Forums / Media / Video Games

While I agree that it's silly, overall, you're not going to change the system. People who make new consoles pay people to make new games, with the hitch being that the new game will be exclusive to that console. There are many games that would never be made if this didn't happen. Sure, most people want games to be playable on all current platforms, but I really don't see it changing. Also, technology does still vary between platforms, as you state with your exceptions of Wii and Nintendo DS. Even the hated Xbone could be considered having a unique control, even when it is wholly unneeded for actual gameplay. I have no doubt that technology will continue to improve until we get a seamless Artificial reality and new systems will be needed for it to evolve. For those new systems to work from a developer perspective , people need to buy them. They need a reason to buy them. This is how markets works.

Still, I am against people being sued for hacking games for systems they were not intended for. There's sorta the unspoken rule of how to prevent piracy to some degree. Make a quality product, make it reasonably priced, and make it easily available. Forcing console locked games means that the price for a game shoots up several hundred dollars if you do not have the console already, making it not easily available. This goes especially for games that are only on older platforms. I guess it's kinda hypocritical, but while I'm fine with having exclusive console games (to some degree) I also think that it's more okay to hack said games so that people can actually play the thing on other platforms if it is a console exclusive.

It's something called marketing. I want something that the other competitors don't have. Console exclusives do just this, and frankly sometimes it convinces people to buy a brand new console.

It's called having incentives, they are supposed to make you choose one over the other console, because functionally most consoles are very similar and from a business perspective you want to make sure that you have a bigger edge than your competitors, because a lot of people when deciding what console they like, you choose the games available as a primary factor. Most people like yourself will say that despite some minor differences the consoles are the same, so why pick one over the other?

OK so we get how it obviously benefits the consoles, but what about the companies making the games? They get security. The consoles will pay for the advertisements of the exclusives among many other things. In fact the consoles could choose not to even sell the game on their platforms, limiting them to PC, which can be less beneficial and is way more competitive just to survive. Your game worthy of the "triple A game" status (because the company that it's exclusive for paid for a lot of your costs) now might just be some semi-popular indie game on Steam.

Yes it's not to benefit you. But here's the thing, it doesn't have to benefit you. It's not your choice to make something exclusive or not, you don't have any entitlement to decide for companies. It is not your right to make game development companies to sell their product on the platforms you like. It's like if you were an artist and you made a paintings. You decide to have it displayed in your closest art museum because you love it there, you think that your art looks the best there. Now some dickhead walks outside the premises saying "Hey you (artist) and art museum, I don't like this painting there. You should have the painting where I want it."

Yes it can be frustrating not to be able to play an exclusive game. It can suck. But you just have to deal with it. Maybe focus on the games you can play.

The reasons why films don't do it is because that industry works differently. Usually the primary source of income are the cinemas displaying the films. So film companies want to show their films to as many places as possible. But since cinemas are mostly independent, it would only hinder them as the other nearby competitors will have it. A film wont benefit from being exclusive because it limits the audience, because unlike game companies, they don't have a big corporation to back up them up. They're usually bigger then the distributors, not the other way around.

Why are console exclusives still legal?

To put it much more bluntly; it's good business for the manufacturers. And because life is tough.

Competition=Money

its funny because console exclusivity is what allows the market to not be monopolized and allows different companies to be able to enter it, yet jolly jew calls it "tyrannic".

Gotta love Jolly Jew threads.

because making mundane products and only setting them apart by the contracts they have with game studios is anything but tyrannic.

instead of actually trying to push technology forward and creating competition by having different kinds of tech and gameplay features for the consoles. you just make something avarage, then create games no one is except for your customers are allowed to buy. that creates such a diverce competetive console market eh?

forget the NES VS. genises, forget blast processing VS. better presantation(SNES). just make the same consoles with the only difference is what studios you subdued.

so again. lets do the same thing for movies. you like disney movies? now exclusive to sony media players. like dreamworks? now only watchable on philipse hardware. gonna make great competion! because fuck the consumers!

and again, i wouldn't mind it so much if they weren't SUING ANYONE TRYING TO CONVERT THE GAME INTO A NEW PLATFROM

@spiderbyte. your art canvas analogy is completly out of place. because a piece of artwork only has 1 physical copy.
but would you think its ok if the museum owning the painting will sue and take down the net anyone who took a photograph of it?

and again, i wouldn’t mind it so much if they weren’t SUING ANYONE TRYING TO CONVERT THE GAME INTO A NEW PLATFROM

BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIR PRODUCT!

Dude Exclusives aren't going to dissapear and frankly that's what makes different Consoles worth buying

Here's the thing. If you hate it, STOP BUYING.

If Disney made its own player you HAD TO BUY to watch Disney movies, some people would pay for it. Others would STOP BUYING DISNEY MOVIES. Some producers find it is lucrative to have a larger market, in fact, most producers of any media do.

These companies are out for PROFIT. There's no way around that. Some find the best way to profit is to diversify. Others find that the best way to profit is to go exclusive. Should it be illegal to sell your games in the format you find most profitable?

However, if you want to get game producers to put their things on more consoles, then STOP BUYING EXCLUSIVES, and DO buy multi-console games on all consoles individually, buying a new copy each time you boot up the game. They will get the message. You vote with cash here.

le ebin 1980 thread:
why are VHS still legal? instead of having all videos on betamax, stupid JVC made a completely new format, which is incompatible with betamax-devices!

It's pretty simple. It won't be fun if there's no competition, so that's why there's console exclusive.

I'm preety sure that a lack of exclusives and everything being multiplatform was one of the factors of the great crash (behind Atari Pacman and ET the Extra-shitty game)

Do you come on these forums with the sole intention of whining?

Your query has been answered multiple times and yet you still ignorantly moan. No development is ever made in your threads because you simply choose to keep up your barrier to opposing opinions and refuse to take anything on board.

Quite possibly the most arrogant and annoying user on this site

so bascially all you people are completly ok with corporations screwing over consumers. because everything is ok as long as you make profit.

i guess EA and Ubisoft are loved here and crap like launch-day DLC and 15$ for 5 extra maps while locking any modding features is ok as well.

oh well. at least ill be able to download emulators.

@spiderbyte.
when you purchase a product, you're legally allowed to do anything you want with it, as long as it doesn't violate trademark violations.

and playing a game on a different console is not trademark violation, there is no law that allowes companies to ristcit games to spesific systems, they are just programmed this way.

>mfw Jolly Jew Threads

Ignoring your blatant slippery slope argument. Most people are against those business practices.

It's not screwing over anyone. You don't need those games. They aren't forcing you to buy anything, they aren't saying you can't play the games either.

The way you decide whether a company does something or not is with your money. If people don't buy the DLC then they wont do it. These are separate issues, one is taking away content from the game and the other is making it so that there is a difference between consoles.

Basically to summarize you have created another thread where you whine about things you don't understand. People try to help you understand but you carry on being stubborn and childish. This is just getting repetitive.

In this case your taking games for granted, you believe that game companies should conform to your wants. You fail to realize without these companies you wouldn't be able to enjoy the games. You support stealing the games and moving them to consoles the designers didn't want to make it on. You just want your cake and to eat it too.

Edit: Seen your addendum

Not true, you are not allowed to do a lot of things to it, like creating digital copies of the game. Essentially the reason why you can't produce those copies because you can give them to friends or sell them, which is unfair and illegal.

becuase isn't get monopolized the market the videogame crash was by that lack of exclusives and the people will be mad example shitty DRM

Dude, console exclusives have been around since the NES days as far as i remember. I can't believe people are starting to complain about them, oh wait, it's just the guys who are pissed off because Rise of the Tomb Raider is Xbox-only, Destiny isn't for PC or Insert japanese game is a PS4/Wii U exclusive.

Get out, this isn't Riff-Raff.
…
Ok, that was stupid of me, I'm going to actually say something.

"instead of actually trying to push technology forward and creating competition by having different kinds of tech and gameplay features for the consoles."

That would require a LOT more dev time, and by then, the PS4 version would be better tech-wise.

"you just make something avarage, then create games no one is except for your customers are allowed to buy."

Now who the heck are you refering to, because exclusives are usually quite good.

And that's the point: to attract more customers.

"that creates such a diverce competetive console market eh?"

It actually does. If it's a success, then other companies will not only copy it, they will try to make it better. Why did you think so many PS1 & PS2 games were platformers?

"forget the NES VS. genises, forget blast processing VS. better presantation(SNES). just make the same consoles with the only difference is what studios you subdued."

Because we need people to argue over a system?

And companies aren't usually barred down by them. ATLUS makes Etrian Odyssey for the DS/3DS, while also making SMT/Persona for PlayStation. And From Software, making Dark Souls a multi-plat.

Exclusives exists as an incentive to get the opposition to buy your product. It's only bad for those who don't own the system, which they can just simply buy. It's not a conspiracy to batter the consumer.

I'm sorry for this pointless comment, but why is the phrase "you want your cake and eat it too" used as a negative?

What else is the point of a cake? (I know it's a figure of speech, but still)

It's perfectly legal, because it's an unnecessary resource where there is no monopoly. The prices of consoles could go up to $50,000 apiece with games being $10,000 per, and it would be legal.
 
It may not be ideal for the consumer, but the gaming audience isn't disgruntled or detached enough in enough numbers to pull off an effective boycott.

Even if a boycott occurred, Microsoft wouldn't care due to having a massive and constant source of revenue from Windows outside of Xbox. Sony (who is beginning to focus specifically on video games) and Nintendo (which hasn't achieved their new health initiatives yet) would be threatened. But since Microsoft could weather the proposed boycott, Sony and Nintendo would cut out before going bankrupt.

Microsoft would merely wait out Sony and Nintendo, take on their exclusives once they began to go bankrupt, and run PC and Xbox gaming prices up far beyond what we've seen, creating something close to a monopoly but not enough to spur legal action against them (again, because gaming is not a needed resource by any means.)

You'd probably have Xbox consoles running about 3 times as much as you do (because now they have the exclusives of three consoles) but with no checks from other major gaming entities (because Sony and Nintendo got out of the game.)
 
By removing exclusives and differences (even if slight) in consoles, the field would eventually inconvenience the consumer in price. Microsoft would hold the only console in decent video gaming, could ramp up the cost to whatever to achieve maximum profits, and could put out consoles that have 8 "Red Rings of Death," because there is no other gaming option anymore.

What is illegal, however, is using ROMs to emulate without leasing the game.
 
 
So not only does the proposed solution create more of a problem through a near monopoly,

But what you proposed as a short-term solution to what you think should be illegal (i.e., exclusives)…is actually illegal (i.e., emulation as you say you'll use it.)
 
It's a sandwich of irony and not-very-good rhetoric. It's impressive, if I could be honest.

I have transcended all the petty console wars. The PC master race are not but ants to my might. I am almighty, but I am not above enlightening those less fortunate.

so bascially all you people are completly ok with corporations screwing over consumers. because everything is ok as long as you make profit.

That is not what anyone here is arguing. You are simply trying to make what everyone is saying ridiculous without actually making any valid points. Shame on you.

when you purchase a product, you’re legally allowed to do anything you want with it, as long as it doesn’t violate trademark violations.and playing a game on a different console is not trademark violation, there is no law that allowes companies to ristcit games to spesific systems, they are just programmed this way.

Real Talk, are you just fucking with us, or are you serious?