Do Exclusives matter anymore?

tok9

Well as the title suggests, do they matter?

The reason I've brought this up is because I've seen a few posts saying that exclusives don't particularly interest them.

Now for me they definitely matter which is why my current consoles are a Wii and PS3.

Imo the Xbox doesn't come close in terms of exclusive content. I'm not saying they don't have any but they don't have enough that i'm interested in to purchase it.

But that's just me, so any opinions?

2Mad2BeMad

Atari Jaguar

xbox for me

gears of war
halo

love them both so xbox is the better choice for me

although ps3 did get demon souls which makes me want to get the ps3 just to play it

if only it wasnt exclusive

callaway92

No

I'd imagine Uncharted & Metal Gear Solid games sway many towards Playstation.

GTR63

callaway92 wrote: »

I'd imagine Uncharted & Metal Gear Solid games sway many towards Playstation.

The latter ain`t really a sony exclusive anymore. Kojima said he isn`t limiting his games to one machine anymore.

Kiith

There are a few titles that would sway me one way or another. Team Ico being Playstation only would be one of them or the Mario/Zelda series being Nintendo only would be another.

GarIT

No

I couldn't go on gaming without Gears of War, I've gotten all of them on release day.

I would buy Nintendo for Zelda if they would release a real console not aimed at kids under 7.

Pushtrak

No

Exclusive games are very important. One of the most important things about a console. It's pretty much my metric for whether to buy a system or not. The exclusives landscape is very different for the upcoming gen than it was the last one, or previous ones generally. I get Nintendo consoles because I'm a fan of their exclusives. I got a 360 at the start of this gen as I was a huge fan of Morrowind and was looking forward to the next Elder Scrolls game and BioWare who'd done Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. All those games went to PC, so the Xbox was only something that had console exclusives to speak of really, rather than exclusive exclusives. Now, though, we see both of those companies are multiplat.

This gen, though, has seen some great titles for the 360, like Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia and Metro 2033, for instance. It was exclusives that got me to get a PS3. Primarily Ni No Kuni, though there was also wanting to own a console on which to play Metal Gear Solid 4, Graces F and will look to get Xillia. It's rarer to see developers go from multiplatform to exclusive, but that has happened with Quantic Dream who went from multiplat with Fahrenheit to Sony exclusive.

What will the exclusives of next gen be like? Well, obviously we don't have a clue. We couldn't have predicted the quality of games of this gen, the same applies now with regard to the next gen. Anyway, the odds of me buying all 3 are high, the only question is a matter of timing, which one first, and when being the first question. Obviously, this is going to be better considered once we know about the games.

Mr.Saturn

Well, yes, Nintendo live and die by the strength of their IPs. Though, with the likes of Microsoft and Sony; it's debatable. The median-age of game-buying folk has gotten a good bit older over the last two gens of consoles, and with that disposable income follows, leaving anyone with even the most cursory of interests in the 'other' console generally in position to comfortably afford both.

o1s1n

Other

Only 360 exclusives I've cared for have been Deadly Premonition and then the nice list of Japanese shmups appearing over the last while...everything else seems to be the usual Gear of War/Halo gung ho uninspiring rubbish.

The only PS3 game I was majorly interested in was The Last Guardian. Demon's Souls for a while, but then of course Dark Souls went multi platform so that put an end to that.

The Wii had some great exclusives. Too many to list in fact as there are so many given it's weaker performance levels.

So yeah, going into the next gen, I'll probably pick up a WiiU at some point for all the Nintendo content (loving my 3DS!) and will then base my ps4/Nextbox based on which is cheaper/isn't dying every time you switch it on. Exclusive games won't have any bearing.

Potential-Monke

No

I think Sony have come tops with the exclusives this time. InFamous, God of War, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, Journey and Uncharted.

It also has The Last Guardian, The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls to come yet.

360 had Halo, Forza, Gears of War and Fable as the stand out exclusives...

As Pushtrak said, they are still important, but it's the order in which one will buy the consoles based on exclusives which will show.

tok9

No

The majority of posts suggest they do yet the poll is pretty much 50/50 on the matter.

Sl!mCharles

I regret not buying a PS3 over an Xbox because of the exclusives.

I would much rather play Uncharted, Demon's Souls and MGS than Halo and GoW.
Plus all the playstation HD collections like Ico & Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, etc.

Not to mention the upcoming Last of Us which is the final nail in the coffin.

Angron

No

Yes, but realistically it's only between MS and Sony for me. The only Nintendo exclusive I have, and probably the only one I ever really will, care about is Pokemon.

In the past, games like Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and Killzone have all been contributing factors in me picking Sony, and what exclusives the two consoles have could well affect what next-gen console I'm going to get.

That_Guy

Atari Jaguar

GarIT wrote: »

I would buy Nintendo for Zelda if they would release a real console not aimed at kids under 7.

This is one of the most stupid arguments about Nintendo I see over and over again.

I've got a PS3 and and an Xbox. I also own a Wii and a 3DS. While the catalogue of games for the latter two are quite sparse in comparison to PS3/Xbox, Nintendo have published some outstanding games that would've gone un-noticed "bcoz it isnt a hardcore gamer console lolz".

I like Call Of Duty/Battlefield games etc to an extent but in terms of originality and innovation, Nintendo's first party stuff has been more hit than miss from my own experience.

In a generation that has been inundated with FPS games, it's nice to look elsewhere for a bit of variety and for me, Nintendo provides just that.

I use the FPS genre as it's arguably the most popular genre.

To answer the question, I suppose exclusive titles don't necessarily matter to me as much. I own a console from each company.

Heavy Rain (PS3), Super Mario Galaxy (Wii), Uncharted (PS3) and Alan Wake (Xbox 360) were some of my favourite exclusive titles of this generation but in truth most of my favourite games came from third party developers.

Captain Chaos

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I think Sony have come tops with the exclusives this time. InFamous, God of War, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid, Ratchet and Clank, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, Journey and Uncharted.

It also has The Last Guardian, The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls to come yet.

360 had Halo, Forza, Gears of War and Fable as the stand out exclusives...
.

The 360 also has Alan Wake, Mine Craft (for the time being), Left 4 Dead, PGR, Crackdown and for a while Dead Rising until it went cross platform with DR2. Mass Effect was a 360 exclusive until EA became the publisher from 2 onwwards. Command and Conquer 3. There was some good stuff in the 360 exclusives

wilser

Atari Jaguar

I think the exclusives matter more to the marketing department of each console than anyone else,
LOOK WE HAVE MARIO
WELL WE HAVE HALO
BUT WE HAVE UNCHARTERED
PlayStation plus is the reason I think Sony has the best console of this gen, games I am playing that I never would have went near like Catherine, hitman limbo, mortal kombat to name a few. No exclusives but wouldn't have played any of them where it not for plus.
Just my 2cents

Otacon

No

Exclusives matter less but they still matter. If they didn't, Nintendo consoles would not sell at all. Despite the Wii U's weak sales, most of it can be put down to the lack of exclusive (read: first party) titles for it. The 3DS is thriving after getting Luigi's Mansion and Fire Emblem.

As for Sony and Microsoft, services are becoming more and more important but the Halos and Uncharteds of the world can still be what decides it for some gamers.

Obviously third parties want to sell their games on as many platforms as possible to get the biggest audience they can, but console creators still want you to buy their product and the best way to do that is still exclusive titles.

ShadowHearth

Exclusive as a thing matters only to two groups: console manufacturer/developer and fanboy.

Why console developer? Well, if he can have a good exclusive game on hos console, then he can make gamers buy his console. Perfect example of this is 3DS. We got exclusive monster Hunter 3 ( in a way it is), fire emblem. Those 2 exclusive games sky rocketed 3ds hardware sales.

Fanboy? Because he will have another reason why to mock other people and praise how awesome his chosen side is.

gamers, have ability to choose. They can quickly see available game list on particular console and choose which offers best value with its multiplatform and exclusive games. I don't really like that dirty phrase "if you are a real gamer, you will have all gaming platforms". This phrase could work in Celtic tiger times lads, when you could buy all gaming devices twice. For your home and for your house in Spain.these days people are not so rich. So they will have to choose. It will be interesting to see exclusive games battle, when most likely there will be only one console in home.

Varik

No

With the possible exception of Nintendo ( who may not be an exception if they don't get their heads out of their collective arses).

3rd party game/multiplatform are what it takes to stay in the market, not having them while the other do can rule your system out of the competition. Exclusive are one of the main reason people choose one system over another.

Pushtrak

No

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Exclusive as a thing matters only to two groups: console manufacturer/developer and fanboy.

I disagree, it isn't that simplistic.

So they will have to choose. It will be interesting to see exclusive games battle, when most likely there will be only one console in home.

You even see the reality of it here. I'd think most people would decide on a console to buy or abstain on the strength of the exclusives. Lets say one of the big three launch the first system in a generation with a great exclusive title. You buy the console and the title. Another next gen console launches with a multiplat game. Are you going to buy the new console to get the new game or buy it on the console you already have? Later, a must own exclusive comes out for the same system.

Obviously, this is going to have a bigger influence on you wanting the console than something you can play on a system you already own. I expect all 3 consoles to have exclusives to warrant a purchase. I'm not rich by any means, I'll have to plan out the whens as I go. Time, money and games will all play a role in whatever way things go.

Of course, you are right, exclusives can be ammunition for the console war between fanboys. I find the exclusive games battle tedious, though as any games you are interested in may or may not be liked by the other person, and they may or may not even know or care to know about a title they know they'll not play because they'll not get the system.

PickledLime

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Exclusive as a thing matters only to two groups: console manufacturer/developer and fanboy.

Why console developer? Well, if he can have a good exclusive game on hos console, then he can make gamers buy his console. Perfect example of this is 3DS. We got exclusive monster Hunter 3 ( in a way it is), fire emblem. Those 2 exclusive games sky rocketed 3ds hardware sales.

Fanboy? Because he will have another reason why to mock other people and praise how awesome his chosen side is.

gamers, have ability to choose. They can quickly see available game list on particular console and choose which offers best value with its multiplatform and exclusive games. I don't really like that dirty phrase "if you are a real gamer, you will have all gaming platforms". This phrase could work in Celtic tiger times lads, when you could buy all gaming devices twice. For your home and for your house in Spain.these days people are not so rich. So they will have to choose. It will be interesting to see exclusive games battle, when most likely there will be only one console in home.

No, you're wrong there - there's such a thing as having a preference but not being a fanboy.

I'm a huge fan of the Wipeout games, with HD/Fury being one of my fave games this gen and 2097 being one of my top 3 games ever made. I'm not a big fan of Halo. Does it make sense for me to buy a console that has the game I want to play most over the one that doesn't? So i bought a PS3 in 2008. Still played on my mate's 360 and loved that too. So the fact that Wipeout is a PS3 excluive mattered to me, despite not being a developer or fanboy.

In 2011 I wanted to play DKCR, the Mario Galaxies and Sin and Punishment 2. To a lesser extent I wanted gaming experiences that were largely different to those found on PS3. So I wnet and bought a Wii - doesn't mean I thought it was 'better' than a 360, it just made sense to buy the console with the games I wanted. Still go round to my mate's and enjoy every second of his 360. Again, having these games on Wii mattered to me and influenced my purchase.

Earlier this year I had a huge clearout of stuff and bought a 360 too. It's my most played console over the last few months. Absolutely loving Forza 4, Trials Evolution, Guardian Heroes, ilomilo, and the non-broken version of Bayonetta. Intend to get through the summer drought with a few shmups, still trying to decided whether to get Ikaruga or Radiant Silvergun first! All this doesn't mean I don't play Wipeout, Zelda, Uncharted etc. any more, it's just my current preference.

And considering what I based all those console purchases on, I'd say that yes, console exclusives are a still a huge deal!

ShadowHearth

Pushtrak wrote: »

I disagree, it isn't that simplistic.

You even see the reality of it here. I'd think most people would decide on a console to buy or abstain on the strength of the exclusives. Lets say one of the big three launch the first system in a generation with a great exclusive title. You buy the console and the title. Another next gen console launches with a multiplat game. Are you going to buy the new console to get the new game or buy it on the console you already have? Later, a must own exclusive comes out for the same system.

Obviously, this is going to have a bigger influence on you wanting the console than something you can play on a system you already own. I expect all 3 consoles to have exclusives to warrant a purchase. I'm not rich by any means, I'll have to plan out the whens as I go. Time, money and games will all play a role in whatever way things go.

Of course, you are right, exclusives can be ammunition for the console war between fanboys. I find the exclusive games battle tedious, though as any games you are interested in may or may not be liked by the other person, and they may or may not even know or care to know about a title they know they'll not play because they'll not get the system.

I think you should read it more as: exclusive as a term matters to developer of console and fanboy. Gamer should care about game it self.

The reason a lot of games are exclusive are due to console developer. In most cases its an exclusive deal and contract to make game exclusively for one party( we talk about AAA here ).
Perfectly ,for us consumers, there should be no exclusives. In perfect world we would just have multiplatform games and could just own one device, the one we prefer controller, software, ui wise.
What I am trying to say, that it should not matter just because it is exclusive, it should matter as a game. Hence I am talking about fanboys. As their logic goes: oh, we have x game and it is exclusive to our console. So it is better!

Pushtrak

No

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I think you should read it more as: exclusive as a term matters to developer of console and fanboy. Gamer should care about game it self.

Yes, that is true, but still, you made the point that we aren't in the Celtic Tiger any more with people buying multiple consoles. I'd argue that even then, generally people only stuck with one console and just bought more games for said console. That said, the exclusives matter. In gaming, we talk of a game being a killer app in that it is a strong title and can sell consoles. This means titles you aren't going to get if you own another console. Of course the game matters, but if you can't get it elsewhere, your choice is made.

I've said it before, but I see the titles a console has as getting to a tipping point. "Ok, I want that game, but do I want it enough to buy a console to play it?" and if not, as more games get released for the system, I sort of subconsciously ask myself the same question. It gets to a point I either buy the system or don't, depending on my assessment of the worth of the system and other factors - such as do I need to buy it or do I have easy enough access anyway.

The reason a lot of games are exclusive are due to console developer. In most cases its an exclusive deal and contract to make game exclusively for one party( we talk about AAA here ).

Yep, and that is understandable. Part of me wishes that only first party were exclusive - as in the console manufactuers made games. A counterpoint to that, though is that it does take more time to develop for multiple systems, and the developers we like would be busy for longer on getting the one game for multiple systems and we'd see less great games in the long run. Yes they'd likely make more money, but they'd have less time for new games, or at least it intuitively seems that way.

Perfectly ,for us consumers, there should be no exclusives. In perfect world we would just have multiplatform games and could just own one device, the one we prefer controller, software, ui wise.

Monopolies aren't good. With no competitve element, the pricing would be terrible.

What I am trying to say, that it should not matter just because it is exclusive, it should matter as a game. Hence I am talking about fanboys. As their logic goes: oh, we have x game and it is exclusive to our console. So it is better!

Ha, yeah, I've known that element just about all my life. Official Nintendo magazines slagging games on the Playstation, and if the Nintendo system got it, "great it's a brilliant game". Not having an interest in a game iss one thing, but changing face on account of the system it is on is pathetic.