ProtoByte
Member
Just to be clear, I'm (mostly) referring to platform holder first parties here.
In light of rumors about Microsoft putting previous "exclusives" (stretching the term past breaking with the release on PC btw) on other consoles - legacy IP like Halo or newly acquired output like Starfield alike - I wanted to make this point and open it to discussion.
True exclusivity matters and is good. Without it, without consoles primarily differentiated by the games on them, the industry would not be what it is today. While the value proposition of a machine literally goes down as previous exclusives make it to others, it's not the back catalog or the list wars that's the real problem.
The real problems are how the development approach will change for future first party games, and how the competitiveness reduces, furthering reducing the incentive to make first party games in the traditional mold.
1st party exclusives have always benefitted from 2 things:
Assuming even partial validity in the most recent rumors about Xbox's intent, the Gamepass economics are absolutely to be blamed to a large degree. But the attempt to create a multiplatform ecosystem, something that stems at least as far back as 2013 even under Mattrick, necessarily becomes the catalyst for gamepass, or vice versa. They're coming together, no matter the order.
Similarly, it's not by chance that Sony's desperate attempt at live service building came along with a drive towards PC and mobile. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's similar, by Sony's own internal admission.
So we come back to the title of the topic: Being cheap and available everywhere doesn't help anyone if the games are crap. Is anyone on PlayStation really excited by the idea of playing Halo Infinite? Starfield? What was the point of Microsoft buying up so much, inevitably and necessarily reforming the studio's and IP to fit their mold, if it just meant they were going to release multiplatform anyway? Honestly, it is likely that the quality of whatever they've acquired will degrade. What was the point?
In light of rumors about Microsoft putting previous "exclusives" (stretching the term past breaking with the release on PC btw) on other consoles - legacy IP like Halo or newly acquired output like Starfield alike - I wanted to make this point and open it to discussion.
True exclusivity matters and is good. Without it, without consoles primarily differentiated by the games on them, the industry would not be what it is today. While the value proposition of a machine literally goes down as previous exclusives make it to others, it's not the back catalog or the list wars that's the real problem.
The real problems are how the development approach will change for future first party games, and how the competitiveness reduces, furthering reducing the incentive to make first party games in the traditional mold.
1st party exclusives have always benefitted from 2 things:
- 100% revenue takeaway
- The lack of necessity to be directly hugely profitable
- The full focus on the one machine, maximum 2 accounting for an assumed mid-gen refresh.
Assuming even partial validity in the most recent rumors about Xbox's intent, the Gamepass economics are absolutely to be blamed to a large degree. But the attempt to create a multiplatform ecosystem, something that stems at least as far back as 2013 even under Mattrick, necessarily becomes the catalyst for gamepass, or vice versa. They're coming together, no matter the order.
Similarly, it's not by chance that Sony's desperate attempt at live service building came along with a drive towards PC and mobile. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's similar, by Sony's own internal admission.
So we come back to the title of the topic: Being cheap and available everywhere doesn't help anyone if the games are crap. Is anyone on PlayStation really excited by the idea of playing Halo Infinite? Starfield? What was the point of Microsoft buying up so much, inevitably and necessarily reforming the studio's and IP to fit their mold, if it just meant they were going to release multiplatform anyway? Honestly, it is likely that the quality of whatever they've acquired will degrade. What was the point?
