Exclusives for Consoles

[PizzaKat]

What are your thoughts on exclusives for consoles? In this case between Sony and Microsoft. I remember in the nineties Sega and SNES had them. Since Tomb Raider is a timed exclusive people are bitching and whining how stupid Square Enix is for doing this. I actually think this is good, well if it was totally exclusive.

Sure I'd be annoyed that it wouldn't come to PS4 or PC if it was a game I actually like. This is good business for Microsoft of course it would be better if it was totally exclusive. For Square Enix I find this pretty pointless.

[Fleurry]

What are your thoughts on exclusives for consoles? In this case between Sony and Microsoft. I remember in the nineties Sega and SNES had them. Since Tomb Raider is a timed exclusive people are bitching and whining how stupid Square Enix is for doing this. I actually think this is good, well if it was totally exclusive.

Sure I'd be annoyed that it wouldn't come to PS4 or PC if it was a game I actually like. This is good business for Microsoft of course it would be better if it was totally exclusive. For Square Enix I find this pretty pointless.

I think they're a bit silly. It's obviously anti-consumerist because it limits choice; but every console manufacturer trots them out in press conferences as such an exiting thing.

However, I slowly pick up all the consoles as they go on sale so I end up playing everything I want to anyways.

[WCP]

My take is, if Microsoft is willing to pay big money for crap like that, then let them. It's psychological business warfare. They know that there are many people out there, that don't own a PS4 or XB1 yet, and if they can get the Tomb Raider thing in the back of people's minds, then it can have a subliminal effect towards leading people towards the XB1.

Microsoft paid $$$ for that benefit, and Square Enix must have felt the payment was worth it to take a wee bit of heat, but hey, this is just business. It's the way things work.


How long will the game be delayed on PC anyways ? I can understand 1 year for consoles, because if it isn't a full year, people won't care that much. You have to do it for one full year.

[Berserker]

Third party exclusives? Without some logistical reason ("We made this game to be played on a Wii U controller"), I can't really see it as a good thing without putting myself into that weird space game commentators often go where they seem to put corporate interests ahead of consumer (and by proxy, their own) interests. So yes, the thieves who put my car on cinder blocks to take the tires might have been exercising sound business strategy, and if they keep up that momentum there might be a good year ahead for them, but it just seems strange to look at it that way when you have a personal stake that's affected by that situation.

That's not to say exclusives should be universally condemned, as sometimes they can't be helped or you can't really blame them. First party publishers have an obvious interest in promoting their console hardware, and small one or two person operations might not be able to afford to port their indie game to everything under the sun. But a third party company, who could, and would, were it not for no other reason than some fat exclusivity payout? Yes, it's good for them because they have more money now and money is good. But it's bad for us, because there are now less options when there doesn't need to be. If you always have all the platforms anyway then it won't affect you, but the average gamer is getting the short end of the stick, and any bitchery/whinery they might have seems understandable to me.

[Tanooki]

First and second party great for business, third party almost always very bad for business especially if it is just solidly on one machine as most sane people dont buy a box over one game. Timed is crappy if the company doesnt make it clear its timed as its manipulative and lying by omission. In the case of Tomb Raider, SE was screwed, so it was a good move to take a large cash pay off for what would have likely sold using original TR numbers for PS4. Theyd have gone up against Uncharted 4 and had their collective asses handed to them only getting the sales and less later as a trickle. Back that game up a year and U4 will be played out and theyll get more buzz, plus a year in they could just do like Mass Effect did and have all the DLC on there up front in one paid package to entice buyers so in this case they get paid three times instead of twice ms, ms bribe, sony, versus ms and weak sony against uncharted4 sales.

[Jorpho]

Is there really anything anymore that can be done on the PS4 that couldn't be done just as well on the XBox One, or vice versa? Aside from Kinect? For that matter, wasn't it pretty much the same for the PS3 and XBox 360?

Going back to the PS2/XBox/GC, I can think of at least one game (Resident Evil 4) that ended up noticeably better on the GC.

[Kitsune Sniper]

What are your thoughts on exclusives for consoles?

First party? Eh.

Third party? "Those publishers must hate money."

[Rickstilwell1]

It's really a weak attempt by Microsoft when the PS4 currently has 96 games available to purchase in comparison to Xbox One's measly 59 games. Wii U has both their libraries outnumbered. A lot of the games between those three systems are available on each other or last gen systems, but quantity alone does say something about possible variety.

[Richter Belmount]

The most rational reaction is to make a change dot org petition to make the game multiplat , because exclusives have never been a thing.

[Tanooki]

Since when have exclusives never been a thing? They've driven purchases of one system over another since the 80s with the companies from then (on NES) that exist to current. If you were into certain games from a publisher or a franchise of theirs and they chose to only release them on one system for one reason or another you bought the hardware or were out of luck. Think of the hottest of console wars period, the 16bit era which also covered the 8bit handhelds. Look what the SNES and Gameboy uniquely got versus the Genesis and Game Gear. Sure there were some multi-platform overlap, or someone got A bone tossed to them with a franchise (just Sparkster SNES, or just Castlevania Bloodlines Genesis) and stuff like that would make you have to make a choice. When the N64/PS1 period hit, couldn't say much for ports as it couldn't/wouldn't much happen but in the GC/PS2 period since each box was so close it shifted the dynamic of the exclusive into primarily what first/second parties could do, and if not that bribes to game makers to only make them a game or to have it for a year to get the edge up and it has been pissing off gamers since because one would assume since the systems were so similar you could just get it on your box of choice.

[PizzaKat]

Third parties are sticking it to Nintendo for their monopoly in the 8 bit era, I still don't know whats up with Capcom since they were up for sale. I'm not sure of Nintendos finances but having Capcom exclusives to Nintendo would be an amazing acquisition especially for all the franchises they have (Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mega Man etc.). Having new games ready for their next console would likely put them on par with Sony if they do decide to make another console. I'm surprised theres nothing been on this yet.

[Tanooki]

It has nothing to do with the 80s and everything to do with the N64 and after. They loosened up their licensing fees and restrictions, softer than some others even, but they keep NOT listening to third parties. They asked for discs, got grossly expensive large chips on a cart with little space to them. They go to a disc, but then they make them a fraction of the size of a DVD and make a controller they weren't fans of. Then they go waggly on people and not step to HD which ran off even more than the N64 carts did. And then on WiiU they were approached by a consortium of third party developers and along with Sony and MS given a laundry list of what they wanted the hardware to do with graphics, audio, processor capabilities and storage type/size***. Nintendo basically told them that they make the hardware to fit a style they were shooting for and within a certain budget for what they had planned for their future. The system for the vision and the price wasn't going to cut it because they had to go with marginally more capable than the last generation audio, visuals and processing, but did meet the size as it's like a non-branded blu-ray in there to avoid the fees tied to movies. So in turn they mostly told them to screw off, others did wait and see, and even less ported very dirty (ubisoft, activision) or fairly admirably even with perks (EA) games to it, but they were almost all universally a year out of date so no one bought the stuff and two of them cut services and other quit (EA.)

Nintendo burned the bridge by wanting a $300 system~ with a wireless tablet controller with a bizzarely unique processor setup that's not exactly easy to code for, nor can it have things ported to it without a lot more work than necessary (sloppy ports we saw with visuals and bad frame rates.) If they had just gone with a $350-400 box that had the general level of potency of the PS4 or at least the One, and with that very slick WiiU pro controller, they'd be in damn good shape right now compared to where they're at. They prison raped themselves all on their own and no one else had a hand in it, they were just the effect to the cause.

Nintendo had around 10B in the bank to tap before the WiiU dropped, but if you figure how much they've had to throw at it to prop it up while calculating the losses to date and projected going forward with a big lack of third party support, and knowing they can't live off Kart and Brawl for the next 3 years, one could only guess what chunk of that is in the toilet by the time the next system rolls around. Hopefully they get their head out of their ass and eat a bakery full of humble pie and take the game makers advice next go around. They did, disc size (1.5GB mini disc vs 4.6GB DVDs) on the GC era and they got a good bit of quality third party titles compared to anything since the SNES, so it's not unheard of and one can only hope. I hate to admit it, but hate it less by date, but I doubt I'll be in with their next home system if it's a stand alone console in a few years from the get go. I'll wait to see a pile of games and some solid support to give a crap or I just will wait for cheap deals if at all and it's no loss, their handheld division is pretty solid. I got a PS4 about a week ago, I've put more hours on Wolfenstein alone with a maybe an hour between PSP+ freebie Fez and the other game than I have on the WiiU potentially in the last six months.


*** I got this from various friends my brother has in the industry, he's a producer for Pipeworks and we had some long conversations about the WiiU pre-post launch and how Nintendo screwed the pooch on it and how they could have held onto a solid contender if not still a marginal lead if they did as they were requested instead of did what they chose to and it's sad.

[Gameguy]

As much as Nintendo made poor decisions with the N64, it still wasn't the worst console manufacturer at the time from a developers' perspective. Just look at what Sega did at the time, with the Sega CD, 32X, and Saturn which were all short lived, more challenging to program for, and poor sellers compared to the competition. Nintendo was looking pretty good compared to Sega at that time.

Sometimes with console exclusives back then, it was more to save on costs by avoiding programming multiple versions of a game, or some games wouldn't be allowed on some consoles. Just think of Splatterhouse 2 or 3, would these have been welcomed by Nintendo on the SNES back then?

[SparTonberry]

As much as Nintendo made poor decisions with the N64, it still wasn't the worst console manufacturer at the time from a developers' perspective.

Depends which region you're looking at.
The N64 was a bomb in Japan and had very little support by Japanese third-party developers. Most that did only made a couple games. Konami had a number of franchises to choose from but mostly just made sports games. Capcom only made a Tetris game and two PS1 ports.

[Gameguy]

The N64 still sold better in Japan than the Genesis/Mega Drive did, and better than the Gamecube did, and the Xbox 360 if the sources I'm looking at are correct. Still the winner of that generation would be the Playstation 1, selling more than triple as many consoles worldwide compared to the N64. I wouldn't consider the N64 to be a failure, it just wasn't as successful as it could have been.

The Sega Saturn did outsell the N64 in Japan, too bad it didn't sell as well in other regions as the Saturn sold in total less than 1/3 as many worldwide compared to the N64.