Support NeoGAF

[benjohn]

I've been playing on PC as my primary platform since 2011. Not one time have I ever been playing a game and thought "You know, I would enjoy this even more if those PlayStation and Xbox players weren't able to play this on their consoles."

Exclusives as a very naked form of manipulation can work if they're great and you build a brand around them. Just look at Nintendo. But that doesn't mean the games are more valuable or prestigious. It just means you had to buy the specialty hardware to play them.

But this is over-simplification of the argument. It's not about preventing other players from playing a game. It's about the identity of a platform. There's enough games on any given platform for everyone to enjoy. Exclusivity brings about competition.
Those days Microsoft had to make games to compete with Sony franchises like GranTurismo. That's why Forza was born.

Nowadays they try to compete on services not games. Give me games anytime. Where are those era defining games? It's all GaaS shit now. I don't care which one of you gives me a better service for 18 dollars a month.

 

[Moochi]

Exclusivity has the same value as knowing you own a nice car that your friends don't. It's shallow and stupid to think it intrinsically gives real value.

 

[NovaSe7en]

Exclusivity brings about competition.
Those days Microsoft had to make games to compete with Sony franchises like GranTurismo. That's why Forza was born.

Competition would not suddenly vanish if hardware exclusivity did. This is a false premise.

Take the Souls-like trend for example. How many third parties have competed in that space regardless of hardware?

 

[Tobimacoss]

Competition would not suddenly vanish if hardware exclusivity did. This is a false premise.

Take the Souls-like trend for example. How many third parties have competed in that space regardless of hardware?

Content exclusivity will be to streaming/subscription services rather than hardware. Just like how Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max compete with each other.

 

[Platinumstorm]

I don't think exclusivity makes something special, but proper keyboard and mouse support. There's something that feels terrible when you start up a game and you feel how it's made for consoles before you even start.

 

[analog_future]

As someone with both console and PC- I just feel like the soul of gaming is dying.

Yeah, games on PC are objectively better if they are ported right and you have the modern hardware, but there was something awesome about Halo/Gears/Forza being on Xbox, while God of War/Horizon/Ratchet and Clank/Final Fantasy being on PS.

Now I look at consoles like "meh." There used to be an identity associated with them, but with this multi-platform strategy, it just doesn't feel the same anymore.

The soul of gaming is artificially limiting what hardware someone can play their favorite games on?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

As someone with both console and PC- I just feel like the soul of gaming is dying.

Yeah, games on PC are objectively better if they are ported right and you have the modern hardware, but there was something awesome about Halo/Gears/Forza being on Xbox, while God of War/Horizon/Ratchet and Clank/Final Fantasy being on PS.

Now I look at consoles like "meh." There used to be an identity associated with them, but with this multi-platform strategy, it just doesn't feel the same anymore.

This is exactly how I feel ATM, at least WRT Sony/SIE and Microsoft. I can still see Nintendo's identity, though it's arguable if they're at the peak of such identity like during the Iwata Era (RIP Iwata). But otherwise, it's clearly still there with Nintendo; I can't say that at all for Xbox or even PlayStation anymore.

There's a sort of culture that comes with a clearly-defined identity, even in gaming, even among platform holders, and exclusives play a big role in that. Genuine exclusives, mind you, and what a platform holder isn't willing to do, they cannot expect 3P to do for them. I think I'm just gonna kick back and watch when it comes to Xbox & PlayStation going forward, and just silently acknowledge "Yep, said that would happen" when certain dominos do in fact start falling and bring about consequences thereof. That said, I'm gonna look at the games they're bringing which look interesting, for sure, as always. But I'm probably only gonna be interested talking about specific games across those two platforms going forward, not the platforms themselves. That is, unless there's a monumental event involving those platforms.

Otherwise I'm kinda more interested in Nintendo and Valve as platforms, and I hope Valve give Steam Machines another go. Just, you know, do it right next time, and they have Steam Deck to go by as a blueprint. A capable Steambox and I'm sold. With the way things are going, and considering my own tendencies and work/lifestyle, I honestly wouldn't need anything besides a Steambox & Switch 2 to play every non-mobile game out there.

And of course, retro gaming is my gaming muse. Plus there's just something infinitely more interesting, passionate and genuine about the industry & games from generations back, versus the greedy shareholder/"best practices"/venture capitalists/trend-chasing obsessed industry we suffer through today.

 

[Fess]

It's like longing for the days when Universal made movies for Sony VCRs while Paramount made movies only for Panasonic VCRs.

Oh wait, that didn't happen, because it would be fucking stupid.

There was the HDDVD vs Bluray days, is anybody longing for that? Hopefully not!
And TV Streaming services, they all have exclusives. I hate it with wild passion. Was about to start a sub on Amazon Prime, a kid wanted to see Demon Slayer. Turns out you then needed another subscription service too, Crunchy Roll.

 

[freemandos]

The only real important thing is the game being properly made for every platform companies want to release, not being exclusive. I won't say S.T.A.L.K.ER: Shadow of Chernobyl isn't one of my favourite FPS games anymore because being ported recently to consoles. It was and still is a fantastic game and, if console versions are well made, I'm glad they can enjoy it. Let's put outside videogames, would The Godfather or Die Hard be more special if being only avaliable for Sony dvd/bluray players or streaming plataforms?

At most the only thing I could miss would be that era of every platform having its own identity. Not just about exclusivities, but also sensibilities, aesthetics, sound, philosophy, catalogue in general. But that peaked in the 90s (specially in the first half) and after that began to die slowly. Console wars became too one sided, games companies more coporate with that mentality about "every game being for everyone", consoles aping pc games and viceversa, etc. And competence wasn't about having your own speciality anymore, but selling as much as posible no matter how. But beyond that...nah, I'm ok. Otherwise...well...what about games like Doom and RE4?

 

[benjohn]

Competition would not suddenly vanish if hardware exclusivity did. This is a false premise.

Take the Souls-like trend for example. How many third parties have competed in that space regardless of hardware?

I never said competition would vanish I said the competition would shift to things which might not benefit us as gamers. Ok we might have cheaper ways to access games but a game like Forza or Gears of War would not be born as these console manufacturers don't have enough incentives.
We have some soulless boxes to exprience whatever we end up getting.
Now as the competition is over services, they have to make money by selling us services, micro transactions, loot boxes, etc.

Sony has already started monetizing their games with these kind of practices which was unimaginable a decade ago

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Otherwise I'm kinda more interested in Nintendo and Valve as platforms, and I hope Valve give Steam Machines another go. Just, you know, do it right next time, and they have Steam Deck to go by as a blueprint. A capable Steambox and I'm sold. With the way things are going, and considering my own tendencies and work/lifestyle, I honestly wouldn't need anything besides a Steambox & Switch 2 to play every non-mobile game out there.

Seam Deck IS Valve's attempt at Steam Machine 2. It is not designed to be the top of the line option because there is no market for that, but being the baseline hardware that Valve has direct control over. Gabe made it clear that they are selling it at an extreme discount that they are not actually that comfortable with, with the faith that people would buy more Steam games even though the hardware isn't locked down. But even then some people still don't appreciate the savings.

And the goal isn't for Steam to run a hardware empire, but to allow the support of devices that other companies would make. Because they are in it for the software after all.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I've been playing on PC as my primary platform since 2011. Not one time have I ever been playing a game and thought "You know, I would enjoy this even more if those PlayStation and Xbox players weren't able to play this on their consoles."

Exclusives as a very naked form of manipulation can work if they're great and you build a brand around them. Just look at Nintendo. But that doesn't mean the games are more valuable or prestigious. It just means you had to buy the specialty hardware to play them.

Exactly. I have never seen one PCbro complain about BG3 going to consoles, and have read hundreds of 10,000 word essays about Sony PC ports.

 

[bender]

Games were better when budget sizes allowed for exclusives to exist.

 

[simpatico]

You could look at it like all the games now are PC releases that happen to get console ports. Outside of PS exclusives ofc. If you're a developer now, the PC version is the primary. Then you peel off Series S port, Series X port PS4 port, PS5 port etc.

 

[Topher]

This is exactly how I feel ATM, at least WRT Sony/SIE and Microsoft. I can still see Nintendo's identity, though it's arguable if they're at the peak of such identity like during the Iwata Era (RIP Iwata). But otherwise, it's clearly still there with Nintendo; I can't say that at all for Xbox or even PlayStation anymore.

There's a sort of culture that comes with a clearly-defined identity, even in gaming, even among platform holders, and exclusives play a big role in that. Genuine exclusives, mind you, and what a platform holder isn't willing to do, they cannot expect 3P to do for them. I think I'm just gonna kick back and watch when it comes to Xbox & PlayStation going forward, and just silently acknowledge "Yep, said that would happen" when certain dominos do in fact start falling and bring about consequences thereof. That said, I'm gonna look at the games they're bringing which look interesting, for sure, as always. But I'm probably only gonna be interested talking about specific games across those two platforms going forward, not the platforms themselves. That is, unless there's a monumental event involving those platforms.

Otherwise I'm kinda more interested in Nintendo and Valve as platforms, and I hope Valve give Steam Machines another go. Just, you know, do it right next time, and they have Steam Deck to go by as a blueprint. A capable Steambox and I'm sold. With the way things are going, and considering my own tendencies and work/lifestyle, I honestly wouldn't need anything besides a Steambox & Switch 2 to play every non-mobile game out there.

And of course, retro gaming is my gaming muse. Plus there's just something infinitely more interesting, passionate and genuine about the industry & games from generations back, versus the greedy shareholder/"best practices"/venture capitalists/trend-chasing obsessed industry we suffer through today.

You said it better than I was trying to. I was saying going multiplat has had an effect on first party games, but really it is a change in culture. I think PlayStation had the identity you are referring to before this generation, but seems clear it has changed quite a bit. Keep hoping my fears of what PlayStation is now will be proven wrong, but so far I'm not seeing it.

 

[metareferential]

No OP, it's just a coping mechanism.

Value comes from the game itself.

Unless you're like 5 and need something to feel better.

 

[SScorpio]

Seam Deck IS Valve's attempt at Steam Machine 2. It is not designed to be the top of the line option because there is no market for that, but being the baseline hardware that Valve has direct control over. Gabe made it clear that they are selling it at an extreme discount that they are not actually that comfortable with, with the faith that people would buy more Steam games even though the hardware isn't locked down. But even then some people still don't appreciate the savings.

And the goal isn't for Steam to run a hardware empire, but to allow the support of devices that other companies would make. Because they are in it for the software after all.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I think consoles were a lot more interesting when there were exclusives, or when there was at least when there'd be a clear best version of a game or when the consoles had significantly different versions of the same game (though this mostly just the SNES/Genesis era). I do think there's something fun about a console having a distinct identity that's defined by the games that were on it and the look that games on the system had due to the hardware. And going back to older systems now, it's fun to, for example, go on a Gamecube kick where that's all I play for a while and I just focus on that console with that controller and those games. I do that all the time because I just get in the mood to rediscover a certain era of gaming like that from time to time.

I don't particularly like the insinuation that it's about feeling special that one has a bunch of games that someone else doesn't have. We're really going to pretend that a few hundred dollars to buy a console is gatekeeping now? This stuff isn't exclusive in the way that luxury products are intended to be. It also has no bearing on why exclusivity contributes to a given console experience being more fun.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You said it better than I was trying to. I was saying going multiplat has had an effect on first party games, but really it is a change in culture. I think PlayStation had the identity you are referring to before this generation, but seems clear it has changed quite a bit. Keep hoping my fears of what PlayStation is now will be proven wrong, but so far I'm not seeing it.

And another thing about that, this ties into exclusives, is that it's funny to me when all these people and corporations tell gamers to give up on exclusivity (give up part of your investment in gaming culture), yet the companies themselves still practice exclusivity among themselves.

Why does SIE exclusively own the IP rights to TLOU, God of War, Gran Turismo etc? Why does Microsoft own the exclusive IP rights to Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Halo, Forza and so forth? The lifeblood of these companies in what gives them any value in the market is THEIR exclusivity in IP & patent ownerships (among others), because that exclusivity defines their identity and worth. But somehow, we as gamers are supposed to believe game exclusives aren't a good thing for platforms or the market anymore, to our benefit?

'Let more people play the game', is such a false flag. Outside of legal console or game bans in parts of the world, no company has ever barred someone from buying their hardware to play the games available on it. And as far as I know, no company has barred or discriminated against people buying & playing their games based on race, gender, sexuality, political party or creed. They have not intentionally priced hardware or software in a way to lock out poor people from buying their stuff, and ultimately gaming isn't a right; it's a privilege. Not everyone's going to have the money or even time to play games, and that's just kind of what it is.

I only mention that because other people talk about exclusives "dying" because, I think, they're partly thinking games are a life necessity and everyone should have the right to play games regardless of life situation or lifestyle, or financial status. I don't know when that thinking became popular or why it did, but it has never once made sense to me. Instead of trying to bottom-out the industry in unsustainable ways to get as many "consooomers" as possible, why don't people try finding ways to fix the economy and increase living wages so that more people can reasonably afford the games (and other stuff, like actual life necessities) in ways the industry can sustain?

But back to platform identity and its culture, yeah, I'm just not feeling it with PlayStation these days. Part of that may be me, but then I look at my gaming tastes and see there are other platforms which deliver much of that while still having definitive stances (through action) when it comes to adding value to their own platform in substantive ways. I think it's the intentionally open-ended, obfuscating wording from SIE corporate these days paired with various contradictory actions that's really throwing me off from the platform, as something to feel enthusiastic towards.

The whole thing with Helldivers 2 to Xbox...not even the game itself getting ported, but the way in which there was all this drama and theatrics up to the point of the announcement. From Phil Spencer crying about it not being on Xbox (to keep pushing the "exclusives are anti-consumer" BS), to the PSN fiasco (and Arrowhead people having PS take the blame plus PS doing a 180 in just 48 hours), to letting all the rumors about HD2 to Xbox go on for months to now finding out it was SIE who pushed for HD2 on Xbox all along....something about all of that just really rubbed me the wrong way and I've been increasingly very cold on PlayStation as a platform since then.

I can't take anything they say, any more seriously than I can from Phil Spencer or other Xbox suits, and I'm increasingly worried that MS and SIE/Sony have a duopoly going on between them which would explain why we've seen this facade or charade of "competition" the past couple of years, but in reality they're just playing good cop/bad cop. That would be genuinely anti-consumer but I don't see all the larpers calling for death of exclusive games, mentioning a single word about that

 

[NT80]

Exclusivity has been the major selling point of a console for me. Without that I won't bother with them in future just get better PCs especially since online play is free on PC. Nintendo still has exclusives I might want to play though so their consoles are the only ones I might consider getting in the future.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

I do somewhat miss that old school feel I got when I was a kid seeing each console having their own cool stuff especially during the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube era. But these days I can't be bothered to care about that too much and instead just want as many games on the PC as possible and even better if it's at launch too.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Seam Deck IS Valve's attempt at Steam Machine 2. It is not designed to be the top of the line option because there is no market for that, but being the baseline hardware that Valve has direct control over. Gabe made it clear that they are selling it at an extreme discount that they are not actually that comfortable with, with the faith that people would buy more Steam games even though the hardware isn't locked down. But even then some people still don't appreciate the savings.

And the goal isn't for Steam to run a hardware empire, but to allow the support of devices that other companies would make. Because they are in it for the software after all.

I don't agree with this. Not simply because there are rumors Valve are in fact working on a Steam-like console box, but also because Steam Deck doesn't 100% fulfill the performance and scalability needs of a sufficient reference device to maximize Steam OS for gaming. A new Steambox doesn't have to be "top of the line", as that's missing the point completely. Steam Deck wasn't "top of the line" for a PC portable specs when it launched, but it wasn't aiming for that, either.

A Steambox just needs to provide sufficient enough performance at scalable SKU pricing to get more Steam users to buy the hardware. And, if it can convert Windows gamers to Steam OS, that's just a bonus. It's probably more necessary than ever in order to provide some semblance of balance in the PC gaming market when it comes to player choice & options, now that Microsoft are getting more serious with their own PC consolized device push. A future where they go basically unchallenged (I mean this in terms of there being a sufficient enough market alternative with strong brand value, which is what Steam brings to the table) would be a bad one for ensuring the long-term viability of PC gaming, considering we've already been witnessing what product decline Microsoft can allow to fester in the OS space through Windows having no strongly-established market competitive alternative for many years, allowed to basically dictate PC OS standards to its own beat.

But in order for Steam and Steam OS to provide that alternative at a full capacity, they need a console-like box that complements the Steam Deck as well. Something that, like Steam Deck, integrates all aspects of the PC gaming experience (OS, software, storefront, hardware) in a package that addresses all of the current problems with PC gaming (mainly under Windows). Clearly, in reaching out to OEMs to build partner devices, Valve don't have to manage all of this on their own, but it's still a necessity IMO.

Steam was originally created out of fear MS would monopolize the PC gaming space similar to what they had already done in the '80s and '90s for the PC OS space. Steam OS was created because Valve were worried MS would ruin PC gaming on Windows by cockblocking Valve & others from critical API access to optimize their Windows-based storefront(s). One thing a company like Valve should keep in mind (and that Sony/SIE should try learning), is that certain "unsavory" aspects of MS's corporate practices are baked into its DNA as a corporation. Meaning, they will never truly go away. Yes, they may change the language and pretty it up, and be more "flowery" about how it's done, but end goals remain the same. So there is always going to be the threat, PC-wise, from MS to make value-destructive changes over time that negatively harm PC gaming. Which, at this point, means potential harm to non-PC gaming too, particularly console gaming, given how closely related the two realms are nowadays.

Reasons like that are why companies like Valve need to be persistent in providing genuine market alternatives to match or exceed whatever it is Microsoft attempts doing in the space of PC gaming, even if those alternatives don't necessarily "win" in the market share battle. They don't have to; they simply need to exist and be quality. Plus, it all also helps act as a form of advertising for Steam, plus galvanizes OEMs to commit with their own similar devices. This is real choice, this is real "good for consumers" energy here.

 

[Paulistano]

Exclusivity can make people perceive average games as master piece games.

 

[Poppinfresh]

at the same time it feels like exclusivity itself, and not being available anywhere else, gives game more value, and make it more worthwhile to play.

Strongly Disagree.

In a perfect world, all games would be available on all systems, and "exclusivity" wouldn't exist.

Hell, in a perfect world (or at least MY perfect world) systems wouldn't even exist. I'd just be able to log into a storefront, buy a game, and play it wherever I wanted.

 

[Tobimacoss]

I don't agree with this. Not simply because there are rumors Valve are in fact working on a Steam-like console box, but also because Steam Deck doesn't 100% fulfill the performance and scalability needs of a sufficient reference device to maximize Steam OS for gaming. A new Steambox doesn't have to be "top of the line", as that's missing the point completely. Steam Deck wasn't "top of the line" for a PC portable specs when it launched, but it wasn't aiming for that, either.

A Steambox just needs to provide sufficient enough performance at scalable SKU pricing to get more Steam users to buy the hardware. And, if it can convert Windows gamers to Steam OS, that's just a bonus. It's probably more necessary than ever in order to provide some semblance of balance in the PC gaming market when it comes to player choice & options, now that Microsoft are getting more serious with their own PC consolized device push. A future where they go basically unchallenged (I mean this in terms of there being a sufficient enough market alternative with strong brand value, which is what Steam brings to the table) would be a bad one for ensuring the long-term viability of PC gaming, considering we've already been witnessing what product decline Microsoft can allow to fester in the OS space through Windows having no strongly-established market competitive alternative for many years, allowed to basically dictate PC OS standards to its own beat.

But in order for Steam and Steam OS to provide that alternative at a full capacity, they need a console-like box that complements the Steam Deck as well. Something that, like Steam Deck, integrates all aspects of the PC gaming experience (OS, software, storefront, hardware) in a package that addresses all of the current problems with PC gaming (mainly under Windows). Clearly, in reaching out to OEMs to build partner devices, Valve don't have to manage all of this on their own, but it's still a necessity IMO.

Steam was originally created out of fear MS would monopolize the PC gaming space similar to what they had already done in the '80s and '90s for the PC OS space. Steam OS was created because Valve were worried MS would ruin PC gaming on Windows by cockblocking Valve & others from critical API access to optimize their Windows-based storefront(s). One thing a company like Valve should keep in mind (and that Sony/SIE should try learning), is that certain "unsavory" aspects of MS's corporate practices are baked into its DNA as a corporation. Meaning, they will never truly go away. Yes, they may change the language and pretty it up, and be more "flowery" about how it's done, but end goals remain the same. So there is always going to be the threat, PC-wise, from MS to make value-destructive changes over time that negatively harm PC gaming. Which, at this point, means potential harm to non-PC gaming too, particularly console gaming, given how closely related the two realms are nowadays.

Reasons like that are why companies like Valve need to be persistent in providing genuine market alternatives to match or exceed whatever it is Microsoft attempts doing in the space of PC gaming, even if those alternatives don't necessarily "win" in the market share battle. They don't have to; they simply need to exist and be quality. Plus, it all also helps act as a form of advertising for Steam, plus galvanizes OEMs to commit with their own similar devices. This is real choice, this is real "good for consumers" energy here.

SteamOS still runs Windows games.... they aren't ever dictating the future of PC Gaming which is always defined by DirectX.

The hybrid Xbox Consoles basically destroy any chances of a SteamOS console.

Everything else was just in Gabe's imagination and paranoia.

 

[Inanilmaz]

All console exclusives should come to PC but not to the other competition consoles.

 

[Kacho]

I just feel like the soul of gaming is dying.

 

[Ebrietas]

Exclusives give the platform more value. The game itself is not more valuable per se (although it probably will get more attention by virtue of being exclusive).

Another way they are associated with more value is that the platform holder has deeper pockets than a third party, and can fund projects which would otherwise be out of reach or too risky financially for anyone else.

 

[RoboFu]

That's just your fanboyism rising up. The game plays the same no matter what and that's the value. If Nintendo went pc they would sell 300 million copies of Mario instead of 30 million. I would love it and hate it since I play more on my pc than consoles but I'm also a rabid Nintendo fanboy.

 

[Trilobit]

As someone with both console and PC- I just feel like the soul of gaming is dying.

Yeah, games on PC are objectively better if they are ported right and you have the modern hardware, but there was something awesome about Halo/Gears/Forza being on Xbox, while God of War/Horizon/Ratchet and Clank/Final Fantasy being on PS.

Now I look at consoles like "meh." There used to be an identity associated with them, but with this multi-platform strategy, it just doesn't feel the same anymore.

Yeah, honestly, multiplatform is boring if it becomes the norm.

 

[Sentenza]

Vanillaware to PC gamers:

Yeah, it's certainly working WONDERS for them.

 

[Danjin44]

Yeah, it's certainly working WONDERS for them.

They are happy with their sales numbers and the game they make are very niche.

What I love about them is they dont make sequels and always push them make something new with each game.

Its exciting to see what they make next and will be there to support them no matter what.

 

[Sentenza]

They are happy with their sales numbers and the game they make are very niche.

What I love about them is they dont make sequels and always push them make something new with each game.

Its exciting to see what they make next and will be there to support them no matter what.

They are also on the verge of bankruptcy between each title, while their entire output is emulable on PC without their approval and without them benefitting directly from it.

 

[Danjin44]

They are also on the verge of bankruptcy between each title, while their entire output is emulable on PC without their approval and without them benefitting directly from it.

That's has more to with going over ambitious with the their games and goes over budget…..this happened with both 13 Sentinels and Unicorn Overlord…but both those titles sold well enough to make up for it.

Also games being on PC doesn't always mean higher sales.

 

[Holammer]

They are also on the verge of bankruptcy between each title, while their entire output is emulable on PC without their approval and without them benefitting directly from it.

The fanboy would rather have them die, or better yet... Get acquired by their [BRAND] of choice.

 

[JonSnowball]

Exclusivity is for children who feel like it bolsters the backing of their "team" instead of facing the reality that it's irrelevant where a title is available, and wider availability allows broader audiences to enjoy these experiences. If they cared for the games the way they say they do in praise there'd be nothing but joy for others being able to share something they enjoy. At this point in the industry as far as consoles go, Nintendo excepted, you're practically arguing over the layout of the controller and the way the box you play on looks.

 

[SScorpio]

That's has more to with going over ambitious with the their games and goes over budget…..this happened with both 13 Sentinels and Unicorn Overlord…but both those titles sold well enough to make up for it.

Also games being on PC doesn't always mean higher sales.

The last few Square releases having PC sales outpace the total sold on the PS5 alone says otherwise. Square's not doing the timed exclusive BS anymore.

The initial PC ports did so well Atlus is releasing day one on console and PCs now.

Capcom's last sales announcement was that PC sales have eclipse total console sales combined across the same time period.

A port of a complete game costs much less than the initial development. It would be very unlikely a PC release couldn't make back the porting costs. And the potential new audience is huge.

 

[Danjin44]

The last few Square releases having PC sales outpace the total sold on the PS5 alone says otherwise. Square's not doing the timed exclusive BS anymore.

The initial PC ports did so well Atlus is releasing day one on console and PCs now.

Capcom's last sales announcement was that PC sales have eclipse total console sales combined across the same time period.

A port of a complete game costs much less than the initial development. It would be very unlikely a PC release couldn't make back the porting costs. And the potential new audience is huge.

I LOVE Vanillaware, I want all success they can get, so I hope one day they do release their games on PC….at end of the day it's up to them.

 

[ReBurn]

In the past exclusives were only special in that they had to be good enough to make you want to buy the box that played them. It was during a time when the only way for most people to affordably play games was to buy a console because it was that or PC and a lot of folks couldn't afford a PC.

Now there are more types of devices that are good enough to deliver games that the box itself isn't as important anymore. The reason more people are playing on mobile is that it's good enough for gaming on the go and you can easily play wherever you are. If people cared as much about AAA games on consoles as some of us think the overall install base of consoles would be increasing, but it's pretty flat compared to last gen. Not to mention that the differences between PS5 and XSX aren't big enough this generation for two very samey consoles to even need to exist. Especially when PC gets 99% of the games anyway and you don't need a massively expensive rig for them to be good enough.

We currently have a weekend console war thread going that shows how active PS4 users are as some kind of slam against Xbox, but what it really shows is that tens of millions of people still see PS4 as good enough and PS5 exclusives aren't tempting them to upgrade. If people already in the ecosystem aren't motivated by exclusives, and they aren't necessarily growing the install base like they used to, then what's the point in keeping games exclusive?

 

[Laptop1991]

Depends on the quality and reputation of the exclusive now, only GTA could make money off being an exclusive in the modern gaming industry with the high cost's of game development in the AAA market but even Rockstar would be losing even more money by being exclusive to 1 system.

 

[Fbh]

Nah, couldn't care less if a game is exclusive. Most of my favorite games this gen are multiplataform, and overall I think most game beeing available everywhere is great .

 

[sachos]

I just posted about this in another thread but i'll post it here too since it seems more relevant here.
I think sometimes people think only fanboys care about exclusives just so they can have a gotcha over the other consoles in the perpetual console wars. But i think i have genuine reasons in support of exclusives, at least first party ones:

--By far the most important reason is that they allow full focus for the dev teams, extracting every drop of power out of the system they are working on. For example look at how fast Insomniac Games or DS2 load on the PS5, sub 2 sec loading times are crazy. They should be showcases for the hardware.

--Exclusives (at least for PS) allows level of production quality only a few 3rd party devs can achieve and compete with.

--They keep platforms in competitive mode, aiming to create games so good that you are willing to buy their hardware for.

--Another reason (a psychological one i know) is that exclusives give a soul to the platform: PS games have a feel to them, same for Nintendo. It's cool how they give an identity to the platform. Makes waiting and watching game conferences more exciting.

 

[analog_future]

I just posted about this in another thread but i'll post it here too since it seems more relevant here.
I think sometimes people think only fanboys care about exclusives just so they can have a gotcha over the other consoles in the perpetual console wars. But i think i have genuine reasons in support of exclusives, at least first party ones:

--By far the most important reason is that they allow full focus for the dev teams, extracting every drop of power out of the system they are working on. For example look at how fast Insomniac Games or DS2 load on the PS5, sub 2 sec loading times are crazy. They should be showcases for the hardware.

--Exclusives (at least for PS) allows level of production quality only a few 3rd party devs can achieve and compete with.

--They keep platforms in competitive mode, aiming to create games so good that you are willing to buy their hardware for.

--Another reason (a psychological one i know) is that exclusives give a soul to the platform: PS games have a feel to them, same for Nintendo. It's cool how they give an identity to the platform. Makes waiting and watching game conferences more exciting.

Your first two points are nil, as Insomniac games, DS1 (and soon DS2), and a ton of other 1st party games have already come out on other platforms and the production quality hasn't dropped.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Nah, couldn't care less if a game is exclusive. Most of my favorite games this gen are multiplataform, and overall I think most game beeing available everywhere is great .

And most people feel the same. Nintendo is their own universe as their games are so much better than third party games on last gen powered systems. A lot of third party games dont even come out for Ninty systems going back to N64. So that helps Ninty even more funnel people to Mario and Zelda etc... I think a good part of their success is actually low prices and if their new gameplay is a hit (ie. Wii waggle or Switch hybrid). Wii U had tons of great first party games and even a slew of third party bangers you got on 360/PS3 and it crash and burned barely selling more than Dreamcast. I guess nobody cared about tablet gaming.

But even though Ninty first party games dominate, I dont seem them in hoards in gaming forums trashing other platforms. They dont seem to care much to brag about another 90+ rated game that sold 20M copies.

But for Xbox and PS, take a look at the top played games lists and it's almost all MP third party games. No first party SP, and hardly any first party MP outside of maybe Forza Horizon and a handful of games acquired like COD or Destiny or Minecraft. If MS/Sony didnt buy out studios, they'd have almost no first party exclusives in most played lists. GT7 doesnt even show up until you go far down the list.

Funny thing about video game ecosystem supporters is some reason it's the only thing they own they put up this fight. I bet any other product which can have interchangeable media like CDs, DVD/BR, computer files, phone apps, or any AV or tech product with different ports I bet they want it as easily BC, transferrable and crossplat as possible so everything works. And they dont care one bit if anyone else in the world can do it too on their hardware.

But for a video game box, they care a lot if someone else can play the same game.

 

[yurqqa]

What OP is missing is tribalism.
Cheering for your team, trash talk the opponents...
Fun times.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

SteamOS still runs Windows games.... they aren't ever dictating the future of PC Gaming which is always defined by DirectX.

The hybrid Xbox Consoles basically destroy any chances of a SteamOS console.

Everything else was just in Gabe's imagination and paranoia.

Nice story, buddy. I'm sure back in 2001 people said Xbox consoles destroyed any chance for the PS2, and well we saw how that played out.

MS might have a vision, but I doubt they have the organization & talent to pull it off in practice. Long-term I'd put my trust in Valve with that; as a platform they understand PC gaming like no other company because they've been investing in it for over 20 years, especially when Microsoft themselves (and others) seemingly abandoned PC in the mid-00s'.

Would it be nice if MS can make their PC-console hybrid Xbox devices work as envisioned? Yes, and if that means I retain power over how the OS functions at the user level (i.e no CoPilot crap or borderline spyware taking snapshots of my desktop activity) then it'd be something I'd consider. But I don't have confidence in them to pull it off.

 

[Durin]

I don't agree with this. Not simply because there are rumors Valve are in fact working on a Steam-like console box, but also because Steam Deck doesn't 100% fulfill the performance and scalability needs of a sufficient reference device to maximize Steam OS for gaming. A new Steambox doesn't have to be "top of the line", as that's missing the point completely. Steam Deck wasn't "top of the line" for a PC portable specs when it launched, but it wasn't aiming for that, either.

A Steambox just needs to provide sufficient enough performance at scalable SKU pricing to get more Steam users to buy the hardware. And, if it can convert Windows gamers to Steam OS, that's just a bonus. It's probably more necessary than ever in order to provide some semblance of balance in the PC gaming market when it comes to player choice & options, now that Microsoft are getting more serious with their own PC consolized device push. A future where they go basically unchallenged (I mean this in terms of there being a sufficient enough market alternative with strong brand value, which is what Steam brings to the table) would be a bad one for ensuring the long-term viability of PC gaming, considering we've already been witnessing what product decline Microsoft can allow to fester in the OS space through Windows having no strongly-established market competitive alternative for many years, allowed to basically dictate PC OS standards to its own beat.

But in order for Steam and Steam OS to provide that alternative at a full capacity, they need a console-like box that complements the Steam Deck as well. Something that, like Steam Deck, integrates all aspects of the PC gaming experience (OS, software, storefront, hardware) in a package that addresses all of the current problems with PC gaming (mainly under Windows). Clearly, in reaching out to OEMs to build partner devices, Valve don't have to manage all of this on their own, but it's still a necessity IMO.

Steam was originally created out of fear MS would monopolize the PC gaming space similar to what they had already done in the '80s and '90s for the PC OS space. Steam OS was created because Valve were worried MS would ruin PC gaming on Windows by cockblocking Valve & others from critical API access to optimize their Windows-based storefront(s). One thing a company like Valve should keep in mind (and that Sony/SIE should try learning), is that certain "unsavory" aspects of MS's corporate practices are baked into its DNA as a corporation. Meaning, they will never truly go away. Yes, they may change the language and pretty it up, and be more "flowery" about how it's done, but end goals remain the same. So there is always going to be the threat, PC-wise, from MS to make value-destructive changes over time that negatively harm PC gaming. Which, at this point, means potential harm to non-PC gaming too, particularly console gaming, given how closely related the two realms are nowadays.

Reasons like that are why companies like Valve need to be persistent in providing genuine market alternatives to match or exceed whatever it is Microsoft attempts doing in the space of PC gaming, even if those alternatives don't necessarily "win" in the market share battle. They don't have to; they simply need to exist and be quality. Plus, it all also helps act as a form of advertising for Steam, plus galvanizes OEMs to commit with their own similar devices. This is real choice, this is real "good for consumers" energy here.

They already won the real battle that matters, and has always kept Microsoft from beating Google/Apple in the phone/tablet space...making a storefront people actually like using (Gamepass is good, Xbox app sucks). Given the good price/battery/performance of the Steam Deck vs others, I think Valve producing the actual console hardware will be the easier challenge, it's the software backend around it that's harder.

Valve needs to produce or help another company offer a server-side anti-cheat solution that can effectively deal with cheating without needing kernel-level access, so the bigger service-based multiplayer games can just work out of the box on SteamOS/Linux. Their gamescope console-like UI front-end needs to not just work for their box, but work properly on Nvidia hardware that has dominant marketshare (already works fine on AMD/intel hardware). They need to close the gap on DX12 performance, or even just get close, because SteamOS/Linux with Proton often has better frame-times with reduced stuttering in games.

Finally, they need to have greater automation for detectable graphic presets so games just launch with good settings (Steam Deck has ok-ish support for this already). Maybe some automated solution for troubleshooting game issues like an AI that can inject commands in the "launch options" per game to fix common issues for non-tech users (90% of Proton compatibility issues are this).