Console exclusivity is a broken system

Love them or hate them, console exclusives do more harm than good. When did it become okay even to pay to make certain gamers feel left out when a game first launches? Ultimately, console exclusives are only meant to play into the schoolyard mentality of ‘Look what I get to play with and you don’t!’ and really nothing more.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NovusTerminus1024d ago

Brand marketing, yes it does suck to want to play something but not have the console it is on. But that's how Sony, MS and Nintendo sell their equipment, by making it stand out.

Without it you just have one clear winner, PS4 with higher specs.

Mega241024d ago (Edited 1024d ago )

Um, did you read the piece? It's not about their first party exclusive, its about the ones they buy like Street Fighter V, Rise of the Tomb Raider and Bayonetta 2.

NovusTerminus1024d ago

Games co-developed by the Console maker?

Sony is helping Capcom with Deep Down, SFV. The only reason Bayo 2 was made was Nintendo.

So yes, it makes sense. These games would not exist in their current form without without the help of the console makes.

mikeslemonade1023d ago

Meta scores are generally higher for exclusives. I never understood people prefer multiplatform.

It's actually opposite of what you guys are thinking. The developer is in it for the money if the make the game multiplat. It's twice the sales.

Last gen we really saw the extinction of exclusives because AAA games cost more to make and that's the developers went multiplatform.

Exclusives benefit the gamer and multiplats do not, end of story/debate.

bouzebbal1023d ago

dude, it's your turn now to understand that some games would never have seen the light if consoles manufacturers haven't financed them like SFV, Deep Down and many others.
Manufacturers invest where it makes sense for them.
MS bought many 3rd party exclusives last gen from jap developers, but it was fair play and a technique of performing in japan.

Of course, there goes a period where 3rd party publishers prefer a console to another because the instal base is just way higher.

donwel1023d ago

I can see where you're coming from Mega and if these were games that were being made anyway then I'd be inclined to agree with you.
However, from what I understand Street Fighter V and Bayo 2 were games that their developers weren't planning to make until Sony and Nintendo, respectively approached them and offered them the cash to make the games. I'm not sure about Tomb Raider, but I'm inclined to believe that it's a similar situation there.
If it were just a case of the the game already being in development for all systems, then one of the platform holders approaching the dev/publisher saying "here's some cash, make it exclusive to our system" then yes, that is absolutely a dick move but that's business I'm afraid.

darren_poolies1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )


It was true for Bayo 2 but do you really believe that a Tomb Raider sequel and SFV weren't planned on being made until they were asked? I don't believe it for one second, considering how well both of the previous games sold, especially in the case of Street Fighter.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1023d ago
AngelicIceDiamond1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

This isn't specifically at you Lord.

Exclusive content is stupid. It just them solidifying why said publishers version of said AAA is "better"

You think COD is "better" on X1? Lol please. It has just as many glitches and problems as the PS4 version. That content makes the other consoles version look "better" by comparison. But the general public don't see through that only people like us do, hell some do, but don't care and maybe that's the REAL problem.

And same with Destiny.

My first point:

Back in the PS2 days this was happening ALLL the time.

DMC, MGS, GTA,FF, RE pluse more. Nobody said anything back then. Because of lack of internet? Not really an excuse but mainly because PS2 dominated which made it natural.

Xbox fans were playing Halo (And very content with that) while Sony easily took all of any third party games and made them exclusive.

Fastforward a little bit and Early last gen and people were saying MS was reportedly "stealing" games from Sony.

Back then we had little knowledge about who own what Ip's and franchises. Turns out MS wasn't stealing anything, third party simply saw that MS is now a viable contender in the games console space.

Its a huge deal now because these consoles are extremely recognizable. Can't point the finger at anybody when the PS2 and even consoles before it was doing it. Its simply in our industry and its not goin nowhere. Not championing it, not bashing it, just being real, its simply in the DNA of our industry.

Second Point:

If companies need the funds then let them have it. The last thing we need is more shut downs studio and failed Ip's, Irrational Games, THQ and almost Crytek. If it means saving our favorite games and companies then so be it. They live even if they are exclusive.

Capcome needs the money the funds. If its exclusive for that reason then its better. Either way we can't do anything about it. Its Exclusive to PS4 and PC.

Now listen.

Square Enix deal makes way better sense. MS funding them and it will be exclusive for the time being. Generate enough money to put it on other platforms to make even more money. See that deal makes better sense because at the end of the day everyone enjoy the game and the Ip or studio lives.

Eejanaika1023d ago

well said.
I see why people hate exclusivity but at the same time companies need money.
At the end of the day this is why its best to get all the consoles just in case things like these happen.

even if companies are desperate for money.

texore1023d ago

Can you blame them for claiming Microsoft "stole" third party games. There were quite a bit of JRPGs and Japanese centric games that were exclusive for a period of time to the 360. Was it because they saw Xbox as a viable platform that they would release these games upwards to a year earlier on Xbox in Japan where 360 sales are a fraction PS3? Probably not...

TheCommentator1023d ago

The clear winner is the console which has the features you want.

A data sheet is not an absolute number which is why, for example, some games which are CPU bound (like AC Unity with all it's AI) run better on XB1. Besides, the difference is narrower to the eyes than spec sheets declare, as most people don't see the differences anyways.

Rimeskeem1024d ago

Buying multiplats and turning hem into exclusives is a broken system. Talking to both Sony and MS here.

Master-H1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

Nintendo does that too, or do you think Monster Hunter just magically became exclusive to Nintendo systems ? and Sonic, Bayonetta, Devil's Third , hell even Zombie U, etc etc.

Rimeskeem1023d ago

I don't know why I forgot about Nintendo.

Godmars2901024d ago

When no game console has a customized engine, such is true.

But then with no multiplatform title running properly on all systems, running poorer never really better on some, that's not a good thing either.

Kurylo3d1023d ago

Why would u have a customized game engine? This generation they are using the same technology.. Its not the ps3 vs 360. Both consoles are glorified pcs.

Godmars2901023d ago

Meant to say optimized. Optimized for specific hardware.

If it were as simple as the PS3 and 360 being glorified PCs, then it would be a simple matter for more powerful PCs to emulate them. Crytek wouldn't have run into all the issues they did.

caseh1023d ago

I think he meant the PS4 and XB1 being glorified PCs which sounds about right to me.

If Sony end up having their way we won't be using physical consoles in the near future anyway.

Kurylo3d1023d ago

Thank you, that is exactly what i meant. PS3 was different architecture and very very limited memory wise. Ps4 however just another pc... xbox one also is just anotehr pc.

And dont even mention crytek. They couldnt even optimize the original crysis for PC when it was only created for PC... just saying u could have spent $4000 on a pc when crysis came out and still not run the game without lag.

Godmars2901023d ago

How does any of that take away from my point? Current gaming software is generalized, does not preform well on all systems, is prone to bugs and glitches, so the best thing would be to optimize for specific hardware.

Kurylo3d1022d ago

Your point is that you can optimize for specific hardware. My point is its all the same hardware now. So nothing to optimize for. Unless your mentioning a pc that uses physx becuase it has an nvidia gpu or a mobile platform that is powered by an android processor.

Fact is everything today is pretty identical from a console to average pc front. Cpu, gpu , memory. No special architecture to consider or creative ways to get more memory like u had to do for the ps3.

So yyea... your point is proven wrong.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1022d ago
zsquaresoff1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity.

You have to buy those games to seperate your console from the rest. Its how business works.

Make your brand more attractive than the others. Offer more opinion, choices etc...

You want to play that particular game, buy that particular system.

Thats why I choose Ps4 over xb/pc/wiiu. Ps4 exclusives appeal to me more.

I'm sure thats the case with xb/pc and wiiu owners as well.

freshslicepizza1023d ago

we all know how business works but when your strategy involves restricting access is that ok and why are we the consumer supportive of this?

i am not talking about first party games because without their involvement they wouldn't get made. of course they want to use that software to promote their own hardware.

games like bayontta 2, bloodborne and sunset overdrive take it to the next level. they are helping either fund those projects or working very closely with the developers. which is why we tend to give those game a free pass. bayonetta 2 is different however because it did not start as a nintendo exclusive but the word is wihout nintendo getting involved the game would likely never have been made. the developer needed support to get the game off the ground.

the issue is mainly due to things like the new tomb raider and street fighter v. from a consumers point of view those games were peddled by the hardware makers to strike up a private deal. tomb raider is likely coming to the ps4 later on (probably 6 months) whereas street fighter v seems to be locked up for the ps4 and pc only. of course capcom may get around the deal with street fighter v alpha extreme or some other fancy name like how other games did in the past that were exclusive. i think ninja gaiden on the ps3 was one.

with tomb raider it is only temporary and microsoft knows the importance of coming out simultaneously or better yet early. most sales are front loaded and fans don't like to wait. with street fighter v it could be permanent. that in the end isn't a better scenario from a consumers point of view. it is to sony and the pc platform. so why do some relish in the fact a game is trying to exclude others from playing?

then we get into dlc and retailers now getting involved with some exclusive content for pre-orders. all of this stuff really doesn't help the consumer. in fact all it does is create headaches and divide gamers.

Spotie1023d ago

On the Street Fighter front, Sony is funding the game, not just buying exclusivity.

Furthermore, the game- and the genre- has a larger base on PlayStation than Xbox, and always has. Additionally, Xbox controllers have been notoriously bad for fighting games. AND Microsoft's closed policies mean that cross play between various platforms would not have existed.

It's not as simple as just buying the game so Xbox owners can't play it.

texore1023d ago

Continuing Spotie's point, the producer of Street Fighter already mentioned that SFV might not start development until 2018 the earliest had Sony not help fund it. They aren't even excluding a PC version. Also, Sony themselves are handling the PS4 port of Ultra Street Fighter 4 themselves.

Tomb Raider on the other hand was already in development for PS4, you were previously able to pre-order it. There is more outrage over Tomb Raider because there is a larger fanbase in PlayStation and PC that Microsoft is excluding. Tomb Raider sold over twice as much on PS4.

There is a difference between buying exclusivity and helping a game come into fruition.

gangsta_red1023d ago


"...was already in development for PS4, you were previously able to pre-order it."

That doesn't mean it was in development for the PS4. A lot of stores automatically put games up for pre-order for each console even before the actual consoles are officially announced. Square never said that the game would be for both platforms when they announced the title.

"because there is a larger fanbase in PlayStation and PC that Microsoft is excluding. Tomb Raider sold over twice as much on PS4."

This argument makes no sense, it's saying that it's okay to exclude one fanbase because it has a smaller install than the other. There are just as many fans on Xbox One of Tomb Raider than there are on the PS side. And according to Square the last Tomb Raider didn't meet expectations in sales, so regardless of what platform it sold more it still didn't sell well enough. And maybe that is the reason Square partnered with MS to make the next installment. The same excuse you made for SFV could be applied to Tomb Raider.

Also there is just as big of a fan base on 360 for SFV than on PS4. If you watch tourny's and other videos, especially New York and Cali you would see a lot of players use 360 to play SF4.
Sony and Capcom are also excluding a whole fanbase by not bringing SFV to Xbox One.

freshslicepizza1023d ago


"On the Street Fighter front, Sony is funding the game, not just buying exclusivity."

then why would they care about it being on the pc?

"Furthermore, the game- and the genre- has a larger base on PlayStation than Xbox, and always has. Additionally, Xbox controllers have been notoriously bad for fighting games. AND Microsoft's closed policies mean that cross play between various platforms would not have existed."

if sony is funding the project then the amount of players that exist on the xbox platform is redundant because they wouldn't want it on microsoft consoles or nintendo consoles. there is also no policy that requires cross-platform play. it was never an issue with previous street fighter games so stop trying to validate one deal and frowning upon another. the deal was created to help sony, nothing more.

"It's not as simple as just buying the game so Xbox owners can't play it."

sure it is. it's an ip that was on multiple platforms and now is limited to the pc and playstation. it would be very easy to port it to the xbox one.


you have no idea what development took place for tomb raider on the ps4. you also have no idea what microsoft is paying for and/or helping fund the project. this is all rumoured based stuff and this flip-flopping about userbase size and all the rest reeks of bias. exclusive deals like both of them are meant to limit your audience to influence customers to buy the appropriate hardware. you cannot excuse one while being upset over the other. no mans sky, titanfall, dead rising 3 and the witness are all titles that could very easily come out on the ps4, xbox one and the pc but hardware makers are at play here to sign exclusive deals behind closed doors. often times they also help marketing which some studios don't do a very good job at. so we can validate any third party exclusive game if we really want to but that's not the point.

the point both of you are ignoring is the ability for more people to have easier access so stop acting like what they are doing is good business for the consumer.

texore1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )


"That doesn't mean it was in development for the PS4"

You're right.

"This argument makes no sense"

I'm not sure what argument you are referring to, I am NOT ok with excluding a fanbase no matter the size. I am giving an explanation as why the outrage is so significant with Tomb Raider in particular.

"There are just as many fans on Xbox One of Tomb Raider than there are on the PS side"

I don't want to make this a Playstation vs Xbox debate, the Tomb Raider fanbase of Playstation and PC combined dwarfs that of Xbox. That is why many people are complaining.

"And according to Square the last Tomb Raider didn't meet expectations in sales...maybe that is the reason Square partnered with MS to make the next installment"

According to Square Enix's report, they expected Tomb Raider to sell 5-6 million copies in FOUR weeks, in March. Those are the kinds of numbers. That is the kind of numbers Ubisoft expects for Assassin's Creed during the holiday shopping season. Tomb Raider ended up being profitable and considering Square Enix is doing well financially, that is most likely not the reason they partnered with Microsoft. They decided to partner with the platform that there most recent Tomb Raider game sold the least?

"Also there is just as big of a fan base on 360 for SFV than on PS4"

I don't like that it isn't coming out on Xbox, you think I don't want to be able to play on the platform the majority of my friends own? I would rather have a SF5 in the form they have announced and previewed as opposed to a F2P/Pay2Win or DLC gutted version. Considering Capcom's recent output and financial situation, that was definitely a possibility.


You are right, there is no way of knowing. I'm not sure I follow with the rest of your reply. I'm not using fanbase as a way to justify why something is exclusive or not. I bring it up because Tomb Raider had a significant outcry in particular. This is due to majority of fans are on PC and Playstation.

I am not in support of exclusives and as I mentioned to gangsta_red, majority of my friends own an Xbox and I would rather have an Xbox One version of Street Fighter V so I can play with them.

"sure it is. it's an ip that was on multiple platforms and now is limited to the pc and playstation. it would be very easy to port it to the xbox one."

I'm sure it is easy to port the game. Publishing, marketing, and distributing the game is another matter. Clearly Capcom was looking to partner with someone to help get the game off the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if they had talks with Microsoft as well, but most likely Sony's offer was more enticing. Being able to release on Playstation AND PC was likely important, something Microsoft probably wouldn't allow seeing as Tomb Raider isn't even releasing on PC this year. Cross-platform play could have been a minor factor as well, a feature Capcom as been touting since announcement. Square Enix themselves have stated a desire for an Xbox One version of FFXIV:ARR, but are waiting for Microsoft to soften their stance. It's also why War Thunder has yet to appear on Xbox One.

My point is the circumstances of why Tomb Raider and Street Fighter V are very different which is why the response between the two has been different.

After reading your initial post, I would say that SFV is more akin to Bayonetta needing help off the ground. Sony is even handling the PS4 port of USFIV themselves, so it is not a stretch to believe they are doing more than just writing a check.

freshslicepizza1022d ago


i do agree with a lot of what you said, thanks for the reply. i guess the point to all of this is these practices will not disappear any time soon. most if not all are used to sell hardware without much care for the consumer. this could be why things like kickstarter programs have taken off. which also comes with its own drawbacks but at least there the consumer has some say (so they think) in its development and where the game ends up.

what i really don't like is what these practices have done and that is build groups of fans instead of encompassing all of us. it only creates division and segregation and you can see that animosity within the forums all the time. hardware i believe should be able to sell based on its own merits, not trying to force consumers by making exclusive software for it and using outside parties as a catalyst.

the consumer has decided the ps4 is the better piece of hardware. that should be based on performance, services, and price/value. if microsoft builds a weaker system as does nintendo then they should be trying to make their hardware more appealing by their OWN studio software, their own services and features, and pricing.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1022d ago
1023d ago
Show all comments (42)
The story is too old to be commented.