Street Fighter 5 introduces console exclusive branding

You're reading that in a way that fits your argument.

What is means that it is limited to a certain group. But PS4 and PC are only a group in the sense that any two things can be a group. It is not a grouping based on any real world context.

Under this definition, a game can be exclusive to consoles, which is a grouping that actually has meaning. That would mean it's not on PC. But that doesn't apply in this situation.

Under this same definition, a game cannot be exclusive to PS4 because it is not restricted to a group.

The only thing you've argued is that you can fudge terms. You haven't argued that it actually makes sense to do so.

2 of those consoles are a group, the other is not part of this group in this case. Have you been to basic school? You can group 3 things many different ways. 3 groups of 1, 1 group of 3, a group of 2 and 1, another group of 2 and 1, and yet another group of 2 and 1.

Here are all the possible ways to group these 3 systems.

{xbox} {ps4} {pc}

{xbox,ps4,pc}

{xbox,ps4} {pc}

{xbox} {ps4,pc}

{xbox,pc} {pc}

Anyone who is that out of the loop when it comes to every platform its available on 99.9% only games on a single platform anyway. Most Street Fighter fans know exactly what platforms its on. Its not misleading at all. When someone walks into a store to purchase either a PS4 or xbone and see that SFV is on one but not the other that's mission accomplished.

@GarGx1: Seriously?

Fair enough

Thats incorrect, paying to play online is a shitty move by sony for example.

Like you said the average joe is going to the store to buy a console game so when they see that logo they'll get it for PS4, when was the last time you saw a video game store selling retail PC games? those who own a PC and like the game already know its coming to PC while retail stores have the console version which is the only version available at retail for consoles.

MS don't get money from Steam or anything sold on Steam so nope, SFV brings in NOTHING for MS.

Shh. Let him/her/it dream.

Under this definition, any game can be branded exclusive, making the term effectively meaningless. There comes a point where you have to apply sensible and tangible context. Your argument only flies if understood theoretically. But this is not a theoretical matter.

I know what Sony is implying, but they are implying that by fudging terms. Which is smart of them, but I'm not going to deny that it is an act of equivocation.

Yes, the English language is fun because one can clearly see how people fudge terms for various purpose.

Because it's a great game, and The Witcher: Blood and Wine is going to piss on all your weeaboo RPG games this year!

This is not an argument.

Never said it was. This is you shaking your salt everywhere.

What? lol

It's pretty disappointing that you're resorting to insults, especially since I thought we were having a substantial and cordial debate.

The definition is saying something is exclusive if it's restricted to a "group." It does not refer to the act of exclusively considering a group (i.e. exclusively considering consoles). That is the difference.

Also, if you treat any two or multiple things as a group, the term ceases to be meaningful. There has to be some logic that makes one of more things a group to make that grouping meaningful in a discussion that is not merely abstract.

@davem1992: yup they do even from Steam. It's part of the Windows Logo Royalties and Capcom will be paying that to Microsoft. Happens with every Windows game. Been that way for an eternity.

Man, you know things are rough when you're having to debate what exclusive means. There is no grey area in this lol.

Then again, this is the same board where people often have to explain the difference between facts and opinions, so I'm not surprised.

What I meant is that simply throwing around the terms "L" and "damage control" is not an argument about exclusivity or why console exclusive should be treated as a legitimate term.

There is no argument about it. If you stopped thinking like a lem and used common sense you would realize console exclusive is a very real thing.

Exactly. People in this thread are doing some crazy mental gymnastics to try and justify the term console exclusive.

They aren't fudging terms. They aren't saying that this game is exclusive to consoles, they are saying its exclusive when comparing only consoles. And the fact is this is how people understand "console exclusive" because most of the time the term exclusive is associated with 1 system. In this case its 1 console.

There's nothing wrong with this, It highly depends on the context its being used. Maybe to make it completely and absolutely clear, just say "not on xbox" on the box.

My argument is that the term is highly contextual. There's no one way to use the term like system wars has had locked done for ages. And it's funny you say that this isn't a theoretical debate and not a theoretical matter, but your using other theoretical meanings to say sony fudged the term... Your argument just lost its legs. They aren't "theoretical" meanings either, they just are potential meanings given a particular context. The vast majority of games xbox/ps4 games aren't very far apart, but PC games often are separated from them. If you walk in there to pick up a console game, given the context, "console exclusive" describes it perfectly. Given how the term is almost entirely used to mean "1 system", the average joe will mostly likely conclude is "1 console". I don't hear people use the console exclusive term much the other way, normally I here, "only on consoles" or "not on pc".

@NathanDrakeSwag: an he is fine

Calling me a lem and insisting on your conclusion will not make it true. You haven't offered actual justification as to why console exclusive should be considered to be legitimate. At least wahaahaa, convoluted as his logic is and despite his unfortunate descent into insults, attempted to argue about the actual term exclusive. You're just asking me to take your word for it, which I see no reason to do.

Love how cows are all of a sudden in favor of the using the term "console exclusive". Fought tooth and nail last gen to exclude it but now all of a sudden "it's a real thing" hahahahaha any further evidence needed for cow hypocrisy? I know everyone does it from time to time but damn this is just so blatant.

I guess MS now has a bunch of exclusives back, right cows?

I'd like to take this moment to coin the new term, zip code monogamy. Then I can smash every hoe in my area, but technically I'm still monogamous.

That's about how much sense this makes.

Are you really this dense? Console exclusive is self explanatory. Unless you consider PC a video game console then it is a very legit term.

Sony has deemed it to be legit enough to put on a box art. Doesn't get anymore legit than that. You mad bro?

How about games that are on the PC, PS4 and Xbone, but not on the WiiU? Should we start calling those Non-WiiU exclusives, or are they still just multiplats?

Exclusive is a definite term man. It's not something that you can just amend and call it it day. I mean, you can, but it's just silly, it makes no sense, it negates the literal meaning of the term, and in this case it only serves to fuel fanboy egos.

It's just another marketing strategy.

They have exclusive rights on console might as well flaunt it.

It's not desperate or stupid or anything...it's actually quite a good marketting strat.

Its really not much of an insult. And group again, is a term human's made up to organize things. It can be anything that is grouped in any way. If you have an exclusive game that is on 2 out of 3 systems... than that is the group its exclusive to.

So we have two consoles, and a pc. That can be a group of 3 systems total. It can be a group of consoles and a pc. Or it can be a group of systems SFV is exclusive to. I don't understand how hard this is to understand, your putting highly restrictive meaning to what a group is. The world doesn't work like that, engineering wouldn't work without the ability to arbitrarily make groups of things/ideas and have multiple overlapping groups of things/ideas that depend on a particular context.

One could easily read the term "console exclusive" as saying that a game is "exclusive to consoles."

And yes, they are clearly fudging terms. They are creating a specific set of parameters to make a game that is not actually exclusive an exclusive. Per definition, an exclusive is restricted to a person, group, or an area. Yet Street Fighter V, in real world terms, not excluded to any one entity.

You could attempt to argue that there's nothing wrong with what Sony is doing, but you would need to argue that equivocation is okay.

You say that you're argument is contextual, yet it relies on grouping two things that don't have a meaningful connection, but rather an abstract one. PS4 and PC are only technically a group in the sense that you can group any two random things together.

Your game store example merely argues that any exclusivity of SFV on PS4 is perception. That doesn't mean the game actually meets the criteria of being exclusive.

And again, by your logic, any game can be exclusive if you just change the parameters. What you don't seem to realize is that your whole argument is pretty much a detailed process of how Sony adjusting parameters to change the perception of what an exclusive is.

You can say that "anything can be grouped," but that does not mean that it is actually sensible to do so.

I don't think Nintendo would appreciate them putting that on a box art. There would probably be lawsuits involved.

Console exclusive makes perfect sense. I don't get why you guys are trying to fight it so hard. It is only on one console. That makes it a console exclusive. M$ has been pushing console exclusives for a decade and nobody said a word. Now Sony does it and everyone loses their mind.

If Sony classifies the GT series as JRPGs, would you just roll with it?

Sony has no say on these matters. They can put words on a box all day, but it doesn't change the meaning of a term.

Again, simply insisting on your conclusion is not an argument.

The only way that "console exclusive" actually makes sense is if you're arguing that a game is exclusive to the group "consoles" (Red Dead Redemption would fall under this category). But the term console exclusive in terms of only considering consoles is simply a convenient shifting of parameters. The most you can say is that "SV4 is not on Xbox."

They wouldn't do that because it wouldn't be true. Console exclusive is a real legit term. They put console in front of exclusive to let people who only game on consoles know that PS4 is the only console they can get it on.

Technically Red Dead is a console exclusive but not the same way SFV is. It wouldn't make any sense to put console exclusive on a Red Dead box because Sony and M$ ain't in a war with PC.

You are grasping at straws man.

Likewise.

Something is exclusive or it's not. That's it. It's not something that comes with a list of additional qualifiers lol.

Now that's just a load of shit haha. Lems looked like idiots all last gen trying to push this mess and people gave them plenty of shit for it.

And really, I don't even know where you're going with this. Greyseal isn't a lem. I game on a PC, PS4 and a WiiU, but haven't owned an Xbox console in nearly 8 years, so I'm obviously not a lem.

This doesn't apply to the current discussion at all.

-

And yeah, as for the legalities of putting "non-wiiu-exclusive" on a box, that's missing the point bro. Point being that it's every bit as absurd as the term console exclusive itself.

Yes, it is an insult. Which is your prerogative, but it's not really necessary.

A grouping does not have to be highly restrictive, but there has to be a logical reason for grouping two or more things for that grouping to have real world significance. In the real world, SFV can be obtained on PS4 or PC, meaning that it's not exclusive to either of those platforms.

Your argument, per the definition, relies on making PC/PS4 a grouping. But under this logic, any game can be rendered an exclusive, making the term effectively meaningless.

By your logic, one could argue that last gen Resident Evil 4 was a "Nintendo and Sony console exclusive."

The term "console exclusive" only makes sense in that its a logical marketing move. It doesn't mean that the term itself is logical.

Sony has no power to define the term exclusive.

Like I said, it's a market trick (that you're falling for). That doesn't mean the term has any truth to it.

I mentioned GT as a jrpg because it's equally absurd. It's a Japanese game. Progression is what the game is all about. Often times you can choose how to progress. JRPG huzzah!!!

Same level of ridiculous logic here. The game isn't exclusive, but one of the two platforms it's arriving on happens to be a console. Therefore console exclusive.

Maybe I should start calling SFV a Windows exclusive. Makes about as much sense really.

lulz.

Of course it wouldn't make sense, but the logical merit of a term is not dependent on what Sony puts on a box.

It might be smart for them to use the term console exclusive, but that doesn't mean the term is not equivocation. Marketing is often equivocation.

Who says it can't have additional qualifiers? The definition Toad gave said group or area. Wouldn't consoles meet that critieria? And being exclusive to one console makes it a console exclusive. It's so easy to see where they get the term from but you guys really don't like it when Sony uses it for some reason lol.

Say Average Joe walks into a store wanting to buy a new game system. He heard about the new Street Fighter that just came out and wonders what system he should play it on. He sees the PS4 box says console exclusive. That informs him that the game is only on PS4 for consoles. When a game is actually Sony exclusive it says "only on Playstation" on the box. They are 2 very different terms that most people have no problem understanding.

And you can me delusional. M$ got savaged for pulling this shit last gen. Tons of people pointed out that lems were fudging terms and that M$ was trying to push "console exclusives" (God that term is so dumb; I cringe even as I type it) because their first party output was so sparse.

Who has the power to determine it? You? LMAO

Come on man. Stop playing dumb. It's such an easy term to comprehend.

No M$ got savaged because they couldn't even keep most of their console exclusives exclusive to console. Most of them eventually made it to PS3 like Bioshock, Mass Effect and many others in addition to having virtually no first party outside of the same 3 franchises recycled for a decade.

Not me. The actual definition of the term exclusive speaks for itself. There is no determining by either me or Sony. Thinking that Sony has the power to define terms is a new frankly yucky kind of fanboy slavishness.

It's an easy term to comprehend, but that doesn't mean the term has merit. It is a term of convenience, not truth.

You're nuts lol. Everyone knows what console exclusive means. If it didn't make sense the term wouldn't exist because no one would understand it.

@NathanDrakeSwag:

Bruh, it's not a matter of understanding. We do get what you're saying in the sense of marketing. That doesn't mean that it's a legitimate term in any sense.

I mean look at this man. Now we have a game that is a Windows PC exclusive as well as Console exclusive. Does that sound like an exclusive to you? Because for decades now, such a split would mean that it's a multiplat. Multiple. Platforms.

Anyways, we've definitely reached an impasse. You'll keep shilling for the man. I'll keep arguing on behalf of a defined term. No point in running around these same old circles.

The definition you gave of exclusive backs up the term.

Pure revisionist history. Lems were widely ridiculed for trying to consider games on Xbox 360 and PC console exclusives and M$ was savaged for not having true exclusives. Trying to make it seems as if people were simply ridiculing them for not keeping their exclusives off of PS4 and not also ridiculing them for sharing "exclusives" with PC is pure desperation on your part. You're just trying to protect cows from charges of hypocrisy, which is ironic considering that you're calling me a fanboy. You're actually trying to protect your comrades lol.

I've been called worse. :P

Was it butthead?