Are console exclusives "anti-consumer" in your opinion?

This YouTuber disagrees, and I agree with him 😎 Console exclusives are what makes gaming fun and encourages competition. I think competition is good for us consumers. Different companies have different ideas on hardware and exclusives are a great way to show off that hardware and entice us to buy that hardware. Competition also drives companies to make better games. One exception would be anti-competitive practices like monopolizing the market.

What do you think, SW? Do you agree or disagree?

I don’t think that’s it’s simply an either/or thing. They can be both anti-consumer and can encourage competition and innovation.

Sony becoming third party is amazing.

From gamer's point of view - yes.

From the console manufacturer's point of view - no, because if you don't have their console, you are not their consumer.

I don't really view exclusivity as anti-consumer. At the end of the day it does not matter what platform you're on: in order to play games you need to buy the hardware, widely available from all the manufacturers.

Am I cool with exclusivity going away, however? Yes I am.

Cow: If MS takes the exclusive it's anti-consumer.

Also Cow: If Sony takes the exclusives it's "TLHBO".

You’re not entitled to anything. Want something, you have to pay for it. It’s not up to these corporations to make sure you’re entertained in your free time.

First party exclusives? Absolutely not.

Paying money to third party developers/publishers to keep specific content off rival platforms so consumers who want said content have no choice but to go to your platform? Very much so yes.

Buying up every possible studio/publisher in an effort to make more and more content that was formerly third party into first party exclusives in an effort to force people onto your platform? Again very much so yes.

The fewer options the consumer has at the end of the day the worse things are for the consumer overall. You don't look at someone like Comcast forcing all competition out of their market as a good thing. We shouldn't view the culling of the third party market as a good thing either.

Yea it's a tricky question because Ideally gamers would be able to play whatever they want on any platform.

However, the competition thing is worth considering - it does feel like exploitative monetization practices are more common in multi-plats. And making the best games possible as motivation to drive hardware sales is a thing, as opposed to making the game with the ability to squeeze the most money out of its fans.

I'm ok with where things are headed - stuff comes out on one console and PC. that way the console makers still get to compete with their direct competition, while giving users a more customizable experience/way to experience the game at its best if they want to put the money into a nice gaming PC. My issue with console exclusives has always been that you are forced to experience great games at sub-par frame rates or compromised resolution/graphical settings.

Those who are against exclusive games need to think about why they can easily play the latest games on a $300-$500 console without having to buy a $1000+ PC in the first place.

It is because they are competing and beating each other on price, often eating losses. Those exclusive games are in a sense a side effect of the competition they have come up with to provide a more attractive platform for consumers, and not necessarily something that they intend to do to the detriment of consumers.

No. Without exclusives, sony has no reason to release their consoles. Their systems will only serve for a kid, a teen or a lazy dudebro that doesn't want to build a rig.

Yes. Ideally people should be able to play what they want on whatever they want. In a perfect world, Hardware, games and game related services would be decoupled.

However they are also the most effective tool at being competitive and selling hardware/platforms. This is a content business first and foremost (as much as it pains many companies). I can see why Nintendo and Sony are very protective of where they put their games (though sony is coming around to the idea of expanding where they put their games)

anti-consumer: not favorable toconsumers:improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers MW

The only answer is Yes! and it is not up to interpretation. If you believe or argue to the contrary then you are a fanboy. 🤷🏽‍♂️

It is a fallacy that exclusives encourage competition. Good games encourage competition. Games compete with games. Competition doesn't rely on the existence or absence of exclusives. This is all fanboy nonsense and due to corporate shilling.

Your comment makes no sense. There was no argument being proposed that gamers are entitled to games. Nor was there an argument about gamers getting games free. "you have to pay for it". And there wasn't any argument that corporations are obligated to entertain anyone in their free time. So, I am not sure what you are on about. Feels like one of your "I want to argue about something even though no one is making an argument against it."

@SolidGame_basic: I personally am not a huge fan of console exclusives. The video game industry is the only one that has such shenanigans.

• If you buy an LG blu-ray player, it plays Sony blu-rays, as well as any other media company's blu-rays.
• If you buy software, even if it's for Windows and you have a Mac, you can get a Windows emulator and still use the software.

I think console exclusives are a legacy thing that go back to the days of cartridges. Everything is digital or blu-ray now. Wouldn't it be fun to play Halo, God Of War, Spider-Man, ESS 6, Forza, and Horizon on the same device?

It would increase competition, not decrease. 3rd party publishers have no problem making money off of competing with 1st party titles from each console manufacturer. Considering the console manufacturer would then make money of a cut of the license, there'd be more of an incentive to make a great device, because *that* is what would bring people to your console.

It is called a PC. 😎

I know -that is one of the huge advantages to gaming on a PC.

Look at it this way: you being allowed to play any game you own on whatever device of your choice would be a massively pro-consumer move.

It makes all the sense in the world…

No console maker is obligated to provide their software on other platforms, so consumers who don’t own the necessary hardware can play the games… That’s an asinine demand from consumers, and not how capitalism works. These companies aren’t obligated to entertain folks. Want to play Spider-Man? You have to pay for it. Buy a PC or a PS4/PS5. Wanna play Halo? Buy an Xbox or a PC. That’s not “anti-consumer,” in the slightest. It’s also not that difficult to understand, Pedro. I didn’t say anything about games being provided for free. I said, “free time.” But if you want to enjoy the entire spectrum of software available, there will be an additional cost. Try to keep up…

Keeps things competitive, albeit terms and degree and frequency of application can certainly make it seem worse. These days both Sony and Microsoft seem at least less restrictive by keeping the games off PC by not tying it exclusively to console hardware, which is a more positive development.

The simple one year or less exclusivity window and then it pops up everywhere else is standard and acceptable for me. Beyond that though, or more complicated restrictive terms, not a fan. Some of these terms can even apply to console multiplatform titles with marketing deals.

For instance Capcom agreeing to keep RE8 off Game Pass as part of a marketing deal arrangement, shitty move by Sony, but Capcom agreeing to it unburdens Sony of a lot of that blame for me. Ultimately that's Capcom's decision, I just hope they're justly compensated by agreeing to such terms, and not limiting themselves simply for some marketing peanuts.

Of course, the gaming industry is by default.

It's their job to ride you like a donkey.

yeah xbox and ps are pcs.

just drm with os.

its not anti consumer. You want a game on the xbox? You can buy an xbox series S or X, and enjoy. You want a game on ps5? Buy the ps5. Same for the switch. Its all pro consumer. Just you spending a few more bucks. If theres nothing else, then sell back the console. Win win, pro consumer

If you want a game on the S or X, you can buy a better version on pc, so its the only console that is pretty much irrelevant.

No but games costing $70 bucks now is anti-consumer.

Depends. If your moneyhatting a third party company into releasing a game exclusively on your platform that would have otherwise been multiplat then yes.

If the company is helping in funding the development of the game or it's being made and funded by a first party studio then no.

Sony shouldn't be expected to bring God of War to Xbox anymore then Microsoft should be expected to bring Halo to Playstation.

I don't have a problem with exclusives at all. If you want me to buy your console, make something good enough that I'm compelled to.

And just because you can't play everything on a single console, that doesn't make it 'anti-consumer'. Putting out broken sh#t and charging full price... that's anti-consumer.

Before answering the question: what is considered "anti-consumer"? I am seeing so many interpretations on that term that I wonder if defining it is subjective than objective. After all, what is considered "anti-consumer" to one gamer may not be so by another.

@hardwenzen: PC has downsides with hackers, bsod, graphics cards, etc etc. Not to mention $3k GPU. The Xbox is $500 flat and you play out of the box no issues, let it sink in

And the Xbox has downsides with dynamic resolution 90% of the times, graphical settings lower than the lowest available on pc, sub 60fps gaming, analog drift, paid online, overpriced games, etc. Now you should let it sink in.

@hardwenzen: nothing wrong with DRS on consoles. When you play 6ft away from the tv, you don't notice it, that's just a fact. Xbox settings are high PC, and most of the time 60fps.

The other issues you mentioned are mostly on PS5 not Xbox. You should let it sink in.

He's talking shit and he knows it, that's why he spends two minutes asking people to "respect my opinion".

If you're getting funny feelings in your pants over exclusives, you are a fanboy. "I'm excited these people don't get to play the games I'm playing because they don't own the same plastic computer games player as me".

Exclusives ONLY benefit the console manufacturer, that's factually it. They have a library of exclusives so people buy their systems, 3rd parties then release games on it and pay the manufacturers licensing royalties which is where they make a lot of their money. None of this benefits the gamers.

His argument is incoherent. Just because we've been conditioned by greedy manufacturers to accept exclusives, what does that have to do with anything. It's irrelevant. In the past we would have also been conditioned to think women shouldn't vote and they should stay in the kitchen and rear children.

Businesses doing what is best for businesses isn't always what is best for consumers, hence "anti consumer".

"handing games to you" this guy is a moron, no, we pay all the same. What about this is entitlement?

How are his arguments this bad. His own analogies don't work in his favour. "lets have one movie studio" well there isn't, there also isn't exclusivity, everyone just bought media for their video or dvd player. How did that stifle creativity?

He's the one conflating emotions with facts. Whether I like something or not, it doesn't make something any more or less consumer friendly. Either it is or it is not. All the excuses he can come up with is not going to make exclusivity any more pro-consumer. I'm not crying about it, but it doesn't benefit me to have to buy a PS5 to play game x, when game x could just as well work on another similarly platform.

The games industry isn't just one way of doing things. Sega was able to still make money becoming multi platform, they just changed their business.

He just sounds like a shill, a pro corporate goon.

PC wins again.

If you want a game on the PS5, you can buy a better version on pc, so its the only console that is pretty much irrelevant.

Do tell us where you can buy Horizon Forbidden West, Gran Turismo 7, Returnal, Demon’s Souls Remake, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, God of War Ragnarok, and Miles Morales on PC 😎

So what is the difference if I pay £50 for the same game on the PC, Xbox or PS5? It's the same £50. What about that is entitlement? I'm not demanding the game, but if the game is available to me, I can fully pay for it, at the same cost.

This isn't emotional, it's factual. It's a fairly black and white issue.

Asking me to buy another console to then buy a game on one platform, that is more or less as powerful as another platform I already own, by default that is not consumer friendly. It is not pro consumer. It is anti consumer. It simply is. I'm not getting emotional about this, I'm not demanding the product, it just is anti consumer.

It benefits the manufacturer to have a player base, so they can make money from royalties etc from 3rd parties and control the eco system and have a potential income from services, but that doesn't benefit me, it benefits them. That's fine, I get it, it's business. Now, I'm taking all the emotion out of this when I say it, none of that, is going to make this, any more pro consumer.

Just because it might be necessary for the companies business model, or we are used to the practice, that's not going to ever make this pro consumer. Asking me to buy another console just to play those games isn't reasonable, it might be necessary, it might be something we just have to live with, but that doesn't particularly make it reasonable or pro consumer.

Nope!

Which part of this thread is about console makers being obligated to provide software on other platforms? Who was demanding anything?

NO ONE. But, you want to argue against an argument that was NEVER made.🙄

The fact that you cannot argue that exclusives are actually anti-consumer, is really the reason for this silly deflection.😎 I look forward to your redefinition of the word in your next deflection.

Edit: Just in case you forgot the definition

anti-consumer: not favorable toconsumers:improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumersMW

Miles is already coming to PC and Returnal was leaked as well. But if we're being honest, all those games are coming, you know this to be true.

Don't shatter the shill's dream. That is not nice.😂

Like I said, do tell us where you can buy these games on PC 😎

@Pedro: He needs the reality check, it's good for him.

All of them will be on Steam. :)

I just checked Steam, don’t see ‘em 😎

So?

Someone doesn't understand the difference between will and are.😂🤣

Sony fannies.

Reality is that Miles Morales has been on PS4 and PS5 since Nov 2020 😎

That's cool. Hope you enjoyed it, I'll play it on PC this fall :)

Lol hope you enjoy it whenever it comes out.

I wouldn't call it anti-consumer but it certainly isn't friendly.

Yes totally agree, I love gaming on PC and like gaming on PC much more than on a Series X. I have not had any issues on PC and I paid $425 for my GPU and it is on average better performing than any console on the market today. I have nothing against anyone that prefers to game on console such as Xbox but to me there is no point when I like PC so much better and have all the same games and they run better on average and it has so many advantages over console that I personally like better.