Console exclusivity and gamer hypocrisy

The big news to hit the Internet recently, is that Capcom's newly announced Street Fighter V will be exclusive to the PS4 and Windows PC.

The mere mention of yet another high profile 3rd party IP getting the console exclusivity treatment has caused outrage amongst gamers. More specifically the Xbox crowd, who are outraged that a game from such a popular, previously multiplat franchise will become a console exclusive. Those on the Sony front have been quick to point out the hypocrisy in such a statement, raising the counter argument that Xbox fans were fine with console exclusivity, when Square Enix previously announced they'll be releasing Rise of the Tomb Raider the next title in the highly acclaimed and previously multiplat franchise, Tomb Raider exclusively on Xbox 360 and Xbox One.

Though we eventually learned that Rise of the Tomb Raider is in actual fact only a timed Xbox exclusive, and we have no real reason to assume that this is not also the case for Street Fighter V. The parallels between these two exclusivity deals have been drawn and discussion has led to outright arguments as it so often does.

All valid arguments posed on the subject essentially boil down to this "If it's not OK for Sony to purchase exclusivity rights for a popular multiplat title, then it's not OK for Microsoft" Which in all fairness is true, but what is fair in life is of little consequence in business.

It really should come as no surprise to anyone, to learn that the vast majority of console exclusivity deals are made with each participating companies best interest in mind. When either Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo for that matter, decide to purchase exclusivity rights for a popular 3rd party multiplat title, it is more often than not because they wish to use the wide spread popularity of that IP to entice gamers who do not own their console into purchasing it. Because once you own their console you'll probably want to justify that purchase by buying more exclusive games.

But what is in it for the developer you ask? How could it be in their benefit to have their popular multiplat franchise become a console exclusive? In the end, are they not effectively cutting off half of their potential consumer base?

Well, apart from the large sum of money they receive for going through with an exclusivity deal, the developer also receives aid in promoting and advertising their product. Because when a popular multiplat title becomes a console exclusive, you can bet the company who now owns the rights to sell that game on their console will want to let everyone know about it.

This makes perfect sense from a business stand point, but can be seen as quite the dick move by those gamers who now have to wait for the timed exclusivity deal to end. They could do exactly what the company who paid for console exclusivity is hoping for and take the plunge. However, purchasing a new console in order to play the game is not a viable option for everyone.

People suggesting that Microsoft provoked Sony into making Street Fighter V a console exclusive, is that really not just a convenient way to point the finger and play the blame game? These decisions are not made so arbitrarily.

Yes, Sony in this instance may well be doing what Microsoft have been doing for years. But it would be foolish to claim that Microsoft are forcing their hand, and it would be outright delusional to suggest that Sony themselves have not previously purchased the rights to have popular 3rd party titles exclusively on their consoles.

For every Titanfall there is a Bloodborne, and for every Rise of the Tomb Raider there is Street Fighter V.

When all is said and done, 3rd party exclusives exist because they make money. I'm not trying to justify them, just pointing out the reason why they are still a thing and that this is the only reason and justification Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo will ever need. On the other hand though, people are starting to wise up to the fact that many 3rd party exclusives are really just timed exclusives. Making the obvious choose to wait it out, until the game you want is inevitably released on your console of choice a year later with all their patches and DLC on the disc may even save you money in the long run.

For the record, I don't personally feel that multiplat titles like Street Fighter or Tomb Raider, should be made exclusive to just one console. My reasoning is simple, making a game that is part of a long running multiplat franchise, exclusive to just one console inevitably deprives people who have played a large part in making that franchise so popular in the first place.

That's my view, but whatever your opinion may be on the matter, the petty blame games and hypocrisy needs to stop. If a big company chooses to purchase the exclusive rights to a popular 3rd party multiplat title, it will have nothing to do with small minded One-upmanship. It will simply be because they believe profit can be made.

Thanks for checking out my blog. It's been quite a while since I last wrote one and I'm probably a bit rusty. Never the less, I thought the subject would make for an interesting read.

As always, do let me know what your personal views are in the comments section.

[rambi80]

Its also a lot cheaper to develop for one system at a time. And less risky financially. Nice blog

[zerocrossing]

I honestly think Capcom would have just built Street Fighter V for the Xbox One and ported it over to the PS4 like they did with many games last gen. I can only imagine Sony made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Anyway, thanks I'm glad you liked it :)

[Gazondaily]

Good blog mate and great points raised.

[mikeslemonade]

Sony paid money but not as much as MS does. I'm also in the minority that likes exclusives on all consoles. Tomb Raider as a timed exclusive is a thumbs up for me.

[pixelsword]

Don't worry. it's most likely a temporary move. A lot of their top-tier circuit players are Xbox players which includes, if I'm not mistaken: PIE Smug, Infiltration, Ricky Ortiz, Snake Eyez, Fillipino Man, PR Balrog, and an bunch of others... so I don't think it's a permanent move, as isolating them would be bad for their competitions. On the other hand, most of them use the big, 6-button platter contrllers (what my friends and me call them), and they could very well just buy the PS4, who knows, right?

[garrettbobbyferguson]

Not for a series as high profile as this, it's not less risky. Cheaper? Probably.

[ShaunCameron]

It is less risky in a sense that Capcom won't lose much if the game doesn't sell due to lower development costs.

[Concertoine]

It is cheaper, but xbox one and ps4 both use x86 this gen, so it wouldn't be nearly as consuming as last gen where developers needed to port to/port from the cell.

[randomass171]

^This. It was established early on that porting should be easier because the systems are built around similar architecture to PCs.

[rainslacker]

It really depends on the engine and the game itself if a game is easy to "port" on one system or the other. Some engines are much better at doing different builds, whereas others require a lot of work to build to different machines. Even though they both have x86 processors doesn't mean they use the same API's.

Having the same processor doesn't mean that the memory architecture or controller, or the system bus, or even the video card low level code is the same(although Video cards are very similar so probably not a big deal there), so there is much more to it. Having the same processor architecture just means less time changing that part of the game code, and likely makes writing API's and engines faster between the two platforms.

I would imagine Capcom is using a multi-plat engine, but it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't.

The issue with CELL is that it actually changed a lot of programming principals for games, and had to be done a certain way to maximize it's potential, which is why it was difficult, along with devs not really being familiar with it at the beginning.

Otherwise, I doubt porting costs are the issue here. The bulk of game budgets goes into marketing and asset creation. The basic code design stays relatively similar between builds so porting is relatively cheap.

[zerocrossing]

Double post so I may as well make good use of it.

The Game Awards is on in a couple hours, be sure to check it out if you can handle all the pop music and celebs crammed between game reveals/awards.

[Christopher]

I'm just hoping Samuel Jackson doesn't make another appearance. Does something think he is the icon of our generation or something?

[zerocrossing]

Oh yeah, could definitely do without that lol ;)

[freshslicepizza]

street fighter is a very old franchise and has been on many platforms but what i find alarming isnt this being exclusive but just how divided the xbox and playstation fans are. thats really what this boils down to because i haven't read much of anything in relation to the wii u not getting it. after all street fighter on the snes was a huge game with lots of marketing and even a fighting stick made for it. so its not like sony has earned this exclusive deal or has made a great partnership between capcom and sony.

third party exclusives are a partnership. it could be because they have a marketing deal. it could be like bayonetta where the hardware maker funds the project or helps. it could be a case where the hardware maker is funding all the advertising. it could be because that particular system has the largest targeted userbase to sell to and developing on one system is easier. it could just be a timed exclusive deal. whatever, its between the two partners but when we see this being console exclusive it means to me they want to keep it away from its closest competitor. microsoft did it with titanfall. they did it years ago with games like bioshock too. go back even further and sony did it with gta on the ps2.

how many nintendo third party exclusives come to their console and the pc, any?

the thing is gaming is expensive which is why each time this happens fans get upset. its business, thats all it is. its not a service to the fans or the misconception its to get the best out of the hardware. thats just pr stunt work. it is meant to exclude others to help sell hardware. it also questions the whole business practice with videogames and why exclusives are used to leverage hardware sales. do we see this with other electronics? a tv maker sells their product based on what that product offers and value proposition. game systems base most of their value on software which explains why exclusives are at the forefront in marketing their products.

[zerocrossing]

The thing is, Street Fighter IV sold immensely well across pretty much every platform it was released on. When a 3rd party multiplat title is that successful it's really only natural for people to expect it to remain multiplat.

I honestly feel that both Xbox and Sony fans were equally warranted in their outrage and disappointment, when they learned one of their favourite multplat title would be exclusive to the competition.

That's a good point though. We honestly don't know if Street Fighter V will be coming to the Wii U or the new 3DS in the future. That's the nature of timed exclusivity.

I do think it's highly unlikely that Capcom needed any outside assistance with developing Street Fighter V though. As I said the game sold incredible well, not to mention Capcom is a much larger company than say Platinum games, Bayonetta was also far less popular then Street Fighter IV, that was a new IP which hadn't been around long enough to establish a huge fanbase the likes of Street Fighter or Tomb Raider.

You make some good points though. Sony have been making excusivity deals for years, way before Microsoft entered the fray.

As I stated in my blog, these deals are often made to entice gamers into purchasing a new console so that they can play the now exclusive title. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all know that once you buy a console you're in a position to purchase their 1st party exclusives.

[freshslicepizza]

true. the only guarantee you really have in buying a console is first party content which is why its usually microsoft who tries the third party exclusive route the most. they see it as a lesser commitment. why pay your own employees on a salary forever when you can just pay for something that is less risky?

i think when we pull back and take a deeper look any exclusive game whether it be from first party or third party is created to exclude others. so no matter how you justify its existence the end result is still the same, its intended solely for the purpose to play it on that hardware. thats why we see such a divide among gamers.

you look at the commotion that happened when the movie transformers was used as leverage to get people to buy a hd dvd player. people were upset because they didnt want two formats and thought bluray was the better choice.

its why im such a strong supporter of pc gaming. i feel that is the best platform and where all games should reside. if all of nintendo's first party games, along with sony's and microsoft's, came to the pc how would console sales be and could those consoles sustain themselves? i think yes if the price was right and because millions of people dont care for pc gaming but they will never allow it so again its all about exclusion, not about what the customer wants. so this whole notion that this party pays for the development of that games somehow now makes it ok to be exclusive is not true at all. its just as much of a business decision having in-house game studios as it is when someone pays for timed exclusive deals or partners with a third party publisher.

[rainslacker]

Maybe it's just me, and maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I haven't seen a lot of xbox fans actually seem upset that they aren't getting the game. Maybe it's just on this forum.

What I do is a lot of "OMG Sony fans are now hypocrites", or "See Sony does it too" from the Xbox camp. From the Sony camp I see a lot of "MS forced Sony's hand", as in response to all the 3rd party exclusives MS buys up. I find both arguments ridiculous, but that's where we are, as the blog pointed out.

I think that's the divide that you talk about. Both sides of console preference are trying to discredit the other, and when people make reasonable comments, they suddenly become apologist or fan boys...which I'll admit some are, but the actual topic of if it's a good practice to buy up 3rd party exclusives get lost in the waves of idiocy. It's one reason that companies can keep doing crappy things and not change and still make butt-loads of money.

The console wars used to be kind of fun, but now they're just annoying.

[gangsta_red]

***More specifically the Xbox crowd, who are outraged that a game from such a popular, previously multiplat franchise will become a console exclusive. Those on the Sony front have been quick to point out the hypocrisy in such a statement, raising the counter argument that Xbox fans were fine with console exclusivity..***

Why are people getting this bit of history all mixed up?

It was the Sony fans that were outraged that a popular franchise like Tomb Raider was announced as a Xbox One exclusive. There was huge articles and talks on this very site that claimed MS is killing the industry for these practices that have been going on since the days of Nintendo and Sega. But when MS does this it's outrage and bottle throwing and rioting in the streets.

Xbox fans are now pointing out, where is their outrage now that Sony is doing the same thing? That is where the real hypocrisy is coming in.

Why do people keep saying that MS started it? Sony did this with Tomb Raider II, they bought the exclusive rights to keep the game off of the Sega Saturn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

"In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment America signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue dollars and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive"

Why is Sony fighting back, fighting back from what? They have been doing it since the beginning. If anything MS is fighting back.

Xbox fans are upset because the same rage that was thrown in MS's direction during TR has not even been seen when SFV is rumored to be a PS4 exclusive.

With the insane rise of costs for development and the high cost of maintaining a 1st party studio you will definitely see these big guys (Sony, MS, Nintendo) going the 3rd party exclusive route. Whether it's buying an established IP or funding a new IP, it is just better business to have an outside party make the game and release it on their console.

[zerocrossing]

"Xbox fans are upset because the same rage that was thrown in MS's direction during TR has not even been seen when SFV is rumored to be a PS4 exclusive."

Xbox fans are absolutely warranted in their outrage, and yes they have every right to point out how Sony lost it when Tomb Raider was announced as an Xbox Exclusive.

"Why is Sony fighting back, fighting back from what? They have been doing it since the beginning. If anything MS is fighting back."

One of the points I'm trying to make with my blog is that the hypocrisy goes both ways. Before Rise of the Tomb Raider became a timed exclusive to Xbox One and Xbox 360 there was Metal Gear Solid 4, exclusive to Playstation 3, and before that there was Dead or Alive 4 exclusive to Xbox 360, and so on and so forth.

Exclusivity deals are an unfortunate part of the video game industry. That being said, it doesn't make the harsh reality any easier to deal with when you're on the side that are missing out.

Knowing Capcom you can guarantee they will eventually release Street Fighter V on pretty much every current platform going once the exclusivity deal is over.

[BillytheBarbarian]

You nailed it man. So many people point at Ms as evil for paying for exclusives.

It was Sony doing this stuff since Saturn was on shelves. Kids raised with ps1 are just lost. Now Sony buys companies and has them make games for PlayStation.

Sony used to hold out on product from Kmart, Sears, and kaybee toys if they sold Dreamcast stuff. Why do people think Sony are so good versus MS I'll never know. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Sony prevented EA from making Madden and other titles on Dreamcast with crappy licensing deals. Sega wouldn't pay and enlisted Visual Concepts to make their sports...thank god.

People need to wake up and stop acting like Sony is some kind of savior of gaming. Their business practices were just as jilted as Nintendo's NES days when companies weren't allowed to make games on Master system.

[N4g_null]

How about that square stock buy out. Capcom just needs some sure money because they don't think this game will sell. The truth is younger gamers are different and these publishers are struggling.

[Kavorklestein]

To me, the funniest thing of all is it's Super Street Fighter 5! Who really freakin cares? I know I sure don't. I prefer having a timed exclusive like Tomb Raider than a fighter game.
Fighting games are a Dime a dozen. I used to love them as a kid, (especially tekken, masters of teras kasi, dead or alive, etc.. but I just don't get into them like I used to...

Besides, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, and Killer Instinct are MUCH more up my alley if I'm gonna play a fighting game anyway.

[BitbyDeath]

I don't care for either.
Opinions though.

[Kayant]

"Making a game that is part of a long running multiplat franchise, exclusive to just one console inevitably deprives people who have played a large part in making that franchise so popular in the first place. " - I think this is the most important thing and the only time where I feel it's an ok compromise is when a game is funded which won't have existed without one of the big three stepping in. At the end of the day we as gamers are the one that benefit there because rather that never having to play the game, we gain a choice as to when we can play the game.

Things like Bayonetta 2, Titanfall(Intially before E3 buyout) are cases where games that would otherwise not existed now exist thanks to MS/Nintendo taking the risk and funding the projects.

Things like TR are not beneficial to us because the game was going to come out for X360/XB1 before the deal their were no signs development was in trouble that CD/SE needed help.

With SFV 5 there is still the slim chance Sony did a TF where they saved the project in turn for exclusivity where timed or full console. The effects on the same at the end of the day as if they did the same as MS with TR but personally it's a less "scummy" move in the sense that whilst there aim was to gain exclusivity for their platform, the repercussions of their deal is that SFV 5 sees the light of day rather than being left in limbo.

[zerocrossing]

Absolutely! I'm all for publishers coming to the rescue of new IPs that may no have happened otherwise. Demon's Souls, Titanfall and Bayonetta 2 are great examples.

Purchasing exclusive rights to sell a popular and/or long running multiplat titles is a different story. The practice benefits only the owner of the IP and the company who purchased the right to sell the game exclusively.

Capcom made a ridiculous amount of money from Street Fighter IV. They sold over 6 million units on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 alone, so I honestly doubt they needed help from any outside source in order to develop the highly anticipated Street Fighter V.

[N4g_null]

I believe the problem is they need ssomeone to pay for all the other games that are bombing.

[Kayant]

Well that may not be the case because it has been confirmed to be co-developed and the port of USFIV is being done by Sony themselves just doesn't suggest a money hat.

"But the hype doesn’t stop there as Sony is also bringing USFIV to the PlayStation 4 brought to you by their Third Party Production Group! As you guys can see, the partnership has only just begun and it’s already a huge win for the community."
http://blog.eu.playstation....

[truewittness]

I see no problem with it, I mean shouldn't it read:
"Street Fighter 5 coming exclusively to Sony Playstation 4 and Microsoft Windows PC"

[zerocrossing]

Well, there's no problem with it in the long run. But only because we can pretty much guarantee Street Fighter V will be coming to Xbox One at some point.

The practice of excluding a large group of people for financial gain (even if only temporarily) does seem a little anti consumer. Does locking out half of your consumer base for a year really sound like a smart business decision? I suppose it may if Capcom plan to sell Street Fighter V under several different titles over the next 5 years like they did with Street Fighter IV. And If all the DLC and micro-transactions half taught us anything, Capcom are far too in love with money to pass up that opportunity.

[truewittness]

It will come X1 in the form of "Super". I think its a bad move too but I don't demean what they're doing. Capcom is money hungry because they have none. I was hoping Microsoft would just buy Capcom.

[EXVirtual]

It kind of depends on how and why the deal was made.
I just find it funny how Sony has been called financially unstable for the past year, yet suddenly has enough money to do a MS style deal. I think Sony helped fund the game and helped with general development, but not enough to make it a full exclusive.

[zerocrossing]

It really depends on what deal is being made. I imagine a timed exclusivity deal is not quite as pricey as purchasing total exclusivity of the IP, or the first game of a franchise for that matter.

I honestly have a hard time believing that's the case. As I stated above, Capcom sold over 6 million copies/downloads of Street Fighter IV on the PS3 and Xbox 360 alone, this isn't even taking into consideration the funds earned from the Windows PC and 3DS versions, nor does it tell us how much money they would have made threw DLC and microtransactions.

Capcom should have been able to develop Street Fighter V alone, unless they are having severe financial trouble. Another thing that makes me think twice about this is, if Sony truly did help make Street Fighter V happen then I seriously doubt they'd be so generous as to allow it to end up on Xbox.

[Majin-vegeta]

Honestly I don't think this game would have happened without Sony.

Let's look at some things.

-Capcom announced they don't have enough resources for next gen fighter.
-SF has a bigger presence on PS consoles (Majority of fighters do I believe).
-Sony&Capcom have had a great releationship since they started PS.

Also I don't think any other editions will release on other consoles(Assuming they milk SF V like SF 4).Sony probably stated that in the contract.

[zerocrossing]

(Edit)

Street Fighter on all platforms has combined sales of over 6 million units global

Street fighter VI on PS3 sold 4.00 million units global
Street fighter VI on Xbox 360 has 2.81 million global

Super Street Fighter IV: 3D Edition sold 1.6 million units global

And Ultra Street Fighter IV sold over 500,000 units global

Source VGChartZ http://www.vgchartz.com/gam...

I know Capcom have stated they've been struggling financially, but after looking at these sales figures, can you honestly tell me that Capcom couldnt possibly afford to develop Street Fighter V without the aid of Sony?

You might be right, I don't truly know. But I believe it's highly unlikely.

@ZHZ90

If you could provide me a more creditable source, I'd be happy to retally the numbers.

I am aware that both Capcom and Sony have confirmed the exclusivity deal, I just can't honestly see Capcom passing up on all that Xbox cash.

"Xbox fans used to attack anyone who writes a comment about "I want Titanfall on PS4" or "Titanfall will appear on PS4"

True, but there is pettiness on both sides, I don't see that as an excuse to claim Street Fighter Vs exclusivity as being a good thing.

[ZHZ90]

1. Don't truest VGChartZ, they're numbers are incorrect but I agree SF4 alone sold great on all platforms

2. Capcom and Sony confirmed that it's exclusive so even if they did Super I doubt it'll be a multiplat just like what happened with DR3. And yes Sony did aid Capcom.

3. Xbox fans used to attack anyone who writes a comment about "I want Titanfall on PS4" or "Titanfall will appear on PS4"

[rainslacker]

Capcom does have some financial difficulties, but that doesn't mean they can't fund games. There are always investors out there, and a main title SF game could easily find financing with the right producer. Almost all publishers use external investors to help fund big games. It marginalizes the risk to the actual company for the small cost of paying a bit more to the investors should the game be successful. Square Enix was on the verge of bankruptcy, and they still make expensive games, and then eventually had to merge to stay afloat because they weren't returning enough.

Knowing this, it's quite possible that the producer went shopping for investors, and Sony stepped up to the plate. A similar scenario is what EA claimed is the reason TitanFall went exclusive(although I find that claim dubious).

Too little is known about what happened with this exclusivity deal right now, and it's possible that Sony was the only company that wanted to fund it, or Sony just is doing some sort of marketing deal so gets it timed, or that Capcom just didn't want to make it for the X1 for whatever reason. Keep in mind this deal was made when X1 was selling pretty badly compared to the PS4, likely even before when it was worse, so the X1 may not have been that much of a consideration...possible given that the Wii U isn't a consideration.

[MookaTek]

The only time I ever raged over a console exclusive was when FFVII was announced for the original Playstation. At this time, I was an insane Nintendo fanboy (is there any other type of fanboy other than the insane kind?) and I was almost daily salivating over the Final Fantasy 64 screenshots that had popped up in a few magazines.

When I saw that Final Fantasy 64 not only was not going to get made, but that its replacement was going to be on a non-Nintendo system, I was livid.

At this time, I was around 16 years old and after much pointless insanity and rants that no one understood (video games were not exactly popular at this point in history), I got a part time job and I gave in and bought a Playstation before FFVII was even released. I bought it with Tobal No. 1 for the FFVII demo (and incidentally ended up kind of liking Tobal), Wild Arms, and Suikoden. I was enthralled by all of this RPG goodness and FFVII was the icing on the cake when it released.

I believe that when I bought a Playstation, I finally grew up and shed my fanboy shackles. Even before Playstation, I hated Sega, but that's a whole other story. Sony was the last brand I hated for no reason other than being a stupid-ass kid with a limited budget and a love affair with a piece of goddamn plastic. For the last 17 years, I've endeavored to own any and all consoles that get released because like it or not they're all going to have exclusive games.

The only way to play any and all games is to own all consoles and a PC. I know it can be expensive, but to absolutely hate something simply because you cannot afford it is not healthy. I wasted several years of my youth hating pieces of plastic that didn't have "Nintendo" printed anywhere on them for reasons I can barely fathom at this point in my life.

I think that if you are wasting time being angry about console exclusives, then you are young and do not have much money. You are, like I used to be, comfortable with what you have and what you grew up on.

Trust me, there is a chance that you will one day have a full time job and that you will be able to afford all consoles, and then you will feel like a fool, like I did, when you can play any and all games on every system.

Just be patient. None of these companies love you as much as love them.

[rainslacker]

And all that raging is what happens now with a lot of this "controversial" stuff. FFVII in particular would have been a PS1 exclusive regardless of if Sony paid for it. But Sony did fund the game, because it probably wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Anyhow, my point is, so much rage happens before anyone really knows the actual reasons. I'm guilty of it myself, although I try to offer scenarios to keep the discussion level...which rarely ever works.

[MookaTek]

Thankfully, I eventually had the sense to calm down and just buy the system that the game was going to be on. A simple thing in hindsight, but my young self had a psychotic passion for Nintendo that I can't say I miss too much. At that point, I had already forgiven Sega for their nonexistent crimes (basically, I ended up owning a Genesis, so all was forgiven), so I at least had some experience "abandoning" Nintendo for other things.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

Back before the 5th gen , console exclusive that used to be on various consoles, did not matter to me . But then i went into EB Games and asked "when is DOOM 3 for PS2 coming out?" The EB clerk replied "never , only coming out on XBOX and PC" Man did that hurt !

But then scored a XBOX in 2006 , and bought "DOOM 3 Collectors Edition " which included the original DOOM and DOOM 2 PC version . I was happy , because i had only played the PS1 port of DOOM which was missing levels from the original PC DOOM and DOOM 2 .

to mooka tek , you are absolutely right ! Having patience is the key ! One of my favorite games from 2013 was METRO LAST LITE for PS3. So naturally i wanted to play METRO 2033 , but couldn't afford a PC or XBOX 360 to play it on . But now is available on PS4 . I am buying a PS4 in the near future , and METRO 2033 will be the first game i will buy for it . Then hopefully a PC rig to game on , and the a XBOX 1 when it drops down on price , to play their exclusive's . In the meantime their are somany other game i have not played on.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

Sorry about my grammar mistakes in my last paragraph, in my first comment bubble . I lost the option to edit it.

[BitbyDeath]

"In the end, are they not effectively cutting off half of their potential consumer base?"

Nope, given current sales they'd be cutting off only a quarter of their potential consumer base.