Support NeoGAF

[onQ123]

Yes, but we haven't been tied down to the home console since the PS3. PS4 and XB1 also both had remote play. In 2017 I was playing No Man's Sky on the stationary bike at the gym. You aren't wrong per say, but we are going on nearly a decade where this has been a feasible thing, and it hasn't changed how developers are making their games.

I'm saying because of all the choices of how you can play games now platform holders will have to bring their A game to make their platform the place to play.

 

[ioo]

Actually they are the most innovative and forward thinking out of console makers.

DualSense
VR
Their GPU tech (cache scrubbers, PSSR), SSD (Custom portal)
PSPortal

... Etc

Bro , innovative doesn't always mean new stuffs. Sony's VR is expensive and useless so far cause no support, dualsense is useless as gpu tech if third parties don't ilprove this feature on their game and if they do your dualsense battery gonna drain very fast. Portal.. completely useless and too big. Now they're improving some features but it's not even close to become something innovative. Ssd? C mon, it's fast when it comes to some first parties but ehn? What about the other thousands of games?

 

[Shmunter]

Bro , innovative doesn't always mean new stuffs. Sony's VR is expensive and useless so far cause no support, dualsense is useless as gpu tech if third parties don't ilprove this feature on their game and if they do your dualsense battery gonna drain very fast. Portal.. completely useless and too big. Now they're improving some features but it's not even close to become something innovative. Ssd? C mon, it's fast when it comes to some first parties but ehn? What about the other thousands of games?

Get a load of this guy fellas....

 

[Fbh]

IDK, I don't really see much changing.

You'll have playstation as the default home console for all the newer and more demanding AAA games.
Nintendo with the Switch 2 will be on the side doing their own thing with underpowered hardware that is going to limit their access to newer AAA games.
And PC will continue being a cool but substantially more expensive alternative.

 

[reinking]

I disagree OP and you can quote me. Trying to make everything streaming is actually going to set things back. Sony innovated controllers with the Dual Sense because they were able to cater to their console and features they wanted to implement. A one size fits all means the focus will be on software and trying to cater to as many "platforms" as possible. Similar to how you rarely see innovative controller features added to third-party games.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Because it puts pressure on all the platform holders to be innovative & be competitive when trying to keep people playing on their platforms.

Controllers & Quality of life features will be at the forefront.

But it doesn't work.

Let's just look at the film/tv streaming services. Know why they still rely on exclusive content? Because QOL features alone wouldn't move the needle. Especially true when, considering, Netflix was the defacto service when others like Apple+, Disney+ etc. started to come out, so you can't really rely on just innovative QOL features when you're the newcomer.

And this gen, as we've seen with Xbox, that doesn't help any either even if you're an established player. It only serves to further erode your market share. I also don't understand why people believe you can't have both: what's wrong with innovating on QOL features & controllers, AND also having great exclusives? These are massive companies and they're done that before; there is no reason they can't continue to do so.

Only microsoft/xbox are doing this. Playstation and nintendo still have exclusives and will have exclusives for the switch 2 and ps6 as well.

Well, Nintendo at least will have actual full exclusives, i.e games that are only on their system for the entire generation. The jury's still out on if SIE will go back to doing similar...although they really need to IMHO.

Yeah put some GAAS and some really old games on PC & other platforms, but that should be the extent of it.

Actually, it's the opposite. When you reach into every platform, you catter to the masses and become less innovative and play it safe.

Exclusive games push studios to produce "difference makers" that convince people to buy that system.

The lack of exclusive games (true exclusive ones) is bad for competition.

Yep, 100% agreed. There's a thing, it probably has a simpler saying, but basically the larger your target audience/market, the safer the product has to become in order to not risk losing appeal with any given portion of that market.

Basically, it's like sanding away all the rough edges, but it's the rough edges that give something its character and flavor. The more you sand away, the blander it gets.

Know something else? We can kinda look at SEGA's transition from console maker to 3P as an example of this. When they made consoles, they had SOOO many IP, including a bunch of super-niche and weird stuff. Once they went 3P, gradually the more niche games began disappearing. Yes they tried for a bit, I think Seaman got a PS2 port for example. But even in the 6th gen their output mostly revolved around what were "safer" bets for the standards of that time (which makes a lot of their output then, look more esoteric by modern standards).

Then the smaller & oddball stuff stopped completely, for a long time. No more SEGAGAGAs, no more Puyo-Puyos, no more Rent-A-Heroes, no more Fighting Vipers, etc. They became a lot more Western-centric during much of 7th gen (like a lot of Japanese pubs), usually to their detriment. And in a way, it was almost a meme to say SEGa were the Yakuza/Persona/Sonic studio, kind of in a way MS became known for only Halo, Gears & Forza.

I'd say it's been around the past few years they have been getting back on track when it comes to variety in their own Japanese-centric releases. Still not anything as niche as SEGAGAGA (or in a Western sense, I guess Mr. Bones?), but they wouldn't have attempted making stuff like a JSR remake, Crazy Taxi, or Virtua Fighter a decade ago, that's for sure.

I'm talking about Sony. They have ported nearly every Ps5 exclusive to PC and are still selling a ton of consoles and posting record profits. MS is in a different situation because they absolutely buried themselves in payroll from buying publishers.

The majority of the audience who bought most of the games which have been ported to PC, bought their PS5s early on in the generation. They aren't going to suddenly return their used PS5s for a refund And even if they just sold them to a friend, that doesn't reflect as a refund to SIE or Sony (because it isn't).

Arguably, we might be seeing some effects of that PC strategy with PS5 Pro sales slowing down vs. PS4 Pro launch-aligned, but that could also be due to price differences. We'd need a couple more major 1P AAA releases (whether Day 1 PC or not, but preferably sequels to make comparisons easier) to analyze sales trends and see if the PC ports are negatively influencing number of B2P sales from previously established patterns.

That's unit sales BTW, not revenue; revenue is easy to make up for given inflation and increase in game MSRP plus more add-on content sales in general.

Outside of that, we'd have to wait for the PS6's launch and its first couple of years, when the launch itself is probably more than 3 years away. As for compounding factors, that'd depend on whether SIE continue the porting strategy as-is, accelerate timing for ports (including Day 1 for non-GAAS AAA), or have in fact reneged on huge chunks of that strategy by this point.

Obviously I'd say the most damaging would be the accelerated approach, and after that the 'as-is' approach. Both will negatively impact PS6 adoption rates shortly after the launch honeymoon period IMO, the former more severely. If they're reneged on the strategy (or cut down on it significantly), then the impacts of their porting cadence up to this point in the current gen will be minimal, and potentially reversed, so as not to affect PS6 early adoption rates.

All educated speculation, of course. But I feel pretty confident in those outlooks.

If their console can only sell because of exclusive software, than their custom-made box sucks.

Who is saying a console only sells because of its exclusives? Having other reasons to buy a console doesn't mean exclusives can't nor shouldn't be a factor.

The reason they're porting is because the big AAA game budgets are unsustainable for one console platform, and they need more of the market...while larger AAA devs will decline permanent exclusivity contracts because they're not getting enough being on just 1 platform anymore (Ex. Square Enix). The ones that will accept the contract will be less reliable in quality, because if they're good why not release everywhere?

It's like you ignore that more platform support means more money for QA testing & optimization, and as we've seen there are PLENTY of Day 1 multiplat releases that run like shit on one or more of their target platforms.

Whereas if they were exclusive to one system (at least at launch), all focus could be spent optimizing for that specific hardware, resulting in a better-performing game. And as for something not releasing everywhere because it's "not good", tell that to Nintendo, who seem to have no problem matching or beating top sales from SIE, Microsoft, EA, ABK, Bethesda, Capcom, Bandai-Namco, CDPR etc. while releasing exclusively on their own hardware.

I guess if a game is quality enough, people will get the game where it's already at, after all.

Consoles have other reasons to buy them, but if exclusive software is it then they're doomed in the long-run.

How's that helping the Xbox Series S & X so far this gen? You know, the consoles that are barely at 30 million combined while in their 5th year on the market?

Not going so well for them, huh?

 

[AJUMP23]

You can only play Nintendo on Nintendo. I doubt that will ever change.

 

[Durin]

Who is saying a console only sells because of its exclusives? Having other reasons to buy a console doesn't mean exclusives can't nor shouldn't be a factor.

There is no consumer reason to push for exclusives, beyond thinking they're needed to keep your platform alive. I think any platform dependent on that is eventually going to die anyway, because it needs to bring other value than gatekeeping content, and my point was that I think consoles do have other reasons, so caring about exclusives is silly.

It's like you ignore that more platform support means more money for QA testing & optimization, and as we've seen there are PLENTY of Day 1 multiplat releases that run like shit on one or more of their target platforms.

Whereas if they were exclusive to one system (at least at launch), all focus could be spent optimizing for that specific hardware, resulting in a better-performing game. And as for something not releasing everywhere because it's "not good", tell that to Nintendo, who seem to have no problem matching or beating top sales from SIE, Microsoft, EA, ABK, Bethesda, Capcom, Bandai-Namco, CDPR etc. while releasing exclusively on their own hardware.

I guess if a game is quality enough, people will get the game where it's already at, after all.

When you limiting your game's reach to one platform, you have to accommodate your budget for having less potential audience, and the monetary support they're getting from console makers clearly isn't enough because each gen since the 360/PS3 we've been seeing less of them. Most games are opting for multi-plat releases (even if releasing to some later), the tools to make games are trying to scale better for releasing on multiple platforms, and you can stagger release dates for other platforms if you lack the resources to hit all at once.

Nintendo has no problem beating top sales because they easily have the strongest brands of any company in the entire industry, Mario is still the most recognized character in video games, and they develop their games on a lower budget so they get higher profits as well to sustain not going to other platforms. However, they would still sell more going on other platforms, evidenced by Niantic reskinning their own game that was niche at best with Pokemon branding, and it became a worldwide phenomon again akin to Pokemon's height during Red/blue to Silver/Gold era because so many people have smartphones.

How's that helping the Xbox Series S & X so far this gen? You know, the consoles that are barely at 30 million combined while in their 5th year on the market?

Not going so well for them, huh?

Microsoft isn't doing anything that unique this gen (or last) beyond Game Pass being one good service, so they have little unique value over Sony, and before they started porting to PS5...their new batch of acquisition-ed exclusives weren't moving the needle either. They tarnished their brand since the Xbox One with the attempted drm-check-in, they aren't competing on power anymore since they have no answer to the PS5 Pro, and they aren't innovating on their online ecosystem that made the 360 a unique offering vs. PS3 back in the day when they were the closest to being competitive.

Microsoft is just another x86 AMD box, with Discord integration because Discord is better than their own social service they've done nothing to improve, a not good user interface filled with ads, they've been more conservative with improving their controller vs Sony, and their games are charting on PSN in the past months...because exclusives would never save them, people would rather play them on other ecosystems like Sony or Valve's. Nintendo carves its own market because the form factor of their device itself is unique vs the other 2.

 

[Shmunter]

There is no consumer reason to push for exclusives, beyond thinking they're needed to keep your platform alive. I think any platform dependent on that is eventually going to die anyway, because it needs to bring other value than gatekeeping content, and my point was that I think consoles do have other reasons, so caring about exclusives is silly.



When you limiting your game's reach to one platform, you have to accommodate your budget for having less potential audience, and the monetary support they're getting from console makers clearly isn't enough because each gen since the 360/PS3 we've been seeing less of them. Most games are opting for multi-plat releases (even if releasing to some later), the tools to make games are trying to scale better for releasing on multiple platforms, and you can stagger release dates for other platforms if you lack the resources to hit all at once.

Nintendo has no problem beating top sales because they easily have the strongest brands of any company in the entire industry, Mario is still the most recognized character in video games, and they develop their games on a lower budget so they get higher profits as well to sustain not going to other platforms. However, they would still sell more going on other platforms, evidenced by Niantic reskinning their own game that was niche at best with Pokemon branding, and it became a worldwide phenomon again akin to Pokemon's height during Red/blue to Silver/Gold era because so many people have smartphones.


Microsoft isn't doing anything that unique this gen (or last) beyond Game Pass being one good service, so they have little unique value over Sony, and before they started porting to PS5...their new batch of acquisition-ed exclusives weren't moving the needle either. They tarnished their brand since the Xbox One with the attempted drm-check-in, they aren't competing on power anymore since they have no answer to the PS5 Pro, and they aren't innovating on their online ecosystem that made the 360 a unique offering vs. PS3 back in the day when they were the closest to being competitive.

Microsoft is just another x86 AMD box, with Discord integration because Discord is better than their own social service they've done nothing to improve, a not good user interface filled with ads, they've been more conservative with improving their controller vs Sony, and their games are charting on PSN in the past months...because exclusives would never save them, people would rather play them on other ecosystems like Sony or Valve's. Nintendo carves its own market because the form factor of their device itself is unique vs the other 2.

Content is king. Offering unique content not available elsewhere is the biggest factor in drawing an audience. Limited sales of an exclusive to a single platform is offset by the audience it builds through brand building and tertiary sales within the eco system. This approach only fails if the audience does not show up over an extended period, like in the case of Xbox where the proposition could never match the competition.

 

[Durin]

Content is king. Offering unique content not available elsewhere is the biggest factor in drawing an audience. Limited sales of an exclusive to a single platform is offset by the audience it builds through brand building and tertiary sales within the eco system. This approach only fails if the audience does not show up over an extended period, like in the case of Xbox where the proposition could never match the competition.

If limiting sales to build an audience for tertiary sales within an ecosystem was enough...Sony wouldn't be porting their titles to PC despite their strong position. They're doing it because the larger first-party games are taking longer to make, cost more money, and increase risk yielding less new IP. On top of that there is far more content to sate people, and the most unique stuff is being made by multi-plat indie-sized games. At that point, unique services and features that can empower any or many games on your platform start to matter more like the Switch's portability.

Nintendo can still withstand losing exclusivity more with their lower budgets on less expensive hardware, and having the strongest IP in the industry they produce themselves. The other 2 don't have that, and even then Nintendo still makes games for mobile devices. They all are making concessions on exclusivity.

 

[Shmunter]

If limiting sales to build an audience for tertiary sales within an ecosystem was enough...Sony wouldn't be porting their titles to PC despite their strong position. They're doing it because the larger first-party games are taking longer to make, cost more money, and increase risk yielding less new IP. On top of that there is far more content to sate people, and the most unique stuff is being made by multi-plat indie-sized games. At that point, unique services and features that can empower any or many games on your platform start to matter more like the Switch's portability.

Nintendo can still withstand losing exclusivity more with their lower budgets on less expensive hardware, and having the strongest IP in the industry they produce themselves. The other 2 don't have that, and even then Nintendo still makes games for mobile devices. They all are making concessions on exclusivity.

Nope, they're doing it because they claim it is a different audience and not the competition. To me however it is shortsighted greed, fly by night executives trying to make the numbers look good today at the cost of future ones dealing with the fallout of a diluted brand.

If content and the subsequent brand it establishes were irrelevant- console sales would be much healthier on Xbox instead of Sony and Nintendo dominating.

Tertiary sales are everything, 30% of all sales without dev investment nor any risk - pure reward, and the bigger the audience, the bigger the reward.

 

[Durin]

Nope, they're doing it because they claim it is a different audience and not the competition. To me however it is shortsighted greed, fly by night executives trying to make the numbers look good today at the cost of future ones dealing with the fallout of a diluted brand.

If content and the subsequent brand it establishes were irrelevant- console sales would be much healthier on Xbox instead of Sony and Nintendo dominating.

Tertiary sales are everything, 30% of all sales without dev investment nor any risk - pure reward, and the bigger the audience, the bigger the reward.

If PC isn't competition, Sony wouldn't have publicly voiced when bringing over their IP to PC that they hope to convert users over to Playstation. Sony don't make any meaningful profit on selling mid-gen Pro consoles, and it complicates development + budget...but they do it to attract and keep the higher paying graphical enthusiast audience on their platform, rather than being on others like PC. PC is just less direct of a competitor historically, but that's changing as PC ease of use improves, and Xbox's next console is just going to run Windows.

Xbox isn't healthy because they currently have no unique place in the industry, their box is just a carbon-copy of Sony's with less power, more ads, worse interface, worse PR, worse marketing for all their products, and a platform strategy that hasn't been consistent since Xbox One. They bought a bunch of IP/Studios that didn't even move the needle to their box when they were exclusive, but the same games are doing good pre-order numbers on PSN... so they're going to just use content to sell a service everywhere to the largest audience than expecting to get tertiary sales on their box.

Tertiary sales are nice, but the game market is stagnating in growth and ever increasing in cost. Companies are pressured to dilute exclusivity to get more cash back, and they'll need other forms of value.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Really? Gaming is different these days but I remember thinking playing psp on the go out in public was cool but that wore off, initially gaming was a home thing.

 

[Bert Big Balls]

Eh? I must be tired because I've read the OP 3 times and I have no idea what they're talking about.

I think that about 90% of the posts here. I think I'm probably just retarded.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

whats exciting?

pc will rule them all and cost $10000
ps and xbox will be the same box but different colors and shapes
switch will keep edoing burn-outs in the short bus

basically same as it's been

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There is no consumer reason to push for exclusives, beyond thinking they're needed to keep your platform alive. I think any platform dependent on that is eventually going to die anyway, because it needs to bring other value than gatekeeping content, and my point was that I think consoles do have other reasons, so caring about exclusives is silly.

How is it gatekeeping content when it's the platform holder's OWN games!? They are not obligated to put their own software on other systems simply because of crybabies on said systems who either can't afford another console or don't want to.

And if we're talking about 3P exclusives, how do you presume that 3P game's state of existence as not having the platform holder's involvement? Games like Dead Rising 3 or Street Fighter V wouldn't have happened (or would have taken significantly longer to happen) if it weren't for Microsoft and Sony/SIE offering Capcom a helping hand, respectively. And in exchange for doing so, they got those games as exclusive to their system.

Due to that, the gaming market got two games it otherwise might not have gotten, or would have taken significantly longer to get, and potentially at a lower bar of quality. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how exclusives (1P and 3P) can often be beneficial to the market and customers, but it's not as catchy or stylish as repeating the usual "exclusives are anti-consumer" talking points that get peddled around.

When you limiting your game's reach to one platform, you have to accommodate your budget for having less potential audience, and the monetary support they're getting from console makers clearly isn't enough because each gen since the 360/PS3 we've been seeing less of them. Most games are opting for multi-plat releases (even if releasing to some later), the tools to make games are trying to scale better for releasing on multiple platforms, and you can stagger release dates for other platforms if you lack the resources to hit all at once.

Look, 3P exclusives aren't the only type of exclusive, but later on you start conflating the two and I think Shmunter did a pretty good job addressing those and some other points you bring up here. But to touch on some of the things you just mentioned...

For one, it's a bit foolish to assume a game having a larger budget is inherently tied to it being an exclusive or not, or to even assume a larger budget is a good thing. There are MANY 3P multiplats with much smaller budgets than even some of Nintendo's exclusives, let alone SIE's. And, for games where the budgets are large while being multiplatform, you have the issue where many end up playing it very safe creatively, so as not to scare off big chunks of the audience they need to make the budget back.

Generally speaking, if you have a 3P multiplat and an exclusive with similar budget, you're likely to get more creative freedom from the exclusive because, in a way, it having a smaller target customer base actually forces it to do things at the creative level to stand out better in the market. Since platform holders also use exclusives as artistic marks of achievement for their systems within the market, that also influences the likelihood of them pushing in more creative areas vs. a similarly budgeted 3P multiplat.

Nintendo has no problem beating top sales because they easily have the strongest brands of any company in the entire industry, Mario is still the most recognized character in video games, and they develop their games on a lower budget so they get higher profits as well to sustain not going to other platforms. However, they would still sell more going on other platforms, evidenced by Niantic reskinning their own game that was niche at best with Pokemon branding, and it became a worldwide phenomon again akin to Pokemon's height during Red/blue to Silver/Gold era because so many people have smartphones.

Nintendo having among the strongest IP brands in gaming doesn't mean they're the only ones who have strong IP brands in gaming, even among platform holders. Which means many of the reasons you're using to justify them having exclusives, can just as easily apply to SIE or Valve (and yes, Valve DOES have exclusives on Steam, such as DOTA2 and Counterstrike 2, and upcoming Deadlocked).

If you want to imply SIE can't do it because of costs vs. sales, keep in mind a good chunk of their budgets for AAA releases are due to costly licenses and redundant outsourcing (such as some dubious consultancy groups demanding $10+ million dollars to provide mediocre input). Those are things SIE can resolve and thus bring costs down significantly. Meanwhile, their big games are still doing 10+ million, 20+ million on average and at high/medium revenue per copy. Most of Nintendo's big releases are actually in similar territory, and may have notably higher profit margins (due to costing less to make), but most also don't sell for $70 at launch, or have the MTX pipeline of SIE's releases, so it's not as clear-cut ahead as you might think.

The idea that they or any other company that has a use for exclusives would "sell more" by being on other platforms, doesn't mean doing so flippantly is a good idea. You bring up Nintendo, but don't mention that their mobile presence is wholly based around offshoots and spinoffs of their mainline games, i.e they aren't porting their console/handheld titles to mobile because they know that would basically kill massive amounts of demand for their own hardware. So, they have 3P companies make various spinoffs and fans on mobile are then enticed to get a Nintendo system to play the "real" versions of those games.

It's a strategy SIE should've employed for PC (at least for non-GAAS titles), but they screwed up. They may be course-correcting now but it remains to be seen how (or by how much).

Microsoft isn't doing anything that unique this gen (or last) beyond Game Pass being one good service, so they have little unique value over Sony, and before they started porting to PS5...their new batch of acquisition-ed exclusives weren't moving the needle either. They tarnished their brand since the Xbox One with the attempted drm-check-in, they aren't competing on power anymore since they have no answer to the PS5 Pro, and they aren't innovating on their online ecosystem that made the 360 a unique offering vs. PS3 back in the day when they were the closest to being competitive.

Well, yes, I'd agree Microsoft is basically a non-entity at this point, when it comes to being a platform holder. They technically still are one, but their brand in the traditional console market is dead in most of the world and even dying in the US & UK, their only two strongholds. That's partly why they're trying to pivot on the hardware front into a more PC-like business strategy.

However, it's worth pointing out that even if Xbox as a brand was gradually declining since the very late 360 years, it didn't torpedo right off the bat. The XBO didn't immediately flop, especially in the US & UK where it stayed pretty competitive with PS4 up through 2016, and that's even after the "TV TV TV", DRM etc. controversies. Their "Tier 2, Tier 3" release strategies for other markets definitely hurt them in foreign markets as the gen went on, but it was a gradual erosion over a period of years. When they first started porting games to PC, that was locked to the Microsoft/Windows Store exclusively, which isn't a popular spot for PC gaming anyhow. Therefore, the impact to XBO wasn't significant, tho it did gradually grow.

Ironically it's when they started porting Day 1 to Steam when the damage to their console brand would accelerate.

Microsoft is just another x86 AMD box, with Discord integration because Discord is better than their own social service they've done nothing to improve, a not good user interface filled with ads, they've been more conservative with improving their controller vs Sony, and their games are charting on PSN in the past months...because exclusives would never save them, people would rather play them on other ecosystems like Sony or Valve's. Nintendo carves its own market because the form factor of their device itself is unique vs the other 2.

OK, all of this might apply to Microsoft...but we're not just talking about them when speaking of exclusivity. We're also talking about SIE (PlayStation) and Nintendo, and even Valve to an extent. The reason why exclusivity no longer works for Microsoft, doesn't mean those reasons are at play for other platform holders. The damage they've done to their console brand is exactly why they're taking the multiplatform approach they are doing.

With SIE, I would say the combination of COVID lockdowns and shortages enabled shortsighted shareholders to erroneously push into the direction of expansive multiplatform, including many more PC ports, which didn't need to really be the case. More cross-gen releases would've sufficed, since in some cases we've seen PS4 versions of 1P releases sell more than the PC variant.

In other cases, like with Helldivers 2, we know that a somewhat large portion of Steam buyers also had PS5s, but opted to buy on Steam due to a variety of factors. Those were lateral sales, at best, not additive ones. In fact if you think about it, a good chunk of multiplatform sales can be called lateral, considering a good number of gamers have more than one platform.

So, if they have a PC, a PlayStation, and an Xbox, chances are if they REALLY want a given 3P release, they would simply buy it on the platform it's available at, even if it were exclusive to that platform...because they very likely already have that system! And if for some arbitrary reason they refuse to buy it where it's available, then they didn't really want the game in the first place (assuming they know it's not a timed exclusive), despite likely claims otherwise.

 

[Durin]

How is it gatekeeping content when it's the platform holder's OWN games!? They are not obligated to put their own software on other systems simply because of crybabies on said systems who either can't afford another console or don't want to.

No one is obligated to do anything, but we're the consumers...I don't have to like when something is stuck on a platform when it doesn't NEED to be in most cases, and exclusives only benefit console owners/devs...not us. Sony moving their exclusives to other platforms, and less third-party exclusives existing, is indicative that the companies who have access to metrics deem it not worth it anymore. Likely if you're a mid-sized to smaller dev, a console maker giving you that money for exclusivity is still, but at AAA budgets the loss of potential day one audience isn't...and Sony focuses on AAA primarily + Microsoft uses smaller games for Game Pass subs.

Exclusivity is also no guarantee of quality, and Dead Rising 3 is...it was an inferior sequel that launched with performance issues on Xbone, and got released to PC a year later like Sony does now. I'm not trying to repeat a talking point, just giving opinions on exclusivity. PC is my preferred platform not because of exclusives, but I want the most content to be available for anyone else's preferred box possible. If a dev doesn't have the budget/time, just port to other boxes later.

Nintendo having among the strongest IP brands in gaming doesn't mean they're the only ones who have strong IP brands in gaming, even among platform holders. Which means many of the reasons you're using to justify them having exclusives, can just as easily apply to SIE or Valve (and yes, Valve DOES have exclusives on Steam, such as DOTA2 and Counterstrike 2, and upcoming Deadlocked).

The interesting thing about the 3 console makers is they're all doing different levels of non-exclusivity. Xbox is basically moving towards pure multi-plat since they're in the weakest position so they're going service-based, and Sony is porting to some platforms with a delay (except multiplayer games) because their games are graphic trendsetters that keep costing more.

My point with Nintendo is they just have the strongest collection of IPs, coupled with lowest dev costs of the 3, which means they have less need to port to other platforms beyond the off-shoot mobile games...but it's still them opening their walled garden a crack. Exclusivity among all 3 is getting diluted to different degrees, and that won't change unless Sony/MSoft lower costs.

I don't want Valve to have exclusives either, they should port too since most of their catelog is multi-plat. My guess is that they haven't because they're either VR-based that wouldn't make money, built for mouse/keyboard (Dota 2), or service-based games with marketplaces I'm not even sure would be allowed on consoles (Counter-strike 2). Switch 2's optical sensor acting as a mouse hopefully can bring PC games over.

K, all of this might apply to Microsoft...but we're not just talking about them when speaking of exclusivity. We're also talking about SIE (PlayStation) and Nintendo, and even Valve to an extent. The reason why exclusivity no longer works for Microsoft, doesn't mean those reasons are at play for other platform holders. The damage they've done to their console brand is exactly why they're taking the multiplatform approach they are doing.

My point was pushing back against the idea that exclusive games are everything, when Microsoft going on a spending spree buying brands did absolutely nothing, and as time passed went from PC is a later release, to PC day and date, to multi-plat everywhere because it wasn't enough. Even during the 360 when they were competative, their exclusives were never as big beyond Halo, and it was their ecosystem features like Xbox Live that got them purchases.

Even Sony's success this gen is partially built off siphoning xbox gamers and Microsoft's marketshare, than them growing the market itself. Game markets in general are stagnating, excluding the pandemic bump. Enough people are still on older devices not just because of shortages, but graphics have hit diminished returns. The normies who mainly just play service-based games like CoD, Fortnite and Fifa (EA Sports FC whatever) can still play on PS4-era tech.

Those were lateral sales, at best, not additive ones. In fact if you think about it, a good chunk of multiplatform sales can be called lateral, considering a good number of gamers have more than one platform.

I would need to see stats on how large a portion of Helldivers 2 players own both PS5 and PC, because I don't believe lateral sales are even close to 1/3 on Steam. The ONLY reason Steam is bigger than either of the 3 console platforms and not stagnating... is because of their growth in other markets consoles are barely present in (China, South Korea, Russia & East Europe). China alone is the 2nd biggest gaming market, they will be additive sales, and most people in the US aren't enthusiasts that buy/regularly play on multiple platforms. The economy post-pandemic is also weak lowering incentive to buy new devices.