Is console exclusivity good for gamers? Is it good for the industry?

Sony money hatting GTA III exclusivity and keeping the franchise pretty much to themselves unit a late 360 release of GTA: SA was the biggest coup in gaming history. I have no doubt a large portion of Sonys PS2 dominance came from that deal alone so I support any companies attempt to repeat the "lightning in a bottle" effect these types of deals could bring.

Granted Tomb Raider is small potatoes compared to GTA, it's still a good deal for MS and shows they are using creative tactics to expand the user base.
 
TDbank24 said:
Exclusives are a good thing. There was a time when consoles were remembered for their exclusive games. They have always given a console its identity. They're great for competition, so we get better consoles and games. They're not good if you're a single console owner obviously. But i never understood tying yourself down to one platform, and i especially don't understand complaining about exclusives and refusing to buy other platforms. If you have the money, and you like playing great games, why wouldn't you spend it and buy the other platforms? I understand time constraints and all that but i don't understand limiting yourself to one platform when you have the resources for it. Gaming isn't marriage.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to time/money/space. For the amount of gaming I do, it makes zero sense to drop another $400 + $60 to play a handful of exclusive titles.

Exclusive games are not what they once were. There's more than enough multiplats to keep me entertained with one system.

When companies take a game that has always been on multiple systems and make it exclusive, it sucks for gamers.

Not one Sony fan will buy an X1 to play Tomb Raider.
 
with devs and publishers struggling so much now, consoles exclusives is very important.

CD and SE will get better tools support, Marketing etc that will take the financial burden of the devs/publishers so they can compete with the likes of Acti/EA.

Who knows this could turn out to be the best Tomb Raider yet with more money to spend on the game.

MS saw an opportunity to bring out a game to compete with uncharted and took it. They could spend money on a new studio sure but it takes time to develop a new AAA IP.

Plus if everyone takes the fan goggles off and buy all consoles than it shouldn't worry you.
 
JinCA said:
FF, Tekken and MGS were only on PS for quite a while because Sony made the only console that it made sense to release those games on, hell even now those games sell in much better numbers on Sony consoles than Xbox. I also said we aren't living in that time frame anymore in an earlier post which is something I think is flawed in the piece that you put up (it was well written don't get me wrong) This isn't the 90's or early 2000's anymore, games cost a lot more to make so it doesn't make financial sense for a publisher to make a game exclusive on one platform unless it just some kind of title with limited local appeal like a title that appeals almost exclusively to the Japanese audience, that may only make sense to release on a Sony or Nintendo made console vs spending the money to make it for Xbox. We know that's not the case here, the last TR game had higher sales on both PS3 and PS4 than it did on 360 and Xbox One and the series has always appeared on Sony platforms. I'm not downing MS for doing it, I don't blame them for giving it a shot but I do think SE made a mistake here and it's not a good thing for them.
Click to expand...
Final Fantasy XIV
Dynasty Warriors 8
Guilty Gear Xrd
Silent Hills (Exclusive AFAIK)
.....
 
Tmecha said:
with devs and publishers struggling so much now, consoles exclusives is very important.

CD and SE will get better tools support, Marketing etc that will take the financial burden of the devs/publishers so they can compete with the likes of Acti/EA.

Who knows this could turn out to be the best Tomb Raider yet with more money to spend on the game.

MS saw an opportunity to bring out a game to compete with uncharted and took it. They could spend money on a new studio sure but it takes time to develop a new AAA IP.

Plus if everyone takes the fan goggles off and buy all consoles than it shouldn't worry you.
Click to expand...

How is cutting your sales by more than half good for the developer?

Titanfall sold few consoles, why would Tomb Raider? Exclusives are a dated concept. The games that sell well and make money for people are multiplats - Madden, Fifa, AC, COD, etc.
 
Kerosene31 said:
How is cutting your sales by more than half good for the developer?

Titanfall sold few consoles, why would Tomb Raider? Exclusives are a dated concept. The games that sell well and make money for people are multiplats - Madden, Fifa, AC, COD, etc.
Click to expand...
The only way that TR became exclusive for this release is that it must had made financial sense and/or Microsoft has some investment with the development.
 
Plainview said:
The only way that TR became exclusive for this release is that it must had made financial sense and/or Microsoft has some investment with the development.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why the practice exists. We gamers like to talk like we know the particulars of a deal. But its obvious a third party developer wouldn't cut their potential sales without financial incentive.

Its the same for multiplatform exclusive content like what Sony has done with Destiny, Black Flag or Watch Dogs. Or MSFT getting Plants v Zombies to appear on their platform first. They entered into a financial deal with those publishers to receive content (whether timed or not) to appear on their platform.
 
Kerosene31 said:
How is cutting your sales by more than half good for the developer?

Titanfall sold few consoles, why would Tomb Raider? Exclusives are a dated concept. The games that sell well and make money for people are multiplats - Madden, Fifa, AC, COD, etc.
Click to expand...

that's why they do it so early on, less risk for devs/pubs with a small userbase even with both console totals.

Sure Titan Fall and Tomb Riader wont move lots of consoles but its to get people to think over a long term that "certain game" is home/best on Xbox. Similar to what they done with COD and still doing as with the COD bundle.
 
All I'm hearing is a lot of "that's just the way it is". I don't think 3rd party exclusives benefit gamers.
 
Millions in the hand is better than two copies on the shelf to some developers and publishers. That is the way it is because gaming is an industry, not a charity. I'll believe these companies are trying to "benefit" me when they release a unified console with no exclusives, until then I'll live under the very distinct impression they're in it for the money and little else.
 
Kable said:
Millions in the hand is better than two copies on the shelf to some developers and publishers. That is the way it is because gaming is an industry, not a charity. I'll believe these companies are trying to "benefit" me when they release a unified console with no exclusives, until then I'll live under the very distinct impression they're in it for the money and little else.
Click to expand...

Yes, the companies (mostly) may be interested mainly in money, but you cannot be a developer if you do not have a passion for games, & wanted to make the best game possible (within limits) for gamers.
 
starseeker said:
Yes, the companies (mostly) may be interested mainly in money, but you cannot be a developer if you do not have a passion for games, & wanted to make the best game possible (within limits) for gamers.
Click to expand...

Most of the worlds greatest works of art by the worlds greatest artists were commissioned, no created. Today, that would be known as money hatting. Do people look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and say "Michelangelo was a douche for taking all that money to paint this, he didn't even like painting" today? I doubt it.
 
Z A C K said:
It's timed for a unannounced "duration". Forever is a duration. I don't think it's forever though.
Click to expand...
It's exclusively timed for a duration for an exclusive set of consoles for an unannounced period starting exclusively in 2015 on 2 announced platforms for the life of the unannounced duration of its exclusivity agreement, which could end, or start at any time, bonded by an announced, but exclusive deal.

This exclusive deal will haunt this thread until the unannounced duration period ends.
 
It is good for the PC industry. While the console makers take turns lopping of their limbs to prove their superiority, these titles almost all end up on the PC - often cheaper and better looking. As gamers tire of these anti-consumer marketing tactics they will turn to the one system that is less impacted by it -- the PC. If PC manufactures start gearing systems toward the console sized form factor (Steambox) then exclusives could end up having an opposite effect.
 
Last edited:
Kable said:
Sony money hatting GTA III exclusivity and keeping the franchise pretty much to themselves unit a late 360 release of GTA: SA was the biggest coup in gaming history. I have no doubt a large portion of Sonys PS2 dominance came from that deal alone so I support any companies attempt to repeat the "lightning in a bottle" effect these types of deals could bring.

Granted Tomb Raider is small potatoes compared to GTA, it's still a good deal for MS and shows they are using creative tactics to expand the user base.
Click to expand...

Having GTA III, Vice City, and other games like the Silent Hill and Final Fantasy all to themselves was huge for the PS2. It was only a couple years before the GTA games came out for the original Xbox but by then they had benefited the PS2 greatly. Once the 360 came out Microsoft wasn't messing around. They made sure they had all the big third party games coming to the console on time and it paid off.
 
Kable said:
Sony money hatting GTA III exclusivity and keeping the franchise pretty much to themselves unit a late 360 release of GTA: SA was the biggest coup in gaming history. I have no doubt a large portion of Sonys PS2 dominance came from that deal alone so I support any companies attempt to repeat the "lightning in a bottle" effect these types of deals could bring.

Granted Tomb Raider is small potatoes compared to GTA, it's still a good deal for MS and shows they are using creative tactics to expand the user base.
Click to expand...
Sony has been moneyhatting since the beginning. Considering all the deals Sony has done in the past, MS's timed exclusivity of the next TR is much less impactful.

Well look at that. Before half the gaming internet posters were probably even born, here's a snippet of TR2 partnershiping back in the late 90s...... And it even extended to TR3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Design

Tomb Raider[edit]
The company is widely known for the Tomb Raider series, created by Toby Gard and Paul Howard Douglas, which was released in 1996 and followed by several sequels. The success of Tomb Raider and its subsequent sequels played a huge part in keeping Eidos Interactive financially solvent.

After the release of the original Tomb Raider, which had debuted on the Sega Saturn platform ahead of the PlayStation version (they had been developed simultaneously) Sony Computer Entertainment recognised the game's popularity and the potential mass appeal of future Tomb Raider titles. SCE offered Core Design and Eidos Interactive an exclusivity agreement, to ensure that the first sequel would not be developed for either the Saturn or the Nintendo 64. The full terms of this offer have never been revealed. By making the PlayStation the only console with Tomb Raider II, Sony Computer Entertainment was able to benefit by attracting new PlayStation owners leveraging Tomb Raider as a killer application and using Lara Croft as a marketing character alongside Sony's own first party characters. Core Design also had the advantage of developing only for a single console, rather than several at once. This exclusivity agreement was further extended to cover the third game in the series. The fourth and fifth games in the franchise, Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation and Tomb Raider Chronicles respectively, were also released for the Sega Dreamcast.
 
Intellivision said:
Sony has been moneyhatting since the beginning. Considering all the deals Sony has done in the past, MS's timed exclusivity of the next TR is much less impactful.

Well look at that. Before half the gaming internet posters were probably even born, here's a snippet of TR2 partnershiping back in the late 90s...... And it even extended to TR3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Design

Tomb Raider[edit]
The company is widely known for the Tomb Raider series, created by Toby Gard and Paul Howard Douglas, which was released in 1996 and followed by several sequels. The success of Tomb Raider and its subsequent sequels played a huge part in keeping Eidos Interactive financially solvent.

After the release of the original Tomb Raider, which had debuted on the Sega Saturn platform ahead of the PlayStation version (they had been developed simultaneously) Sony Computer Entertainment recognised the game's popularity and the potential mass appeal of future Tomb Raider titles. SCE offered Core Design and Eidos Interactive an exclusivity agreement, to ensure that the first sequel would not be developed for either the Saturn or the Nintendo 64. The full terms of this offer have never been revealed. By making the PlayStation the only console with Tomb Raider II, Sony Computer Entertainment was able to benefit by attracting new PlayStation owners leveraging Tomb Raider as a killer application and using Lara Croft as a marketing character alongside Sony's own first party characters. Core Design also had the advantage of developing only for a single console, rather than several at once. This exclusivity agreement was further extended to cover the third game in the series. The fourth and fifth games in the franchise, Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation and Tomb Raider Chronicles respectively, were also released for the Sega Dreamcast.
Click to expand...

I don't think this counts, because it's Sony. That s*** was completely okay back then.
 
pravus said:
I don't think this counts, because it's Sony. That s*** was completely okay back then.
Click to expand...
LOL. The only difference really is that with the internet and much more widely publicized info (and internet users grilling for answers), people now can now sometimes get the dirt on business wheeling and dealings.

That example of Sony moneyhatting Core Design was back in the mid/late 90s. Most people on this forum didn't even have the internet and the net was in its infancy of digging and grilling for dirt. And companies didn't have online PR teams to respond anyway even if their were people asking for info. Therefore, nobody would know that TR2 and TR3 were on PS1 due to money dealings.
 
Well all know Tomb Raider to us was a good game but not to be exclusive. But they have to be a reason behind this for MS went that far to get it locked.

One: they must be footing the bill. 2: They must he working on a new Tech that it can't be done on PS4, like the cloud or something.

So they must be good reason to lock this title.
 
Nervusbreakdown said:
Well all know Tomb Raider to us was a good game but not to be exclusive. But they have to be a reason behind this for MS went that far to get it locked.

One: they must be footing the bill. 2: They must he working on a new Tech that it can't be done on PS4, like the cloud or something.

So they must be good reason to lock this title.
Click to expand...

It's a timed exclusive.
 
Jay Mammoth said:
It's a timed exclusive.
Click to expand...
And if so many gamers are getting into an uproar over them, they will keep happening! lol. Best way for exclusives or timed exclusives to go away is for people to ignore it.

No different than overpriced map packs and nickel and diming microtransactions. People all seem to criticize them, yet some games sell millions of map packs and tons of sales dollars are made from microtrans. If nobody bought these things, they'd disappear.
 
come on, those who criticizing them are not necessary the ones who spending money on them. there are many people who don't mind spending some money on the games they like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back