Give me one (pro-consumer) reason for a game to be exclusive to one platform

You can have as much 'attention to detail' as you want in a game like Knack or Order 1886, it doesn't mean anything when it's a shit game

sure, but the ones that ARE being made with exclusivity money still wouldn't exist in a world without exclusivity, so it would still be a net loss of games to choose from.

There is none.

You can't actually prove that

Third party exclusives should be a thing of the past. I can understand first party ones though and even those are slowly disappearing.

“How does competition work?”

Some games become exclusivities because console manufacturers pay for them to be exclusive. THAT is a net loss of choice.

explain how bayonetta 2 would exist without nintendo's funding, then.

Isn't that pretty much the only narrow focus now that every console is just a prebuilt computer or smartphone sans the phone part? Hell, consoles have had native usb M&K support since the PS3, developers just don't care about supporting it.

HARDCORE HARDWARE SPECIFIC OPTIMIZATIONS

Attached: 1573942705435.png (723x737, 177K)

Create/Increases Creativity

Nintendo would fund it, then release it.

Look at what happened to Sega before and after becoming a 3rd party software developer.

and that's exactly what they did. and without their exclusivity money, the game wouldn't have been made at all.

Platinum would go back to the drawing board and submit a more acceptable pitch after being rejected
There are VR and mobile exclusive games for the sane reason. Wii sports is a game that would make no sense on a platform without the wii remote

Something they did.

unique hardware that other consoles don't bother to include

Bayonetta suffered from effectively being on one platform. The ps3 port was so awful that the 360 version was considered to be the only real option. If bayonetta had been on all platforms at launch, then perhaps it would've sold enough to justify investment in a sequel.

Only poor as fuck PCPoors in Brazil living in favelas seethe at exclusives because they can't play them
Can't emulate them in 10 years either cause their "rigs" are toasters

Why would you not want a pc port or something? Most of the time the pc version is an improvement.

Higher quality for the platform than if they made it for every system.
This isn't just fan wankery to justify a purchase, it's pretty well known that when a company makes a multiplat release that it's usually done in the easiest and fastest fashion which is to lower standards and not use any of the special features of the system to enhance performance or quality since it would be wasted effort for every system that doesn't have this special feature.
That's why you get games ported to the pc from consoles that run at 30fps or some shit, or even stupider having the in game speed tied to the frame rate.

Don't take the bait so hard

PC is by definition the most soulless way to play video games

Yes, due to general "anti-consumer" practices. There is nothing stopping them from funding it and also releasing it on other platforms, and also make money doing so is my point.
I mean the fact that most consoles are such inferior products that they need to hold games hostage kinda speaks for how pointless they are.

And it wouldn't be much different if they released it on other platforms.

It gets made at all. Name any exclusive: if it wasn't for the exclusivity, it wouldn't exist because third-party publishers wouldn't have funded it.

Consoles are x86 computers. That's only an excuse for poor development
Consoles have few special features on the hardware level

>I mean the fact that most consoles are such inferior products that they need to hold games hostage kinda speaks for how pointless they are.
if pc mustards had their way, consoles wouldn't exist and every game would be "held hostage" on pc. what does that say about your platform?

Look up its sales numbers, the PS3 version outsold the 360 version.

Spectacle fighters simply have a limited audience. That, and SEGA is pooooooooor.

Give me one reason why you think multiplatform is good except MUH MORE PEOPLE GET TO PLAY IT

you basically support cuckolding and open borders with that logic

Attached: 1440356571520.jpg (400x389, 21K)

you should be at least 18 to post in this website user

w-what?

No. I'm saying the most consumer friendly way would be to make every game available on every console(provided it has the hardware to reasonably support it) and let everyone choose whatever platform they like the best. And as an added bonus instead of getting shitty barely functional hardware running an even shitter OS they slapped together in a month by making a custom skin for FreeBSD, console developers would actually have to put some effort into their consoles since they know they can't just use hostages to move systems.

You get to actually enjoy the games.

There is no pro-consumer reason, exclusives exist to help sell the console

Multiplatform development killed gaming
>back then most games were made for 1 platform (ported by other developers later after release if ported at all)
>working on 1 platform gave then more time and resources to make a polish game and refine content
>with a smaller budget it gave them a lot of creative freedom to make wacky weird games
>7th gen more and more developers going multiplatform
>working on multiple platforms meant requiring a lot more money and developers
>a lot more money meant less creative risk and developers pushing DLC and microtransactions to recoup the costs
>making a game for a larger audience went you had to dumb down and streamline mechanics for a majority of people to understand

This.
Also are you saying developers cant put their own games on their own platform?

Because I don’t think entitled pirates deserve games

So you support open borders, brown people get to enjoy their life :)

Makes the product you bought worth owning.

>consoles wouldn't exist and every game would be "held hostage" on pc
Because it would totally make sense to make games for something that doesn't exist.

I don't have to buy more than one system.
I can play the game on my platform of choice.
I don't have to hook a dozen of devices on my screen and switch inputs.
I don't have to buy a paperweight that will only serves me for one game.

>any games wouldn't have been made at all without exclusivity.
In the case of Bloodborne, this is only true in the sense that the concept was exclusively made as something they were willing to sacrifice the rights to, because they didn't want to repeat the circumstances that caused a new IP to be the only viable way to create a Demon's Souls sequel.

So you support cuckolding, women should be able to fuck anyone they want right? Not be held back by ine guy amirite

Imagine being a poor child who cant afford an "exclusive" video game and its system. None of this shit matters for adults with a job and proper finances.

Suck it up the world isn’t fair

>and not use any of the special features of the system to enhance performance or quality since it would be wasted effort for every system that doesn't have this special feature.
What "special features"? That's nothing because a platitude because the PS4 and XBO are both off-the-shelf x86 APUs, and the Switch is a fucking tegra.

It's inherently, objectively more profitable and it prevents situations like Drakengard 3 where a game remains borderline unplayable forever.

I mean, in this analogy the people playing the multiplats would be the bulls, and the console manufacturers the cuckolds.
>n-no, you can't just play the game I payed for on another system!

Nope. Just multiplat games.

>am an eternal idort
It's my hobby and I'm gonna own multiple devices.

Attached: 1529149445416.jpg (1200x1131, 300K)

Stop trying to force your fetish into everything.

Exclusives just "feel good" to play. You feel an aura of superiority knowing that NOBODY else on other platforms can play it, which enhances your experience because you're associating a good feeling with the game.

Attached: DbcjiG3UwAAS272.jpg (720x720, 90K)

How so?
Those studios would still have to make games to keep their doors open, and said games would be released on all platforms

The only possible good thing is if one were to take their time and really think about it they could probably use the system and all of it's extras to the very best of their ability.

The problem is that no one does that.

The devs can focus on making the game as good as it can be on the one platform it's being released on instead of spending more time in development making it work on others.

I have the platform so it doesn't bother me

>Also are you saying developers cant put their own games on their own platform?
how retarded must you be to come to this conclusion? He's saying that devs should release the game on all platforms

Do you really think niche nip studios have the dosh to make a game multiplat considering the cost of porting? Sure that studio can easily put their game on the Xbox since the PS4 and Xbone are practically similar, but the brand is dead in Japan so there´s no point. They could port to Switch and that would make sense business wise but that would actually cost money. And would the audience even be there when it´s always been a PS exclusive? That´s a big uncertainty.

I could understand wanting big AAA studios like Square Enix making their games multiplat, but at the end it´s all about who funded the game and for which audience.

Sounds like entitlement to me, they don’t owe you anything

As people have pointed out, there isn't really anything "extra" to actually use these days. About the only major thing that separates platforms these days are proprietary API's.

Hell, the PS4 and Switch straight up runs the same operating system.

Guess I should also note this could never be PC. you need to have set hardware for this to be possible.

Game engines today are so advanced that it is a matter of feeding it the SDK files and hitting compile and bam, multiplatform release with no resources taken

So first developers like Nintendo SHOULD put their games on other platforms? Why would they do that? They own their products, so they can put them wherever the fuck they want. You have no authority on this.

Yes... Motion control, IR Camera, the "HD" Rumble, etc. Nothing different about Switch at all compared to the knock off PCs.

>considering the cost of porting?
Basically nothing?

Attached: idorts.jpg (578x712, 114K)

Like I said?
There will be cost for Switch porting because the hardware is shit.

>So first developers like Nintendo SHOULD put their games on other platforms?
Ideally, yeah
>Why would they do that?
Because it gives the consumer more choice as to what platform they play it on while letting the devs sell to a wider audience?

Sorry: Nothing that developers can actually use to any meaningful degree.

That doesn't apply to because the point is that other platforms lack necessary input methods

>renderResolutionX = 1280;
>renderResolutionY = 720;
WOW SO INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT AND COSTLY SWITCH PORT FOR INFERIOR HARDWARE!!

You´re not entitled to anything. Also Nintendo sells hardware with their software so they won´t do that.

I'm not saying every single game has to run on every single system under the sun. Just that I support games that have no arbitrary platform limits.

So yeah I´m talking to an idiot. What did I expect from a Yea Forumsirgin?

That's within reason to justify not porting.
I'm talking games like say kirby star allies where there's no such limitation and the game would work fine on PS4/Xbox/PC

I own a thing, I can decide where it goes.

Fuck (and, also) YOU.

Then good for you, 95% of games nowadays are 3rd party. Not like we´re on the PS1 days.

Porting would not have saved Drakengard 3 retard, it would cost a lot more to port it then they would see money from it

>You´re not entitled to anything
When did I say I was? This is about whether or not it's pro consumer or not. Nobody gives a fuck about if it's pro nintendo (which it is as I explained, they sell to a larger audience)
I'm sorry your engine is completely trash and doesn't scale with all different levels of hardware

Why are there so many commies on this board?

Angry children, its always angry children.

I want to play more games and buy fewer consoles

It is pretty good for me, but for the other 5% it's a shame you have to play the games at their worst when you could get a far better experience for no other reason than the fact that developer is suckled to the teat of company that makes shitty products that can't hold up on their own.

>It's inherently, objectively more profitable
Doubt

What's to say there wouldn't be any competition of different brands for the same device retard? Even if there's only PCs for example, there would still be competition over the components.

Incentivizes the purchase of one platform over the other. Your consumer concerns are of no relevance to corporations. The world isn't fair, you're not 8 years old.

Deal with it then.

I am.

Of course it's a buttmad yuro making this thread. Are you mad that you had to buy a GameCube to play Metroid, euroanon?

>PC ucks bitch they want games to be less exclusive to platforms and more multiplat (which means less dev time and publisher funding)
>Games are getting shittier because of it
Thanks retards.

Well it’s not anti-consumer that’s for sure.

entitled is a synonym for deserving
when you call someone a entitled, it's not an insult, you say "this person is entitled to this product or service"/"this person is deserving this product or service"
you cannot separate this definition unless you're an ESL

>limiting consumer choice of platform isn't anti-consumer
whatever you say

It is anti consumer but who cares? Nintendo or Sony certainly don´t. They can do whatever they want with their software.

You say that but it's not like most exclusives are particularly good either.

Plenty of good exclusives have came out older gens. Its what made this thing called C O M P E T I T I O N that forced devs to make good and better games compared to there rivals. Now that everything is going multiplat it doesnt matter if the game sucks dick because a handful of retards on every platform will buy it and the devs recoup there losses .

>Exclusivity contract probably includes funding for the title it wouldn't have got otherwise
>Being on one single platform means all the focus that would normally be spread across multiple versions is now on one singular version, meaning it SHOULD be programmed better unless the devs are incompetent retards
I gave you two.

You can literally use switch controllers on pc though?

Sp why do you care if it´s exclusive to a platform? Not like you would miss anything...

the game wouldnt exist if the platform owner didnt fund it
would you rather have an exclusive game or no game

>it doesnt matter if the game sucks dick because a handful of retards on every platform will buy it
So, exactly the same like it's always been?

better optimization

why do you fags talk as if sony and ms couldnt just be fucking publishers? why is the shitty 400$ drm box needed?

I don't. I'm just saying all games have gotten shitter, not just multiplats.

Due to developers not having to strain resources publishing games of varying quality for different hardware configurations (which hurts consumers) they can instead focus their resources on optimizing for a single spec and putting their attention on improving the game. This is how Exclusives are the best types of games.

>publishers
That would imply there is a place to publish a game to in your scenario. Unles you´re talking about PC then yeah you´ve outed yourself as a PCfag.

There is no pro consumer reason OP they do this because if they don't people will just move on to pc.

game engines these days already do this shit by themselves, it's simply a matter of pressing the "export to (game plataform)" or not

>That would imply there is a place to publish a game to in your scenario.
What's stopping them from doing both? Other than just greed.

It promotes competition between the people making the games. If a groundbreaking and excellent game is exclusive to one platform, the other people are going to try to top it to have something to compete against it leading to higher quality products for the consumers. Why are you mad about the most basic concept in business?

They don't, and still require specific optimizations per hardware configurations. AMD and Nvidia literally make a business out of this. Don't talk about things you don't know anything about. When negotiating first party deals this is one of the key things first parties promise to take care of, as they have system specific optimization documentation and know what they can do to improve performance.

multiplat devs already do this shit without the need of consoles tho

You got the story wrong.
After 7th gen Sony and Microsoft realized their only reliable strength lied in multiplats. Both listened to the likes of Activision, EA or Ubisoft when the time came to design the 8th gen in order to secure multiplats.
And what happened? That the nº1 priority for a multiplat dev is market share. That's why The PS4 and Xbone aren't that different. That's why PC has so many multiplats now. That's why Nintendo games still stay on Nintendo.

That's also why it takes an absolute retard to buy a PS5 or a Xbox-whatever on 9th gen. It's going to be the same shit again

Nintendo isn't your friend retard they just want your money. Why can't console fags get that through their heads?

They can be specifically designed to the hardware of that platform, using unique quirks and not needing to worry about compatibility with various parts that can be from all sorts of manufacturers, i very much remember the days of early 3D Graphics cards.

Or so it was in the old days, This is less of a issue these days because Engines tend to be "one size fits all" compatible from day one and purchased wholesale rather then made ground up to suit a specific hardware configuration with a few exceptions.

This but also for Nvidia, Valve, Intel and AMD.

Actually, thanks to competiin there is more choice now

It's how many games secured funding in the first place, investments from the console makers that wanted exclusives.

*competition

Yeah, many games simply would not exist without exclusivity deals. It also goes without saying that many of the best games are exclusives.

Games should only be exclusive if they're made by the same company that makes the system. Nintendo games should only be on Switch, Sony games should only be on PS4 and Microsoft games should only be on Xbox or PC. Third party exclusives are cancer.

Because some games would not be made if they weren't exclusive.

>s-so it can be optimized!

lol since when?

>without exclusives, everyone would just flock to the best console every generation
You mean they would flock to the console with the best marketing.

Attached: dreamcast see through.jpg (1600x1484, 327K)

To save your from joining multiple botnets

The game has mechanics that takes advantage of unique features of a platform.

To laugh.

Attached: 1566281189183.jpg (1600x900, 886K)

Games made for a single platform tend to be of substantially higher quality than those who go Multiplat.

Retort question. Why do you not just buy all the systems that have all the games you want?

It ensures that those who genuinely value the product at hand are able to play it.
This kind of falls apart in a post-digital world though where supply is limitless.

>nintendo games tend to be of substantially higher quality than those who go multiplat

fixed

Not since, before. and i'd say around sixth-seventh that stopped noticably happening.

That said, it wasn't necessarily common even before that, one can see a VERY clear difference on the Jaguar for example between games that tried optimizing around its "quirk", ones that used it poorly and 16-bit ports that didn't use it at all. Optimization is a reason, that does not mean all exclusive games have that reasons, or that games relying on it don't get ported (with such inferior ports that they are no longer good games, thus cause a Anti-Consumer situation where one can accidentally purchase the inferior version).

No, not seeing it. Gravity Rush 2 however? Now that's an achievement.

How many games honestly would be limited by this?
>1-2 Switch
>Ring Fit
>PSVR shit (if you exclude PCVR, Labo VR is a joke and I'm not counting it)
>?????

Do you have any idea how different game development for N64 is compared to PlayStation? Even 360 to ps3 was tough for a lot of developers. Games can't magically be ported everywhere unless they are designed to but that takes man-hours and money. Where do devs get their money? Publishers. So if they only really want to make the game work on one console anyway, and the publisher is paying the way for the games development so that it will boost their console's sales, it's a natural win-win. That's why it happens all the time. Forever. This shit is obvious and I'm sick of pc faggots or Xbox idiots whining about Sony and Nintendo exclusives.

Idorts get both console's for cheap and have a huge library of games to try out or pick up when on sale. You're probably a fanboy idiot who thinks the world revolves around them if you seriously can't deal with a console getting games you want but refuse to purchase the console.

>gimmick shit
into the garbage

In what? mediocrity?

This.

A good deal of Switches library

Like what?
I think the only games that NEED HD rumble and don't work on lite are
>1-2 Switch
>Super Mario Party
>Ring Fit

Communism really is a disease.

In Nintenvy.

yeah I love all those games like OOT that ran like shit and I couldn't rebind my controls to fix things like aim inversion, as far as I know the only console to date that lets you rebind the controller is the Xbone, it was a feature for the pro controller but now you can do it on any one even off brand.

and most of the profit is from software, nearly every console these last few gens at least has sold at a lost and made it up with games and online subs.

right now Microshaft is publishing games for Xbone and PC at the same time without issue.

If every game was for every platform why bother having multiple platforms?

"taking advantage" isn't the same as "needing".

BotW, Mario odyssey or Splatoon are all big hits on Switch and they improve a fuckload with gyro controls.

>companies now have to compete to make their platform appealing instead of holding games hostage
idk sounds pretty good to me
My point is as long as a platform specific feature isn't absolutely required for a game then there's no reason for it not to be multiplat outside of artificial exclusivity deals

Reminder:

>United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the United States antitrust law, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.

and yet exclusives is an appealing feature

You can play starcraft with a n64 controller, would you?
This kind of thing can make or break a game, the way those games play is defined by the console and they wouldn't have happened as they are on PC.

More investment from publishers to get/fund good games for their console

Differences in each systems' hardware varies greatly, and in some cases, multiplats actually suffered and had to hold back due to certain console's hardware not being up to par.

For example, Sonic Heroes was actually going to reuse the engine they had for Sonic Adventure 2, but the PS2's hardware was incompatible with it, so they had to scrap it and redo everything entirely because of that, and they severely fucked up the physics as a result.

>every console can play every game
>people buy the best console and ignore the others
>only brand loyalists still buy their chosen console
>the weaker brands get killed off by the console 80% of people are buying
>this kills competition
>one corporation has all the say on what games do and do not get made for its precious console
>You HAVE to buy said console, there is no other choices now
>PC gaming still exists of course
great fucking idea, moron

it makes idiots feel like they didn't make a mistake by buying it :)

Because it challenges developers to make better games in exchange for higher funding and potential profit.

>game is on more systems
>more sales
>game is on less systems
>less sales
Holy shit...my neurons are firing...

Just make exclusives exclusive to their console + PC. Keeps consoles from devolving into a monopoly while also allowing for greater potential sales.

RDR2 isn't exclusive.

Exclusives create competition, competition creates better quality products for the consumer

Without exclusives to drive sales of platforms nobody would develop the platforms in the first place, and then you would have nothing to consume

same adults with terrible consumer conscious. i buy ps4 for one game, money well spent. *open mouth*
exclusivity makes less money, how are you so fucking retarded you speak about business but don't even understand money.

>pro-consumer
There isn't one, it's always to sell specific hardware better. If every game was multiplat I wouldn't have a Switch or PS4 and would go strictly Xbox.

Split development ALWAYS hurts EVERY game. NO exceptions.

They used to mean a more quality game, but now they are just run of the mill games that don't take advantage of the hardware they are featured on, which begs the question why it was exclusive in the first place.

see

there is none, and that is NOT a bad thing

if everything were pro-consumer then games would cost $1 and DLC would be free

Optimization for the platform

It costs more resources and time to multiplat things and keep them working, especially with a game that has updates.

This can lead to shitty games that get rushed out the door for a holiday deadline, but will never be fixed because they've become fundamentally flawed in the rush.

He never mentioned RDR2.

more people will buy said associated platform and will fund better games from the platform holder. See the noticeable drop in quality and budget for sega games after they left hardware

Letting the creator focus on making one product.

Instead of having to have multiple teams, multiple versions of things, bigger budget, less creativity because of having everything to be "one-size fits-all".

Obviously less of a problem for Xbone/PS4 considering their basically the same thing. But, for example, if you are making a Switch game and need to make a Xbone/Ps4 one (or vice versa), that's basically a totally different game you need to make, only the name is the same.

>5 boxes en route of echelon carrying hostage in the tank fields
>Cant loot more than one; "resupply not needed"

Thanks mica

Attached: 1576550573550.png (2048x1149, 804K)

I can't think of any mainly because I just end up getting them all by mid-gen anyway to compare the hardware. It's enjoyable not having my allegiance chained to a brand name that I must defend.

It’ll take advantage of the hardware to create the most fully realized experience, rather than being held back by the limitations of competing hardware. In turn, this pushes hardware manufacturers to create even more powerful hardware, which developers in turn will learn to utilize for maximum effect. An endless loop of progress.

Multi platform games just end up breeding stagnation in the hardware biz.

Attached: 8321C4E8-E6A0-43B3-9298-D8412C9EF7F2.jpg (970x700, 247K)