Devs Believe Exclusivity For Games Is No Longer A Viable Strategy, Survey Reveals

I thought you said you were 50/50? Doesn't sound like it. I'd put you in the extremely pessimistic camp.

NGL, I am starting to lean that way. I feel like a lot of companies are looking for shortcuts to "solve" rising costs instead of the root causes of them, and some of the moves from certain platform holders the past few years are reflective of that.

But I know there are always going to be platforms for me to play on regardless, so there'll never not be a place to game. I do feel like certain companies are doing things at a lesser level than they could if they had more of a genuine hunger & passion to stake claims in the market, though.

Fair points. But still, they have 80M customers now on just PS5. How can it not be enough?

Astrobot sold like 3M copies. A GOTY awarded game everybody loves.

What are people playing? 77M people are playing Fortnite, GTA5, Minecraft, COD??

And how much do 3D platformers sell on Steam, with its 140 million user base? I don't get why people use Astro Bot's numbers as a way of trying to argue exclusives don't work. It doesn't have the decades-long brand name of Mario or even Sonic or Rayman, why are people expecting it to suddenly sell like a Galaxy or Odyssey right off the bat?
 
Last edited:
Fair points. But still, they have 80M customers now on just PS5. How can it not be enough?

Astrobot sold like 3M copies. A GOTY awarded game everybody loves.

What are people playing? 77M people are playing Fortnite, GTA5, Minecraft, COD??

I haven't looked at software attach rates in a while but there was a time when when 8-10 games was on the high side. With the boon in quality F2P games and subscription services, it wouldn't shock me if those attach rates for newer consoles were lower. We also recently saw a report of 15 million PS5 owners having never purchased a game. A non-Nintendo platformer is going to have limited appeal and I'd also guess at 3M units sold, that game has turned a profit as I don't think Sony paid for guest characters and the Asobi development staff isn't massive.
 
Last edited:
pr6gwen29g0d1.jpeg


300px-Look_What_They_Need_To_Mimic_A_Fraction_Of_Our_Power.jpg

Nintendo posts higher operating profits, Sony and Microsoft channel a larger share of their gaming revenue into non-liquid assets like studios, proprietary technology, and long-term infrastructure. Those investments don't immediately translate into profit, but they can build value and competitive advantages over time. Whether either approach is "better" is ultimately a matter of opinion, and I'm not interested in debating opinions.


I think Nintendo are quite content to break sales records, make more and more cash by continuing to be an actual gaming company rather than the other 2 who are destroying their industry And abandoning all their previous principles and fans in the name of capitalism.

So no, your gif is way off.

The joke is that Nintendo is still a company that exists to maximize profit (see overpriced old games in their store for example). Seeing the revenue Sony and Microsoft pull in (even if they don't always spend it wisely), Nintendo is always considering making changes of their own to maximize profits. Whether the joke landed or not is debatable, but acting like I'm some anti-Nintendo crusader is ridiculous.
 
If exclusivity means "only on X console and not on pc", then sure they have a point. But if it means "console exclusive to ps5, but also on PC", then I doubt they have a point.

A ps5 console exclusive generally comes with a big bag of cash.

The vast vast majority of console games sales for multi platform titles are on PlayStation. Xbox gets an ever smaller % with each passing year.

Series S is a nightmare for developers, that takes a lot of extra resources to get a game optimised to run on a platform you won't get many sales on, those are resources (and time) that could be spent on paid expansions or the next game. Not to mention if you're planning for series S from the outset it may mean needing to make compromises to the design of the game itself just so it's feasible to run it.
 
You say "Exclusivity For Games Is No Longer A Viable Strategy" when your exclusive no longer high quality enough to sales systems by itself.

Is not Xbox chose to go mutiplatform route, they have no other choice. Exclusives like Halo and Gears used to be reason people go in line to buy Xbox, thats just no longer the case.
 
Last edited:
Exclusivity does literally nothing for them.
That is not correct. If you were an Xbox 360 devs and did not have to port to PS3 you had a much easier time optimising your game well and viceversa and that is a cost.

A lot of devs might feel like this is the easiest path to recoup costly investment, but platform holders that setup a lucrative walled garden should still think about cultivating it and not getting delusions of grandeur.
 
xbox and ps are basically the same hardware, and both are also basically PC... might as well do it for those 3.

but exclusivity sells hardware.
guess it's really up to sony/ms to sweeten the pot/buy the exclusivity.
 
i mentioned this before but those nintenboys laughing at me.
dev cost is going to be higher and higher and in the same time userbase is not infinite, even for Nintendo magic hands.

Nintendo is going to be going for multiplatform or close their business when the time comes, money talks in the end. This is Nintendo we are talking about, they are greedier than Sony and Microsoft.

its common sense here but they just insert laughing emoji and pretend nothing will happen lol
Nintendo is the most stable of the three hardware makers. They are completely self reliant and own the products that sell their hardware.

Sony is now at the mercy of Epic (Fortnite), Take Two (GTA6) and Microsoft (CoD) for their survival / relevancy.
 
Fair points. But still, they have 80M customers now on just PS5. How can it not be enough?

Astrobot sold like 3M copies. A GOTY awarded game everybody loves.

What are people playing? 77M people are playing Fortnite, GTA5, Minecraft, COD??
Because Sony's first party software sells like shit* at full price and relies on deep deep deep discounts to hit those "Horizon Zero Dawn sold 20 million copies look at how amazing this franchise is!!" Numbers.

So many people ignore this part of Sony's software sales. Sony wants more front loaded full price software sales and they can't do that on their system alone.

*when I say "sells like shit" I mean how much software they sell at full price relative to the budget it cost to make that game.
 
Last edited:
That is not correct. If you were an Xbox 360 devs and did not have to port to PS3 you had a much easier time optimising your game well and viceversa and that is a cost.

A lot of devs might feel like this is the easiest path to recoup costly investment, but platform holders that setup a lucrative walled garden should still think about cultivating it and not getting delusions of grandeur.
It's telling that you didn't use current consoles as an example. You had to go back 20 years. Nowadays major publishers have the resources to handle multiplatform development just fine. Casting the widest net possible is the goal going forward and devs will like that more people get to experience their work.
 
The most likely future is the disappearance of AAA exclusives by playstation (as is happening with xbox) due to the disproportionate price increase of these and how cheap it is to port to the competition (either the rival console or PC). The only one that seems to be able to afford to stay with exclusives is Nintendo, since their games do not need such huge budgets to focus on gameplay and not in being cinematic, plus their platform requires it to sell their hardware (which also generates more profits than the competition).

Everything else is just fanboy whining.
Yep that's the correct take, they either make smaller games like nintendo or go bigger and wider (multiplats) with AAA games. One platform can't carry an investment above 100 million by itself.
 
If companies and shareholders wants more and more and more it's a logical strategy.

It was sustainable before and it's sustainable now. They are just greedy and they don't mind to devalue the brand in the long term to make a profit now.
 
The only value in exclusives for a dev is access to money to fund the game + additional advertising...it's always been most beneficial to the platform holder only.

I do think for enough devs at the AA level downward it can still make sense (especially for Switch 2), and if it's the only thing that will get the game funded...I don't care that point. At the AAA budgets this gen though, we're seeing even Sony money not matter anymore, with Square Enix wishing they just went multi-plat from the start with FF7: Rebirth.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between the three companies. Its obvious and doesn't need explaining, but Nintendo has the most powerful stable of IP on the planet at the moment, and they will dictate where that IP appears.
yea so powerful they charge customer on a switch 2 tech demo.
 
Nintendo is the most stable of the three hardware makers. They are completely self reliant and own the products that sell their hardware.

Sony is now at the mercy of Epic (Fortnite), Take Two (GTA6) and Microsoft (CoD) for their survival / relevancy.
like selling tech demo right?
self reliant at first party but fails at third party software sales lol

lets see how long Nintendo going to be "self reliant" once the userbase staggered
 
Last edited:
like selling tech demo right?
self reliant at first party but fails at third party software sales lol

lets see how long Nintendo going to be "self reliant" once the userbase staggered
That's... what... self reliant means..

Since it seems you're salty about Nintendo charging for a tech demo, I'll put some salt in the wounds. I bet Switch 2 Welcome Tour outsells Astrobot by the end of the generation.
 
Last edited:
NGL, I am starting to lean that way. I feel like a lot of companies are looking for shortcuts to "solve" rising costs instead of the root causes of them, and some of the moves from certain platform holders the past few years are reflective of that.

But I know there are always going to be platforms for me to play on regardless, so there'll never not be a place to game. I do feel like certain companies are doing things at a lesser level than they could if they had more of a genuine hunger & passion to stake claims in the market, though.



And how much do 3D platformers sell on Steam, with its 140 million user base? I don't get why people use Astro Bot's numbers as a way of trying to argue exclusives don't work. It doesn't have the decades-long brand name of Mario or even Sonic or Rayman, why are people expecting it to suddenly sell like a Galaxy or Odyssey right off the bat?

I haven't looked at software attach rates in a while but there was a time when when 8-10 games was on the high side. With the boon in quality F2P games and subscription services, it wouldn't shock me if those attach rates for newer consoles were lower. We also recently saw a report of 15 million PS5 owners having never purchased a game. A non-Nintendo platformer is going to have limited appeal and I'd also guess at 3M units sold, that game has turned a profit as I don't think Sony paid for guest characters and the Asobi development staff isn't massive.

Because Sony's first party software sells like shit* at full price and relies on deep deep deep discounts to hit those "Horizon Zero Dawn sold 20 million copies look at how amazing this franchise is!!" Numbers.

So many people ignore this part of Sony's software sales. Sony wants more front loaded full price software sales and they can't do that on their system alone.

*when I say "sells like shit" I mean how much software they sell at full price relative to the budget it cost to make that game.
So in other worlds. They need more games like Horizon, which sells 20M copies and don't come with licensing cost, but at lower price so people don't sit around waiting for discounts?

Then why is Insomniac now like a Marvel studio?
They could use one of their own already known IPs like infamous or Resistance, or do more Ratchet games or let them do something with Jak, with the same quality and polish, and skip the licensing cost.

And why are they selling games for $70?
(or 899SEK in Sweden, which is $94)
They could sell them at $50 and sell millions more. I'm one of those who wait for discounts.

I'm thinking if they have a userbase capable of purchasing 20M copies then it should be enough. It's 25% of the userbase. Shouldn't be impossible.

How many extra copies are they even getting on big IPs like Horizon on PC? 2M? They remove exclusivity power for 10% extra?

I guess if they went day 1 everywhere they would sell more. No muted release from being a late release with little hype. At least going by helldivers 2 that's an added 100%. Iirc it has sold as much on PC as PS.

But this middle road or removing exclusivity power only to then be late everywhere else and sell games with little hype and no fanfare. I don't think it's a good idea. Instead of having millions of extra people saying "OMG!" they have them saying "Meh", and often at full price, "Meh 2x"
 
That's... what... self reliant means..

Since it seems you're salty about Nintendo charging for a tech demo, I'll put some salt in the wounds. I bet Switch 2 Welcome Tour outsells Astrobot by the end of the generation.
oh noooooooo what should i do now!!?? im hurrttttttt!! gonna sell my astro bot now!

'That's... what... self reliant means.."

Yes, it means Nintendo can only rely their own first party games (which is not alot compared to the amount of third party games out there) to support their whole platform, this is a big risk.
And i repeat again, pair it with the dev cost and stagerring userbase, its not going to end well.

Come on man use your common sense here. Unless you are telling me Nintendo has a way to increasr their customer base infinite , which is highly impossible imo.
 
Last edited:
The hardware all being the same makes it pointless. Combine that withe kids having next to no interest in consoles or even the PC games that most of us come here to talk about (Gen Z on PC! is a shallow "victory" because of this). Xbox sending signals like they might be out of the living room walled garden market altogether. I think you have to get all the sales you can. Especially now with the Sloppa Floppa being something that is very much on the menu for a lot of these people. Trending down will get a lot of money pulled out. The amount in right now is there for very chaotic reasons. 0% interest days with covid at the end. We could end up looking to indie AA for the genres we play now.

GTA VI doing anything other than shutting down the world could be disasterous for investor confidence.
 
Last edited:
I think for AAA games with $100+ mil budgets this is the case. Too much money spent to cut your buyer potential in over half by going exclusive.

Nintendo fills a niche and their games are simpler so I'd imagine it's fine for them still. Even TotK saved millions by re-using tons of assets.
 
NGL, I am starting to lean that way. I feel like a lot of companies are looking for shortcuts to "solve" rising costs instead of the root causes of them, and some of the moves from certain platform holders the past few years are reflective of that.
Absolutely.
But I know there are always going to be platforms for me to play on regardless, so there'll never not be a place to game. I do feel like certain companies are doing things at a lesser level than they could if they had more of a genuine hunger & passion to stake claims in the market, though.
I think this issue is multifactorial. For example, Square Enix is a company that has lost sight of the essence of its biggest IP and has also suffered from mismanagement and misplaced priorities in R&D (Luminous Engine), which go hand in hand with a lack of talent, vision, and leadership.

We can see Bethesda's complacency, ego, and tech debt undermining their most recent games. Starfield's performance with its own fanbase is embarrassing and should be a wake-up call. The same can be said of BioWare, Bungie, 343i.

In the context of exclusivity (without reading the thread), if someone is trying to equate Xbox's moves to PlayStation's, they're clowns. And if someone is saying something like "more people get to play games," that's such an NPC answer.

We know that Xbox utterly failed with the strategy of putting games on PC to save their brand and business. They are a zero to the left in this conversation; a failure in every sense of the word.

So, we only have Nintendo and PlayStation to talk about, and I think in both cases, what you're saying applies: They are not operating at their peak.

It feels like this hunger and passion have been overtaken by an aura of fear, stagnation/complacency, and incompetence.

In the case of Nintendo, it almost feels like they're trying to cash in on this generation by doing the least possible while increasing prices until they figure out what to do next.

PlayStation has been a disaster in terms of its internal pipeline and overall vision around GaaS.

Right now, funnily enough, PlayStation's potential problems won't even come from putting games on Xbox or PC day one, but rather from their games falling into irrelevance; the Ubisoft or MCU effect. Sure, their games can still sell around 10–15 million copies, but they should be selling 20–30 million if they're putting them everywhere. And without the "exclusivity subsidy," the buzz around them can be lukewarm or falling even faster. I think games like Forbidden West, Spider-Man 2, Ragnarok, and of course The Last of Us 2 are already there, even with this "subsidy."

Marathon, Yotei, and Intergalactic have failed to impress in the "Sony way" like they used to, so this is a real issue that Sony better be aware of. Even porting games to other platforms won't provide much of a boost in sales either.
 
Then why is Insomniac now like a Marvel studio?

Insomniac usually make quality games, maybe just short of greatness, and have some of the best project management and workflow in the industry. Their own IPs usually sold enough in the old days, but with increased budgets during the PS3 era, the ended up twisting in the wind and up working with Gamestop and EA as publishers before doing an exclusive for the XBone. Sony tabbing them for Spider-Man made a lot of sense considering their past history and the open world/superhero framework that Sunset Overdrive laid the foundation for. The Marvel license gave their excellent work the mass appeal that their own IPs have never really garnered.
 
They simply are not talking about exclusivity. They are talking about when a party is paying to prevent a game to be on another platform for some time. Sure consumers don't like it anymore, for good reasons.

But that's not the same thing as what Nintendo do and Sony did in the past.
 
oh noooooooo what should i do now!!?? im hurrttttttt!! gonna sell my astro bot now!

'That's... what... self reliant means.."

Yes, it means Nintendo can only rely their own first party games (which is not alot compared to the amount of third party games out there) to support their whole platform, this is a big risk.
And i repeat again, pair it with the dev cost and stagerring userbase, its not going to end well.

Come on man use your common sense here. Unless you are telling me Nintendo has a way to increasr their customer base infinite , which is highly impossible imo.
There will always be a limit to the customer base of gaming, even on PC and mobile. Going multiplatform to chase more gamers because budgets are ballooning simply delays the inevitable issue of game size and budgets outgrowing the gaming population. Nintendo is fully aware of this issue which is why you see them do stuff like release new hardware that doesn't come with power increases to maintain development costs. They did this with GameCube to Wii and again with Wii U to Switch.

Yes, third party games are important, but Nintendo is unique compared to Sony and Xbox. Nintendo is able to sell 10, 20, and sometimes 30 million copies of first party games at full price. They don't need Ubisoft $10 fire sale and the $3 cut they get from it to stay afloat.

Show me how it's a big risk to rely on first party software that has proven for decades to be amongst the best selling franchises in gaming?

Nintendo doesn't need to go to $700 PC handhelds to sell games because (despite what some people think) there will always be a market for a cheaper and weaker alternative, and no one except Nintendo is providing that in the handheld space.

Additionally, your point about increasing hardware base is (at this time) moot. They just increased their hardware base from 85mil (Wii U + 3DS) to 155m with Switch. They survived, still made a profit from, a drop from 255mil hardware base (Wii + DS) to 85 mil (3DS + Wii U) and I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine if Switch 2 drops to 100 mil.

Additionally additionally, unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo owns a huge percentage of itself and they don't need to slavishly chase profits to appease only shareholders. They can play the long game whereas we are seeing Sony and Microsoft play the short term fast cash game.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, now I will have more PlayStation exclusives on my PC while spending absolutely 0€ on anything else (PSN+, PStore purchases), other than 2-3 SP releases per year. Great job Sony!
 
Nintendo is the most stable of the three hardware makers. They are completely self reliant and own the products that sell their hardware.

Sony is now at the mercy of Epic (Fortnite), Take Two (GTA6) and Microsoft (CoD) for their survival / relevancy.

If the Switch 2 continues to sell, it will be the first time Nintendo has achieved two successes in a row... it is indeed Nintendo that runs the least risk. 🤡
Keep in mind that the Switch 2 is far from surpassing 20 million in sales, and hasn't even surpassed the fanboy base that even the Wii U attracted.

Switch 1 had "many Nintendo games" because Nintendo had abandoned the Wii U, so it took the games that were supposed to be released on the Wii U and released them on Switch 1.

Switch 2 doesn't have this facility, despite Nintendo releasing two Switch 1 remasters for it.

My question is whether Nintendo can adequately support a console without third-party developers and without leftovers from a previous generation abandoned by Nintendo—the "advantage" you mention.
 
Last edited:
My question is whether Nintendo can adequately support a console without third-party developers and without leftovers from a previous generation abandoned by Nintendo—the "advantage" you mention.

Well, if Playstation implodes, I could see developers still wanting to do AAAish SP games focusing on Nintendo. Even ones that had avoided Nintendo in the past.
 
Absolutely.

I think this issue is multifactorial. For example, Square Enix is a company that has lost sight of the essence of its biggest IP and has also suffered from mismanagement and misplaced priorities in R&D (Luminous Engine), which go hand in hand with a lack of talent, vision, and leadership.

The problem with FF is that it's not on Switch.
 
Big budget game development is too expensive and takes too long to do for AAA titles to limit to one platform to recoup development costs.
 
If the Switch 2 continues to sell, it will be the first time Nintendo has achieved two successes in a row... it is indeed Nintendo that runs the least risk. 🤡
Keep in mind that the Switch 2 is far from surpassing 20 million in sales, and hasn't even surpassed the fanboy base that even the Wii U attracted.

Switch 1 had "many Nintendo games" because Nintendo had abandoned the Wii U, so it took the games that were supposed to be released on the Wii U and released them on Switch 1.

Switch 2 doesn't have this facility, despite Nintendo releasing two Switch 1 remasters for it.

My question is whether Nintendo can adequately support a console without third-party developers and without leftovers from a previous generation abandoned by Nintendo—the "advantage" you mention.
You keep saying Nintendo "abandoned" Wii U but they released more first party games for it than Sony has on the PS4 if you compare Wii Us five years vs PS4s first five years. I'm not arguing Wii U was a success, because it wasn't (it was profitable though). I'm just arguing Wii U wasn't abandoned.

On PS4, Sony released 47 retail games (not counting remasters or psn published indie games) from 2013 to 2024.

On Wii U over a five year span Nintendo released 34 first party games (not counting publishing deals, eShop games or remasters).

That doesn't look like a console that was "abandoned". It was given full support until they moved on from it after four years after the market clearly rejected it.
 
Top Bottom