Poll
63%
38%
Exclusives are a good deal for console makers. A genuinely good game generates interest in their console if the game will only be available there. Really, the only time exclusivity is detrimental is when the game fails to reach the numble of expected sales.
But going cross-platform costs extra in money and man-hours, so you have to be sure the other platform will generate the sales to negate those losses. Not to mention developers usually get a certain amount extra for the exclusivity deal.
It all comes down to what makes the gamemakers more money.
I think many are missing a point here.
Exclusives are not for the benefit of the players. The deals are entirely concerning the game developers and the console makers. If a console company determines that a particular game (or particular studio) will move consoles, they may seek an exclusivity deal to make sure it moves only their consoles. If a game studio decides the terms and/or profits of the exclusivity deal will outweigh the possible losses from other consoles, they may agree to such a deal.
It's not about the gamers. It's about profit.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I think many are missing a point here.Exclusives are not for the benefit of the players. The deals are entirely concerning the game developers and the console makers. If a console company determines that a particular game (or particular studio) will move consoles, they may seek an exclusivity deal to make sure it moves only their consoles. If a game studio decides the terms and/or profits of the exclusivity deal will outweigh the possible losses from other consoles, they may agree to such a deal.
It's not about the gamers. It's about profit.
I think it is clear to everyone that it is about money, after all, most things are. I think the question is more whether it even makes financial sense, in the present time. I'd also say that pressure from the console manufacturers might play a big part in the existence of exclusives. Of course the question is also how much more it costs to produce for a different console and how much more money the game would make if it was on two consoles. On the other hand, just looking at it as a layman, I'd assume that with Console Sales relatively evenly split (as opposed to last generation), any successful game, would likely profit more if they would go multiplatform, but, maybe, the risk involved is what puts them off.
Finally, there's also the view of some consumers that exclusives are for some reason a good thing, which I can't quite explain to myself except with the assumption that it is a misguided pride in one console over another, likely, because you happen to own it.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I think many are missing a point here.Exclusives are not for the benefit of the players. The deals are entirely concerning the game developers and the console makers. If a console company determines that a particular game (or particular studio) will move consoles, they may seek an exclusivity deal to make sure it moves only their consoles. If a game studio decides the terms and/or profits of the exclusivity deal will outweigh the possible losses from other consoles, they may agree to such a deal.
It's not about the gamers. It's about profit.
The question that was asked wasn't if exclusives are good or not in regards with consoles makers, but if there should be exclusives.
The only way I can answer that as a gamer and as a gamer, I cant think of any good reason for exclusive games. As a developer, it makes sense to have their game go on multiple platforms. It increases profits. As a console maker, I would think its bad because they would have make one kick ass platform to persuade other people to buy it.