Top
450°

Press Start: Exclusive games need to die already

Games exclusive to specific consoles will never go away, but Gazette gaming columnist Jake Magee sure wishes they would.

Read Full Story >>
gazettextra.com
The story is too old to be commented.
eagle21386d ago (Edited 386d ago )

No they don't. the reason why Nintendo and Sony are so beloved by their fans is the fact they make high quality exclusives. They can take their time and craft a masterpiece when you have your own system to release the game on. If things were to change, money grabs and rush jobs will occur like a ridiculous portion of the half assed AAA games being released broken, boring, ugly or all three these days. lol

ShottyatLaw386d ago

He's calling for an end to the 3rd Party exclusive BS like Tomb Raider or Destiny. Not 1st party.

Eonjay386d ago

But then the cover image show Zelda with a note:

'The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild' is exclusive to Nintendo consoles, and that will never change, but I sure wish it could.'

So are you sure you speak for him?

ShottyatLaw386d ago

He can speak for himself:

"Again, I understand the business sense of exclusive games and content. Consoles will always have first-party exclusives; I've accepted that. But third-party exclusivity does nothing for the players except punish them."

Liqu1d386d ago

"No matter how much I wish otherwise, first-party games will never go away."

He wants 1st party games gone as well.

Nitrowolf2385d ago (Edited 385d ago )

what, why are you defending him? He clearly says first party games

"For the unaware, exclusive games are those available for only one gaming system. For instance, the Xbox One has the “Halo” and “Gears of War” franchises; the PlayStation 4 has “God of War” and “Uncharted,” and Nintendo consoles have a ton of exclusives, including “Mario Kart,” “Super Smash Bros.” and “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.”

From a business or fiscal perspective, I totally understand why exclusives exist and always will. Simply put, exclusive games sell systems and make money. But if I had my way, exclusives would become a thing of the past."

Yes he goes on to say that'll never change and then argues for third party, but he even closes with a statement he's gonna need to buy a Switch to enjoy Zelda.

"In the meantime, I'm thankful I own both a PS4 and Xbox One, but considering how great “Breath of the Wild” looks, I'll probably need to buy a Nintendo Switch soon, too."

Do people even read anymore???

thekhurg385d ago

Destiny isn't exclusive.

ShottyatLaw385d ago

OK?

He states third party exclusivity needs to stop.

He doesn't state 1st party exclusives need to stop.

He states that he wishes he didn't have to purchase a new system to enjoy its 1st party games, but understands why that won't change.

So, 1) I agree with him on all points, 2) Stand by my initial comment, and 3) Continue to be impressed by the amount of people triggered by the mere mention of disliking having to spend $900+ to enjoy all console games.

yeahright2385d ago

"He's calling for an end to the 3rd Party exclusive BS like Tomb Raider or Destiny. Not 1st party. "

I get that, but I don't see anything wrong with 3rd party exclusives as long as they stay away from franchises that are established multiplats. IE tomb raider and street fighter. only exception being if the game wouldn't have been made otherwise, IE bayonetta 2. But going to insomniac and saying make me a game and I'll pay you $X, is essentially contract labor. Maybe you don't want to invest in a whole new studio just to produce one new game, and hope for the best. If you have a multigame vision, then yes, but for a one off?

ShottyatLaw385d ago

@yeahright

I agree. Things like TR and SFV are moneyhatting BS. Deals like Destiny, COD, or the Division DLC deals are equally stupid.

Fully support contract exclusives like Spiderman, Bloodborne, or Bayonetta.

XanderZane385d ago

I'm ok with 3rd party exclusives, but if Sony is going to have a bunch of them coming from Japanese developers, why can't Microsoft have 3rd party exclusives from American developers like EA, Activision, Bethesda, Bioware, Take-Two, Blizzard, etc...? Would love to see some of these companies make XB1/Scorpio exclusives, just like Namco, Square/Enix, Atlus, Level 5, Capcom and Konami does for the PS4.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 385d ago
darthv72386d ago

Eagle, this is about 3rd party exclusives not 1st or 2nd party.

Liqu1d386d ago

Incorrect. He wants 1st party games gone as well.

darthv72385d ago

He may want them, but he won't get them. 3rd party I totally agree with but you have to have your 1st and 2nd party games remain the way they are.

_-EDMIX-_386d ago

Agreed.

The company still needs to sell the platform.

Also gamers some times want a game to only be made on 1 title to get GREAT quality from that title. Working on 1 system allows a team to only focus on such quality.

I like Witcher 3 for the most part, but that game launched with SOOOOOOO many issues that I feel if it was only on 1 platform, maybe it would have not had so many issues when it released. I feel for such a team, they just had a hard time making it on many platforms compared to other teams. GG did a great job with Horizon, but also add in that their team had 1 target platform for years. Both great games, but Horizon didn't launch with those issues.

Even BOTW only has issues on the Switch version where I've seen Wii U version isn't having those same issues.

Nothing is wrong with 3rd party games either folks, MOST of the games I play are 3rd party, simply that you get a quality with first party that is just unmatched.

Only a small few of the BEST 3rd party teams can master making a game on many systems. I don't think many really understand how HUGE MGSV was for Kojima and his team. We are talking about game made on 5 platforms, very,. very close to perfect in regards to presentation and function. FOX Engine is a dream and Konami should have given the dude another chance to really make more with it as I feel they would make their money back really easy. I've seen that game on PC and 360 and PS4 and still don't know how they managed to make such a quality game on so many platforms (a little OT)

That brings me to my next point.....cost.

MGSV was on 5 systems....pretty damn impressive and performed amazingly.........sold good, but clearly not good enough. MGSV sold as good as MGS4....that is very bad if you consider MGSV cost more to make based on that expensive engine and 5 platforms to support. MGSV likely would have been better off as a PS3/PS4 exclusive based on the majority install base that bought that game.

So its not even that "exclusives need to die" its that some games can't really afford to NOT be exclusive.

Look at Dead Rising series, look at SFV, heck look at Bayonetta 2. Some companies just don't have the funds to make games on 5 platforms. Look at what happened with Kojima and Konami over MGSV....you bet your LIFE that was based on money and it just cost way, way too much. Sony likely was not looking to flip the bill either as at the time they were focused on buying teams in house.

I think some games can do great multiplatform and some games just don't do soooooo well that they can survive such a thing. I wanted MGSV to be the best selling MGS title and hopefully things would patch up for Kojima and Konami because of it, but clearly i was wrong. It didn't sell well enough for the publisher and directer to keep the relationship going.

Maybe it was for the best and Kojima is best focused on IPs on 1 platform as suppose to 5. Konami's greed might literally be why Kojima left and MGSV failed. Maybe it was just meant to be a game on a set number of platforms.

Not everyone can afford to make multiplatform games buds, look at MGSV.

Neonridr386d ago

uhhh.. then why not have MS, Sony and Nintendo collaborate on one device which they can split 3 ways profit wise while we are at it.

Are we serious? How else do you set yourself apart from the competition if the only titles we ever saw were ones that were available on each platform?

Teflon02386d ago

Playstation only exists because Nintendo betrayed them in the super Nintendo to n64 days lol. No joke, clearly won't work

Neonridr386d ago

imagine what kind of world we would have if the SNES-CD actually happened. I mean seriously, the Video Game landscape could have been drastically different as a result of that collaboration.

Segata386d ago (Edited 386d ago )

Not entirely true. That's a misconception in gaming history. Sony wanted too much control for Nintendo's liking. Also SEGA of America approached Sony to collaborate for Saturn. Proposed a spec sheet. SEGA of Japan told SOA no and Sony went on to use the specs SOA proposed. Nintendo went about it the wrong way yes. However CD add ons to 16 bit systems were a disaster. Turbo CD and SEGA CD only helped tank the systems not help them sell. So we almost had the Sony SEGA Saturn instead.

ShadowWolf712385d ago

I don't blame Sony for wanting more say in things; they almost exclusively footed the bill for R&D for their add-on.

_-EDMIX-_386d ago

The only way such a thing would even slight work would be if Sony did the hardware, MS did the OS (Nintendo just say away from all aspects of the hardware) you get to pick your controller annnnnd done.

Issue clearly goes....what about network? What about licensing? Like Neo is saying, it just doesn't make sense.

@Tef- Yes. Sony and MS work with each other all the time, they both pay licenses for so many tech its not even funny. Sony is paying MS for stuff in PS4, MS is paying Sony for stuff in XONE.

Sony had no issue working with Nintendo as they didn't even want to get into gaming, simply the media format and other hardware features. Nintendo's betrayal is damn near BIBLICAL when it comes to tech lol

They gave rise to a MONSTER! If Nintendo really fails with Switch and goes 3rd party, the PS1 will have a legacy as the system that started the end for Nintendo.

I mean...I don't think that is going to happen, but if it does! lol

ArchangelMike386d ago

Just get a PS4 instead of whining about your lack of exclusives.

DigitalRaptor385d ago (Edited 385d ago )

Indeed.

First-party games exist for obvious reasons, and those expecting to see them on other consoles en masse should re-evaluate. If all consoles had the same games.... what would be the point of them all existing? How would one company uphold its sense of culture and identity over the others - in boring services or gimmicks?

If we're talking third-party exclusives, some are the results of deals, permanent or timed, and some are just circumstantial because a publisher doesn't see a return being worth it be porting it to another console. Sometimes you don't get games on your console of choice because it's not powerful enough to handle it, and sometimes you don't get as many games because one company has certain policies in place or doesn't make enough of a global effort on the market for developers to show an interest in their platform. Sometimes a developer only has resources to bring a game to one console and not others. It's not as singular or simple as some people like to make it seem.

Princess_Pilfer385d ago

Maybe the *hardware* manufactureres could compete by making good hardware. Or, they could compete as a digital storefront. I mean, it's not like Steam and GOG manage to maintain their identity even though they share a hardware/software platform.

Also, their culture? They're a company, not a country, if you care about the "culture" of Sony consumers you need to fix your prorities, because it has lieterally 0 value outside of stupid fanboy/fangirl wars.

There are actual technical and monitary restrictions, yes, but we all know that Sony and MS have a ****ing terrible habit of purchasing exclusives just to dick eachother over, and in the process they screw us over. Maybe we can't buy the game because we don't own the platform, that's not good for us. Maybe we can, but it runs poorly because it's only on a system that can't really handle it, that's not good for us. Maybe it's more expensive because of the extra costs associated with getting the game on a particular platform, that's not good for us, ect. There is no better example of this than the Timed Exclusive. That practice, and those like it, need to stop.

DigitalRaptor382d ago (Edited 382d ago )

I'm talking about the culture surrounding the brand and kinds of games that represents it. The kinds of things we are always discussing in how these companies are different. I'm not talking about a "consumer" culture. If all of these companies did things the same way, you would have a point. And there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a third-party game might be exclusive to one platform, outside of a money hat.

Ceaser9857361385d ago

Indeed get the PS4, and you wont have to write petitions about releasing a certain game on your desire platform or you wont have to whine about exclusives not coming ...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 382d ago
chrisx386d ago

That's the kind of thing some1 who doesn't own a Ps4 for fanboy reasons would say. Exclusives are here to stay

wonderfulmonkeyman385d ago

That's the kind of thing a console war soldier says, regardless of what they own.
Not just none-PS4 owners.

Princess_Pilfer385d ago

No, it's the kind of thing someone who's tired of having to spend upwards of $1000 usd on the 3 major consoles when they do 90% of their gaming on 1 machine.

It's the kind of thing someone who recognizes that most people don't have said grand to drop on those consoles and don't deserve to be denied fantastic games says.

It's the kind of thing someone who wants Sony/MS/Nintendo to compete with actual hardware instead of falsifying "value" by paying off publishers to restrict access to their games says.

DragonKnight385d ago

No one is entitled to everything. Just because you do 90% of your gaming on one console doesn't mean you get to have the games from consoles you don't own.

You want the privilege of playing other games, you need to have the other hardware. Simple as that. And people who whine about that fact fail at life because it's a staple of literally everything.

Goldby385d ago

Dragon Knight Wins Round 1

Round 2 - FIGHT!

@Princess_Pilfer
Well lucky enough for some people that have strong enough computers to be able to play Xbox one games without having to need to buy their console. at the end of the day, it was the choice of the gamer to purchase all the consoles, it is the choice of the gamer which one takes their valued time. so because you aren't forced to buy every console every time, there is absolutely no need to Bitch and complain about having to spend money to play games.

I could buy an Xbox, and a Switch, but i choose not to because i don not see value in them currently. The Xbox has been replaced with PC now that some xbox games are being ported to steam. and the switch is a waste of 500$ + for zelda.

Would i love to play Zelda, absolutely, will i wait for a huige sale probably, will i lose sleep not playing it, absolutely not

Princess_Pilfer385d ago

IT's a choice *for you.* Many people simply don't have the option to buy multiple consoles.

Stop championing "choice" that is in no way beneficial to the consumer. The consumer friendly choice (and an actual choice) would be to be able to purchase and play any game on any system. Obviously there are technical limitations and monitary that prevent that, but there is 0 benefit to you (or any other consumer) when companies pay for 3rd party or timed exclusives. That's why it needs to stop. It's not about entitlement, it's about companies dicking over consumers hoping to make a quick buck.

See, in capitalist economies companies are the *enemy* of the consumer. You want opposite things (they want the least effort to go into any given product and for it to offer as little as possible so they can have a higher profit margin, You want to spend as little money as possible to get the highest quality product possible) and either you take that role in the economy seriously or be exploited.

Goldby385d ago

@Princess_Pilfer

"Obviously there are technical limitations and monitary that prevent that, but there is 0 benefit to you (or any other consumer) when companies pay for 3rd party or timed exclusives. That's why it needs to stop. It's not about entitlement, it's about companies dicking over consumers hoping to make a quick buck."

but there is benefits to me.

Nioh is a 3rd party exclusive for PS4. and i'm benefiting from it by enjoying the living revanants out of it. and i can guarantee you Nioh wasn't made for a quick buck

and Sunset overdrive was a 3rd party exclusive for Xbox that i know alot of people enjoyed. did it make me regret not buying an xbox, no. but it did help weigh in on the though of buying one.

"IT's a choice *for you.* Many people simply don't have the option to buy multiple consoles."
Precisely why people put value behind their console. alot of people swear by the PS4 because of the exclsuives that it has, = value

alot of xbox gamers praise about multiplayer game = Value

alot of xbox gamers didn't switch over to ps4 because they wanted to continue their journey through the halo series and gears franchise = Value

some playstation gamers may have switched to xbox for the controller = value

Someone one the go constantly will find more value in the switch over someone who doesnt like playing on the go
Value is something we cannot put a standard on and is something that the consumers must decide for themselves. and how they decide what is valuable to them and what isn't is through the features and benefits of each respected console.

and one of those features is exclusive games.

Asking exclusive gaming, 3rd party or not to die is a waste of breathe, it aint gonna happen, and it shouldn't die. because if you start complaining about how feature a isn't on product b. should i be allowed to walk into a Honda dealership and demand that they put a Ferrari engine in the accord for free. of course not, so why would they do something like that for video games

DragonKnight384d ago

"IT's a choice *for you.* Many people simply don't have the option to buy multiple consoles."

Actually everyone has the choice to buy multiple consoles, they just have to either sacrifice to do so, or work harder to do so. No one is prevented from buying as many things as they want to by anything other than their own willpower. If you have the money for one, then you have the money for many so long as you are willing to have some patience.

"Stop championing "choice" that is in no way beneficial to the consumer."

Choice is inherently beneficial to every consumer. Options are power.

"The consumer friendly choice (and an actual choice) would be to be able to purchase and play any game on any system."

Wrong. That's how monopolies happen and prices skyrocket. No competition = no reason to innovate or keep a check on prices. Multiple options forces competition and the very first avenue of success in competition is selling your product for cheaper than your competitors.

"but there is 0 benefit to you (or any other consumer) when companies pay for 3rd party or timed exclusives."

Depends. If, like the Rise of the Tomb Raider issue, they pay for a year of timed exclusivity, then the benefit to me is that I get to play it a year early. It doesn't benefit the fans of the competition, but it does benefit me. That said I don't disagree with the sentiment you're portraying with this particular sentence.

"That's why it needs to stop. It's not about entitlement, it's about companies dicking over consumers hoping to make a quick buck."

Except that's not what's happening. Paying for exclusives COSTS money, it doesn't MAKE money. The payoff is in brand recognition and the hope of system sales.

"See, in capitalist economies companies are the *enemy* of the consumer."

You don't know anything about capitalism. That statement proves it.

Princess_Pilfer384d ago (Edited 384d ago )

That's a blatant misrepresentation of my argument. It is of 0 benefit to you that people who don't on a PS4 can't play Nioh. I'm also lead to believe Sony paid for the actual development of the game (which would be one of those monitary limitations) but either way my point stands. In fact, if you enjoy talking about games you like and want the cultural impact of worth while games maximised, it's not just not benefiting you, it's detrimental to you. (Not to mention all the people who can't play it.)

As I said, falsifying a sense of value. They're getting their "value" by screwing people over instead of doing things that actually benefit customers. That's not value inherent to their product based on it's actual quality and features, that's "value" at the expense of the consumer base.

It's the difference between creating a higher quality coffee pot that makes better coffee and allows you to make it exactly as you want, and creating exactly the same coffee pot as the other people but paying off companies to only make flavors for you. Which of those do you think offers more choice and a better experience to coffee drinkers?

No, not everybody has the option to buy multiple consoles. This isn't an ayn rand book or middle class suburbia there is little/nothing for an increasingly large number of people to sacrifice in order to do something like that, and there is not a way to work harder when you already work 2 or 3 full time jobs, or if there is little/no work to be had.

No, that's not how monopolies happen. Playing any game on any system that can run it puts the onus on the company to actually make a better system with a competitive price range and feature set. Companies being able to throw money at things to purchase fake "value" is how you end up with monopolies, because you allow them to eliminate competition by removing the ability of others to compete instead of by actually competing, that's why there are anti-trust laws in place that are supposed to prevent that practice getting out of hand.

No, it doesn't. See, the broad strokes are very simple. Companies want to sell things with the least value and for the highest prices. The only reasons they put in any effort at all is because there is competition from other companies forcing them to do so, and the product has to be percieved as high enough quality/value to be worth buying. Customers want the greatest value/quality for the least amount of money. You interests run *directly* counter to theirs. Some degree of compromise is necessary, it doesn't benefit us if companies can't turn a profit and so can't provide anything, and not all companies act in their best interests at all times (or ever) but that doesn't change the fundamental fact of directly opposing interests.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 384d ago
porkChop386d ago

Exclusives are what set each system apart. If there were no exclusives, then why would we need different consoles?

Princess_Pilfer385d ago

Hardware. Software (as in OS, voice chat, ability to stream, ect.) Digital Storefronts usability, pricing and return policies. You know, doing things that would actually benefit us instead of purchasing 3rd party exclusives and screwing people out of playing games they otherwise would have in order to falsify a sense of value.

DragonKnight385d ago

"Hardware"

Irrelevant. We've seen that parity is more important to devs than full hardware use.

"Software"

No one buys consoles for their UI

"Digital Storefronts usability"

Physical still exists on consoles and no one buys a console because the online store is user friendly.

"pricing and return policies."

Pricing is damn near universal in consoles, and there is no return policy on digital games for any of them. Physical return policies are an issue specific to the store you buy from. So, this point is also not a consideration.

"You know, doing things that would actually benefit us instead of purchasing 3rd party exclusives and screwing people out of playing games they otherwise would have in order to falsify a sense of value."

Except that's not what the first part of your comment suggests. The question was asked what would set consoles apart in a manner that means something to consumers and you provided a list of things no one takes into consideration when buying consoles. They may when they buy PCs, but not consoles. Games are what people think about first, and if your console has no games or bad ones, nothing on your list will persuade anyone to buy it.

Princess_Pilfer385d ago

the question was "why would we need different consoles." The answer is all of those things I said. Just because consoles don't compete or compete as much on those levels right not doesn't mean that can't. In fact they should be even if 3rd party exclusives still exsist it's nothing but beneficial to us if they compete that way.

There is a wonderful thing called a settings menu. Even some PS4 Pro games have them now. Even without them, the game can look identical but run significantly better on different systems (like how the extra CPU power helps PS4 Pro games that don't have patches by giving them more stable framerates.

I didn't say UI. OS =/= UI. OS speed heavily impacts game speed, doubly so when you start streaming or multitasking in any way. The OS can also offer various features to game devs to allow them to get better performance or do more things.

Again, they *should* be competing at pricing. They aren't really now, but if they aren't buying 3rd party exclusives then they're gonna need to. "Hey buy our console, we charge 10% less than our competition for games" is likely a system seller.

Again, the question isn't "what are they doing now" the question is "why would we need different consoles." A really good return policy for digital games would be a hell of a reason to pick one or the other.

Goldby385d ago

@Princess

But it would never work that way.

Look at Multiplatform games and how they perform differently on each console and how on average, their quality is much much MUCH lower than exclusives. if every game were multi platforms the quality of games would drop for sure, because instead of having 5 years to work on one game for one platform, they now have that same amount of time, but have to develop for multiple consoles.

and what if the system from each company aren't equal. should parity exist on tiop of no exclusives? so does that mean that a much more powerful console would be able to benefit the game and instead much match that of its competitor with lower specs?

Like it or not, Exclusives will never die. they are the lifeblood of consoles.

Princess_Pilfer384d ago

much lower than 1st party exclusives yes, lower than exclusives in general no. Sure when it was the PS3 and the 360, 2 wildly different machines, then yeah, but the PS4 and Xbone are slightly different version so the same machine. It's not some great trial to port from an X86 AMD Jaguar APU to an X86 AMD Jaguar APU.

No. See, thats why the companies would have to actually compete with hardware. Even if visual parity if forced, the performance won't be (See: the PS4 pro example, which runs all the PS4 games and multiplats better than any of the other consoles, even if there are no visual improvements, because the more powerful hardware can maintain the framerate better.)

DragonKnight384d ago

"The answer is all of those things I said."

No it isn't, because NO ONE would ever buy consoles for the reasons you listed. Not unless those reasons translate to some kind of improvement in the games, and only hardware and potentially software could maybe do that.

"There is a wonderful thing called a settings menu. Even some PS4 Pro games have them now. Even without them, the game can look identical but run significantly better on different systems (like how the extra CPU power helps PS4 Pro games that don't have patches by giving them more stable framerates. "

And have fun playing on a settings menu without any games that support it. No one is buying a settings menu, they are buying games.

"I didn't say UI. OS =/= UI. OS speed heavily impacts game speed, doubly so when you start streaming or multitasking in any way. The OS can also offer various features to game devs to allow them to get better performance or do more things."

You said software. The UI is part of the OS software. And regardless, the speed of the OS is not software based, it's hardware based and have fun with a fast console that doesn't have fast games. People aren't buying an OS, they're buying games.

"Again, they *should* be competing at pricing. They aren't really now, but if they aren't buying 3rd party exclusives then they're gonna need to. "Hey buy our console, we charge 10% less than our competition for games" is likely a system seller.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. The industry has decided on pricing and none of them are going to budge on it. That's why game prices have not gone down despite many publishers saying the $60 price model is not even necessary. They compete with games because that's what people want with their consoles.

"Again, the question isn't "what are they doing now" the question is "why would we need different consoles." A really good return policy for digital games would be a hell of a reason to pick one or the other."

The answer has always been, is, and will always be games. We need different consoles to prevent monopolies and to truly showcase how good games can be. One console only would kill the industry. That's a mathematical fact.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 384d ago