This is a really tricky subject, as not everyone can afford to own each console while others can. Back in the days of the NES/SMS and Genesis/SNES/TurboGrafx, most games were exclusive. These days hardly any games at all are exclusive. So we' re always fretting about getting the best version of a game (is the best version on the Xbox 360, or is it on the PS3? Depends on the game). Also, it gives developers less time to build the real game since they also have to worry about making a version for the other console(s) as well. For that reason I feel that very few games are optimized fully for the system they are on.

So in my opinion, unless they are EA sports games which nobody cares about, I prefer most games to be exclusive since I plan to own all 3 consoles (but does the Wii even count as... anything?). It removes the decision-making process I go through when I decide which version to get, especially when they come out at the same time. I' m sure most people here hate exclusives. Well, what' s your opinion about it?

Next time you make a thread think about a subject and ask yourself is this really worth posting on kikizo?

I remember hooking my SNES and MegaDrive up side-by-side to see if there were any differences between the two versions of Mortal Kombat II and Flashback.

But that was before the internet. Before i had professionals (can i use that word to describe IGN reviewers?) to tell me which version to buy.

Ofcourse, in a perfect world, most games would be exclusive to a platform. It' d stop shoddy ports and cheap cash-ins. But then, Nintendo wouldn' t have anything ut Nintendo developed games on Wii if that happened....

I don' t really care, I' ll buy any console that has enough games to warrent a purchase. I' m never conserned that multiplatform games are not as good since having the larger possible userbase usually means larger budgets. I never cared about which version is better either (at least not when it comes to PS3 or 360). The controller itself makes more difference for me than minor graphical discrepancies. I have a 360 and If I had a PS3 I would buy the version of a game for the console that has the most suitable controller. exlusive games would interest me more on average since for an exclusive game to be profitable these days means it has to be decent enough to sell well on only one platform (obviously).

So for me, accessibility or how much it' s tailored to a given platform isn' t on my mind. The first thing I look at is the budget to develop the game, that usually gives me a good indication if the game deserves my attention.

I' m not hard to please, usually a high profile developer with a good budget making an FPS will get my attention. I don' t pay too much attention to other gendres (except for the mega hits), I' ll let the kiddies worry about those ones.

I' ll buy any console that has enough games to warrent a purchase.

Indeed, but if all of those games are already available for the console you own, is there really any reason for the other console to exist?

I' ve hated (3rd party) exclusives since the 8-bit era. If I had my way, ALL 3rd party games would be multiplatform.. That leaves first and second party developers to develop exclusive games for their respective consoles.

Indeed, but if all of those games are already available for the console you own, is there really any reason for the other console to exist?

Maybe that' s the better question. Personally I would prefer it if Nintendo and Microsoft and Sony joined forces and developed one console together. That way we wouldn' t have to buy three mediocre consoles only to have the few exclusives. Competition wouldn' t be a problem as it would compete against PC and with the previous generation. With Sony' s hardware expertise, Microsofts software abilities and basically all the games from all manufacturers, well that would be fucking sweet. I wouldn' t mind paying more for something like this. If the three want to compete against eachother they should do so with the games and handhelds.

Having seperate consoles for each manufacturer makes as much sense for the consumer as owning a separate computer for each operating system you own.

I can' t see this happening but I can dream.

I feel that third party exclusives tend to help everyone and not just the consumer because they make more money. Personaly I don' t want to have to buy all three consoles just to play all the games I want.

Last generation all I had was a PS2 and I loved it, but I felt left out cause I couldn' t buy the xbox and play like halo and fable. I think that poor people are getting screwed by the exclusives. I am not a fanboy that wants my console to have a bunch of exclusives so that it is the best. I would like to buy all of the consoles but I am just not willing to poor that much money into my hobby right now, especially when the 360 I did have is now completely broken and I got that one on a deal from Eddie, I also have more important things that I need to use the money for right now like college and that kind of stuff.

If I had the money that Nitro has I wouldn' t care about exclusives because I would have all the consoles and so I could get all the exclusives, but how many of us on this forum have that luxury or really want to buy 2 or 3 consoles.

Well that' s my little rant I am betting most of you aren' t going to read it because nobody ever reads what I post atleast they never respond so maybe they just suck so much they aren' t respond worthy.

I think that poor people are getting screwed by the exclusives.

Yes... but do poor people have any rights?

Yes... but do poor people have any rights?

Considering most of the people in America are poor then yes I think they should. I am not talking like living on the street poor I am talking about working class poor.







F***ing wealthy people!

I' ve hated (3rd party) exclusives since the 8-bit era.

What are your reasons?

What are your reasons?

Nintendo is partially to blame .. I was SO turned off by them and their stupid 3rd Party contract back then. It basically forced 3rd party exclusivity, developers didn' t really have a choice if they wanted to develop games for the NES... Sure the Master System was able to land some 3rd party properties via Sega of Japan obtaining the license to reprogram them, but I can' t help but imagine just how much more awesome the Master System would have been if developers didn' t have their options limited by Nintendo..

And then I think about the people who struggle just to afford one console and some games for it. It sucks for them when third-party games they want land on another console with no plans of being distributed elsewhere. So it' s either they scrounge up money as best they can and pray for a price drop OR they just miss out on those games entirely. And I' ve always liked knowing that games that I' m enjoying on one console are readily available on their console of choice too so at least the option is there for them.

And even though I can afford to own all three consoles and I' m no longer that young kid who had to scrounge and scrounge, saving every nickel and dime in order to afford a Sega Master System, I still despise the idea of 3rd party exclusives to the max and literally roll my eyes every time an announcement is made that [Insert console maker] has secured [Insert Game] as an exclusive. The idea of 3rd Party exclusive games is like an oxymoron to me . I just wish 3rd party developers were allowed to be just that, 3rd party developers, without any sort of coaxing, bribing, lobbying going on to keep their properties on one platform. A bit too idealistic perhaps

I wish exclusive games came built in




You have different Exclusives now that DS and Wii Entered the Arena, i think these are the ' real exclusives' as they technically connot be done on other hardware.

As for the more tradional sense of the word (or term), I feel there is simply no such thing as ' Exclusives' as they hardly stay exclusive for merly a few months.

Sometimes it' s good, sometimes it' s bad, but mostly I like it.

Some games benefit from exclusivity since developers can optimise graphics and that stuff for a single console and adapt the gameplay to the specific controller and so on.

Some consoles need exclusives in order to guarantee console sales. First party exclusives aren' t enough to sell consoles. They are too few and the time span between the releases are too big. If a company can' t compete then the overall competition in the industry will weaken. As a result us consumers won' t get as good things as we are now. Competition from the PC market isn' t enough to keep the console market going because consoles and PC' s appeal to different people.

Also, the lack of other consoles than THEONECONSOLE will mean less multitude on the videogame market. If all big franchises like Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Forza, Gran Turismo, Metroid Prime, Super Mario, Super Smash Bros, Ninja Gaiden, Final Fantasy, Jak and Daxter and Killzone would be released on the same console, that console' s own software market would be overflooded and the titles would eat up each others profits. In order words; less consoles mean less games from 3rd party developers. And smaller developers and unique projects would be much more difficult to get approved.
So instead of having less third party games, we have choice.

The bad things with third party exclusivity are the obvious;
Not everyone can, or have the will, to spend money on all consoles and as a result one might not be able to play a really awesome game.

It' s um... not good for the environment if people have three different consoles since it consumes more stuff from the nature.... stuff, you know.

Very few people can afford buying all the awesome games they want anyway, so with some third party games going to a console you don' t own, you won' t have to bother with the difficult choices. And if you can afford buying all the games you want, then I would assume you can also buy all the consoles anyway, so it doesn' t really matter.

I' ve hated (3rd party) exclusives since the 8-bit era. If I had my way, ALL 3rd party games would be multiplatform .. That leaves first and second party developers to develop exclusive games for their respective consoles.

I think the same. That big 3rd party should be multiplatform for the most ;) Then first and second party games on their own console. This could make the difference for people then when they decide which console to buy.

As Torr mentioned, not everyone can or wants to spend a lot of money on consoles. That being said, I' ll try and get a new Dreamcast soon to replace the one that broke some months ago :P

Some people seem to forget that third party developers are competing with each other.
Sometimes it can be a wise decision to make a game exclusive as it might generate better sales. Better sales means more profits, more games more happiness.

I, personally, love exclusives. It may mean burning a huge hole in your wallet, but it is great to just sit and think " this is what I got the console for" . I think it would be pointless if there weren' t any exclusives, as that would mean it would just be all the same games on all the systems and would destroy the uniqueness each system has.

Next time you make a thread think about a subject and ask yourself is this really worth posting on kikizo?

" GRAW2 OMG Blah-Blah F***** Awesome"



Exclusives are what keep companies afloat. They' re a neccessity at the worst, but it also lets developers focus on one title instead of 1 & 1/2. (we' re assuming the port counts for 1/2)

Exclusivity is still alive about Sony-MS-Nintendo developed titles.

you' ll never see God Of War III on 360 and Wii
you' ll never see Halo 3 on PS3 and Wii
you' ll never see Zelda on PS3 and 360

We should be happy that we can see great third-party titles
like Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill 5 and VF5 on more than one console
& if Sony, MS and Nintendo just try to make greater titles for their consoles
they won' t lose and we can be happy...

We should be happy when 3rd party titles are multi platform!
more people can enjoy from them and understand our feelings!

Regards-Alimn