Quantcast

Facebook Files: Console Exclusivity – For Or Against?

By Ishaan . March 7, 2010 . 7:50am

Facebook Files: Console Exclusivity For Or Against?

Console exclusivity has been the touchiest topic this generation. Once upon a time, exclusives were designed either by first-parties or to suit the perceived demographic of a particular system. Now, when putting a game on every major platform is actually viable for the first time, certain publishers are still choosing to hold back in return for monetary compensation or assistance in other forms from console manufacturers. Is this a good thing or not?

 

Patrick wrote:

I’m all for console exclusivity. As a gamer I can see the benefits of being able to play any game that comes out, but it really makes the need for three consoles pointless. Console exclusivity seems to help push console gaming forward. Some companies seem to prefer the PS3 because it has more powerful hardware, while some companies prefer the 360 because its easier and more cost effective to program for.

 

I have found that console exclusivity has changed from the last generation to this generation. Consoles of the last generation seems to all have stereotypes you could classify them as. The X-Box was the FPS console. The PS2 was the RPG console. And the Gamecube was kinda the party console. Their exclusivity games seemed to help classify the systems and help people choose what console they want based off the kind of gamer they are.

 

Now console exclusivity seems to be more in the form of DLC and release dates. I bought a 360 because it had more of the games I wanted. Now though, almost all of the games that I bought a 360 for are out or coming out on the PS3. Exclusive console content (like the Joker being playable in Batman AA) help people who could buy it for either system, figure out which system they’d wanna buy it for. Exclusive content like that makes me think that gaming companies add more to their games for exclusive content, so it gives gamers more from the games.

 

Anton wrote: I have my reservations about exclusives. Obviously there are always going to be exclusives from first party developers. That can’t be avoided and that’s not what I’m concerned with. It’s exclusives from third party devs that concern me a bit. Especially with timed exclusives. Is it always the best thing for publisher, developer, and consumer?

 

For example, there were a few RPG games released on the Xbox 360 over the past couple of years that were later released on the PS3. Most notably Star Ocean: The Last Hope and Eternal Sonata (most notable to me, anyway). The reason I find this concerning is because the timed release may detract fans. Comparing both games on both consoles, the PS3 versions of both games have averaged higher scores from critics reviews, yet have sold fewer copies than the Xbox versions.

 

So, what I want to know is this good for the developer? They see sales either way, but would they possibly have had improved sales if both versions had been released at the same time? So, I don’t know what everyone else thinks, but I find that the consumer generally suffers with timed exclusives. Or maybe it’s just me who suffers. Sure, it’s not always the case and perhaps gamers should execute more patience for releases. Personally, I held out for both Eternal Sonata and Star Ocean. Still holding my breath for Tales of Vesperia, though.

 

Milki wrote:

I sometimes have this dream about only one console existing… and it can do everything that everyone’s demanding and it gets every game anyone wishes for, in every language wanted. Yeah, I have silly dreams like that.

 

I’m not sure what to think about exclusivity to be honest. As a gamer it annoys me a lot. I want to play Fragile badly, but I have no interest in owning a Wii at all. But well, it’s one game, it won’t make me buy a Wii… so I wonder, how many ppl actually buy a console just for one game they want to play? How many customers do you really gain with exclusivity?

 

Adam wrote:

A bit late to the "party" but I’d have to say I am for exclusives. I’ve always bought every system because they each have something to bring to the table. I would rather a company put every ounce of time they have into making a game all that it can be for whatever system they signed up for instead of spending any manpower making it cross platform.

 

I had a huge library of PS2 games compared to my Xbox last time around but I actually commend Microsoft for their efforts inside and outside of Japan to support games that they usually would not have last generation.

 

I happen to agree with Ishaan about the personalities of systems but not so much in the sense that people have mentioned: One system for FPS’s, etc. For example, last gen, Xbox had Live and it was a great online service compared to Sony’s, albeit free, online service.

 

I am probably one of the few people that does not mind having multiple systems to purchase. To bad it is so tempting for companies to cross platforms as it can bring them in extra cash. Down with timed releases that get extra content later on another system! Boooo.

 

Tim wrote:

I’m for console exclusives as well. Not just for the retail games, for what each system has to offer. Nintendo has its Virtual Console for old classics, and new time wasters. PSN is slowly dishing out more PSone classics as well, and slowly fleshing out its online components. X-box Live is paid sure, but the party system, communication and ease of everything makes it worth it. And the indie games that pop up on that are some really interesting and worth while games.

 

For or against console exclusivity? Keep in mind, we aren’t discussing first-party exclusives. You can check out the full discussion here. We’re also still discussing Metroid: Other M (albeit, a different topic from the storytelling portions).


Read more stories about on Siliconera.

  • http://otoboku.se manga

    What can I say? I want people to enjoy playing a game without having to worry about what console they are playing it on.

    But with this there are always compromises that needs to be made, which I´m not in favor of.

    So at this momenet I have to say that I am for console exklusivity. The main reason being that this way I can get the very best out of the game. If it is intended for PS3 and then suddenly gets ported to Xbox 360 then there will be changes that might make one of the two versions superior to the other. Point? Bayonetta.

    Made for the Xbox 360 and then a lousy port to PS3 which made it worse than the original game.

    Sure, graphics aren´t all, but FFXIII is 38GB to the PS3 and 18GB to Xbox 360, something has to be done to making the Xbox 360 being able to produce the same amount of action and such.

    Instead of making these versions where one will be better than the other I think it is much more worth it if they take the time to make one version for one console that has few if no bugs and is great.

  • TeaGreen

    I must say I am neither really for or against console exclusivity as some games you really just can’t do on other consoles (although I suppose between the xbox360 and ps3 it isn’t quite as clear cut). I guess the only thing I really have against the whole consoles with exclusivity thing is that it has divided the gaming community, with battlelines drawn really thick… I don’t usually read of it here, but on alot of other gaming news sites you can see alot of comments of people flaming each other for liking a console, liking a game on a console, etc. Is it really so hard to just enjoy playing your console, and let others enjoy playing there’s? Why must there be so much focus on which console is better for some people? I see this in real life sometimes when 2 of my friends, one who is a die-hard xbox360 fan and one who will only play the ps3, fight over which is the better console. Although I guess they might not quite be so serious about it since they’re still friends, but several nights out ended with complete animosity between them, which makes for awkward drives home.
    Sometimes i dream of a super console that will handle everything you desire so that everyone can bask in its divine glory, but until that day comes I suppose I’ll be reading through several flame infested comment boxes (I know technically I could just stop reading comments, but I really like reading comments for more information, or news that might relate to what I was reading).

    • http://twitter.com/matty_125 matty

      If there was one console to rule them all, I don’t really see too much of a difference in the “animosity” atmosphere. If it isn’t one thing, it’ll be something else, you know? I don’t know, this is just a crazy feeling I get, like getting a bunch of hamsters and putting them in the same cage. Maybe I’m being a bit pessimistic, but it’s just one of those times in our generation ;)

      I’ve thought about it, too, though. It might make some things simple, but I like variety and charm of individual consoles. Like Milki said, a console everyone wanted, but, then, maybe people want something different.

      • thebanditking

        All too true. Thankfully we can’t prove this theory but to me its fairly obvious that each of the platforms specific audiences would not mesh well with each other. Its not just different platforms that cuase arguments, but game type and preferences as well. Remove the specific platforms and you would still have the same people saying “Final Fantasy sucks, and Elder Scrools is better!” or “Halo is way better then Half Life” even if you could play them all on one machine. People have opinions, and when stated openly they cause conflict as not everyone agrees. Simple human nature and nothing will change that.

  • anbu

    As a gamer that’s always broke, I don’t like console exclusivity. I am for multiplatform. Let the better console win and the greedy corporation suffer lol. jk.

  • http://twitter.com/cocainexplosion Doctor_Rabbit

    I know it won’t happen, but I’d love to see a collaboration between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to create one system. Each would publish games for it, and they’ll all win. After all, they don’t get money from selling consoles, they get it from selling games. But there are probably some complications I’m not thinking of right now preventing this from actually happening…

    • malek86

      If it were actually done, you can expect prices to jack up to astronomical heights. Remember guys, competition is good for us.

      • http://twitter.com/cocainexplosion Doctor_Rabbit

        Yeah… There’s probably even more reasons why it hasn’t been done yet. I’d
        like to see it (done right, without high prices), but I know it won’t happen.

  • ForeverFidelis

    I’m completely against console exclusivity..

    Its bad enough that I’m not able to play Disgaea 3, but now they go and announce Disgaea 4 as a PS3 only game?!?

    COME ON, NIS!

    I’LL BUY TWO COPIES IF YOU PORT IT TO THE 360!

    • thebanditking

      Sorry to point this out but it seems rather obvious to me that if you liked Disgaea 1&2 and wanted play the next game in the series, since both those were exclusive to Playstation logic would dictate that you should have bought the next Playstation, to play the next game in the series. Im not a fanboy of any platform but it seems silly to buy a console in the hopes that your favorite exclusive game from another console will get ported. I would not buy a Wii hoping to see a sequel to Otogi, or Halo on it.

      • Hraesvelgr

        Well, on the flipside, there were a lot of people who bought PS3s just for FFXIII and then ended up kicking themselves once the 360 version was announced.

      • ForeverFidelis

        Welll, that was the plan, but I get an allowance of five bucks a week, so I can’t afford a ps3.

        I was able to get a super cheap 360 on ebay, though.

  • ringo_daisuki

    I’m all for console exclusivity (complete exclusivity, not timed). The major gripe I have is that every time a major game comes out for all three consoles, I have to decide which one I’m buying it for.

    If games were truly exclusive, it would make game buying a whole lot easier for me. While a lot of the time, there aren’t huge differences between the versions (at least between 360 and PS3), I can’t help but compare every detail to make sure I’m getting the better one. I check all the reviews, and user comments to see which one has slightly better graphics, better controls, if multiplayer is included, and if it’s worth playing. It quickly turns into a chore.

    As for driving console sales, I don’t know how much exclusives would affect business. It certainly pushed me into buying each of the three current-gen consoles. Speaking of buying a console for one game, I originally bought the PS3 for Katamari Forever, the Wii for Twilight Princess, and the 360 for Viva Pinata (haha).

  • http://twitter.com/matty_125 matty

    I’m for multiplatform more than not. Personally, I’m not too concerned either way, I plan on purchasing each current generation console at some point, anyway, but just look at some comments here and elsewhere; “why is this game on (__) and not (__)?”.
    If a game can be made available for more than one console, then, why not? It’s convenient and should please more people than not, I would think. That way, the strengths of the system itself will fill the wants/needs of the player.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/Kamiwoo Kamiwoo

    I don’t really see how console exclusivity really benefits anyone. Assuming multi-console releases of games were done properly, as in the complete opposite of the way it’s usually done now (one “main” console developed for and then shoddy ports for the rest), everyone would get a chance to play all the latest and greatest games without having to worry if they had made the “correct” hardware choices or not. Companies would see increased sales, and there would be a lot less of the console warrior type discussions on the internet. Win-win.

    Last gen you knew that if you wanted to play RPGs, you bought a PS2, but it’s not so simple anymore. The 360 has a respectable selection of RPGs, but then there’s all the PS3 and Wii exclusives. So while each individual console has a more diverse selection, that still means you need to own multiple consoles to play them all. Multiplatform releases solve this problem. I’d like to see situations such as Star Ocean 4, with timed exclusivity and an enhanced release later, be handled better by offering the enhanced options as DLC for the early adopters, though. That way it’s less of a dick move.

  • http://eonhack.blogspot.com theclaw

    The problem is that fanboys make these accusations without evidence. Most supposed “exclusive” games have never been announced or proven as such.

  • http://twitter.com/robertweizer Rand Travis

    i’m against it, but not if it’s a game that is exclusively designed for a specific console that if ported over would compromise game quality (not graphics!)

  • SlashZaku

    I’m in the ‘For’ category. They help distinguish the consoles and make each worth owning. Also, the developers don’t have to split resources and such to make sure Version A is up to par with Version B or what features have to be stripped from Version C and what can be added to Version C to kind of ‘balance’ the trade off. Hell, if they don’t hold that quality to standard, you end up with horrible versions/ports for games (FFXIII, a game designed with the PS3 in mind made for a piss poor port to 360). They can put all that effort/resources into one version. I saw the word ‘personality’ mentioned in the article and that’s kind of how I feel what exclusives do for the consoles.

    I bought an Xbox last gen after having my PS2 since the beginning and the reason I got the Xbox was because of the exclusives that I couldn’t get on the PS2 (Dead or Alive, Ninja Gaiden, Kingdom of Fire, Republic Commando, Halo, etc.). When the exclusives fleshed out, I got one. Not so much the case this gen, aside from 1st parties and a certain someone’s shift to a fixation on Sony. There are a few odd titles on 360 and Wii that I’d like to play (Mass Effect, the remaining Halos, Mario Galaxy) but not enough for me to justify each as compared to last.

    Granted, I pretty much don’t care for the ‘business’ end of the industry. I’m all for the developers making the best game possible and to get the best out of the hardware they’re given. I’m also for seeing new IPs/concepts attempted but I know the business end of things are a brick wall in front of that. SEGA is worried about doing another Shenmue because of sales and Kojima made a comment about ZOE3 that he wanted to do it but had to worry about profitability. He also said he had an idea for a new IP in mind but was worried about how it would sale. That’s one of the reasons I hate the business end of things because it impacts what some developers are willing to take a chance on whether it be a new IP or a new installment. Meh.

  • HPN

    I’m all for third party console exclusive games. I currently own a 360, which I picked up last year. I decided to purchase it over PS3 after doing some research and seeing that my favorite genres (simulation and strategy) are better repersented on the 360 with games like Tropico 3, SupCom, Universe at War, Battlestations and so on. I also feel that console exclusives give developers a chance to take full advantage of the PS3 and 360 hardware and their respective disc format. Nothings worse then a multiplaform game where one version is a lazy port or where one version is packed with a “download token” so you can download the missing content that could not fit on a disc.

  • Joanna

    At first I was all for multiplatform releases, but then reality hit me. One version always wins out, or some consoles get left in the dust. What I mean by the latter comment (which no one has pointed out) is that some consoles don’t get any ports because of the resources need to port to them. I’m talking about Wii/DS here. Thus we get an unfair one-way porting from the Wii/DS to the PS3/360/PSP. Examples of this include No More Heroes, Knight in the Nightmare, and most of Marvelous’s catalog.

    Before anyone points it out, I know the Wii’s hardware can’t handle PS3/360 games (likewise for DS-PSP), but that is not my point. My point is that while PS3/360/PSP owners benefit from multiplatform games, DS/Wii owners do not. It’s really not fair that one system gets to taste it’s own exclusives and the other system’s exclusives, while the other system just has it’s own games. Thus to keep things “fair”, I’m against multiplatforming. And before people reply, “you can buy the other systems”: not all of us have the money to get every system every generation. Keeping exclusives exclusive is one way for the owners of one system not to feel cheated by one way ports.

  • Hraesvelgr

    Well, since I haven’t played too many amazing console exclusives since the PS2 (unless we’re counting games like ME, which are on one console, but also on PC), I guess I’d say I’m against it. I mean, a lot of people go on about the PS3 exclusives, but the only one of those that I liked much was Heavy Rain. So there ya go.

  • kupomogli

    I used to own a 360, though owned a PS3 as well so due to a few reasons I ended up selling my 360. Most exclusives on either PS3 or 360 I don’t care about. Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Gears of War, Halo 3, etc, I could care less. However, Yakuza 3, Demon’s Souls, and Valkyria Chronicles are games I would have purchased a 360 again to pick up if they were console exclusives towards that system.

    I’m against exclusivity, but I really don’t care at this current point in time because all the exclusives I want are on the PS3 except four now. One of those four happens to be on the PS2 and PC, Test Drive Unlimited, while the other is actually on the PS3 but has no online while the 360 version had online added to it afterwards, Virtua Fighter 5. The other two are Shadow Complex and Dead or Alive 4.

    • Hraesvelgr

      Oh yeah, I forgot about Valkyria Chronicles…

  • thebanditking

    Im all for it but with stipulations of course. Those being

    1. Exclusivity based on the game turning out the best it can. Meaning if its not possible to develop the game with both in mind, then dont rush your game just so you can port it for another console.
    2. No timed/paid exclusives as they only serve to hurt the industry. The developer sees lower sales and the consumer gets the shaft when the game is ported later with more content for free. Especially in the case where the game was meant to be/already is multiplat and a blank check leaves one version in limbo.

    First off I don’t approve of a one console future and personally see it as a developer pipe dream and not a reality (much like digital distribution). This industry thrives on competion and a ever changing market and user base. One console would stagnate that growth cycle because none of the console manufacturers agree on how best to move the industry forward.

    Nintendo says low cost, easy to play games that focus on user interaction and cheap quick profit hardware is the way to go. Microsoft says the middle ground is best for technology, and puts focus on online and social networking and streaming digital content. Sony thinks a more open platform that prides its self on new unknown tech, with free online access and a console that is as much theirs as it is yours is the best way to go. Personally I would not be able to pick just one of those ideas, so its best to allow users to choose and let the software continue to push the consoles forward.

    To do that you need exclusive software something that gives not just people a reason to buy a product but can give inspiration to other developers, both third party and other exclusive developers(even on different platforms). There is a distinct benefit of working on only one console, it allows the team to focus on making the game the best it can by putting emphasis on content, gameplay, presentation and features rather then spending time figuring out if your tools and assets work on multiple platforms. It goes without saying that if you only have one console to worry about then the time spent bug testing, engine tweaking, and all the other annoying/difficult tasks is shortened leaving more time/resources to enhance and add to a game.

  • http://photovoltaik.bandcamp.com/ Ujn Hunter

    I am for exclusives (totally exclusive! not timed!) because I actually like owning all the consoles… if it weren’t for exclusives I wouldn’t have any reason to own a PS3. I also like to get the best version of any particular title so I’m not really happy with the timed exclusive crap, unless they tell you before hand “hey! this game will come out in 6 months for console b with more content!”

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Popular