Exclusivity in Gaming

[KHCast]

So this spawned from a discussion I've been having recently and thought it would be a good thing to discuss. So what are your thoughts on exclusives? Are there no issues with the way they work today, is there a bad way to do it? Are complaints unjustifiable and just console fanboyism?

Personally I like exclusives when they're created for a specific console. Like first parties or certain 3rd parties thats game has found a home with the console. when companies blatantly buy exusitivity though, that's when it gets tricky. Now yes there are exceptions I guess like when the developers games are going under and they want to still continue on the project like with Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo. However this to me can still prove as a issue, as when companies do this, they potentially cut off large portions of fans, that do not want the console the game is exclusive to.

If a game has built it's games fanbase on Microsofts consoles for example, and the series/next big game was going under, but Sony bought the rights to bring it back, while yes it's great the game is coming back and alive. However, the series has made itself known on Xbox, that's where its main install base is, and likely many of those fans aren't willing to purchase another console entirely that they have no interest in, simply to play said game. One game doesn't guarantee major sales in a console, and if the game does poorly in sales, it wouldn't be surprising to see happen, as again it's being placed on a system where many of the consumers aren't located. That's just how business goes. So yeah, purchased exclusives can work(like if Nintendo bought the rights to banjo), but can also be a danger and risk.

Though DLC exclusivity is a whole other story, but in short, can go die.

[MamboCat]

With specific reference to Tomb Raider, I was a little annoyed to hear about the XBone exclusivity, as my next console is likely to be a PS4.. however, it's a timed exclusive, is it not? Meaning eventually it will be on PS4 as well?

 

But yeah, I get that a series can be exclusive to one side or another, but to skip and jump across platforms....yeeeah it's a little annoying to the fanbase. Just look at the Nintendo exclusive deal with Sonic, how that divided people. It's a bit of a dickish move, in my opinion...

[KHCast]

With specific reference to Tomb Raider, I was a little annoyed to hear about the XBone exclusivity, as my next console is likely to be a PS4.. however, it's a timed exclusive, is it not? Meaning eventually it will be on PS4 as well?

Correct. It's just exclusive for a little while. Still a bit of a strange thing to do as it was going on it either way, but okay I guess?

[Cobalt_Bolt]

Exclusive manufacturer licenses in racing games have become rather troublesome in recent years as EA still has a lock on the Porsche license which results in content being locked to only their racing titles leaving other developers to have to pay through the nose to get them back into their games (I.e. Turn 10 for Forza 4) or use RUF (ie Turn 10, Kunos, Slightly Mad, Sector 3, Polyphony Digital) for all their titles.  Quite honestly I think that practice does more harm in the long term and short term regardless of how much money it makes them.

[Solly]

Now yes there are exceptions I guess like when the developers games are going under and they want to still continue on the project like with Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo. However this to me can still prove as a issue, as when companies do this, they potentially cut off large portions of fans, that do not want the console the game is exclusive to.

I think those fans need to get over it. Without Nintendo, they wouldn't even have the chance to play Bayonetta 2. On anything. When the choice is between the game not existing in the first place, or being exclusive to the console that saved it, I will take the second option any day. If it weren't for Nintendo, fans would still be begging for a Bayonetta 2, but people still had the gall to criticize them and Platinum for trying to deliver something together.

 

Other devs do this too. We have Sony to thank for Street Fighter 5 being made. It's not going to be on Xbox One, despite the 360 being the major console people played Street Fighter 4 on. I'm amazed it's even coming to PC, with cross-play to boot. The reality is that, like Platinum with Bayo 2, Capcom couldn't have even made the game without someone stepping in. 

 

I'm actually pretty sick of people complaining about exclusives, in general. If a game is on one console and not another, it's probably for a reason. Maybe the developer isn't interested in putting it on everything. Maybe the publisher doesn't think it's a worthy investment. Maybe they don't have the money to make it happen. Maybe a company funded development in exchange for putting it on their platform. There's almost always something, but people will always find a reason to complain about it, as if them being really upset about having to buy X console to play Y game trumps any real life explanation.

[KHCast]

Fact of the matter is, money isn't easy to come by. Not wanting or not being able to get another console is a reality and fair reason for people to be upset/bummed in certain instances. Going once again to my FFXV and KH3 hypothetical, those games have been clearly built with Sony's system mainly in mind despite it going on Xbone as well. If people bought a PS4 with KH3 and FFXV in mind, and those versions got canned, how is it unfair for them to complain or be upset? They spent 400 bucks on a system that seemed pretty damn likely to get said games. I don't see why they should still feel grateful that the game is coming to a system they aren't interested in or can't afford due to just buying a different console.

They're not gonna wanna spend the money on a console for just one game. That's just not wise. It's perfectly fine to be down and upset while still understanding the reason for the thing. Kids can fairly be upset they aren't able to to Disneyland like originally planned even they understand something came up. It's a disappointment nonetheless.

Edit: also keep in mind companies like Microsoft aren't exactly always positively perceived. People don't wanna support certain companies, for reasons. Microsofts past paints them in a negative light, so something people like ending up going exclusive to them is gonna rub some the wrong way. I really dislike Facebook, and would be pretty peeved to hear Zelda being given to them.

You're giving publishers/developers way too much credit and optimism IMO. Not all exclusives are made for fair and reasonable reasons. Companies are greedy, hence why we have exclusive downloadable content which to me just cannot be justified 95% of the time.

[Solly]

Fact of the matter is, money isn't easy to come by. Not wanting or not being able to get another console is a reality and fair reason for people to be upset/bummed in certain instances.

I never denied this. It's fine to not want to shove out money for a new console- they are expensive. But just because people are upset by it doesn't mean that the developer shouldn't have done it. Were they supposed to not make Bayonetta 2 or Street Fighter 5 because letting people feel left out sucks? It's up to the fans to just move on from that point.

 

Your KH3 and FFXV scenario is silly and not really worth entertaining. I'm not sure if there's even a precedent for a big game like those being cancelled for one console well after it was announced. When a third party game is exclusive, they're usually upfront about it. 

 

Games are a business, and development is extremely expensive. People should not impugn the character of designers just because they're willing to accept money from other companies to finish a game. I'm not about to justify console-exclusive DLC any sooner than I justify retailer-exclusive DLC, but making a blanket statement as generic and vague as "companies are greedy" means nothing. 

[KHCast]

So it's okay to disaprove of developers doing console exclusive DLC, but actual games in some instances going exclusive for reasons outside of developers needing a helping hand or brand loyalty is not up for arguing?

Well I still don't see why a game like Bayonetta 2 couldn't eventually get ported(sans Nintendo content), or SFV eventually go to Xbone if it has no actual exclusive content integrative to the games identity. (Though fighters usually are more popular and praised on Sony's consoles anyway, so it kinda makes sense to being exclusive to Sony, though with killer instincts success, idk there seems to be still a audience

I mean either way, the underlying fact of the matter is that 3rd parties going exclusive sucks, and it's not really something developers want in the grand scheme. Having to divide fans even moreso stinks. Though with the rise of kickstarter, perhaps that can be less of an issue.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

I'm just going to throw it out there. There is a massive difference between a company funding a game and therefore the game wouldn't exist without that company, and a company bribing a developer to make a multiplatform game exclusive for a few months. For example. Street Fighter V is Sony exclusive because without Sony, the game wouldn't exist. They were the ones who funded the game and therefore, it only makes sense to be exclusive to PS4. 

 

On the other hand, take Rise of the Tomb Raider. A game which was designed to be multiplatform, was going to be made regardless of what happened, and more or less, it's was coming anyway. Then Microsoft basically bribed Square-Enix to delay the other versions to give Xbox a timed exclusive. The big difference there being that it comes down to the developer being greedy and just wanting the money. Xbox isn't funding it, and the game was already being made. It was going to happen. 

[KHCast]

Now overall, I'm in agreement with Solly. I'm just more sympathetic I guess for gamers when they get cut off from something they like so much.

Yes I agree that it's good when a game is brought back to life and so the developers can keep working on the project, I agree that flinging your feces at the company in rage or anger is the wrong approach. Taking your anger out on the company for not being able to control a situation they could not control is unfair. Yes concerns about the financial stability of the decision are one thing, but getting mad cause "Bayonetta was a Xbox and Playstation thing and it was taken unfairly is not right!" is just immature behavior.

And yes there's a clear distinction between companies saving products, and companies excluding others from it to make more money. A third party being bought out of the blue to only be made for one system is different from something not being saved from being destroyed and forgotten. I'm not sure if, had the PT leak been true, Microsoft would be doing it to put the finger to Sony, or save it out of respect, but the game either way would be there(albeit with all the hype dead at that point).

I do have to say though, with cases like Street fighter V, I hope Capcom don't just completely ignore the Microsoft SF fans. Perhaps in their next fighter that's multiplat, Xbox could get some exclusive free content to compensate. Like a character from SFV or something. Least they're being acknowledged. That's exclusive DLC that I think is done right.

[Sean]

People who only have one system and are complaining about games not showing up on it kinda need to get over this shit. By choosing a console you are committing to the idea that of all the major systems out there, this is the one that will hopefully get you the most bang for your buck. Exclusives are the reason multiple systems exist; otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for them all to co-exist.

I'm happy with just having a Wii U. The PS4 and One don't interest me in the least, despite there being cool exclusives I want to play on them someday. I'm cool with that. It just means there may be a reason for me to pick up one of them in the future if I choose to.

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

People who only have one system and are complaining about games not showing up on it kinda need to get over this shit. By choosing a console you are committing to the idea that of all the major systems out there, this is the one that will hopefully get you the most bang for your buck. Exclusives are the reason multiple systems exist; otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for them all to co-exist.

 

That's an odd thing to say in such a diverse generation of consoles as this. ONE has its home features, the Wii U has its gamepad, Sony has alskdnlsakndlaksn, and that's just on the surface level. You've also got the talent behind each company, the inclusion of third party material, the data capacity of the console, its ease of use in development, etc. Exclusives are just another piece in a fairly large puzzle; if they're to be given any prominence, it's more-so in being the end product of all these other factors. Exclusives aren't the reason for multiple systems, multiple systems are the reason for exclusives, so to speak.

 

As to why this whole "buying exclusives" thing annoys so many people, that one seems easy enough. It's a cheap way to make up for a dearth of first-party material, because instead of providing something unique to attract your customers, you just hold hostage something that was already going to be available to everyone. It's take instead of give, which rubs people the wrong way. Instead of selling you bottled water, I'm just cutting off your tap until you pay. Yeah, corporations just want to make money, but we as customers have a voice in how they make it, at least.

[Sean]

I legitimately consider this current generation to be the absolute worst since my birth. It took me ages to want to get a Wii U, and I just never built up the interest to even so much as consider a PS4 or One over it. I'm really tired of keeping up with modern gaming, but right now I'm just going on a tangent.

[MegasonicZX]

I legitimately consider this current generation to be the absolute worst since my birth. It took me ages to want to get a Wii U, and I just never built up the interest to even so much as consider a PS4 or One over it. I'm really tired of keeping up with modern gaming, but right now I'm just going on a tangent.

Can't really blame you honestly, i've been saying for the past year or two that the gaming industry would be better off with one less console to get (preferrably i'd like it if xbox went) since the cost of everything is just going to keep increasing from here on out.

[Sean]

Turns out I can't edit posts on mobile so here's a double post I'll delete later on

Anyway what I forgot to elaborate is that the reason I started ranting about this gen is that honestly, all the stuff below the surface level just doesn't entice me. I pretty much base my console purchases on what kinds of games I can expect to see on them rather than their processing capabilities or out-of-game features. While it means that the Wii U being substantially weaker than the other two doesn't bother me in the least, on the flipside I consider the gamepad to be a handy convenience I happen to not use as much as Nintendo wants me to, and I could do without it either way.

[KHCast]

I don't like exclusive content/DLC. Let me rephrase that: I don't like the way exclusive content/DLC is being sold and marketed for the most part nowadays. The practice in essence is fairly standard and innocent. Certain versions of a game give exclusive things to the particular game. And they can be fine little extras that's give that version some identity to stand out and give you a reason to buy it. Shovel Knight recently does this and does it well with battle toads and Kratos being exclusive bosses for the Xbone and PS4 respectively. The Nintendo version of Soul Calibur 2 offered Link as a bonus character. 

 

So how do I not like this? Well, because stuff like this:

 

Exclusive missions, characters thatare not exclusive to console, etc. either being sold as DLC exclusively for one version, or in the game to start with, but only for one version. Content that was created for the game being cut and divided and is now exclusive for pre-orders, or preorders for certain editions/versions, or for purchase on only certain digital stores. It's honestly a bit toxic to witness. what was innocently included in games to be extra bonuses that give a version a bit of identity, now exploited and locked behind contracts as a way for companies to make as much money as they can. I mean choices is a great thing, but throwing me a crap ton of editions with some versions having some things while others having some of it but not all of it, is just not consumer friendly or helpful, and turns off people, and confuses them to no end. Evolve and Watch Dogs , say hi. And one  other example I'd like to point out would be CoD having that exclusive DLC deal with Microsoft. Like the whole rise of tomb raider thing, I just don't see why outside of more money for microsoft, this benefits anyone. The content was coming to them either way, and Microsoft already dominate the cod market.

 

Now I mean, there are still a couple instances where I see no problem with this practice. If a certain version were to get exclusive content to compensate for something that happened in the past, that's one example. I used my example before of Capcom perhaps doing this to compensate for Xbox not getting SFV, but as free DLC, or content that's already in that version.

 

Brand loyalty is another. Some games like to throw a bit of fanservice, but that requires exclusivity in some instances for legal reasons.

 

And just classic competition between the consoles. I guarantee if Sonic and Sega all stars had a exclusive character/stage for each of the versions and not just Microsoft, people wouldn't have been nearly as upset:

 

"Well the 360 version has banjo! "

 

"Yeah, that's cool, but I got Ratchet on PS3 and he's badass!"

 

"Kirby's way cuter than those guys though."

 

No one feels left out, and the characters exclusive are tied to that system. They aren't cutting off Tails from the 360 version or any crap like that. And none of the versions feel any less as they all offer something unique. What are your guys thoughts on this?

[LindseyWalker]

I'm against exclusives when they were initially planned for multiplatform release but then are bought out for exclusivity rights by the Console Companies. It's totally indefendible and is an unethical practice that is punishing fans of the franchise for simply putting money down on the wrong console choice, a decision which the fans have no prior warning to. An example of this is the new Tomb Raider. It's totally wrong. I understand that the Videogame Industry is a business, but punishing fans for some extra money with a sudden and unexpected exclusivity decision is a practice that shouldn't be accepted.

 

Street Fighter V and Bayonetta 2 are a bit different because they wouldn't exist without the Console Companies funding them. It's not ideal but it's perfectly understandable. I'd rather the games be console exclusive than not exist.

 

First Party Exclusives, like Mario and Halo, are a part of the console marketability and identity. Whilst I don't personally like this set-up, the consumer does have full knowledge that these titles have historically been on a specific system and are very unlikely to ever be released on another console. This can still be really iritating though because I would love newer Halo titles to come out on PC but they are very unlikely to because this will hurt the value of the Xbox One.

 

In general, I'm against exclusives, but it's a complex situation.

[Ripe]

First party exclusives are good thing to competion between consols. It's also good when it makes possible to make games which wouldn't exist otherwise like Bayonetta 2.

Payed exclusives aren't, they most likely exclude many fans of the franchise from games because they bought wrong console, which probably had series games on the past like Tomb Raider.

And wouldn't SF5 really exist without Sony's money? I mean, it's Street Fighter, one of the Capcoms biggest moneymakers.

[JaidynReiman]

First party exclusives are good thing to competion between consols. It's also good when it makes possible to make games which wouldn't exist otherwise like Bayonetta 2.

Payed exclusives aren't, they most likely exclude many fans of the franchise from games because they bought wrong console, which probably had series games on the past like Tomb Raider.

And wouldn't SF5 really exist without Sony's money? I mean, it's Street Fighter, one of the Capcoms biggest moneymakers.

[Gabz Girl]

Exclusives are fine so long as they are strictly made for that particular console or they exist because the company decided to give it money for support like Bayo2 and SFV.

 

What I don't like however is money hatting BS like Rise of the Tomb Raider. It just creates an annoying delay for others.

[-blank-]

Honestly, it really depends on how the exclusitivity is handled.

 

 

Now, I'm fine with first or second party exclusives, such as Mario and Halo. That's understandable. It only makes sense that, say, Nintendo wants to keep it's franchises on its own consoles. Or, you've got long-time series that have made thier home on certain platforms. Like Rachet and Clank for the Playstation series. I can deal with that.

 

However, I feel that in some cases, it hinders more than helps. Especially when it comes to series that have been mult-platform in the past, but then have an installment that's only for one console. Seriously, why would a company do this? They're missing out on a good chunk of thier fanbase by doing something of this nature.