I've been thinking alot about this lately. I don't need 3 different android phones to run all the android apps I like. I just chose the one that meets my needs the most closely. I don't need to subscribe to 2 separate cable subscriptions to watch all the tv shows I want. Why should we have to buy 3 separate consoles to play one or two games on each one that you can't play on the other? Last gen I had the 360 and ps3 and the 360 would get used every day and I'd turn on the ps3 to play stuff like uncharted and infamous for a week or so after they came out then go back to the 360. I know why they do it I just wish it would stop. I really don't want 3 separate boxes that do practically the same thing under my tv and have 2 mostly collect dust. Does anyone see a future where this madness ends?
Are Console Exclusives Bad for the Consumer?
- Thread starter el swordo
- Start date
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
One way to handle this is to get a good PC, get the majority of games you want to play there for cheap via all the digital distribution deals and never worry about having to pay for multiplayer and then, when the new consoles drop in price and have a large library of exclusives at budget prices, jump in and get the one you want and play catch up.
It's what I'm doing this generation.
Good idea. Too bad I'm not already so committed to ps+ with free games and halo is my favorite multiplayer game of all time.One way to handle this is to get a good PC, get the majority of games you want to play there for cheap via all the digital distribution deals and never worry about having to pay for multiplayer and then, when the new consoles drop in price and have a large library of exclusives at budget prices, jump in and get the one you want and play catch up.
It's what I'm doing this generation.
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
I have a ton of PS+ content... didn't make me buy a PS4 though.
I'll keep playing on my PS3 and Vita and when PS4 has a pricedrop and a new Uncharted and some other exclusives, I'll pick one up and have a giant library of PS4 games to go with it.
Can't help you with Halo... though I think the original xbox Halo games that made it to PC at one point or another.
Yeah the first 2 are on pc but nothing since.I have a ton of PS+ content... didn't make me buy a PS4 though.
I'll keep playing on my PS3 and Vita and when PS4 has a pricedrop and a new Uncharted and some other exclusives, I'll pick one up and have a giant library of PS4 games to go with it.
Can't help you with Halo... though I think the original xbox Halo games that made it to PC at one point or another.
I'm planning on doing the same with PS4 (sans the gaming PC for now and I also have a Wii U and 3DS in the mix).I have a ton of PS+ content... didn't make me buy a PS4 though.
I'll keep playing on my PS3 and Vita and when PS4 has a pricedrop and a new Uncharted and some other exclusives, I'll pick one up and have a giant library of PS4 games to go with it.
I'll get a PS4 in a year+ when I can probably at least get a deal/bundle, and probably not need to buy any games right away due to grabbing the PS4 PS+ stuff on the web store between now and then.
Last edited by a moderator:
JustInEdible
CAGiversary!
Not really true. Exclusives are GOOD for the consumer, really. In the examples you gave, we don't need to subscribe to two separate cable subscriptions to watch what we want, but all the cable companies are worthless because of it and everyone knows it. There's no real sense of competition and distinction that drives anyone to be better, and no one is loyal to either company because they're both crap and offer no differences beyond price (slightly).
But if, say, Comcast exclusively had AMC and Showtime and DirectTV had HBO and Discovery (...I couldn't think of another heavyweight channel), then people would be measuring what they care more about and so Comcast and DirectTV would have to be like "WELL, WE'RE ALSO THIRTY DOLLARS CHEAPER" or "WE GIVE YOU 3D TVs, SCREW THOSE GUYS". And then imagine if Google stepped into the game with their own cable company, with exclusive features for Android users?
In fact, if there was a third major cell phone mega-company to compete with Google and Apple, you can bet it would be good for us because Apple probably wouldn't be so damn expensive at the risk of being ignored, and Android would be a lot more unified (not 500 different devices and operating systems) so they wouldn't frustrate or alienate people. As it is, it's just "pick Heads or Tails."
Fact if console exclusives didn't exist I could build a badass pc using whatever components I want. I could install windows, linux, steam os, or even a hackintosh. I could use any controller under the sun if I so desired. On top of that I could use google chrome or firefox which are far superior to anything on consoles. Also, a pc has many more uses then a console. Less competition? If anything there would be more competition. Whoever builds the better hardware or who has a slicker os would sell more rather than holding games hostage just so I have to buy one over the other. I'm just sick of having a mess of cables and shit behind my tv. I'd rather spend the time playing games then rearranging my entertainment center to make another box fit.
JustInEdible
CAGiversary!
But if there were no consoles, no standardized "this machine, with these components, will play any game created with this machine's logo on the box", don't you think it would be worse? You have to have a standard that everything else can deviate from. If there were no consoles, then just like you say, everyone would have their own computer setup with their own choices of components. And you know a bunch of moms and dads out there aren't going to be going to a store and carefully reading the back of the box to see if their 13-yr-old's rig can play this or not, they can barely figure out console games.
Then it would be a nightmare to share your game with anyone else because you would have no exact idea what their rig could handle. And I'd think that developers would have to low-ball their game's specs so that they can sell to the most people and make the most money, because if they built the game too graphics and processor intensive then too many people wouldn't be able to run it.
But admittedly I don't really know so much about PC gaming. Maybe I'm way off and totally wrong. If so, my fault. Anyway it seems like this gen you won't have to worry about this much because the Xbone and PS4 are so similar to gaming rigs that there should be wayyy more multiplatform games coming your way, and also my way as a console gamer. Everyone wins, right? Except where the WiiU is concerned I guess.
Have you looked lately? Consoles are basically dumbed down pcs nowadays anyway just in a smaller box. Sure you can't share games but I don't do that anyway. And at the price of some of the steam sales it doesn't matter much that you can't trade the game. Sure not every pc can run every game but if you build it from scratch you have a pretty good idea what it can handle. I like consoles because of the exclusives out there but if i wanted to run every single game available on consoles it would cost me $1200. The only one that I don't see being replaceable by pcs is the wiiU. If I could get a pc that could play Uncharted,Infamous,Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Gears of War etc for $800 with the option of replacing the video card 3 years down the line that would be a way better deal then buying both a ps4 and xbox one. Unfortunately I doubt that will ever happen.
Billytwoshoes
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
To answer the main question, console exclusives (which for the most part are first party games) have always been good for the consumer, it ensures that each console developer takes the time to entice gamers with worthwhile experiences you can't find elsewhere. Once they have their attention, they need to make sure they retain that interest with additional exclusives. This perpetuating interest is all backed by a high quality piece of hardware that can run the said exclusives as seamless as possible.
If you take away the exclusives, all you have left are third party companies spending more resources on coding each version to work as smooth as possible for each platform, which given past track records for multiplats (like Skyrim and Silent Hill HD collection, for example), isn't always effective (even post-patching). This same effort can be put towards making one definitive version compatible with one set of hardware rules, and creating a more fleshed out experience in result of this.
In short, if there are no first party exclusives to bring to the table (which be honest, why would Sony / Microsoft / Nintendo want to sell software to consumers that own the competitor's hardware, when they currently have an existing hardware model that they need to sell?), it would decrease the competition and quality in the current marketplace, and would overall hurt the gaming diversity available.
If you are talking about a future system where there is only one hardware box available, and that all but one company gets out of the hardware game, then who would be the one company that would dictate the hardware? That idea is too similar to the current PC marketplace, which is basically where most all of these ideas have already been streamlined anyways.
If you take away the exclusives, all you have left are third party companies spending more resources on coding each version to work as smooth as possible for each platform, which given past track records for multiplats (like Skyrim and Silent Hill HD collection, for example), isn't always effective (even post-patching). This same effort can be put towards making one definitive version compatible with one set of hardware rules, and creating a more fleshed out experience in result of this.
In short, if there are no first party exclusives to bring to the table (which be honest, why would Sony / Microsoft / Nintendo want to sell software to consumers that own the competitor's hardware, when they currently have an existing hardware model that they need to sell?), it would decrease the competition and quality in the current marketplace, and would overall hurt the gaming diversity available.
If you are talking about a future system where there is only one hardware box available, and that all but one company gets out of the hardware game, then who would be the one company that would dictate the hardware? That idea is too similar to the current PC marketplace, which is basically where most all of these ideas have already been streamlined anyways.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm talking more like a blu ray player/set top box future. For example apple tv and roku do pretty much identical tasks but you may prefer the apple ecosystem over the roku ecosystem. Or one might have a more polished os to it or do something that the other doesn't (file formats, ethernet jack, etc). I know exactly why they do it i'm just getting sick of buying expensive boxes for 1-2 games that i can't get on the other one. Just rearranging my entertainment center the other day made me want to pick up my tv and fling it across the room and i only have two consoles hooked up right now.
Righteous Nixon
CAGiversary!
Well, I for one hope we don't have a future where this madness ends. This madness drives innovation (both in regards to the hardware and the games themselves) and keeps prices down. You take away the competition in the gaming market and gamers will be a LOT worse off. Prices will be higher, the selection of games will be weaker, and the overall quality of the games will be lower. So again, I for one hope it never ends. Gaming has never been better and its never been cheaper and this is a direct result of this so called madness. Personally, I think 3 consoles + PC gaming is a perfect mix for the market. Just look at the last 3 generations for proof of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
The simple solution is to just be fine not playing every game out there. I don't have time for it anyway, personally, so I don't care about missing some AAA games on platforms I don't own. I had all three at various points this past gen, but definitely not this go around.
I've got a Wii U for Nintendo's games, and will pick up a PS4 at some point when there are actually some games I want to play and hopefully a price drop/sale/bundle deal. X1 I'll just live with missing the exclusives as I just don't have time for 3 consoles (4 counting 3DS)--or really even for more than one--and I care about their exclusives the least of the 3.
I've got a Wii U for Nintendo's games, and will pick up a PS4 at some point when there are actually some games I want to play and hopefully a price drop/sale/bundle deal. X1 I'll just live with missing the exclusives as I just don't have time for 3 consoles (4 counting 3DS)--or really even for more than one--and I care about their exclusives the least of the 3.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really live in a vaccuum so I can't really do that. Halo is probably my favorite game franchise of all time but, I don't see myself going an entire generation without playing the new Uncharted games either. I'm going to end up buying both eventually. Life's too short and what is money but a grand delusion anyway?
Exactly, so why are you playing so many video games!?
I agree with others that it's a good thing, helps foster healthy competition in the industry. I also agree that you don't have to play every damn game out there. I think you'd be surprised over how quickly the urge to play every big exclusive goes away once you get rid of your second or third system.
Organization_XIII
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I love the Gears of War games, but don't have a 360. Just because I want to play them, it doesn't mean I feel obligated to give Microsoft my money for a console.
If there are a couple console exclusives you want to play and already have the competitor's console, just ignore those few games. You and your wallet will be more fulfilled
If there are a couple console exclusives you want to play and already have the competitor's console, just ignore those few games. You and your wallet will be more fulfilled
Righteous Nixon
CAGiversary!
Maybe because he enjoys playing video games! Maybe he enjoys playing games more than going out to bars or playing golf, or any of the other thousands of activities that people do for recreation. Its his life and he should have the freedom to live his life as he sees fit. If that means playing a lot of video games then so be it. Ultimately, that is his choice to make.
Exactly. I'll go PS4 this gen as I don't game enough to also have an X1 (along with the Wii U and 3DS I already have). I don't want to miss Naughty Dog's games.
There's stuff I loved on 360 like Gears, Halo etc.--but I'm mostly sick of those. I'll miss them if any well-reviewed ones come out (i.e. not crap like Judgment), but I can live without them. I already have too many games to play just on PS3, Wii U and 3DS, and won't get a PS4 until clearing out the PS3 backlog, and maybe doing the same with the 3DS and selling both off. I hate having a backlog.
bread's done