way.

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

39300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#30 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 39300 Posts

With regard to TC idea of cross platform access, royalty costs of selling a game on a platform is 30% by industry standard so that is $18 on a $60 game that goes to the platform people buy their games on. So, surely as far as they go as long as they get their cut then they are happy. There's have to be mass industry coordination with some third party to reconcile rights and access. So if someone buys a game on their PS5 and decides it would be something they might want to play on their Switch 2 then they just pay the $18 so Nintendo gets their cut and they are good. Unlikely companies would ever do this though because the publishers would be losing out on double dip money.

At least there's MS and their whole UWP thing, and hopefully Sony has similar cross platform functionality with PC in future with some kind of PS Now/Plus fusion service with local PC support (it's gonna be a partnership with EGS, I know it).

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

7631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By pyro1245  Online
Member since 2003 • 7631 Posts

The worst are paid-for exclusives. Nothing says "**** you, customer" like a paid-for exclusive.

I can't really hate Nintendo or Sony too much for keeping the games they fund exclusive, even if the poor performance makes me sad.

At some point the exclusivity hurts the games tho.

  1. Exclusivity causes bad programming habits and hurts the longevity of software.
  2. Exclusivity means you're stuck on whatever platform, even if it's old and didn't run the game well in the first place.

Seriously someone save Bloodborne. It's bad. Send help.

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

16296

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 osan0
Member since 2004 • 16296 Posts

@Pedro:

DLCs are not included with the the sub to the service? i dont subscribe to anything to i have no idea. That sounds nasty though....really gives an incentive for devs to just have more of a taster for what you get as part of the sub then really push the DLC instead. or really double down on the whole games as a service push. what happens if you buy dlc for a game then the base game is removed from rotation?

as for stadia: all the stuff you mentioned: doesnt matter. No games that drag people to the service killed it. Game streaming has a huge stigma attached to it as you say (warranted or not is a different matter). what's the best way to get people to give it a shot? a big exclusive hit that really compels people to try it. having a bunch of multiplats that people can play elsewhere....not a great incentive is it?

as for MSs first party: they clearly didnt want to make games. i dont think they were going to outright abandon it (Halo, gears and forza make money after all) but they didnt want to really expand it either. their first party output has been pretty low over the last 7 years. at the start of last gen they clearly wanted 3rd parties to do the heavy lifting while they provided the platform and hardware and services. they wanted to be like google: letting others provide the actual content mainly.

Avatar image for NathanDrakeSwag
NathanDrakeSwag

16264

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 NathanDrakeSwag
Member since 2013 • 16264 Posts

@goldenelementxl said:

@SolidGame_basic: I’m just here letting the hot takes fly

But seriously though. “Gamers” hate sports games, COD, Nintendo, micro transactions and loot boxes. What are the most popular things in gaming? (Everything I just mentioned)

Consumers are driving the industry away from what “gamers” want

Sports games have become pay to win trash. Last time I played an NBA 2K I had to grind all day just to level up my player enough to make a layup. MTX and loot boxes are not a good thing regardless of how many suckers like to waste real money for pink bunny skins.

Avatar image for Zero_epyon
Zero_epyon

16796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 Zero_epyon
Member since 2004 • 16796 Posts

Exclusives are the product of competition. Without them, games will continue to get boring as publishers will have no incentive to actually make quality games. They'll just publish them on as many platforms and make money that way. Exclusive content has to be good or it loses money.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

51228

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 69

User Lists: 0

#35 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 51228 Posts

@osan0 said:

@Pedro:

DLCs are not included with the the sub to the service? i dont subscribe to anything to i have no idea. That sounds nasty though....really gives an incentive for devs to just have more of a taster for what you get as part of the sub then really push the DLC instead. or really double down on the whole games as a service push. what happens if you buy dlc for a game then the base game is removed from rotation?

as for stadia: all the stuff you mentioned: doesnt matter. No games that drag people to the service killed it. Game streaming has a huge stigma attached to it as you say (warranted or not is a different matter). what's the best way to get people to give it a shot? a big exclusive hit that really compels people to try it. having a bunch of multiplats that people can play elsewhere....not a great incentive is it?

as for MSs first party: they clearly didnt want to make games. i dont think they were going to outright abandon it (Halo, gears and forza make money after all) but they didnt want to really expand it either. their first party output has been pretty low over the last 7 years. at the start of last gen they clearly wanted 3rd parties to do the heavy lifting while they provided the platform and hardware and services. they wanted to be like google: letting others provide the actual content mainly.

What happens if you have DLC for a game you don't own? Well the most obvious, you have DLC for a game you don't own.

You say the things I mentioned for Stadia doesn't matter, well actually it does. If you think that the stigma attached to game streaming is about the games then you have not been paying attention and you are missing the reason why Geforce Now is still alive and kicking with a price increase. You are confusing the market of consoles with services.

I like to stick to facts than speculation. Xbox division never stopped investing in game development. From 2005-2016 MS were the publishers of 78 games for the 360. That is over 11 years. From 2013-2020 MS were the publishers of 66 games for the Xbox One. That is over a 7 year period and they are still making games for the Xbox One.

Avatar image for wandering_halls
wandering_halls

940

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#36 wandering_halls  Online
Member since 2021 • 940 Posts

In a way there are tons of exclusives on PC. It's called the superior version of games. Ha.

As for console exclusives, the only point is to give the console identity. Of course the console maker wants to make money, so there's that. But if we're talking about setting a console apart from the rest in terms of content, then exclusives do serve a purpose. They give the console personality, so to speak. If all games could be played on all consoles, all consoles would essentially be the same, with the only major difference being power.

Avatar image for jasonofa36
JasonOfA36

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 JasonOfA36
Member since 2016 • 3183 Posts

Third party exclusives should die. I'm kinda fine on 1st party ones, but it's still better for everyone if exclusivity isn't a thing. It only benefits companies, not consumers. Only idiots cheer for a faceless company that only cares about milking them of the money.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

37411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#38 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 37411 Posts

@wandering_halls said:

In a way there are tons of exclusives on PC. It's called the superior version of games. Ha.

As for console exclusives, the only point is to give the console identity. Of course the console maker wants to make money, so there's that. But if we're talking about setting a console apart from the rest in terms of content, then exclusives do serve a purpose. They give the console personality, so to speak. If all games could be played on all consoles, all consoles would essentially be the same, with the only major difference being power.

I think around a hundred or so PC exclusives launch on Steam every day.

But more notable ones would be: Anno series, Total War Series and Age of Empires series.

Avatar image for wandering_halls
wandering_halls

940

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#39 wandering_halls  Online
Member since 2021 • 940 Posts

@R4gn4r0k said:
@wandering_halls said:

In a way there are tons of exclusives on PC. It's called the superior version of games. Ha.

As for console exclusives, the only point is to give the console identity. Of course the console maker wants to make money, so there's that. But if we're talking about setting a console apart from the rest in terms of content, then exclusives do serve a purpose. They give the console personality, so to speak. If all games could be played on all consoles, all consoles would essentially be the same, with the only major difference being power.

I think around a hundred or so PC exclusives launch on Steam every day.

But more notable ones would be: Anno series, Total War Series and Age of Empires series.

Just making a joke. But yeah, tons of PC exclusives. Tons of them are trash, too. But there are gems in there for sure.

Avatar image for mojito1988
mojito1988

4413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 mojito1988
Member since 2006 • 4413 Posts

The idea of exclusives means noting to me. Could not care less about the idea. I have zero loyalty to a box of wires and plastic. I just play games. If I had my we everyone would be able to play every game on whatever they wanted to. Why would I care?

Avatar image for UnnDunn
UnnDunn

3872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41 UnnDunn
Member since 2002 • 3872 Posts

Sony's entire business model throughout its history is built around exclusive content. It owns movie studios, record labels and game studios for the specific purpose of generating exclusive content for its video, music and game formats.

They came up with formats like Betamax, Mini-Disc, UMD and Blu-ray and used their studios to pump out exclusive content for those formats to kill the competition.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

37411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 37411 Posts

@wandering_halls said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

I think around a hundred or so PC exclusives launch on Steam every day.

But more notable ones would be: Anno series, Total War Series and Age of Empires series.

Just making a joke. But yeah, tons of PC exclusives. Tons of them are trash, too. But there are gems in there for sure.

For real, I mean: What PC doesn't get anymore is AAA exclusives.

But I'm fine with the indie games and AA games.

Avatar image for wandering_halls
wandering_halls

940

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#43 wandering_halls  Online
Member since 2021 • 940 Posts

@R4gn4r0k said:
@wandering_halls said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

I think around a hundred or so PC exclusives launch on Steam every day.

But more notable ones would be: Anno series, Total War Series and Age of Empires series.

Just making a joke. But yeah, tons of PC exclusives. Tons of them are trash, too. But there are gems in there for sure.

For real, I mean: What PC doesn't get anymore is AAA exclusives.

But I'm fine with the indie games and AA games.

Indies and AA are where it's at for originality and overall super unique gaming experiences, for the most part. Some of my favorite games have pretty small budgets. I love huge AAA stuff as well, though.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

50195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#44 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 50195 Posts

@R4gn4r0k said:

I can't wait for Intel's exclusive 'Project Offset'

Project Offset was Star Citizen'ing before Star Citizen was a thing.

On a serious note, what ever did happen to Project Offset?

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

37411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#45 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 37411 Posts

@mrbojangles25 said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

I can't wait for Intel's exclusive 'Project Offset'

Project Offset was Star Citizen'ing before Star Citizen was a thing.

On a serious note, what ever did happen to Project Offset?

Not sure exactly what made Intel lose interest, but both the project and its developer got shut down:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

37411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#46 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 37411 Posts

@wandering_halls said:

Indies and AA are where it's at for originality and overall super unique gaming experiences, for the most part. Some of my favorite games have pretty small budgets. I love huge AAA stuff as well, though.

Oh yeah, man. I'm glad we are of the same mind.

I also enjoy a good mix between low budget, mid budget and the higher up tier (insane budget) games :)

Avatar image for bluestars
Bluestars

2789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#47 Bluestars
Member since 2019 • 2789 Posts

exclusives are good at making sad acts who like exclusives cry when games are made exclusives

zenimax meet sad acts...sad acts,this is zenimax

HAH

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

17977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#48 Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 17977 Posts

Exclusivity already ended.

All of microsoft games are now on PC. and Xbox is a name of microsoft gaming division rather than console and its basically a PC.

Sony releasing games on PC and just wait until sony released thier own launcher and all of sony games come to PC same exact day. no one though sony games would ever release on PC but now they are often.

consoles are not worth buy to play only 5 exclusives.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15325 Posts

Theres barely any exclusives anymore.

Avatar image for omegamaster
omegaMaster

1835

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 omegaMaster
Member since 2017 • 1835 Posts

Might as well buy a Nintendo console for exclusivity reasons.