Console Exclusives

[Seasick]

Okay, so first, let me say this: I understand why Exclusive games/content exists on Consoles...but I am completely against them.


For instance, Bioshock: Infinite will be Move supported, and have a copy of the Original Bioshock on it. 360 Owners? Heh, you have to buy BOTH. PC Gamers? Good luck buying both in these tough times! Bioshock was originally a 360/PC game. Why does the one console who was late to the Bioshock Party get all the exclusives now? The PS3 Exclusive BS1 Challenge Rooms, And now a free game, along with a PS Vita Bioshock exclusive and Move Support for Infinite?


I think it's annoying and unfair that people who want, say, Halo, have to shell of $200 dollars to get a 360 just to play, or some gamer who wants nothing more than to play God of War 3 has to buy a PS3. I know there's reason for this, to keep competition going, but come on...I can't be the only one here, who else thinks that Exclusives are just plain annoying?

[Fugue]

Doesn't bother me, it's inevitable with everyone wanting a killer app to help sell hardware, they do also mean you get top quality games built for a specific system, eg Uncharted.

[IllusionOfLife]

As I mentioned over in my other thread, from a standpoint of preserving games as works of art, having them divided up as exclusives for different systems is rather disingenuous. Not only is backwards compatibility becoming less and less prominent, but even when it does happen, it's only backwards compatible with games from that company's previous console generation, so exclusives stay restricted to one platform long after they're of any use in selling consoles.

In the early days of Hollywood, the movie studios owned individual theaters or theater chains and only exhibited their movies at these theaters. However, there came a time when, in order to grow as an artistic medium, film needed to be unshackled from this exclusive exhibition and this system was dismantled (with a little help from the United States Supreme Court). Eventually, if video games are going to continue to mature as a new and unique art form, they're going to need to outgrow this state of being bound to individual platforms. Unfortunately, though, I don't think that will happen any time in the near future.

[I-ChooseTheImpossible]

Exclusives are always going to exist, do you really think that a company like Nintendo is going to allow it's laundry list of exclusives get ports to other consoles? Things like Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Metroid, hell even Pokemon, won't be on another co sole anytime soon, and I'd prefer it like that. When Sonething like Zelda gets on another console we get such classics as the Link: Faces of Evil, Zelda: Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda's Adventure. Never heard of them? They wet released for the CD-i and are undisputedly the worst Legend of Zelda games ever made, just how bad they are can never be over stated.

[IllusionOfLife]

and I'd prefer it like that. When Sonething like Zelda gets on another console we get such classics as the Link: Faces of Evil, Zelda: Wand of Gamelon, and Zelda's Adventure. Never heard of them? They wet released for the CD-i and are undisputedly the worst Legend of Zelda games ever made, just how bad they are can never be over stated.

The CD-i Zelda games are something entirely different. They were Nintendo properties that were made by another company due to a weird legal loophole. No one is proposing that developers just give up their properties willy-nilly, just that their properties be made available to a wider audience. Zelda games would still be the same, but more people could play them.

[_Pax_]

Okay, so first, let me say this: I understand why Exclusive games/content exists on Consoles...but I am completely against them.

Permanent exclusives, I agree with you: completely against them.

Time-limited exclusivity ... well, I'm not happy about it, but I'm willing to suck it up and live with it.

For instance, Bioshock: Infinite will be Move supported, and have a copy of the Original Bioshock on it. 360 Owners? Heh, you have to buy BOTH. PC Gamers? Good luck buying both in these tough times! Bioshock was originally a 360/PC game.

Yes, it was. Which means that most of the audience looking for both of those games, will already own copies.

As for buying both on PC? Steam; $19.99US. Hardly a hardship. (They have Bioshock 2 for $20, as well.)

Why does the one console who was late to the Bioshock Party get all the exclusives now?

Because there's no way Bioshock 1 would sell well, even at bargain prices, to PS3 owners now.

I think it's annoying and unfair that people who want, say, Halo, have to shell of $200 dollars to get a 360 just to play, [...]

There's a difference between "console exclusive" and "FLAGSHIP TITLE"; Halo is the flagship title for the Xbox. It's a Microsoft-owned IP, I believe, and Microsoft has zero reason to release their Xbox Flagship Title on any console except an Xbox. Consoles have always been like that, and always will be (Mario; Sonic; .

[Codex]

"Have to buy both..."

Pft, I already have Bioshock. I'm only buying the one game anyways

As for motion control for anything, I don't give a hoot. Hence why I really don't care that the PS3 has anything different for Infinite.

There are some, and by some a mean VERY VERY FEW games that come out on a different system to one that I own that make me go "aww, I wish I could afford to buy another gaming system for that game." Possibly the only games that make me want to buy a PS3 are the Uncharted series and maybe The Last of Us - that remains to be seen though.

IMO, there are so few "exclusive" games any more. The only system I can think of that has the majority of exclusive games would be the PC, and that would probably be due to the nature of the games produced on it. Starcraft, LoL, Civ etc would be a jerk to play on a console controller.

[I-ChooseTheImpossible]

The CD-i Zelda games are something entirely different. They were Nintendo properties that were made by another company due to a weird legal loophole. No one is proposing that developers just give up their properties willy-nilly, just that their properties be made available to a wider audience. Zelda games would still be the same, but more people could play them.

Ok, I admit that was a bad example, I'll use another Nintendo exclusive that ended up on the 360, Banjo Kazooie. The difference between the first two games and Nuts & Bolts is massive, hell if it wasn't for the characters there would have been no way to tell it was actually apart of the Banjo franchise. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see other exclusives get the same treatment.

[IllusionOfLife]

Again, though, that has nothing to do with the box it's being played on. Microsoft bought Rare and since then Rare hasn't been the same. How many boxes play the game has nothing to do with its quality. Mass Effect was an Xbox exclusive, then was brought to the PC, and eventually to the PS3 (with the exception of the first game), and has not suffered at all from the broadening of the audience.

In both examples you give, the negative effects on the games had nothing to do with the consoles they played on, but more to do with who was making them. Phillips made crappy CD-i Zelda games without Nintendo's stamp of approval. Microsoft bought Rare and then had no idea what to do with them. If there's a game you love, like The Legend of Zelda, or Banjo-Kazooie, don't you want to share that with as many people as possible?

[The Dukenator]

Okay, so first, let me say this: I understand why Exclusive games/content exists on Consoles...but I am completely against them.

Console exclusives are fine, but I agree.

For instance, Bioshock: Infinite will be Move supported, and have a copy of the Original Bioshock on it. 360 Owners? Heh, you have to buy BOTH. PC Gamers? Good luck buying both in these tough times! Bioshock was originally a 360/PC game. Why does the one console who was late to the Bioshock Party get all the exclusives now? The PS3 Exclusive BS1 Challenge Rooms, And now a free game, along with a PS Vita Bioshock exclusive and Move Support for Infinite?

I recall that 2K stated they had no BioShock PS3 in development at the time. They also stated that there are no plans to bring the Challenge Rooms to other platforms.

While I do own BioShock 1 on 360 & PS3, I don't really care for Move Support for Infinite.

When Dead Space 2 came out, the PS3 version included Dead Space Extraction as a bonus. DSE was originally a Wii exclusive, it bought to PSN with Move Support as an exclusive. But why no 360 version? No idea.

I think it's annoying and unfair that people who want, say, Halo, have to shell of $200 dollars to get a 360 just to play, or some gamer who wants nothing more than to play God of War 3 has to buy a PS3. I know there's reason for this, to keep competition going, but come on...I can't be the only one here, who else thinks that Exclusives are just plain annoying?

I didn't buy a PS3 & 360, just for the exclusives. No way.

[I-ChooseTheImpossible]

In both examples you give, the negative effects on the games had nothing to do with the consoles they played on, but more to do with who was making them. Phillips made crappy CD-i Zelda games without Nintendo's stamp of approval. Microsoft bought Rare and then had no idea what to do with them. If there's a game you love, like The Legend of Zelda, or Banjo-Kazooie, don't you want to share that with as many people as possible?

It's not that I would have a problem with Zelda being on Xbox or PS3, the thing is that it is more likely than not there would have to be changes to male the game appeal to your common gamer. Mass Effect, although having RPG elements (which got toned down as the series progressed) is a shooter, and in this day and age the common gamer seems to eat up shooters no matter how go or bad they are to the point where regurgitated gameplay with a higher number slapped on the title equates to massive sales.