#1 Posted by Trylks (961 posts) -

I've just seen that here:

http://majornelson.com/2013/04/24/xboxreveal/#comment-874447463

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3cLpmZJw6qY/T-HqRUrjyBI/AAAAAAAAC3w/0stx-dLVMtY/s1600/jackie+chan+my+brain+is+full+of+fuck+meme+blank+template+lol+wtf.jpg

It's so utterly stupid... can't people see that's a way in which consumers lose by limiting competition with this kind of deals that companies do against the free market?

Should I elaborate more? It's a real question, isn't it obvious?

Thank you for sharing your point of view, I definitively don't understand those thoughts.

#2 Posted by Scrawnto (2490 posts) -

Maybe there is a perception that platform exclusive games can be developed more to the strengths of their platforms?

But more likely it helps those people legitimize their purchasing decision and feel superior. It's the same reason there are fan wars when each generation starts.

#3 Posted by LiquidPrince (16462 posts) -

@scrawnto said:

Maybe there is a perception that platform exclusive games can be developed more to the strengths of their platforms?

But more likely it helps those people legitimize their purchasing decision and feel superior. It's the same reason there are fan wars when each generation starts.

It's not a false perception. It's a reality. It's why very few cross platform games look quite as good as Uncharted, God of War, or Gears of War etc... Games designed specifically for a console usually end up looking better then multiplatform games. Also, if console exclusives didn't exist, then there would be no point in having 3 different companies creating game consoles. Exclusives are what make the consoles what they are. It's been like that since as long as I can remember. You bought Sega if you liked Sonic, or Nintendo if you liked Mario.

If exclusives didn't exist, then there would be no point in multiple consoles. Which means that there would be less competition, and ultimately less innovation.

#4 Posted by Asurastrike (2250 posts) -

Console exclusives allow the developers to play to the strengths of that specific console. I think the real issue is that Sony and Microsoft are doing little to distinguish their near identical boxes. Say what you will about Nintendo, at least they are trying something different.

#5 Posted by Animasta (14818 posts) -

@liquidprince: the difference between the 360 and PS3 was way more than teh difference between the durango and the PS4 will be though.

Also the real reason is for people, when they pick the one they want, can blow raspberries at the others.

#6 Posted by believer258 (12668 posts) -

Console exclusives sell consoles. You buy a console for its exclusives. My 360 has had no use for quite a while because no exclusives have come out for it that I really want to play, but my PC and my 3DS get tons of playtime because there are games on there that I cannot play anywhere else (also, the PC plays multiplatform games better than anything else).

Also, since exclusives are the reason to buy consoles (or has been in the past), the people who make the consoles are more likely to hire good talent and give them a good budget and good advertising. Exclusives that are expected to sell consoles are often quality stuff because if they aren't, then no one is going to buy the console.

What I'm saying is that in the interest of excellent games, I'll accept that it has to be an exclusive. Admittedly, this post is badly worded and the idea doesn't hold as much water as it used to anyway, but I believe it still stands. Hell, look at Nintendo. They've been riding the first-party wave for quite a while now.

#7 Posted by iam3green (14368 posts) -

companies do it so their consoles to sell. why three of the same console while there is no difference between them.

#8 Posted by Trylks (961 posts) -

If exclusives didn't exist, then there would be no point in multiple consoles. Which means that there would be less competition, and ultimately less innovation.

Last time I checked there were several companies developing PCs and the innovation was constant, not fragmented in 5 year generations. There are free-to-play games in PCs, I don't think competition will take consoles there for quite some time.

@scrawnto said:

Maybe there is a perception that platform exclusive games can be developed more to the strengths of their platforms?

That makes sense, specially hardware wise, in terms of kinnect, wiimote, etc.

@animasta said:

Also the real reason is for people, when they pick the one they want, can blow raspberries at the others.

That doesn't seem to be a clever attitude when that means that all consumers lose. It looks like a tragedy of the commons of some sort.

#9 Edited by chilibean_3 (1805 posts) -

It's mainly about feeling like you made the "right" choice in your purchasing decision. It's pretty silly.

#10 Edited by Demoskinos (16150 posts) -

I pretty much agree with the sentiment that if there weren't exclusives then what would be the point to multiple consoles?

#11 Edited by medacris (711 posts) -

Another reason is that there are still people who can only afford or have room for one console, so they really want to make their purchase count.

Nowadays, though, there are other things that come into play as well-- like whether or not the console has online play, how much it costs to go online, whether or not the console has Netflix...

#12 Posted by Scrawnto (2490 posts) -

@liquidprince: You are right that there would be less first party hardware innovation, but the software innovation wouldn't go away. Developers are still competing with each other. I'd even say there is more direct competition between developers if they are running on the same platform/s. Halo and Killzone were never direct competitors except in households with both or neither of the consoles (the latter being where the exclusives could influence the consumer's console purchasing decision). Xbox owners bought one and PS owners bought the other, because that's what was available to them.

#13 Edited by geirr (2844 posts) -

Exclusives give me an extra reason to buy consoles besides the PC.

Sure I would love for everything to be released on that one platform, but I also like wasting money on new technology.

#14 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2351 posts) -

Exclusive first party games allow developers to focus their efforts on one console rather than splitting development for two and thus I get quality games because of it. Also a console maker has to justify why I should plunk hundreds of dollars to purchase their console.

#15 Edited by LiquidPrince (16462 posts) -

@scrawnto said:

@liquidprince: You are right that there would be less first party hardware innovation, but the software innovation wouldn't go away. Developers are still competing with each other. I'd even say there is more direct competition between developers if they are running on the same platform/s. Halo and Killzone were never direct competitors except in households with both or neither of the consoles (the latter being where the exclusives could influence the consumer's console purchasing decision). Xbox owners bought one and PS owners bought the other, because that's what was available to them.

I would argue that first party innovation is the space where the bulk of innovative things in software occur. Killzone runs in native 720p, Halo wants to run in 720p. Sony uses 3D, Microsoft mandates 3D. A new more efficient form of AA gets developed, the other company tries to create an even better form of AA.

@trylks: Depends on what you define as innovative. I can't really think of any ground breaking things that PC has done in recent years that the consoles aren't capable of doing, albeit on a lower scale of fidelity.

#16 Posted by BisonHero (8201 posts) -

I think Nintendo-developed games (which are obviously exclusive to Nintendo consoles) tend to do something weird and fully take advantage of the particular system's various weird features better than the efforts of most third-parties (for example, Super Mario 3D Land would lose something were it on Vita). Even then, something like Super Mario Galaxy would've transferred easily to other consoles.

And outside of Nintendo, basically all exclusives are stupid. Halo might as well be on PS3/PS4, God of War might as well be on Xbox 360/Durango, etc. They sell consoles, but the games themselves would obviously generate more revenue if they were on more platforms, and more people would get to enjoy them.

So yes, that comment from Major Nelson's blog is obviously some sad individual who wants the next Xbox to be successful business-wise, instead of saying "Wait, it would be better for me, as a person, if there were less exclusives". Though maybe he also meant he wants Microsoft to throw their seemingly infinite money at a few more studios, so that Microsoft actually produces more high quality games than just Halo, Forza, and Gears of War. Still sucks that they'd end up being exclusive, though.

#17 Posted by Rafaelfc (1754 posts) -

Validation

Online
#18 Posted by Scrawnto (2490 posts) -

I would argue that first party innovation is the space where the bulk of innovative things in software occur. Killzone runs in native 720p, Halo wants to run in 720p. Sony uses 3D, Microsoft mandates 3D. A new more efficient form of AA gets developed, the other company tries to create an even better form of AA.

@trylks: Depends on what you define as innovative. I can't really think of any ground breaking things that PC has done in recent years that the consoles aren't capable of doing, albeit on a lower scale of fidelity.

It sounds like the things you are talking about in the first paragraph that you are citing as innovations are issues of fidelity, so I don't think you can just dismiss the advances PCs have made out of hand. If resolution counts as innovative to you, the PC has got your back! It goes way higher than 720p! Seriously though, the current consoles can't even begin to tackle physics like PCs can, nor can they handle tesselation, which makes a huge difference in the detail of character models. Those things came out of PC hardware innovations. I'd say the Occulus Rift is pretty innovative too, and that is a PC thing only at the moment.

However, what I was really talking about in my previous post was game design innovation. Better AA and resolution is nice, but it's not really the sort of innovation that drives forward the medium if you ask me.

#19 Edited by LiquidPrince (16462 posts) -

@scrawnto said:

@liquidprince said:

I would argue that first party innovation is the space where the bulk of innovative things in software occur. Killzone runs in native 720p, Halo wants to run in 720p. Sony uses 3D, Microsoft mandates 3D. A new more efficient form of AA gets developed, the other company tries to create an even better form of AA.

@trylks: Depends on what you define as innovative. I can't really think of any ground breaking things that PC has done in recent years that the consoles aren't capable of doing, albeit on a lower scale of fidelity.

It sounds like the things you are talking about in the first paragraph that you are citing as innovations are issues of fidelity, so I don't think you can just dismiss the advances PCs have made out of hand. If resolution counts as innovative to you, the PC has got your back! It goes way higher than 720p! Seriously though, the current consoles can't even begin to tackle physics like PCs can, nor can they handle tesselation, which makes a huge difference in the detail of character models. Those things came out of PC hardware innovations. I'd say the Occulus Rift is pretty innovative too, and that is a PC thing only at the moment.

However, what I was really talking about in my previous post was game design innovation. Better AA and resolution is nice, but it's not really the sort of innovation that drives forward the medium if you ask me.

The PC does what it does through brute force. My 7970 can handle resolution, AA tessellation etc... infinitely better then the PS3/360 can. That's not necessarily the innovation I'm talking about though. That is hardware innovation. That is inevitable. The innovation in software comes from being able to create a game that looks as great as Uncharted on hardware that is pushing 7 years. I have no specific opinions on the Occulus Rift because I haven't seen it in person yet. May as well be a Virtual Boy to me, unless I see what it can do.

#20 Edited by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

At this point it's just so I have a reason to buy more than one console.

#21 Edited by EarthBowl (174 posts) -

To have a unique sense of ownership for your purchase of that particular console. It's why certain debates around consoles, becomes a debate around certain franchises and the value they have.

#22 Posted by GERALTITUDE (4168 posts) -

Console exclusives are often just awesome. First party teams (may) get lots of time, money and support to make their games. I didn't even love Journey that much but shit, that is a perfect example of "games that wouldn't exist" without exclusive deals.

#23 Edited by Aegon (6602 posts) -

First party developers that get a good amount of time to work on an exclusive can produce fantastic stuff. Yes, there are non-exclusive games that are great, but really, there's a much smaller ratio of garbage to good games in the exclusive line.

#24 Posted by Hunter5024 (6281 posts) -

In addition to all of the good reasons people have already listed, it makes people feel smart for buying the console.

#25 Edited by Ravenlight (8057 posts) -

Confirmation bias. If people get something special for their chosen system, they feel like they made the right choice.

#26 Posted by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

Ideal vs. reality. Ideally I could play every game on any console. Rationally, I know that's not the case, and thus would like to have the console with the best exclusives. It's as simple as that.

#27 Posted by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

Confirmation bias. If people get something special for their chosen system, they feel like they made the right choice.

Err that's not confirmation bias. If your system gets something special, your console purchase does look better.

#28 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (2054 posts) -

For me, it's less that I want Microsoft or Sony to go out and pay developers for exclusive content and more that I like to see quality first party games. Studios owned by console makers such as 343, Rare, Naughty Dog, and Sucker Punch are obviously only in a position to make games for one console. It's not a matter of wanting more and more exclusives, but a hope that existing first party studios put out quality games.

#29 Posted by cthomer5000 (956 posts) -

@ravenlight said:

Confirmation bias. If people get something special for their chosen system, they feel like they made the right choice.

Err that's not confirmation bias. If your system gets something special, your console purchase does look better.

It is confirmation bias. People will view equal pieces of exclusive software differently between the consoles they do or don't own. Gears of War becomes garbage, but Killzone is amazing, etc. Even if they are roughly of equal quality (just using these for the sake of argument).

Obviously the mere existence of exclusive content does nothing to make a purchase better. Mountains of exclusive Wii shovelware does not justify the belief that it's the best system. Steel Batallion: Heavy Armor does not make the XBOX the must-have system. Playstation All-Stars doesn't make PS3 the clear winner.

People tend to overrate the exclusives for the system they have and and dismiss those on platforms they don't. At the end of the day they want to justify their purchasing decision to themselves. People do this all the time in life about all kinds of decisions, not just purchases.

I would argue that unless an exclusive set of games are among your absolute favorites of the generation, there is such a negligible difference between PS3 and XBOX 360 in terms of quality. Both systems have great features and annoying quirks, and almost all games are available for both.

I love my XBOX 360, but i'm sure if I'd bought a PS3 instead i'd be just as happy. Personally i don't feel like i'm missing anything, but i don't really give a crap about the XBOX exclusives either.

#30 Posted by McGhee (6128 posts) -

Console exclusives don't eliminate competition. They create it. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all competing to get people to buy their consoles. This means they put a lot of effort into their exclusives and a lot of great games are made because of it.

#31 Posted by Andorski (5454 posts) -

@scrawnto said:

Maybe there is a perception that platform exclusive games can be developed more to the strengths of their platforms?

But more likely it helps those people legitimize their purchasing decision and feel superior. It's the same reason there are fan wars when each generation starts.

Rare to find the best possible answer as the first response.

#32 Edited by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

@trylks: I think it provides validation. In situations where the hardware is substantially different architecturally (N64 vs. PS1 maybe), the exclusivity gives a substantial indication towards features. But with bog standard PCs (and the last two gens were pretty close to this too, running a PowerPC or MIPS main core and all that) the platform is more a question of who gets the collect the licensing dollars.

But it also justifies investment from the platform holders, which might ultimately create more titles. But overall I'd just assume 1 really good gaming box rather than 3+ with limited performance.

#33 Edited by Trylks (961 posts) -

@liquidprince said:

@scrawnto said:

@liquidprince said:

I would argue that first party innovation is the space where the bulk of innovative things in software occur. Killzone runs in native 720p, Halo wants to run in 720p. Sony uses 3D, Microsoft mandates 3D. A new more efficient form of AA gets developed, the other company tries to create an even better form of AA.

@trylks: Depends on what you define as innovative. I can't really think of any ground breaking things that PC has done in recent years that the consoles aren't capable of doing, albeit on a lower scale of fidelity.

It sounds like the things you are talking about in the first paragraph that you are citing as innovations are issues of fidelity, so I don't think you can just dismiss the advances PCs have made out of hand. If resolution counts as innovative to you, the PC has got your back! It goes way higher than 720p! Seriously though, the current consoles can't even begin to tackle physics like PCs can, nor can they handle tesselation, which makes a huge difference in the detail of character models. Those things came out of PC hardware innovations. I'd say the Occulus Rift is pretty innovative too, and that is a PC thing only at the moment.

However, what I was really talking about in my previous post was game design innovation. Better AA and resolution is nice, but it's not really the sort of innovation that drives forward the medium if you ask me.

The PC does what it does through brute force. My 7970 can handle resolution, AA tessellation etc... infinitely better then the PS3/360 can. That's not necessarily the innovation I'm talking about though. That is hardware innovation. That is inevitable. The innovation in software comes from being able to create a game that looks as great as Uncharted on hardware that is pushing 7 years. I have no specific opinions on the Occulus Rift because I haven't seen it in person yet. May as well be a Virtual Boy to me, unless I see what it can do.

In PCs you have innovation:

  • in the business model: free to play games, subscription based games, micro-payments, digital distribution, ...
  • in interoperability features: online play (including MMOs), mods, level editors, browser and flash games, directx, openGL, ...
  • in the purpose of the games with all the possible variations of serious games.
  • in software: unreal engine, crytek engine and nearly all engines out there are done first of all for computers, the demos are done on computers, computers are the natural place for code to run, consoles are just crippled computers.
  • and pretty much anything you can think about.

In consoles you have innovation:

  • in pushing a very specific piece of hardware to its limits. Which is just optimization, not innovation, and it is mostly useless for any other piece of hardware. Which means that all the serendipity, synergy and positive side effects are nearly eliminated, as opposed to this: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

Thus the innovation in consoles is counter-innovation, it does actually prevent innovation from happening, which is what usually happens with closed or controlled markets. Drug patents expire after some years and everybody can benefit from that innovation, because drugs work in similar ways in all humans, and the side effects are hopefully well known for any "special" human. Innovation in pushing a specific piece of hardware is completely useless and meaningless when that piece of hardware becomes obsolete, nobody benefits from that.

#34 Posted by Jeust (11365 posts) -

People want exclusive games as a way to justify their purchase.

Online
#35 Edited by JasonR86 (9998 posts) -

Exclusive games foster a platform and improves it over another. If there were no exclusives there would be no competition and no need for more then one console.

#36 Edited by Gamer_152 (14281 posts) -

I think it's easy to be reductive about this, and say people want exclusives for a single selfish reason, but I actually think the reasons vary from person to person. Sometimes it is just an investment in the ridiculous console wars crap, other times it's for satisfaction that they made the right purchasing decision which is more understandable, but I think there's really something to be said for having all the different consoles provide libraries of different games.

If the console manufacturers are truly bringing different things to the table, then it makes sense that we'd want to see the specific games that they can foster on their systems that their competitors can't. Heck, probably the primary draw of the Nintendo systems over the last decade or so for "core gamers" has been that Nintendo were putting out well-made games on their consoles that we just weren't going to see in other places. As much as we'd like the idea of one super-console with everything on it, exclusives also create competition and keep the console market from becoming a monopoly, which we really do not want to see.

Moderator
#37 Edited by gamefreak9 (2754 posts) -

Having one console is not indicative of reduced competition, competition will just shift to other things... things that we want innovated... LIKE GAMES!!

#38 Posted by RandomHero666 (3184 posts) -

To justify their fanboyism?

The day we have PCs able to emulate current consoles will be a good day


#39 Posted by supamon (1339 posts) -

Because they want their purchasing decision to be validated.

#40 Posted by StarvingGamer (8952 posts) -

Wait, are you saying that having more differentiating factors between consoles reduces competition?

#41 Edited by LiquidPrince (16462 posts) -

@trylks said:

@liquidprince said:

@scrawnto said:

@liquidprince said:

I would argue that first party innovation is the space where the bulk of innovative things in software occur. Killzone runs in native 720p, Halo wants to run in 720p. Sony uses 3D, Microsoft mandates 3D. A new more efficient form of AA gets developed, the other company tries to create an even better form of AA.

@trylks: Depends on what you define as innovative. I can't really think of any ground breaking things that PC has done in recent years that the consoles aren't capable of doing, albeit on a lower scale of fidelity.

It sounds like the things you are talking about in the first paragraph that you are citing as innovations are issues of fidelity, so I don't think you can just dismiss the advances PCs have made out of hand. If resolution counts as innovative to you, the PC has got your back! It goes way higher than 720p! Seriously though, the current consoles can't even begin to tackle physics like PCs can, nor can they handle tesselation, which makes a huge difference in the detail of character models. Those things came out of PC hardware innovations. I'd say the Occulus Rift is pretty innovative too, and that is a PC thing only at the moment.

However, what I was really talking about in my previous post was game design innovation. Better AA and resolution is nice, but it's not really the sort of innovation that drives forward the medium if you ask me.

The PC does what it does through brute force. My 7970 can handle resolution, AA tessellation etc... infinitely better then the PS3/360 can. That's not necessarily the innovation I'm talking about though. That is hardware innovation. That is inevitable. The innovation in software comes from being able to create a game that looks as great as Uncharted on hardware that is pushing 7 years. I have no specific opinions on the Occulus Rift because I haven't seen it in person yet. May as well be a Virtual Boy to me, unless I see what it can do.

In PCs you have innovation:

  • in the business model: free to play games, subscription based games, micro-payments, digital distribution, ...
  • in interoperability features: online play (including MMOs), mods, level editors, browser and flash games, directx, openGL, ...
  • in the purpose of the games with all the possible variations of serious games.
  • in software: unreal engine, crytek engine and nearly all engines out there are done first of all for computers, the demos are done on computers, computers are the natural place for code to run, consoles are just crippled computers.
  • and pretty much anything you can think about.

In consoles you have innovation:

  • in pushing a very specific piece of hardware to its limits. Which is just optimization, not innovation, and it is mostly useless for any other piece of hardware. Which means that all the serendipity, synergy and positive side effects are nearly eliminated, as opposed to this: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

Thus the innovation in consoles is counter-innovation, it does actually prevent innovation from happening, which is what usually happens with closed or controlled markets. Drug patents expire after some years and everybody can benefit from that innovation, because drugs work in similar ways in all humans, and the side effects are hopefully well known for any "special" human. Innovation in pushing a specific piece of hardware is completely useless and meaningless when that piece of hardware becomes obsolete, nobody benefits from that.

None of the so called things that you branded as "innovative" are exclusively found on the PC.

And on a side note, I feel like Cry Engine is an extremely bad engine. To me a engine is only impressive if it can do what it does with the maximum amount of optimization. Crytek gives no shits about optimizing their games to run smoothly. They want their games to purposefully run slow, unless you are running next generation tech. Or to put it a different way, they don't optimize as much as they should because they want their game to be a "computer melter." The same visual techniques can be and are applied in a myriad of other games that run infinitely better then Crysis 3 does on some of the most powerful current generation cards.

#42 Edited by Trylks (961 posts) -

@liquidprince: innovation is not about being exclusive, it's about being the first, those things were done first on PCs. Pioneers in game development are usually in PCs, simply because it's an open platform and it presents less entry barriers to do whatever you want to do and is new. Even some things that are not new are not possible in consoles due to regulatory constraints (policies) and not due to technology. Try to publish some mods as free DLC in some console and see how it works. The control that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo impose on their platforms is not promoting innovation but preventing it from happening.

About optimization, optimizing is something done with mature technology, innovative optimization is an oxymoron.

http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1513451