Top
270°

Why Console Exclusivity Is Good

IncGamers' Tim McDonald explains why having things exclusive to one console is something we should be happy to see, and guarantees himself a full-body cavity search in the process.

From the article: "Although the quote ignores things that only came to prominence after the movie was filmed – like LSD and Velcro – the meaning hasn't become any less true: strife breeds creativity, and competition is good for the market on the whole. In their attempts to outdo the others, console manufacturers are doing their level best to make top titles exclusive to their platforms and to have their own creations utterly outshine everything on the others."

Read Full Story >>
incgamers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Maticus2996d ago

By the same token, if a game is made for all platforms, it still pays to have the better console.

Personally, I can only afford one of the two top consoles. If a game is exclusive to the other one, I won't get to see it at all, which is surely bad for not only me, but the game's developers and publishers.

Major_Tom2996d ago

You're pretty much set if you have a PlayStation 3©

SL1M DADDY2995d ago

First party exclusivity is understandable. The party can then stress the hardware and show the power it contains but when it comes to third party, they should simply stick to the lowest common denominator and do the best they can with the game making a great and equal experience on each platform.

I know this gen poses an odd issue with the Wii being the low end and od man out but when discussing multiplats, I typically consider the console race this gen between the PS3 and 360. It would be nice to see the companies hire first party devs to exploit the console hardware and then allow the third party groups the tools to make the best of the game and put it out for all.

Baka-akaB2995d ago

What bother me with multiplatform games lately are developers auto-congratulating themselves when they achieve the same performance on two consoles of a same generation .

I dont see it as a good thing . Of course all version should run well , that should be a given .
But each version should be maximixed whenever possible for each console , instead of aiming for the common ground .

This inst a "the ps3 is held back by the 360" kind of crap . Both are held back by each other's weaknesses and flaws .

There are many instances when , one of the two should feature , as an ex , better lightning and a bigger field of vision ... while the other should get better AA and texturing .

If one got a more suitable and easy online structure , then by all mean use it to your advantage .
Likewise if one got more space available on the disc , use it .

Instead most devs are settling for a rough average of both console's abilities , so it wouldnt offend or step on anyone's toe ...

The sad irony is that for some peopl like me with both , if said versions were truly optimized for their respective consoles and truly with their advantages , we might actually have bought some of the games twice ...

BeaArthur2995d ago

Major_Tom...there are plenty of great 360 titles. Owning both is the way to go. I can play Uncharted 2 or Ratchet and Clank in the morning and Mass Effect 2 when I get home at night.

XXXCouture2995d ago

yeah youre right, but a pc can play mass effect too. and you can use a pc for a lot more things than a 360. and i got both consoles also, i even got a elite

Persistantthug2995d ago

If you have customer "A" that pays $60 for said game, and then you have customer "B" that pays $60, both customers, A and B, should be getting the same experience...it was the same money right?

Not only that, but creating a difference instead of parity can tarnish said developers reputation if the game in question is technically under performing on a particular platform, and that doesn't bode well for any game makers rep. or bottom line.

Baka-akaB2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

@Persistantthug
i respectfully disagree with your argument as well , as you can guess .
We choose consoles , not a unified and universal system like PC .

And wait and hell ... by your logic , pc gamers with lower pc shouldnt pay the same than end high pc users , because they can't have the same experience ??

I also disagree because that kind of "let's do the same game no matter what" attitude , would have destroyed most masterpieces of gaming history , past and current .

Take Aladdin on megadrive . it was a milestone in 2d animation . It's animation easily outshined the snes version wich in turn had better graphics overall because of better colour renditions .
The genesis was in turn harsher than the snes version , partially because of said animations differences when using the sword (done by the earthjim team) .

Meanwhile the snes version compensated with extra levels , better sounds , better colours , and a skill replacing the sword from the genesis version .

Had they settled for the same level of quality , aladdin would have been using lackluster sound for both version , a bastardized animation so both console would keep up the same , no extra for any version .
Definitely not a 2d milestone , and hardly doing anything for the dev's reputation , unlike their work for aladdin , earthworm jim , lion's king , cool spot etc ...

I took a very old example , but you can apply to multiplatform games from every generation , till now .

As a fighting game aficionado , i shudder at the idea of snk and capcom , instead of using the saturn's obvious and established advantage for 2d games , had done the same crap than on Playstation or probably worse , rather than using the saturn's cartridge system .

There is also a reason PES 09 on wii was considered a great game (while the ps2-360/ps3 version not so ) ! It was entirely done for the wii and optimized for the wii's advantage , instead of just being the "same" than the others

BeaArthur2995d ago

XXXCouture...if you've got a gaming PC and both consoles then you are definitely set. I was never a huge PC gamer. I would want to have the optimum equipment and I could never justify the amount of money I would constantly have to spend to have the best equipment.

Aquarius2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

Heavenly Sword
Folklore
Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction
The Eye of Judgment
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Warhawk
Wipeout HD
Killzone 2
inFamous
Valkyria Chronicles
Demon's Souls
Uncharted 2: Among Theives
Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time
God of War Collection ( Well it's on Blu-ray lol )
Naruto Ultimate Ninga Storm

FUTURE PURCHASES
Heavy Rain
God of War III

Last Multiplat I purchased was Batman back in August lol.

Eamon2995d ago

I can see a lot of good points being made on both sides of the argument.

While it is obviously great for a game to be on both consoles, the hardcore gamers do like to see how developers make the most out of the hardware. Which is why console exclusivity is both a good and bad thing in a sense.

Going a little off topic, it's nice to see that there are no immature fanboy comments being made. Well actually, I have yet to look past this all the reply comments of 1.0...

silvacrest2995d ago

Baka-akaB pretty much states why my gaming PC has only played MMOs and one proper game (mass effect) for more then a year

the lack of variety plus missing the the console exclusives is just to much

Redempteur2995d ago

i think exclusivity should stay..

Partial exclusivity should be killed ( like with gta or mirror edge ).

Having a game use all the consol can do is way better to even everthing ...

IMO tekken did this well since they used the strengh of each console graphics to produce the effects they wanted ...

i'm pretty sure many of my exclusives wouldn't be the same games had they not been exclusives ... and i'm glad i got the good product in the end .

But exclusive content because of "paid check" should stop ..i mean really ...

BeaArthur2995d ago

Eamon...haha, come on you know better than that. Their are always fanboy comments. Doesn't matter what the topic is the fanboys will always find a way in.

XXXCouture2995d ago

bea - yeah i also bought a 2500$ dollar pc, but i havent used it yet since l4d. waste of money really :( i mainly use my consoles. but i hope there coming some really good games for pc

catguykyou2995d ago

I would think you are pretty much set if you have all the consoles currently being supported. But you know, that's just me....a gamer....who plays games....Maybe you will be one too one day?

Persistantthug2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

Take Bayonetta for example...There's nothing about Bayonetta that can't be done on the PS3. The lack of technical parity is because Sega and/or Platinum Games were negligent in doing a good job.

In the case of Aladdin...better yet, because I remember Maddden more clearly, lets use MADDEN for Genesis. Those Madden games were always superior on the Genesis BECAUSE Genesis had a significantly more powerful processor Than the SNES and Madden couldn't be done as well on the Nintendo console.

The same can't be said today about Bayonetta...the same can't be said for The Orange Box. The same can't be said for just about any 3rd party game made thus far for this generation. The reason's for the disparity has been DEVELOPER NEGLIGENCE and it shouldn't be so.

Again, If said developer makes a game, that developer owes it to themselves and to the fans who spend alot of money on their games to be given the best version possible....we haven't been getting that for the most part this gen, Baka-akaB.

Baka-akaB2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

@Persistantthug

Bayonetta is a bad example anyway imo . Bayonetta is a great title , but doesnt push either hardware , and was just badly ported .

And i dont agree with your take that snes/genesis were much different in hardware compared to ps3/360 . Likewise each got their own programming code , but the rest is funnily not that different , back then too storage space for games were a big factor allow with video memory and ease of programming .
It's no wonder so many ps3 games at first , and still a few onces everywhile , were worse on ps3 . It's bound to happens when you lock away the biggest advantage or your console , and set yourself up to only copy the other , while working on an harder to program machine .

Anyway , the point is it isnt up to negligence , like shown with your examples .
There is no negligence involved in purposely making every game the same , or close to it . Just fear of fanboys , and a bit of laziness .

I'll give you a more recent example among many , and it doesnt have to be a failed port on either console .
Someone mentioned tekken earlier .
Tekken is usually a graphical marvel each new iteration .
Tekken 6 was only good , decent only even according to some , in the graphics area .

As a disclaimer , i still loved and love the game no matter what , as being pretty was imo always secondary to the game's quality and it's gameplay . So i'm mentioning it only for argument's sake .

As a way saying , tekken doesnt even look close to it's proper potential on either console .
It actually looks worse that Tekken 5 dark resurrection on PSN (wich is btw totally doable on 360 ) , but masks it with clever use of a slightly better lightning and heavy dosage of motion blurring . It is even a bit inferior to the original arcade version , some would argue.

Why does it looks worse then ? Well because instead of having each team actually optimized each version in regard of each console's hardware , and THEN fix whatever would be needed , if needed... they gave themselve the simple goal of having the same balanced graphics .

Anyway they received the punishement they deserved for this , and many faults (like a meh and at first awful online for both consoles) , tekken 6 sold well , but it's probably it's lowest numbers ever done , and this time on two consoles .

Uniformity is only good when the hardware and its use are the same , they obviously aint in many areas .

PoSTedUP2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

making a game, then changing it and making it better for 360 in its own ways, then changing it and making it better for ps3 in its own ways, would be too much work for most developers, it would be like making two or three different games depending on their strategy. too much resources, too much time.

i mean i am already pissed that some good games run better on 360 than ps3, i mean i paid soooo much money for my gaming console plus acessorys and tv, i want the best, and when 360 multiplats turn out better i dont feel like i am being treated equal, thats when i boycott s***.

and if i had both consoles it would get too confusing which games to pick from (oh this game has a blank but the other verson comes with this and that....) i personally wouldnt want it that way. plus if one is technically better than the other, for the ammount of recources they put into it, they would jack the price up for that consoles verson otherwise they would be losing money.

i respect deves who make both versons identical, they make the same ammount of money for each game, so when they make the games the same they deserve my money otherwise i wont buy it if my versons downgraded because i pay good money for my games and i want the best.

Baka-akaB2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

Personally , i dont buy the "too much cost and time" excuse . it far too often and lightly used to justify every bad behaviour we've seen from some publishers lately .

Yes costs have gone up , but so did the prices of games , especially when counting dlcs .
And it's hardly as if any multiplatform game was being developped by a single overworked team . each version is usually run by it's own team who checks in with game producers , chiefs designers and decides the content for the whole game and franchise .

It's how they've always done it , until this generation with fanboyism so rampant that it even hurt the fanboys themselves .

you dont want to own the "inferior version" ? Well that's the sad thing , with most multi games being run as they are nowadays , you're most likely and precisely playing the inferior versions you dont want , whatever console you choose .

Take even the most silly and easy feature of each console being disregarded for the sake of following the average standard .

Do every ps3 owners even know they can capture screens from their games ? No ... ad why would they ?
Most multiplatform games dont even feature the option , when it has been there for quite a while , added via firmware .

And no sorry they wouldnt always make the same amount of money , and could actually with a bit of gamble somethings wins more for extra features and quality for each versions .... instead of seeing some owners plainly dimiss multi games and only buying exclusive titles .

ATi_Elite2995d ago

Exclusive games are usually the only games worth playing. They have the most innovation and certainly have the best quality. If it wasn't for exclusives the PS3 would be dead by now.

The Wii is all exclusive and it's selling like hotcakes.

Most multiplatforms are boring or have low quality and they especially get gimped.

PoSTedUP2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

"And no sorry they wouldnt always make the same amount of money , and could actually with a bit of gamble somethings wins more for extra features and quality for each versions .... instead of seeing some owners plainly dimiss multi games and only buying exclusive titles"

they DO make the same ammount of money on each game sold, maybe you missundersttod, armyoftwo 40th day on 360 cost $60 also $60 on ps3 etc. if they are the same price, they get the same % of each dollar on each game.

"and could actually with a bit of gamble somethings wins more for extra features and quality for each versions"

exactly, jack the price up bc of it.

"And it's hardly as if any multiplatform game was being developped by a single overworked team . each version is usually run by it's own team who checks in with game producers , chiefs designers and decides the content for the whole game and franchise ."

yeah but look, they do that because the ps3 needs a seperate code for its own verson, thats how activision makes it run the same, and tats just porting the code over differently.. were talkig about making two different games, useing up more resources, and still making the same ammout of money on each game (also maybe jacking the price up on us beacuse of it. and not all devs have teo different teams working on both games. i dont see where you are going with this, like i was saying: if you own both consoles it would be a pain in the ass if one version has this better than that version but that version does this a litter better than that, it would be redicilous and most likely the ps3 being siginficantly better due to better parts (not to say 360 dosent do things better) but how would that make you feel as a 360 only owner? it would be the devs s******* on the consumers.

"you dont want to own the "inferior version" ? Well that's the sad thing , with most multi games being run as they are nowadays , you're most likely and precisely playing the inferior versions you dont want , whatever console you choose ."

i don't kno what you are talking about, can you clairfy please?

all im saying is i paid well over $3000 for my gaming plus $65 a game. it's fusturating to know that the games you want to play, are on your console, but they look and run better on the other console, and thats why i respect devs who make games identical.

Baka-akaB2995d ago

@PoSTedUP

1 . No they do not make the same amount of money , i am talking about sellling more games . It's well known that some people boycott multi game and only support exclusives .

2. i'll try explaining again better then .
When none of the two version are really optimised for each console , you are most likely playing an "inferior" version either way .

Imo knowing that your version run exactly the same as the other , is poor consolation , when neither are in fact optimized , and when both are held back .

And they are held back , you wont get the best by settling for average and compromising for the commun and middle ground .

PoSTedUP2994d ago (Edited 2994d ago )

oh i was talking about making the same ammout of money per game (e.g. $65 and what ever % they get out of each version).

and in a way if the game dosent optimize each respective console, yeah i am playing the inferrior version in a way. but if they are going to make a game on both platforms imo they should be equal because of the one console owners, exclusive DLC is one thing, i am reffering to quality. if the ps3 or 360 can do more than eachother, one game may be far superior than the other, and as a consumer paying good money for my console whether it be 360 or ps3, i want my game to be equal to the other. i mean yeah it would be cool if they optimize the ps3 version and make it incredible with the cell processor, but then you'd see the 360 version wouldn't be as good, and when people bought a 360 they did it for gaming not bc they knew the hardware was inferrior other wise they would of had second thoughts most likely, and would not be fair imo. i don't mind that the ps3 isn't optimizing multiplat games, thats what exclusives are for. all i ask is for them to be equal as of right now, and as of right now, most are not.

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 2994d ago
Leord2996d ago

I can see the point, but it's sometimes frustrating to have the wrong console! :P

Redrudy2995d ago

I have both....gathering dust. It's so difficult to go back to console when you have the option to use PC.

Fishy Fingers2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

I'm happy to admit I far prefer to game on my PC (that's my choice before the backlash begins "bu-bu-but the sofa") but my consoles are far from gathering dust, they offer such variety of games that simply aren't available on the PC, predominantly the PS3/Wii anyway.

Baka-akaB2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

Only if what you care about arent really "consoles" games to begin with .

Take fps , they are nice and all but didnt start or console and never needed consoles , besides a few exclusives .

But there are quite many genres wich arent represented or badly on PC .

Take , as an example , platform games , fighting games or jrpgs . Aside from those available on emulators , you'd be missing out quite a lot , if you care about those by being a pc only player .

Now if what you care about is readily available for both , or obviously only on pc , then yes PC wins easily

ATi_Elite2995d ago

I don't know what your talking about but name a GREAT fighting game and I bet you I got it on my PC.

Soul Caliber
Tekken
SNK vs. Capcom
Marvel VS. Caapcom
King of Fighters
Mortal Kombat
Street Fighter
Vitual Fighter
Dead or Alive
please let me know if I missed one

Baka-akaB2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

Actually you missed quite a few , and I mentioned outside of emulators :p . The true pc ports are quite few in numbers , and often of awful quality ...

And even with emu , those are still consoles games , and would at best make some people closest console gamers :p .

At last , while people like myself do it , many wont bother hooking up the pc to their tv , and inviting friend over to play and watch play fighting games emu . The best you could hope for most of the time , would be the online emu community , while most plays offline and online in arcade and consoles .

Let's also be honest , by the time emu caught up for some of those games , many improved sequels and new franchise appeared on newer consoles . PS2 has only really be playable for a few years on emu , and still struggle with many games

Not to mention still only and one meager category of games hardly represented or misrepresented on pc . Or maybe you'll play bayonetta , darksiders or god of war 3 too on emu someday ... while waiting with prince of persia , the weakest franchise of the whole action subgenre .

Again pc gaming got great stuff , but do not absolutely represent all genres , nor do consoles anyway . The rest is personal preference when it comes to genre of gaming .

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2995d ago
ActionBastard2995d ago

Look at 90% of PS3 exclusives. That's why.

Rich16312995d ago

I just have an Xbox 360 which I got in August. I like it but there are times that I wish I had a PS3, I really want to play Socom, MAG, Killzone 2, and Uncharted. But, I don't have the time to play both or money as a college student to buy a PS3.

Fishy Fingers2995d ago

No big deal really, buy one when you can or stick with your 360. As long as your happy with what the console is giving you it's all good.

It's nice to have both, or it can seem like "the grass is greener" at any particular point on the other platform, but as long as your happy and having fun, at the end of the day that's all that matter, this is only a hobby after all.

Just remember, having only one, doesnt mean your time here at N4G has to be spent belittling the other, a trait of many single platform owning members.

Double Toasted2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

that those games where coming out on the PS3 when you purchased your 360...in August? But yeah having both consoles can be expensive and the fact that I'm on the move so much I've seriously have thought about selling my consoles and just investing all my gaming efforts towards the DS. Seeing as though my interest in RPGs has increased this gen, to me I would get my fill and more with the DS...

ActionBastard2995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

And don't forget those single platform holders who used to own a 360, but had 7 of them fail. There are good and legitimate reasons to think the 360 is trash.

EDIT: 7 free repairs or play Wii Sports. Or suffer through FW 1.6 on the PS3 at the time. But maybe I should have just sat with a busted 360. Either way, it was a waste of $.

Double Toasted2995d ago

really? I'm sorry, but anyone who has went through 7 of them, their common sense is just as equally comparable to your "trash" description...

commodore642995d ago (Edited 2995d ago )

@ rich

So, you want to play "Socom, MAG, Killzone 2, and Uncharted".
Well, these are four games that are not available on the 360.

This really is a question of 'how much you are willing to give up for what you will get".

Consider these costs, as part of your desire:
1. $299 for ps3
2. $60 for Socom
3. $60 for MAG
4. $60 for KZ2
5. $60 for UC(2)

thus, to play your four 'exclusive desirable ps3 games' you need to fork out $539.

As a gamer, the exclusives you desire to play are your only criterion in this decision. Hundreds of multiplats are already available to you, 95% of them equal or better on the 360, incurring no additional hardware cost.

Is it worth forking out $539 to play four games?
Only you can decide.

Rich16312995d ago

Yeah, I knew those were PS3 exclusives when I got the 360, the main reason I went with the 360 was honestly because of my friends. I would say 80% of my friends who game own a 360 and they sort of persuaded me. I am not complaining though, I enjoy my 360 it is just that I sort of like more realistic games and not stuff with aliens all the time. It seems that a majority of 360 exclusives are all sci-fi alien shooters, Mass Effect, Gears, and Halo. Anyways, I just want to make it clear that I do VERY MUCH like my 360, I am just saying those PS3 exclusives are really dang awesome. Props for the developers of Killzone 2 and Uncharted, those graphics are amazing.

silvacrest2995d ago

most of those games can be gotten for less then full price, even MAG
same goes for the console if you look hard enough or are willing to sacrifice (second hand)

Cenobia2995d ago

Did you just try to UN-sell someone on a console based on exclusive games?

Wtf is wrong with you.

"The console has way to many games that you want. You couldn't possibly afford it so why not just give up and play the 360?" You also totally misrepresent the price of those titles, not even counting the fact that he could buy used or game trade online.

Worst fanboy argument of all time.

commodore642995d ago

@ ^^^

sheesh.
Looks like I inadvertently tripped the sony defence force activation switch.
lol.

All i wanted to do was put into financial context the dillemma faced by Rich and every other consumer.
Unlimited desires versus limited resources.
Economics 101.

Let's face it, the numbers I supplied are recommended retail.
Can you buy the games cheaper or second hand? Sure, if you don't count your own time and inconvenience in sourcing such deals.

Even with discounts averaging $40 per game, the cost is still $459.

All I am saying is that RIch, and every consumer, needs to weigh up these factors.
Don't take it so personally, guys.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2995d ago
Show all comments (73)
The story is too old to be commented.