A World without Exclusives?

I don't want a world without exclusives, and I don't hate other platforms either. I also don't think it has much to do with QA.

What do I do now?

A world without exclusives is a world without consoles. Ask yourself is that the world that you want?

Exclusivity sucks. As long as one platform doesn't suffer due to limitations of other, I don't mind full multiplatform future. I am gamer and I don't care if xyz company won't make money or about other excuses. I'll play games even if they are only available on Mobiles or Browsers in the future. Games should be available to everyone.

@Cloud_imperium: so you are essentially saying you are fine with a video game market that does not have home consoles?

Exclusives are important....need to differentiate your product.

Don't care. I'll play games in any shape or form. Streaming is the future anyway. Of course, Consoles will still be here for quite some time (and I want them too,,, fvck streaming) but that doesn't mean I am fan of exclusivity, even if it can be considered as "necessary evil".

@charizard1605:

You suffer in silence? Why may I ask do you want exclusives then?

I don't think Coke should be allowed to have a secret recipe. All soda should be allowed to taste the same.

Exclusives are a fanboys problem.

it's the world that I want to live in

There would be no MS/Sony/Nintendo consoles without exclusives.

You'll likely have a different market infrastructure, with multiple hardware competitors constantly reiterating on faster cycles with competition being within an operating system or storage mediums. But for that to work, you'd likely need some software legislation, because someone else will just start making moves to secure exclusive content.

Competition breeds quality.

@sayyy-gaa:

Honestly, I don't think that I'd have a problem with that. Microsoft and Sony need to innovate and offer features that consumers want. IMO the biggest sin of console gaming in recent years is the corporations who peddle them, not the systems themselves. Sony and Microsoft are essentially "buying money" with more money, by attempting to form software monopolies and choke the market in their favor instead of offering competitive hardware features ala the 7G consoles. Also, whoring exclusives doesn't make you successful, see Nintendo who focused so much on exclusives that the lack of 3rd party support and effective hardware has made them almost irrelevant. Microsoft and Sony should be focused on spending money on making console gaming a more convenient and social experience (right now the only objective superiority over PC and disappearing) and less on software money making schemes. (See Xbox DRM). Are Microsoft and Sony's business practices beneficial to them right now? Yah. Are they beneficial for the companies and the consumer in the long run. No, probably not.

Exactly!

Why would console 1st parties not make exclusive games? Those sell machines.

Another begging thread? This is a dream.

That's why I own all the machines.

A game being exclusive isn't any more "anti-consumer" than costing a game costing money.

Without exclusives, consoles would cease to exist, and PC game development would likely suffer as consoles provide a baseline to reign in system requirements. Less people may end up buying games as well. Of course, that's all less true now than it used to be, and there are also less notable exclusives than there used to be. So in the future there might not be consoles - Valve probably thinks that.

so what features will differentiate console makers? i dont think there are many things console makers can do that will benefit and appeal to gamers without exclusive games.

i have no problem supporting multiple consoles

@Cobra_nVidia:

"Less people may end up buying games as well." Can you please explain? If anything I would think the opposite (unless you meant consoles, then yes). You don't think PC/PS4 players would buy Halo? You don't think PC/Xbox players would buy UC4? Exclusives, especially timed ones are anti-consumer in that they force a hardware premium to play a single game that if multi-platform they otherwise would be able to play. You're right though, console gaming might become a thing of the past as soon as PC gaming can move over the hurdle of casual convenience. The industry is (hopefully) evolving quickly past Microsoft and Sony's traditional business practices to a more centralized ecosystem. I think Microsoft realizes this and is trying to integrate Xbox and PC gaming. Not sure about Sony though, they've always been more traditional.

Pretty much. Although the consoles don't exactly have a ton of exclusives, I think they need at least a few to be sustainable. Maybe not against PC's (because of the value proposition a console might always be attractive vs. a $500 or $1000 PC), but if/when Apple TV or tablet type devices start playing console quality games or ever started getting multiplats - the traditional consoles would be in trouble.

@jsmoke03:

Hardware and superior software implementation should differentiate consoles. Microsoft/Sony should invest in hardware development instead of buying out IPs. IMO this is important because of the much large gaps in console generations, you think that these platforms can last eight years? This isn't a PCMR circle jerk, new gaming technology factually is going to take larger horsepower than what the consoles can provide. - GPU: How is Sony going to make VR a pleasant experience when it demands much higher framerates and pixel counts than traditional gaming? - CPU: Environmental destruction, AI, and massive player counts online/offline are stagnated by weak CPU performance. - Storage: There really wasn't an excuse for this, 500GB is woeful and MS and Sony knew better. HDD storage is cheap.

As for superior software implementation - support for game streaming, twitch, media streaming services, productivity, and a more featured and intuitive OS can easily differentiate the consoles. Microsoft and Sony should expand their respective platforms with integration and superior hardware support instead of whoring software. With PC being able to inherently innovate and power new technology and becoming rapidly more accessible (and maybe Nintendo's upcoming console if they learn from the Wii U), and the threat of mobile gaming Sony/MS need to alter their business strategies to keep console gaming relevant. This isn't console bashing, this is a perspective that what if the franchises released control of IP's and instead allowed/supported creative freedom and innovation.

Yes, I was referring to gaming as a whole, not specifically PC gaming.

Exclusives are not "anti-consumer". If exclusives didn't exist, you would not be able to play a game that was exclusive because the development was paid for by the console manufacturer. Timed exclusives are annoying (and are criminal if they are promoted as not being timed), but don't prevent you from playing the game.

@Cobra_nVidia:

"Exclusives are not "anti-consumer"." Buying out an IP and forcing them to pay a hardware premium to enjoy games from that franchise/developer? Sounds pretty anti-consumer to me. Did Halo/Consumers benefit when it became an Xbox exclusive? Did consumers benefit when Bayonetta 2 became a Wii exclusive? Did consumers benefit when MS bought out Rare to make exclusives? No. Have consumers benefitted from MGS becoming a wider multiplatform? Yes. Did Konami benefit? Yes. Did Sony benefit? No, and that's why exclusives sorrowfully exist, and why I claim they are anti consumer. If you disagree, so be it, I understand that creating a first party IP and going multiplatform right away isn't always helpful or possible. Are series like Uncharted and Halo in that situation? No, there being exclusive doesn't benefit the consumer or the developer only MS/Sony.

"If exclusives didn't exist, you would not be able to play a game that was exclusive because the development was paid for by the console manufacturer." Not always true, but for the sake of the argument I don't think that is entirely relevant. Microsoft Game Studios funded Forza Motorsport does that mean it has to be exclusive and that if it did it wouldn't exist? The game would sell on PS4 and it sure as hell would sell on PC.

"Timed exclusives are annoying (and are criminal if they are promoted as not being timed), but don't prevent you from playing the game." Agreed. They are completely unreasonable, and blatantly anti-consumer. I don't personally know anybody who would run out to spend $350+ to get a game six months earlier. They exist to punish the consumer for purchasing platform "A" instead of platform "B".

There is. It called isolating yourself with Xbox.

I'd be happy if consoles and mobile gaming all died a horrible death and all gaming was on PC, but I realize that a lot of people appreciate the convenience of consoles and this wont happen. And given that a lot of PC exclusives straight up would not work on consoles without being horribly butchered, having every game on every platform in the current climate wouldn't work.

I'd rather have consoles with exclusives, than no consoles and more devs moving to mobile/browser gaming.

Ideally, it would be like a dream come true. But you can't deny the value exclusivity brings when it comes to consoles. It brings competition, which brings a thriving industry. If there were no exclusives, chances are it wouldn't thrive as much.

That is not the same thing, not even really close at all. If Coke = Games, then exclusivity would be one store being able to sell it only, or only certain people able to buy it, or make coke come in a something that can only be kept cold in an exclusive brand of refrigerator.

The secret recipe of coke is a trade secret and does not have much to do with games being exclusive to a certain piece of hardware.

Without exclusives what would be the point of having multiple consoles? People would just buy the PS4 and be done with it.

Oh wait, they already are!

Less munition for forums like this one but in the real world it wouldn't matter at all. Multiplats are the best anyways.

The big 3 do provide great exclusives, which would otherwise not excist.

I advice you to purchase a Pokemon Plushie..

@MlauTheDaft: I have a Pikachu one somewhere...

@charizard1605: I used to too :) I think it got "inherited."

@MlauTheDaft: Same, except in my case, I am pretty sure my mom took it from me.

She's weird.

These arguments are so fuckign stupid

@charizard1605: Maybe she was building up a Mother's Toolkit ;) Sometimes you need a polygrip wrench, sometimes you need something fluffy, which is'nt a cat with sharp claws.

There is a world without exclusives, It's called PC.

If all games were made exclusively for the PC, because consoles/any other form of gaming device didn't exist, the quality and quantity of games available on PC would NOT be equivalent to the sum total of all games made across all platforms today. It wouldn't even be close.

The total amount of money spent on development and marketing would plummet and you'd have a noticeable increase in what we deem "indie" games today. Most games would follow the Blizzard model, since there is no standardized hardware to develop games for, which target lower end hardware to maximize their potential number of consumers.

Crowd funded games would become the standard for AAA, high-budget titles because they don't expose investors to any risk.

Competition breeds excellence, just like any other industry.

No. Exclusives are what makes each console a lot more unique and helps them to be more competitive.

yes

Must feel great to play games at 30 fps or even the rare 60 fps game on consoles. 60fps is crap anyway, 144fps+ please.

That's exactly what I want. All games should be on the open platform that is PC. There is no need for consoles. You can scale games to work on low spec PCs (essentially what consoles are) and crank up the settings for high end rigs. You can use PCs at the desktop or in the living room on a couch. Consoles are just a pay wall to get access to exclusives. Waste of money. They force you to play games on low spec hardware and they exist for the benefit of the platform holders so they can control the market and collect royalties.

There's hardly such a thing as exclusives. Nintendo is the only one putting out exclusives in a traditional sense.

Who could argue with a reply like that? You sure showed me.

No. Exclusives help gives consoles their identity and brings competition which is always good. Games like Dead Rising 3 and Bayonetta 2 would not exist if it wasn't for exclusives. Microsoft and Nintendo funded these games in order to give their console a competive advantage, otherwise they never would have been made.

I buy all of the consoles, so exclusivity of a game is never a problem for me. I just buy the game on whatever console it is exclusive for.

Multiplatform = Compromises

So, no. Optimization will be best possible when a game is exclusive to certain hardware. That said, multiplats are cool too.

The secret recipe is what makes coke special. Without it it's not coke. When people want every console to have every game they're basically asking for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft's secret recipes. The thing that differentiates them from the competition. It's an apt comparison.

Every store is allowed to sell every system and every game.

No exclusives? Then this industry JUST became hella boring. Then again, I've argued with people who want less exclusives by begging a certain company to pull a move their former rivals pulled (because that worked out SO well), so I'm not too surprised some people are anti-exclusive and don't want ANY gaming company to be unique.

@Bread_or_Decide: So how does Uncharted and Halo being available on both ps4 and xb1 make them the same compared to being exclusive?

Your coke example is comparable to being forced to buy a special 400$ tool to open up each of the different types of cokes. Yeah, who wouldn't want that?

Another thread made by an entitled gamer with no business sense.

There are fewer exclusives now then there have ever been. And in many cases, if games weren't exclusive they wouldn't have been made at all.

"I can't play all the games on my single console! You should feel sorry for me!" Get over yourselves.