Exclusive games and how we should view them

The term exclusive has changed somewhat in the industry. It used to mean if you could only get that game on one particular platform it meant exclusive. While this is true the lines have been blurred over the years for various reasons. I recall Aaron Greenberg from Microsoft used to use the term exclusive even if the game was coming to the PC. In fact titles like Bioshock had 'only on Xbox and Windows' right on the cover. The reason why they emphasize this is they know their direct competitor was Sony and to some degree Nintendo. Believe it or not this type of marketing works but the term exclusive is very loosely based and the game did eventually come to the PS3. We also have the term Playstation exclusive. Which means games like MLB: The Show is exclusive to the Plsyattion family (PS3,PS4,Vita)

Which brings up another part of exclusives, timed. Obviously Microsoft had a deal in place to prevent the game from coming out on the PS3. From all the controversy surrounding Microsoft's parity clause it was also well known Sony had their own terms set in place. That was games which came out before on a competing platform had to include additional content. This explains any game that did not have a simultaneous release had extra content on the PS3 version. I believe Sony has done away with these restrictions and now Microsoft is trying hard to take attention away from their own policies where they don't want older titles if they came out on a competing platform. They know sales are often front loaded and view this as not prioritizing the Xbox. A perfect example are sales for games like Oblivion and Bioshock on the PS3, they were much less than how they sold on the Xbox 360 even though Sony asks for additional content.

Having simultaneous release dates is very important. Rockstar for example could have released GTA IV on the Xbox 360 when it was ready but the PS3 development of that title meant a delay and they wanted both versions out at the same time (I imagine Sony would not be very pleased if they released it on the Xbox 360 first). This generation we have seen Sony take a more active role in timed exclusives, a couple of games come to mind such as No Man's Sky and The Witness. Microsoft of course still likes to partake in this as well and the upcoming Tomb Raider is a perfect example. So yes, timed exclusives while not being real exclusives still hold some weight to them. They help drive more interest to that platform and also tries to create an identity with it. Oddly enough Tomb Raider is still often thought as a Playstation title since that is where its origins are from. Nintendo doesn't seem as interested but then again they don't seem to be very pro-active when it comes to third party support regardless.

Then of course we get into DLC and now retailers getting involved. All this does is split up your userbase. If it's timed it's not as big of a deal. Yes it's still a pain but at least you don't need to buy specific hardware to get it. When retailers get involved that's a different story because now you have to try and gather all the pieces if that is even possible anymore. The consumer at the end of the day is treated as a number. Publishers will weigh their efforts on install base, retailer and hardware marketing support, and plain old money upfront. All it really does is make it frustrating for the consumer and often times for no real benefit other than to the platform holder/retailer/publisher. Not the actual consumer. Timed exclusives are actually better in the end for consumers because that barrier of exclusion is only temporary. Full exclusives limits your audience permanently.

It is common knowledge the reasons why exclusives are there in the first place. To help sell hardware. Because what you are really doing is excluding others from playing them. From an outsider looking at this doesn't make any sense at all. Why would you want to make a game in hopes for people to enjoy only to limit your audience? can you imagine if a musician decided because they like the sound of vinyl they will only release their upcoming album on it and not CD or in digital stores or streaming services? Look at all the controversy we saw when the movie Transformers was being used as a catalysts to help sell HD-DVD. It was a bum-wrap because they were trying to sell a format with little care to making access as easy as possible. Thankfully one format won in the end (and it also was the better format) but during that time they didn't care about the consumer, they cared about winning a format war.

The makers of the hardware spend lots of money designing it and releasing them. Then they also help fund projects for it and Nintendo is probably the easiest example of a company whose software is designed around the hardware. All these people asking them to make games on other platforms need to realize their philosophy first, they want to create new experiences. Sometimes the market reacts (the Wii), sometimes they don't (the Wii U). On that note Kinect failed and Microsoft finally caved in and stopped forcing it on their hardware. Now we are heading into virtual and augmented reality games and again these companies are likely to make exclusive content in order to sell the hardware. We should all expect there to be some content exclusive, that's how this industry works and thrives. What we don't know are outside parties, namely content from third party publishers.

All this build-up has now come to how do we react to exclusive content and how should we actually react? I've read a lot of comments about certain games and certain attitudes about games that come out on various platforms, games that come out later to other platforms, games that may come to other platforms and games we want to come to other platforms. Ask yourself this very important question, does it bother you if a game you thought was exclusive ended up coming out to another platform. If so why? Does it bother you about port-begging? That is when we see games like Bloodborne, Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2 have those that want those games to come out on other platforms. Each game has a different likelihood based on who published it, funds it, and so on. At the end of the day people asking are asking for various reasons. The easy answer is so they don't have to buy more hardware. Regardless of the reasons does this bother you when they ask and why does it bother you?

Much like music and movies many of us like the set standard put in place. It's convenient and less costly by having one product instead of multiple ones to access the content you want. It also highlights the disappointment by many why some systems are not backwards compatible. With games it's not so easy. Different configurations is a prime example but things are starting to improve in this area. Microsoft just announced they got the game Shovel Knight to work on the Xbox one from the PC and it only took one day. It's why Windows 10 is going to also play a key role for them. The PS4 also shares much the same architecture of the PC. The PS3 was problematic for developers to cross-breed and Sony likely wanted it that way so developers would focus exclusively on their hardware. Nintendo is going to have to adopt to this rule of thumb too if they want better third party support.

An easy solution to 'hopefully' make everyone happy is to focus on the systems strengths first. Get the most out of that particular hardware. Once that is done pass the coding to another team. Have them work on that game to port to another platform as to not tie up the developers who will want to work on a new project. The reason why I say hopefully is because part of me feels not everyone would be happy with this scenario. Call it selfishness, brand loyalty, or any other excuse. Some just don't want certain games to make their way to another platform. To me I need to ask why? Why would it matter to you if they put all of their efforts on that game you now enjoy and pass it on to someone else to make so that more people can enjoy it? Of course there needs to be value in porting the game. They are not going to port games if they don't think they can make a profit for one thing.

Exclusives make perfect sense to hardware providers but to all consumers and potential consumers out there? Not so much.

[s45gr32]

I am glad that five or less we gamers will see cloud based online gaming services like PlayStation Now ending this meaningless hardware war. The battle of hardware is over, the battle of software has begun. Smart tvs, smartphones already offer the multimedia video services that consoles offer. Is possible to use the PS4 remote play on smartphone or tablet meaning able to play PS4 games on the go and anywhere on the house via your smartphone or tablet. Proving that consoles and hand helds are done. So instead of buying multiple platforms gamers may end up buying multiple services. Lets face it the console business model no longer is viable in this day and age. Consoles can no longer hold on to exclusives. Soon will see PS4 exclusives on PC via PlayStation Now he he he he and Microsoft makes exclusives to PC and Xbox One like Son of Rome or Dead Rising 3. Again, the console business model is no longer viable in this day and age.

[freshslicepizza]

maybe, maybe not. what is clear is there is still a sizeable demand for consoles. the ps4 is still on fire and the xbox one is doing pretty good too. including the wii u there are about 35 million consoles out there.

i do think in the future that it will become like a streaming service where you subscribe to ea access, playstation now and so on. right now the infrastructure isn't in place to really take over.

[s45gr32]

Not right now, but in five years yes. Technology is the industry that moves the fastest out of all industries