𝑻𝑳𝑫𝑹: My take on console exclusivity is pretty straightforward. I don’t believe it should exist, but it is somewhat of a necessary evil due to how the structure of the market is currently built. But this may soon change. What do you think? 𝑭𝑼𝑳𝑳 𝑬𝑿𝑷𝑳𝑨𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑰𝑶𝑵: As consoles have become more PC-like and more generalized in nature, there is no longer a reasonable excuse that can withhold most titles from being cross-platform, if implemented in the dev cycle from day one. The only reason is profit and 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. We go to watch Netflix not because we are Netflix fanboys, but because Netflix has licenses that Disney+ doesn’t, and vice versa. At the end of the day though, they are nearly identical platforms that are only distinguished by content. Consoles follow a similar trend. If you wouldn’t fanboy for Prime Video, don’t fanboy for a console! The end goal is always money. But to continue, Microsoft is making heavy pushes to shift the console market away from this style of design, and instead envisions a world where a console is more like a Television device, and is not directly tied to the streaming services (games) that get offered on it. I.e., you can purchase any console (including a playstation) and get Game Pass on it if you choose, and the same for a Microsoft console potentially having PS Plus. Essentially, Microsoft’s goal is to separate hardware from what is essentially digital content. In general, (for reasons I won’t get into) this is better for the consumer. But obviously, Sony (who is in a position of power right now) is reluctant to make such a drastic change, since unlike Microsoft, they only have assets to lose. There is also a looming fear over Sony that; if all consoles’ have to distinguish them is the hardware in which they are built upon, then Sony wouldn’t be able to compete with a 2.5 trillion dollar company like Microsoft in making more powerful and capable hardware long term. While very very unlikely (a lot of bad moves by Sony would have to be made), Sony is worried that if they go down this path, it’s possible that in the distant future they might be forced to focus purely on game development, since they won’t have the funds to compete with Microsoft to justify keeping a physical Playstation around. However, this style of a console market would also open the doors for many more companies to create their own consoles and still have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding, unlike today where it is virtually impossible to crack into the triopoly (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo). But that’s just how I interpret all thi
1 year ago | 10
It is what it is. For 1st party games, it makes 100% sense that the console maket will keep it exclusive since their people made the game. For 3rd party games, it still makes sense since the devs and publishers are getting the console maker to supplement (or sometimes completely fund) their game. Games are not cheap to develop and any additional sources of funding are probably welcome. At least nowadays publishers actually can benefit from console exclusively. Back in the NES days, Nintendo had so much power that they forced publishers into making games just for the NES.
1 year ago | 3
I always felt like exclusive games were better able to leverage the system the game was designed for so u can get more unique systems with games that work better on them. Like with Nintendo and their craziness.
1 year ago | 10
I have been game for about 28 years and I mainly play PS consoles but have a few Nintendo handhelds and N64/ switch only the console I own. So it comes down to what you are used to. PC I do play once in a blue moon
1 year ago
| 1
Exclusivity is king in nearly every industry. I can't imagine games being available everywhere resulting in anything less than the richest company walking away with a cornered market.
1 year ago | 5
I think even for streaming and doing something like game pass is difficult to push en mass due to the greater lack of brand and user experience that can come with it like a full dedicated console. For me gaming is about the environment/culture created for the user. I love pc gaming too but I have more feeling to PlayStation for example because they do a good job with brand identity (through games, console innovations, and user experience). But I’d it’ll be like other streaming services I can too easily drop it and walk away and move on to something else. Also with gaming service subscriptions, ya sure I can download and have a bunch of games but like some are realizing, i have no time to enjoy the pro consumerness of it and again if it’s only 10$ a month my dedication will be less. I’d still rather pay 70$ for a game I love and dedicate time to it rather than download a bunch of meh or random games I’ve barely indulged. It’s the only reason I think Microsoft is making a risky move with it and with how I feel and some others, the brand identity for Xbox has fallen apart and I personally see this as not good in the long run for healthy competition against Sony too. I hope this makes sense lol.
1 year ago | 2
I feel they're a necessity in the case of giving you a reason to buy one platform over another, but I was JUST thinking about this earlier today. I was just watching a video about game preservation and how it's kinda annoying in retrospect that certain games only work on certain platforms, vs. movies if you have a DVD you can play it on any DVD or blu-ray player. Just makes it more restrictive retroactively, bit I can understand the reason why in the present
1 year ago | 0
If it means better games? Yes (GoW, Spider-Man, ratchet and clank). But for multiplayer games? No. Player base is very important.
1 year ago | 4
Everybody who arguments for 3rd party exclusive is an idiot defending Anti consumer behavior rebranded as a feature for a platform or something good for the consumer. The only thing I can understand is first party stuff because making a game to sell and subsidize hardware is different than paying a publisher to not make the game available on another platform. Buying up publishers is basically the same if it happens too much. - Somebody with PC, who doesn't really care about consoles.
1 year ago
| 3
I like it cause developing for less platforms is easier and it has increased competition between the platform holders.
1 year ago | 1
If it comes to PC at some point I don't mind waiting. I patiently waited for sunset overdrive and had faith
1 year ago | 1
Considering the patent system is specifically created to foster exclusivity, I think it's very normal. Without it, how would you differentiate your brand from others if you don't have something only you can provide? The entire business world works on providing exclusive kinds of products, and or services. Anyone complaining about exclusivity is uninformed about how reality works. Why do you buy specific brand is products...?!? Without exclusivity, what do you have? A lot of similar looking things and customers will decide which is better and thus more exclusive but way of quality and satisfaction. This is the world we live in, why does Ford, Chevrolet and Ferrari exist, exclusivity on designs of similar products. Who knew?!? 🤯
1 year ago | 1
No matter what MS ideal vision for the industry people purchase things base on differences. People buy iPhone for feature’s exclusive to Apple products, people also buy androids for features exclusive to that android device.
1 year ago | 1
To be honest , exclusivity is what make a system worth it . What is the point of xbox existing when there is pc? And that xbox " exclusivity " are always day 1pc .🤔 It wouldn't shock me to a ps5 next to a pc ..but seeing an xbox next to a pc is just weird
1 year ago | 0
Its great and its necessary. What would even be the point of multiple consoles if they all play the exact same games? Its good to have variety, competition, and options. Xbox fans crying when sony gets an exclusive but are jumping for joy at the xbox exclusive starfield coming out or wetting their pants when Microsoft buys a studio. As far as sony, I think they need more variety in their exclusives now, they are all kind of using that uncharted type formula. Third person over the shoulder, rail road type of story thats more cinematic than actual gameplay. They need some first person shooters, some rpgs, something super free and gameplay oriented like totk. Even spiderman seems like just a reskinned god of war. You play as sm (kratos) you have a younger prodigy you switch to and interact with (miles), big set pieces with a lot of quick time events (both games) linear story (both games) kind of over the shoulder view when walking/moving around (both games), then you are most likely going to have a branch upgrade system where you unlock something and two more things unlock under it then you put some type of points in the slots to upgrade them, some armor (or suites) will have special effects and you will probably unlock those costumes by doing certain challenges just like gow. Some puzzles to break up the endless fighting of street thugs… lets switch up the formula sony
1 year ago | 0
It’s important to have them to create market competition, but games shouldn’t be exclusive if they’ve appeared on platforms before. For example, Final Fantasy has appeared on multiple platforms and shouldn’t be an exclusive. While Starfield is a new game and it is totally valid for it to be an Xbox exclusive. So when buying a company, like Bethesda, you aren’t able to force the consumers hand by forcing a title that they’ve previously played to a single console.
1 year ago | 1
I hate that Microsoft cries about exclusivity while doing it at the same time.
1 year ago | 0
Every brand should have its speciality. Like Whopper from Burger King or Big Mac at McD. You are going to get same product at all brands then why bother going for a specific one.
1 year ago | 0
Innocenceii
This is probably the gazillionth time you've been asked this, but how do YOU feel about 𝘊𝘖𝘕𝘚𝘖𝘓𝘌 𝘌𝘟𝘊𝘓𝘜𝘚𝘐𝘝𝘐𝘛𝘠? You can find my opinion in the comments.
1 year ago | [YT] | 17