• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Exclusives are objectively a good thing for the Industry, there should be more fully exclusive games.

packy34

Member
Dec 12, 2014
1,864
422
485
People buy mac's for their exclusive software. Stop being an idiot
Ah yes, because professional software and video games are exactly the same and directly comparable. Every market is exactly the same, and because Apple does it a certain way, everyone should too. Yeah, solid start.
It breeds competition. It's been around since arcades. You just want freedom, for that we have pc.
There's more than one way to foster competition, and I laid that out in my post. And what's the point of even mentioning freedom/PC if you don't believe that Sony's games should be there?

But making a game for specific hardware/software config has a good amount of benefit's. Like great optimizations that really can create unique design opportunity as opposed needing to have a more broad development because your game has to be on everything.
Decades of PC game development - which existed before consoles, mind you - disproves this never-ending myth. To put it as bluntly as I can - are Microsoft's recent games better on Xbox or PC? Is Days Gone better on PS4 or PC? What about Death Stranding? If your stance were accurate, all ports would be inherently worse than their console counterparts. But they aren't. Imagine that.
 

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,881
4,187
895
Watertown, NY
Ah yes, because professional software and video games are exactly the same and directly comparable. Every market is exactly the same, and because Apple does it a certain way, everyone should too. Yeah, solid start.

There's more than one way to foster competition, and I laid that out in my post. And what's the point of even mentioning freedom/PC if you don't believe that Sony's games should be there?


Decades of PC game development - which existed before consoles, mind you - disproves this never-ending myth. To put it as bluntly as I can - are Microsoft's recent games better on Xbox or PC? Is Days Gone better on PS4 or PC? What about Death Stranding? If your stance were accurate, all ports would be inherently worse than their console counterparts. But they aren't. Imagine that.

There were games back in the 80's-90's that required specific hardware to run.

Software like finalcut is a great comparison. It's competitor is adobe which for a short time was only available on mac's.

But for some reason adobe in average for longest time ran better in some aspects on Mac than pc.

Final cut is made with mac's OS and hardware customization in mind. Same goes for garage band.

There are competitors out there but exclusives work. And pushes companies to try new things to one up the other.
 
Last edited:

packy34

Member
Dec 12, 2014
1,864
422
485
There were games back in the 80's-90's that required specific hardware to run.

Software like finalcut is a great comparison. It's competitor is adobe which for a short time was only available on mac's.

But for some reason adobe in average for longest time ran better in some aspects on Mac than pc.

Final cut is made with mac's is and hardware customization in mind. Same goes for garage band.

There are competitors out there but exclusives work. And pushes companies to try new things to one up the other.
Again, software that requires exclusive hardware, regardless of what it is, does not benefit the consumer. It exists to sell more hardware. It serves literally no other purpose. Arguing for this practice as a consumer limits your own choices, and, I would argue, often makes competition worse rather than better.
 

kingfey

Member
Jul 6, 2021
1,987
2,947
450
Bloober team is indie? Ember labs are indie. Kena though coming out also on PS4 will have next gen features.

But anyway let's not draw straws. I was saying we still have to wait and see with Microsofts titles like perfect dark, fable evt. Sony and Nintendo have shown year over year , gen over gen a more reliable track record.

Your account was literally created this month it's obvious you can't be objective.

Microsoft puts out quality software, just not at as consistent level as Nintendo and Sony and for that to change narrative wise we have to wait on their newest investments.

That's all anyone is really saying and your just spewing stuff.
Did you see the thread before you typed?

Again your acting like all those new titles are going to all be home runs. And Nintendo and Sony have a better track record when it comes to quality.

Only time will tell,
I never said you can't be hyped. Obsidian is a proven studio with a good track record. Avowed and outer worlds 2 will be great. But playground have never made anything as ambitious as fable reimagined. Initiative is brand new studio,

What people are trying to tell you is with known studios like state of decay guys, they have made 2 games with state of decay and they don't compare in quality/polish compared to other games by Sony's smaller studios. Granted sod games are a fraction of budget.

Sony has literally put out last of us part 2, ghost, miles morales, demons souls, astronomy, sackboy, ratchet, mlb and Returnal all within 12 months.

That's what we are talking about when it comes to track record and quality.

Granted sometimes you get stinkers like destruction all stars. But the rest of that slate is super impressive, and looking at horizon:fw it looks like another high quality entry.

We have not seen anything from Microsoft outside of flight simulator, psychonaughts 2.

Even games Microsoft signs like the medium are not good. Meanwhile Sony signs games like Kena that you can tell by gameplay/animation is quality.

Microsoft has created a great foundation with purchase of Bethesda, obsidian, ninja theory ect.

But we need to see the gameplay to make at least some judgement if the quality in those titles coming in next couple years are going to work out.

Fyi everwild restarted project wise. So that game is in the wind.
This thread is about exclusives. It was never about quality.

You went a head and bragged about sony quality. Nobody asked for that.
When there is a strong competition, you need exclusive games to attract your system. Its why ps4 won. Hit after hit. Xbox couldnt get back on.
Wrestler GIF by All Elite Wrestling on TNT
Wrestler GIF by All Elite Wrestling on TNT


We are seeing that on xbox now. Avowed, fable, perfect dark reboot, hell blade 2, outer worlds 2. Not counting Bethesda. They are heavily going strong in this generation. Compared to x360 jump to x1. Its day and night.
See. No mention of Sony or Xbox quality games.

We were talking how Xbox stepped up from X1 and are trying to push more exclusive games.

You come around and brought sony quality. as if that changes the point.

I dont care what the studio past output is. Studio mess up all time.

Bethesda gave fallout to their sub division. and that brought us the garbage that is fallout 76. The bethesda, which made skyrim and fallout games, which were praised high. Gave 1 of its big IP, and they let sub studio tarnish that Ip.

CDPR, the maker of the Witcher series. https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-witcher-enhanced-edition https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt
Gave us this atrocious game filled with bugs, despite having a good story. https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cyberpunk-2077 Good gameplay and story, but goddamn was it garbage on consoles. https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/cyberpunk-2077 https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/cyberpunk-2077

There were other great studios, which had good games, then did complete 180, and gave us shit games. https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect to this https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-andromeda

Blizzard was one of the beloved too. Guess how that turned out now.

Short story, Dont care about what publishers do. I only judge games, when they are out. So please keep Sony and nintendo past track out of this.
 

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,881
4,187
895
Watertown, NY
Again, software that requires exclusive hardware, regardless of what it is, does not benefit the consumer. It exists to sell more hardware. It serves literally no other purpose. Arguing for this practice as a consumer limits your own choices, and, I would argue, often makes competition worse rather than better.

Do have any clue wtf your talking about? Please go back to Google and look up games from 80-90's. They were based on boards/chips for some of them during 8 bit and some 16bit.

Back then sometimes certain manufacturer didn't have same audio chips/cards for specific games to run. Pc in early days had that.

Imagine trying to play Mario world 3 on Atari? Atari 7800 lacked hardware to make games 1:1.

Let me run this by you, if a blacksmith worked his/her ass off to make something specific and they are at the time the only person that makes it and people want it?

How is that bad? Other blacksmith study it then innovate?

That how the world works. Where your issue is in my opinion is paid exclusivity that benefits no one. Only the person locking it behind their platform.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Magnific0giganticus

Bulletbrain

Member
Dec 12, 2020
342
423
255
PlayStation and Apple business models are quite different imo. First, Apple device (hardware) margins are far higher than PlayStation's. Second apple has a far bigger market obviously. Consequently for apple, locking people to it's hardware is the best thing. This is before we account for the software sales.

Sony, on the hand make 80 percent of revenues via software. 80 percent! Sony does not have the capacity to make consoles in the amounts needed to even come close to apple margins, nor do they have the market. But they do make quality games that have strong brand recognition. The strategy for growth is to expand the software market, both in terms of content (season passes, microtransations, online subs) and reach (new markets like PC and mobile). Hence for Sony (at least in the business POV) expansion away from exclusive content is the way to go (and indeed is the way they are going if you read their IR presentations, call transcripts etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dream-Knife

kingfey

Member
Jul 6, 2021
1,987
2,947
450
Do have any clue wtf your talking about? Please go back to Google and look up games from 80-90's. They were based on boards/chips for some of them during 8 bit and some 16bit.

Back then sometimes certain manufacturer didn't have same audio chips/cards for specific games to run. Pc in early days had that.

Imagine trying to play Mario world 3 on Atari? Atari 7800 lacked hardware to make games 1:1.

Let me run this by you, if a blacksmith worked his/her ass off to make something specific and they are at the time the only person that makes it and people want it?

How is that bad? Other blacksmith study it then innovate?

That how the world works. Where your issue is in my opinion is paid exclusivity that benefits no one. Only the person locking it behind their platform.
How do you port this to the next gen, if you are the company who is making this product?

The cell processor on the ps3 screwed sony, from porting their ps3 games to ps4. Not to mention, the different hardware power between the 2 console. While ps4 was powerful, ps3 has special hardware, which was much stronger than ps4. With ps5 being stronger than the, cant even run PS3 games, due to that cell proccesor.

Sometimes, making a software exclusive to 1 system is a bad idea. And sony learned their lesson with Ps3. Now they have easy progress from ps4 to ps5.

You need to make a room for your system, for future consoles.

As for atari, they were on early stage of gaming. And technology at that time we dog crap. People were new to the technology. People didnt know how to utilize the system, like we do now. So they put shit in a blender, and call it revolution. The biggest change was the n64 era.

We learned more about optimization, when the ps2 and OG xbox were released. We got amazing games that way.
Soul caliber 2 OG xbox That game looks like a ps3/x360 game. and it come out on 2002.
 

Bumblebeetuna

Member
Jun 23, 2008
6,885
2,266
1,340
Are you the same Bryank permabanned from VGChartz for Sony crap? I think you might take this stuff too seriously.

Also, more on topic, doesn’t the PC market prove this is mostly nonsense? At the end of the day all that matters is competition. Whatever your favorite Sony game is, let’s say Uncharted 4, there’s no reason to think it would be any less of a good game if it also launched on Xbox. Any if MS were actually competing directly with Sony games on their own platform, wouldn’t that make them strive to make their games better? And vice versa. Just like third party games.

Why do PC ports bother you so much
 

kingfey

Member
Jul 6, 2021
1,987
2,947
450
The best games are nearly always exclusives.
You are right.

One of my desired remake of all time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwiztidElf

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
14,130
6,196
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
I agree that exclusives are important, but there's the issue that development gets more expensive every generation, while prices and sales didn't grow proportionally.

So in many cases a game doesn't generate enough revenue in a single platorm to be profitable, to the point that is too risky to have a few big flops for both small and big publishers and devs. It's specially hard for AAA devs and publishers, because if a game or two that costs hundreds of millons tanks puts them in serious trouble. Indies also have a similar issue since most of them don't have almost cash so directly depend on game revenue to continue working.

So they have different options to solve it: to raise prices (we saw the $10 increase on multi Xbox and PS games plus in Sony's next gen games), to don't discount games (as Nintendo does), to include a lot of DLC and MTX (GaaS), to reduce the scope of the games to make their development shorter and less expensive (like Morales or Rift Apart), include the games in subscriptions after they completed their sales cycle (Gold, Plus, Now, Prime, Humble Bundle, etc) or to make the games not that exclusive (console exclusives instead of full exclusives, timed exclusives instead of full exclusives).

Nintendo doesn't have this issue, because they found a sweet spot where their development aren't as expensive as the big AAA games, they sell their games at full price, don't apply price cuts, sell a lot, get extra revenue from DLCs (both normal and Amiibos) and also from the very profitable sales of their hardware. And regarding 3rd party exclusives they bet in many cases for console exclusives or timed console exclusives, allowing the other ones to release their games on PC and after some time in other consoles.

It's different for Sony and MS, because they mostly do AAA games. Games are more expensive so they need more revenue, which means they need to expand their audience. This is why they are expanding to PC and mobile and why are they interested to grow in Asia.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,188
4,891
425
I already have seen the weird rationalisation that 'hardware exclusives' are good but 'service based exclusives' are bad.

We never have this distinction in the TV space, do we?

To me, it all comes down to competition is good. If exclusives are required for new companies to enter certain industries like Apple TV, Microsoft or Epic then its a good.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,188
4,891
425
If I have a piece of hardware, no storefront on the platform should be able to dictate where I buy software for it from, unless it's directly from the software's creator. Just as importantly, no storefront should be able to dictate where creators can put their software, as it amounts to the same thing.
If you are talking about EGS, they aren't dictating where the creators are putting their software, they are having a commercial agreement which the creators ultimately have the final say over.
 

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
2,304
3,339
355
Nintendo could not compete on a hardware level with Sony and MSFT, so they turned to their exclusives and some novel ideas to survive and eventually thrive again.
Sony was down and out during the 7th generation and it was with exclusives they had their resurgence and were able to succeed
Having great exclusives on your platform should push other platform holders to make their own great exclusives to compete....
competition is good and therefor exclusives are good.

Exclusives are an area of competition between platform holders and platforms, the same as hardware specs and performance, accessories and services....
There has been a narrative recently that exclusives are 'bad' and are not needed anymore, yet this is a complete fallacy, aimed at cutting the legs from under PlayStation and Nintendos strongest assets.

People do not go around saying performance should be locked across platforms because it is unfair to have different settings.
People do not say services should all be the same and offer the same perks and games etc.

So why are people now trying to dictate what areas companies should compete on? and why have companies been gullible enough to fall for it....

In short, if you believe in competition, you should be supporting fully exclusive games on consoles otherwise you risk being a hypocrite.


Hermen Hulst for example is failing in his job, PlayStation has less exclusive content lined up than ever, less unique reasons to buy and less excitement from the core PS fans right now.
We expected many more acquisitions and announcements for expanding the 1st party....but all we get is Nixxes (Housemarque is small potatoes)....... he might as well have taken a dump on PS fans door step.

Hermen doesn't seem to understand the function of exclusive games, the reason they exist or their power and how easily that power is broken when you shatter the idea of exclusivity wit even a single port, the man must be a moron.
OP you're really pissed 😂 the PC ports are a good thing, it's just PS coping Xbox but it's a smart move. You can't leave that type of money on the table these days my friend.
 

Speedwagon

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Yabuki turned off voice chat in Mario Kart races. True artists of their time.
Nov 14, 2012
3,472
412
895
Walnut, CA
Exclusives are the best games. Everything else is fluff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwiztidElf

sunnysideup

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
1,110
1,992
585
Exclusive games are always better. They run better, look better, play better. They are the reason i own a playstation 5.

These days when all games end up on pc, including japanese games, its even more important with exclusives. Especially now when hardware is so simmilar and all 3rd party games are better on pc. I think Sony is making a huge mistake porting the games to pc.

xbox not having them made the system redundant imho.
 

Speedwagon

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Yabuki turned off voice chat in Mario Kart races. True artists of their time.
Nov 14, 2012
3,472
412
895
Walnut, CA
The only ones complaining about exclusives are the "PC Master Race" gamers who can't have them.
Matt Leblanc Reaction GIF
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burythelight

Gameplaylover

Member
Jul 26, 2021
1,125
2,102
365
When there is a strong competition, you need exclusive games to attract your system. Its why ps4 won. Hit after hit. Xbox couldnt get back on.
PS4 won because it was 100 bucks cheaper, stronger and Microsoft fucked up PR completely. Xbox even had more exclusives in 2013, didn't help. PS4s first big hitter came 2,5 years after the start of the gen and by that time Sony was already so far ahead they would have destroyed Xbox without a single exclusive game, because buyers mainly comply with their friends.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
9,387
11,668
815
Nintendo could not compete on a hardware level with Sony and MSFT, so they turned to their exclusives and some novel ideas to survive and eventually thrive again.
Sony was down and out during the 7th generation and it was with exclusives they had their resurgence and were able to succeed
Having great exclusives on your platform should push other platform holders to make their own great exclusives to compete....
competition is good and therefor exclusives are good.

Exclusives are an area of competition between platform holders and platforms, the same as hardware specs and performance, accessories and services....
There has been a narrative recently that exclusives are 'bad' and are not needed anymore, yet this is a complete fallacy, aimed at cutting the legs from under PlayStation and Nintendos strongest assets.

People do not go around saying performance should be locked across platforms because it is unfair to have different settings.
People do not say services should all be the same and offer the same perks and games etc.

So why are people now trying to dictate what areas companies should compete on? and why have companies been gullible enough to fall for it....

In short, if you believe in competition, you should be supporting fully exclusive games on consoles otherwise you risk being a hypocrite.


Hermen Hulst for example is failing in his job, PlayStation has less exclusive content lined up than ever, less unique reasons to buy and less excitement from the core PS fans right now.
We expected many more acquisitions and announcements for expanding the 1st party....but all we get is Nixxes (Housemarque is small potatoes)....... he might as well have taken a dump on PS fans door step.

Hermen doesn't seem to understand the function of exclusive games, the reason they exist or their power and how easily that power is broken when you shatter the idea of exclusivity wit even a single port, the man must be a moron.

U are living in the past and that's your problem.

Game development cost went from:
PS1 > PS2 went from 1m to 10m
PS2 > PS3 went from 10m to 50m
PS3> PS4 went from 50m to 150m
PS4 > PS5 went from ???????

Now let's look at the market

PS2 had ~150m user base
PS3 had ~90 ( or 80 can't remember ) user base
PS4 has ~115m user base
PS5 has ~10m user base.

PS2 best sold game = 17 million copy's
PS3 best sold game = 30 million copy's of gta 5
PS4 best sold game = 20 m gta 5 copys

Now i just picked the numbers from the first hit i saw on wiki so obviously i know some games could sell more or not its not really relevant as its just a example of how the market is stuck and how markets have to change to go forwards and dig into new markets.

There is a reason why company''s are merging, why they are opening there products into new markets, why they are looking to see if they can make things more quick and why u see cross gen titles for the bigger ip's where loads of people work on that gotta be paid. and why u see platforms being dropped to merge with other platforms to get more resources validated, or why u see prices go up on the PS5 games to again generate more income for developers.

U can make a game for 50m, make 200m and call it a success
But what if the next game that u need to make also cost 200m to make because the market moved forwards or else u are outdated, and that game tanks in sales? u are loyally fucked. And what if u want to start up more development teams for more games? expenses expenses expenses.

Now lets look at steam for example. ( those are active users )



So lets assume, God of war team needs to sell there game to PS5 gamers only with a lets say 20m userbase, its very much comparable towards uncharted 4, which did 15m copy's over its life time i think ( 5m first year )? And that's with a fuck ton more cost of tons more dev teams having to work on it etc. and that's life time, money they can't invest in there next project because they don't know if that money will ever come in.

How is that profiting sony?, so they can sell more PS5's? which also don't give them jack shit money wise? and they are just happy to say to naughty dogs here u got another 300m guys go nuts because they shit money?

How can a company possible invest money into a new product after god of war 3.0 when god of war 2.0 didn't make them enough, and will god of war 3 be a success? is sony going to bankroll everybody now and go out of business themselves? ( u also need to understand merging dev teams = less output = less games = less money generation so that main title needs to generate a fuck ton more sales ).

This is why u see the industry change and if sony isn't doing it, then they can say goodbye to there exclusives entirely because devs either call it a day and disband the company and sell it off to the highest bidder or move on to another platform that does provide it.

U think that hulst is a idiot and ruins your brand because u want to keep everything to your platform, but the reality is, if htey wanna stay afloat and have devs not bail on them, they will have to provide.

PS3>PS4 area, digital sales was a huge win for sony to keep prices in check because they simple made a fuck ton more money out of games + paying for internet helped them out tons. PS5, there is a reason why we see 80 euro games and why we see more platforms being adressed.

Nintendo however works different, because they make good money from there hardware and that's why they keep there games exclusive towards it. Its part of there business model. Microsoft / Sony not so much.

But even nintendo will have to push forwards when teh switch 2 happens, and sooner rather then later they will also ship there games to PC and IOS all of it. Unless they can dig into a market far bigger they currently have because the market will catch up with them like it already did last generation.
 
Last edited:

TwiztidElf

Member
Mar 5, 2005
3,255
904
1,625
The best games are nearly always exclusives.
I'm backing up my claims with hard data.

Roughly 75% of my personal GOAT's and GOTY/Runnersup back to 2006 are exclusives.
Exclusive/Timed Exclusives: 23
Multi Platform: 7


PERSONAL GOATS
Space Harrier - Arcade/Sega Platform Exclusive (ports much, much later)
World Of Warcraft - PC Exclusive
Asherons Call - PC Exclusive
Mario 64 - Nintendo Exclusive
Zelda OOT - Nintendo Exclusive
Bayonetta - Multi
Starcraft - PC Exclusive
Dead Rising - Timed Xbox Exclusive
Advance Wars (series) - Nintendo Exclusive
Project Gotham Racing 2 - Xbox Exclusive
--------------------------------
PERSONAL GOTYS+Runners up from the last few years
Ghost of Tsushima - Sony timed exclusive (PC)
Final Fantast VII Remake - Sony timed exclusive (PC)
Wreckfest - Multi
Days Gone - Sony timed exclusive (PC)
Super Smash Bros Ultimate - Nintendo exclusive
Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild - Nintendo exclusive
Persona 5 - Sony Exclusive
Horizon Zero Dawn - Sony timed exclusive (PC)
Overwatch - multi
Splatoon - Nintendo exclusive
Bayonetta 2 - Nintendo exclusive
GTA5 - multi
The Last of Us - Sony exclusive
Xcom: Enemy Unknown - multi
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - multi
Bayonetta - multi
Starcraft 2 - PC Exclusive
Street Fighter 4 - multi
Ninja Gaiden 2 - Xbox exclusive
Project Gotham Racing 4 - Xbox exclusive
Dead Rising - Xbox timed exclusive
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Bryank75

sunnysideup

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
1,110
1,992
585
U are living in the past and that's your problem.

Game development cost went from:
PS1 > PS2 went from 1m to 10m
PS2 > PS3 went from 10m to 50m
PS3> PS4 went from 50m to 150m
PS4 > PS5 went from ???????

Now let's look at the market

PS2 had ~150m user base
PS3 had ~90 ( or 80 can't remember ) user base
PS4 has ~115m user base
PS5 has ~10m user base.

PS2 best sold game = 17 million copy's
PS3 best sold game = 30 million copy's of gta 5
PS4 best sold game = 20 m gta 5 copys

Now i just picked the numbers from the first hit i saw on wiki so obviously i know some games could sell more or not its not really relevant as its just a example of how the market is stuck and how markets have to change to go forwards and dig into new markets.

There is a reason why company''s are merging, why they are opening there products into new markets, why they are looking to see if they can make things more quick and why u see cross gen titles for the bigger ip's where loads of people work on that gotta be paid. and why u see platforms being dropped to merge with other platforms to get more resources validated, or why u see prices go up on the PS5 games to again generate more income for developers.

U can make a game for 50m, make 200m and call it a success
But what if the next game that u need to make also cost 200m to make because the market moved forwards or else u are outdated, and that game tanks in sales? u are loyally fucked. And what if u want to start up more development teams for more games? expenses expenses expenses.

Now lets look at steam for example. ( those are active users )



So lets assume, God of war team needs to sell there game to PS5 gamers only with a lets say 20m userbase, its very much comparable towards uncharted 4, which did 15m copy's over its life time i think ( 5m first year )? And that's with a fuck ton more cost of tons more dev teams having to work on it etc. and that's life time, money they can't invest in there next project because they don't know if that money will ever come in.

How is that profiting sony?, so they can sell more PS5's? which also don't give them jack shit money wise? and they are just happy to say to naughty dogs here u got another 300m guys go nuts because they shit money?

How can a company possible invest money into a new product after god of war 3.0 when god of war 2.0 didn't make them enough, and will god of war 3 be a success? is sony going to bankroll everybody now and go out of business themselves? ( u also need to understand merging dev teams = less output = less games = less money generation so that main title needs to generate a fuck ton more sales ).

This is why u see the industry change and if sony isn't doing it, then they can say goodbye to there exclusives entirely because devs either call it a day and disband the company and sell it off to the highest bidder or move on to another platform that does provide it.

U think that hulst is a idiot and ruins your brand because u want to keep everything to your platform, but the reality is, if htey wanna stay afloat and have devs not bail on them, they will have to provide.

PS3>PS4 area, digital sales was a huge win for sony to keep prices in check because they simple made a fuck ton more money out of games + paying for internet helped them out tons. PS5, there is a reason why we see 80 euro games and why we see more platforms being adressed.

Nintendo however works different, because they make good money from there hardware and that's why they keep there games exclusive towards it. Its part of there business model. Microsoft / Sony not so much.

But even nintendo will have to push forwards when teh switch 2 happens, and sooner rather then later they will also ship there games to PC and IOS all of it. Unless they can dig into a market far bigger they currently have.
You do understand that sony takes a 30% cut on all games sold on playstation, including fifa, gta, cod. Thats how playstation makes bank.


Watering down playstation by porting exclusives can only drive people to pc. If you can get all games on 1 platform, people will buy that platform. LIKE I HAVE DONE.

People wont buy gta6 on ps5 and pay for psn on playstation if they have a gaming pc.

The fact that sony does not recognize the tremendous threat pc is to their entire playstation business is insane.

Pc is the competition.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
9,387
11,668
815
You do understand that sony takes a 30% cut on all games sold on playstation, including fifa, gta, cod.

Watering down playstation by porting exclusives can only drive people to pc. LIKE I HAVE DONE.

Yes so did they back in all the other generations, however costs rise with the years and while they could make more money out of mtx etc today, how will they cover expenses of tommorow?

This is why u probably will see sony move into online segment far more aggressive also this generation or anything that generates them more money.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sunnysideup

sunnysideup

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
1,110
1,992
585
Yes so did they back in all the other generations, however costs rise with the years and while they could make more money out of mtx etc today, how will they cover expenses of tommorow?

This is why u probably will see sony move into online segment far more aggressive also this generation or anything that generates them more money.
But they are making historical numbers right now? They are making more money than ever. This is thanks to the wise choices they made in the beginning of last gen. And the good will from ps3.

If porting to pc continues, they will loose market share to pc. Games sell systems.

They should really be investing in playstation. Make playstation attractive. Not try to get 10% extra on their exclusive titles.

Pc is the competition.

If you can buy a sleek streamlined steam deck or steam dock console for 4-700 dollars, play all games for cheap, with no fees. Why would anyone choose playstation over that?
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2019
2,386
5,400
600
The only ones complaining about exclusives are the "PC Master Race" gamers who can't have them.
Matt Leblanc Reaction GIF
Ironic really that they call themselves the master race (a dig at PC elitist by Yahtzee who coined the term) yet are constantly BEGGING for ports!

I've no problem with regular PC players who enjoy the platform and it's advantages and are tech savvy enough to deal with it's complexity, but i remember the same PCMR idiots who were flooding GAF back in the early 2010's with messages over how easy it is to get into PC gaming and how Steam is awesome with AAA games you can buy for super cheap and how you don't have to worry about having the technical know how etc, well i fell for it at the time (2014-15) and got myself a pretty beefy gaming laptop (i didn't have space for a PC) and made a Steam account and tried some games that my machine could EASILY handle and it was a shit show, F.E.A.R's performance would drop to single digits for no apparent reason so i searched around the net and well the solution required some technical know how even when i followed everything a video i found on YouTube did i could never get it to run properly, same thing with Alan Wake which i never could get to run at a locked 30FPS no matter how much i lowered the settings, i tried a few other games and i STILL got problems i didn't know how to solve, so yeah no PC gaming isn't and will never be as easy and hassel free as console gaming which is why there will always be consoles in one shape or another.
 
Last edited:

Gameplaylover

Member
Jul 26, 2021
1,125
2,102
365
How is that profiting sony?, so they can sell more PS5's? which also don't give them jack shit money wise? and they are just happy to say to naughty dogs here u got another 300m guys go nuts because they shit money?
It's a gamble. Sony hopes that people buy a console because of an exclusive game and then buy 3rd parties and subscripe Plus and Now to make them some real money. But they just can't know why a person buys their console in the first place, only if those people go online, buy nothing else than exclusives and those people don't help Sony at all. I know some Pc gamers that bought a used PS4, bought some used exclusive disc games, sold them after playing and that was it. Sony didn't make a cent with them. And why should a gaming Pc owner pay for worse looking 3rd parties on consoles and pay for multiplayer? Not gonna happen. Pc ports will make Sony more money.
 
Last edited:

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
459
706
315
Togliatti, Russian Federation
If you are talking about EGS, they aren't dictating where the creators are putting their software, they are having a commercial agreement which the creators ultimately have the final say over.
Only some creators do, first of all. Publishers are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and the management has a duty to make money for the shareholders, often literally written into the rules of the company. So when a deal is presented for a large, upfront, no-risk payout that amortizes any negative effect that may happen as a result of the deal, plus a promise of higher revenue share on top of that, it becomes next to impossible for a publisher to justify declining the deal to its investors and shareholders. Which is why the only times we've heard of the deals being declined, were companies that were secure in their established position, and had nobody but themselves to answer to.

And second - I understand this is capitalism, but this should not happen on an open platform, period. You want to attract a publisher by offering bonuses for releasing on your platform, that's fine, your money you're free to burn it. But contractually binding game makers to pull their games from every other store, is blatantly anticompetitive and anti-consumer.

Epic may be doing a lot of good, in other areas and with other initiatives, but it does not balance out the fact that in the PC digital distribution market, they're definitely not a force of good so far, least of all good competition.
 

sunnysideup

Banned
Nov 11, 2018
1,110
1,992
585
It's a gamble. Sony hopes that people buy a console because of an exclusive game and then buy 3rd parties and subscripe Plus and Now to make them some real money. But they just can't know why a person buys their console in the first place, only if those people go online, buy nothing else than exclusives and those people don't help Sony at all. I know some Pc gamers that bought a used PS4, bought some used exclusive disc games, sold them after playing and that was it. Sony didn't make a cent with them. And why should a gaming Pc owner pay for worse looking 3rd parties on consoles and pay for multiplayer? Not gonna happen. Pc ports will make Sony more money.

Its an absolute idiotic gamble.

The more attractive pc gets, the more playstation only gamers will move to pc, i have done so.. Many people will follow.

With ms acquisition of beethesda, and major titles like fallout, elderscrolls, doom not available on playstation. Pc is going to be even more attractive.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Gameplaylover

rofif

Member
Sep 13, 2019
7,770
10,959
670
Yeah. If exclusives did not matter, consoles would be filled with shovel ware like pc that focus on milking the player.
Why would Sony want to make uncharted or tlou etc?
We all know f2p mobile type game would earn more. That's why Konami fired kojima... Because aaa model is dead to them
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
5,188
4,891
425
Only some creators do, first of all. Publishers are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and the management has a duty to make money for the shareholders, often literally written into the rules of the company. So when a deal is presented for a large, upfront, no-risk payout that amortizes any negative effect that may happen as a result of the deal, plus a promise of higher revenue share on top of that, it becomes next to impossible for a publisher to justify declining the deal to its investors and shareholders. Which is why the only times we've heard of the deals being declined, were companies that were secure in their established position, and had nobody but themselves to answer to.

And second - I understand this is capitalism, but this should not happen on an open platform, period. You want to attract a publisher by offering bonuses for releasing on your platform, that's fine, your money you're free to burn it. But contractually binding game makers to pull their games from every other store, is blatantly anticompetitive and anti-consumer.

Epic may be doing a lot of good, in other areas and with other initiatives, but it does not balance out the fact that in the PC digital distribution market, they're definitely not a force of good so far, least of all good competition.
Most of those creators decided to go public or backed by a venture funds and therefore open themselves up to the demands of shareholders in exchange of being able to grow. Pretty much all game developers and publishers are for-profit companies, it's irrespective of being private, venture backed or public.

There is a network effect in certain industries that no one wants to admit. If Apple TV, Amazon or Disney was not allowed to sign exclusive deals for content then their services would be dead or stalling. I don't get this split of philosophical view between TV/Movie content distribution and games distribution that we have.

How well has CDPR done with GoG in terms of games distribution?

It's also really hard to draw a line between an exclusive deal making a project viable to develop and just creating an additional revenue stream. Hades could have been the game it is cause of the Epic exclusive deal, we don't know.

I don't think I am ever going to convince you of my current assumptions.
- valve has too much power currently
- an equally or better storefront (happy to admit the fact the EGS is shit and so is the windows store) isn't enough to compete with valve cause of the existing network effects
- sadly there isn't enough users whom would shift storefronts for a minor discount.

The last one is the one that I am less sure. I am happy to bow out and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

Con-Z-epT

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2019
2,869
6,455
565
I'm not against exclusive games, but there are sure not just advantages to them. So to say they are objectively a good thing is not correct. In fact it is subjective.

It may help to sell a platform and sure will up the quality of the game in most cases but it also hinders sales for the game itself and locks out people from playing the game who don't own the specific platform.
The preservation of your beloved games is another aspect that was already mentioned but nobody seems to give a damn about this. So it has advantages and disadvantages for the company and the consumer.

And if it is not obvious for everyone here to see i will highlight your highly objective stance on the matter again here.

Hermen Hulst for example is failing in his job, PlayStation has less exclusive content lined up than ever, less unique reasons to buy and less excitement from the core PS fans right now.
We expected many more acquisitions and announcements for expanding the 1st party....but all we get is Nixxes (Housemarque is small potatoes)....... he might as well have taken a dump on PS fans door step.

Hermen doesn't seem to understand the function of exclusive games, the reason they exist or their power and how easily that power is broken when you shatter the idea of exclusivity wit even a single port, the man must be a moron.
There is so much nonsense and fanboyism just in this small part.
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
Oct 10, 2014
5,131
5,489
735
Nintendo could not compete on a hardware level with Sony and MSFT, so they turned to their exclusives and some novel ideas to survive and eventually thrive again.
Sony was down and out during the 7th generation and it was with exclusives they had their resurgence and were able to succeed
Having great exclusives on your platform should push other platform holders to make their own great exclusives to compete....
competition is good and therefor exclusives are good.

Exclusives are an area of competition between platform holders and platforms, the same as hardware specs and performance, accessories and services....
There has been a narrative recently that exclusives are 'bad' and are not needed anymore, yet this is a complete fallacy, aimed at cutting the legs from under PlayStation and Nintendos strongest assets.

People do not go around saying performance should be locked across platforms because it is unfair to have different settings.
People do not say services should all be the same and offer the same perks and games etc.

So why are people now trying to dictate what areas companies should compete on? and why have companies been gullible enough to fall for it....

In short, if you believe in competition, you should be supporting fully exclusive games on consoles otherwise you risk being a hypocrite.


Hermen Hulst for example is failing in his job, PlayStation has less exclusive content lined up than ever, less unique reasons to buy and less excitement from the core PS fans right now.
We expected many more acquisitions and announcements for expanding the 1st party....but all we get is Nixxes (Housemarque is small potatoes)....... he might as well have taken a dump on PS fans door step.

Hermen doesn't seem to understand the function of exclusive games, the reason they exist or their power and how easily that power is broken when you shatter the idea of exclusivity wit even a single port, the man must be a moron.

exlcusives aren’t great for people who can’t afford every console.

while I have the big 3’s consoles their are family’s that cannot afford to buy them all for their children.

there are different views on exclusives but things did start getting better when cross play was enabled in games and friends across different platforms could play with their friends.
 
  • Love
Reactions: junguler

BabyfaceRe

Member
Jun 12, 2020
200
201
230
I'd argue the complete opposite, exclusives are bad for many reasons.

1.You auto punish the developers in terms of sales and how wide an audience they can deliver too. Proven time and time again, most recently through PS exclusives coming to PC and making BIG sales.

2. It's a sly way to keep ppl trapped to a particular platform without having to meaningfully sell the platform and its services. Prime example being the underpowered switch with horrible reward system and terrible online features, but it's got zelda and pokemon so why would they give a fuck.

This is terrible for all gamers and developers. The only arguement is that they receive more time and funding than typical AAA which is great, but going non-exclusive wouldn't NEED to change this, the proven sales would clearly make it worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rexket and junguler

Sean Mirrsen

Member
Sep 30, 2020
459
706
315
Togliatti, Russian Federation
I don't think I am ever going to convince you of my current assumptions.
- valve has too much power currently
- an equally or better storefront (happy to admit the fact the EGS is shit and so is the windows store) isn't enough to compete with valve cause of the existing network effects
- sadly there isn't enough users whom would shift storefronts for a minor discount.
You may be correct in being unable to convince me, however my deviations from your assumptions aren't that significant.

- I can't argue that Valve has an overwhelming amount of market power on PC at the moment, however I disagree with the negative connotations of saying it is 'too much' power. It would have been 'too much' had Valve had no other forces to compete against, yet it absolutely does, as it did since way back in 2009 - piracy, and consoles. It's competing against something that is ever-present that always offers all games for free + DRM-free, and is extremely friendly to new users nowadays, and on top of that it's fighting for user time against big-screen experiences coming from the consoles, on behalf of PC as a gaming platform. Compared to all that, no amount of storefront competition within the PC platform is really going to matter.

- An 'equal' storefront certainly wouldn't be, as the difference is shifted massively by the established userbase and their existing libraries. However a storefront doesn't need to be better in all respects - as is evident from many online diatribes, a lot of users don't quite care for the full suite of Steam's features. Just having parity in user experience (basic "download, patch, play" operation, good security, competent search and discovery tools, some sort of feedback system, a shopping cart, etc), on top of one standout 'killer' feature, would already attract a lot of grumpy gamers chomping at the bit to get away from Steam. That feature could be anything, big or small so long as it's significant - heck, a more forgiving refund system could be it. Add the giveaways and coupons on top, and you would draw in people by the trainload.

- Minor, no. However EGS seems to be going the way of "free" rather than "minor discount".

So in the hypothetical, without that initial negative effect of exclusives alienating a large chunk of the audience, an EGS that just had those games, and was also giving away stuff for free on the regular to draw in people, and had some small but clearly advantageous feature that Steam doesn't (getting harder and harder to imagine what it could be, as Steam keeps adding new ones, but not impossible), and you have a recipe for a very popular store that people don't have to be forced to use. It would experience a lot more natural growth as it got more games and features, as opposed to forced growth in spurts as it adds more costly exclusives. It may grow slower overall, in all likelihood, but it wouldn't experience the same sort of pushback - and its initial growth would have been far faster as the people who immediately denounced it in 'our timeline', wouldn't be so quick to do it then. That's what I think, anyway. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: reksveks

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,229
27,141
995
Ireland
Exclusives are the worst part of the industry and should be completely abolished. They do not benefit you - the consumer - in any meaningful way. They directly contribute to man-child list wars.... nothing else.

Compete on services/features/QOL/hardware instead. Microsoft is on the right track with their game pass initiatives, but they haven't gone all the way yet.

Basically admitted that PlayStation exclusives smoke Xbox ones right there....... hilarious.

'Compete here, here and here..... but not there!' LOL
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,229
27,141
995
Ireland
I disagree, less exclusives mean more competition between games .. not hardware.. sales won’t be persuaded or based off of your “ team “ preference but the games itself, and that breeds better and broader selection of games.

I do buy hardware based on games.... thats why I have 2 PS5's and a Switch. Are you saying you didn't buy your console / PC due to the games?

There should be competition at every level....including the hardware and platform level. Why would it be a bad thing to have competition? You really can't be serious?
 

Gameplaylover

Member
Jul 26, 2021
1,125
2,102
365
I disagree, less exclusives mean more competition between games .. not hardware.. sales won’t be persuaded or based off of your “ team “ preference but the games itself, and that breeds better and broader selection of games.
You are absoultely right and also gaming forums would be less cancer, because 80% of the fanboy warriors would have to look for another hobby where they can spread hate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: junguler

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,229
27,141
995
Ireland
Yes so did they back in all the other generations, however costs rise with the years and while they could make more money out of mtx etc today, how will they cover expenses of tommorow?

This is why u probably will see sony move into online segment far more aggressive also this generation or anything that generates them more money.

They are maming more money than they have ever made..... your point is mute.

3.1 Billion profit last year, it was enough to buy sega outright at the time, it absolutely blasts your theory out of the water.

PS2, they actually made hardly any money out of the generation really.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,229
27,141
995
Ireland
You are absoultely right and also gaming forums would be less cancer, because 80% of the fanboy warriors would have to look for another hobby where they can spread hate.

RoboFu RoboFu
No.... if a person truly wasn't a fanboy, they would just buy the PlayStation / Nintendo etc where the game they want to play is....... it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Instead you are arguing against competition and against exclusives so you don't have to swallow your pride and buy said console due to your own fanboy-ism.
 
Last edited:

Gameplaylover

Member
Jul 26, 2021
1,125
2,102
365
RoboFu RoboFu
No.... if a person truly wasn't a fanboy, they would just buy the PlayStation / Nintendo etc where the game they want to play is....... it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Instead you are arguing against competition and against exclusives so you don't have to swallow your pride and buy said console due to your own fanboy-ism.
BS. I got a PS, a XB and if it would have better hardware i would even buy a switch and i'm still against exclusives.
 

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
2,036
3,733
525
35
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
Tough one. The best games of all time have been exclusives : The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, The Last of Us 2, and other games that have been ported since but where at the time like Final Fantasy games for PS.

I do like the idea of supporting an exclusive game and basically supporting the developer with money to create it. Like what Sony did for Death Stranding or Nintendo for Bayonetta. What I don't like is paying money so a game stays a timed exclusive like Microsoft did for Tomb Raider or PS did for FF7 R/16.

In a perfect world I obviously would like every game to be on every platform so as many people as possible can play them and people can pick where they want to play them and you could play them on PC with Chadhardware, but I understand why exclusives exist.

I actually don't mind the way it is right now. Well Nintendo could do with a big hardware performance increase that would be nice, but they are a mainstream console that is attractive for a lot of mainstream people that usually aren't into gaming so I understand their approach.

So give me whatever leads to the creation of the best games possible. If that means they are exclusives then so be it.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
11,229
27,141
995
Ireland
BS. I got a PS, a XB and if it would have better hardware i would even buy a switch and i'm still against exclusives.

Why? Exclusives are games that otherwise would not exist and motivate companies to invest massive amounts to make the best games they can... so you like games...but if the game is only on one platform, you don't like it?

I really don't get it.....

Can you explain concisely and clearly why you don't like them?
 
Last edited: