Then stop trying to impose your tastes on other people who do have mainstream tastes and like AAA titles.
Playstation should port their Exclusives to Xbox Series consoles
- Thread starter Darth Vader
- Start date
These are the same people that were wishing for the end of exclusivity and saying that every game should be on every platform, and now that it happened they complain
They should consider surfing or knitting as a hobby. This generation has been the best since the PS1/PS2 era content-wise.
Why? What do you gain from that? From basically eliminating competition. How do you expect the industry to grow without it? Why would Sony or Nintendo bother with high quality games if they don't have hardware to sell? They'd have no incentive to make that software exceptionally good.
This whole argument makes no sense. It's like some communist idea of a video game industry where everything is for everyone but everything's mediocre, or worse, shit.
And that's not even counting the actual development of these games. Yeah, let's have Sony and Nintendo devs, people who focus on a single platform at a time, start developing for 5 different platforms simultaneously. That's gonna be good for the industry, right? Can't have enough EAs and Ubisofts out there, can we?
It's because they're selfishly expecting everything to come to the platform they're already on.
It's an uncritical position of entitlement that only exists in PC gamers (I say this as a PC gamer). They hate exclusivity because it forces them to come engage with platform holders that don't cater to them specifically. They would rather not spend more money on hardware without realizing that that hardware investment is what allows those companies to produce beloved games, they aren't interested in the why's and how's of game development, they just think that because they deign to give game companies $10 on steam sales that that should somehow be enough to sustain an entire gaming ecosystem.
It's frankly why Steam is majority shovelware.
Video games are art and I want art to be as available as possible so everyone can experience the joys of gaming and I can recommend any game to anyone without concern. I want video games to be cheaply and easily accessible to as many people as possible. What I personally gain from it is not having to buy more than one machine instead of having a bajillion consoles like I already do which I find annoying and expensive.
by making and selling video games
you can compete by making better video games than your competition
VIDEO GAMES
not that any one video game is replacement for another
Steam is the majority shovelware because Steam allows basically anyone to publish games to the platform without much difficulty, not because of prices. There's very little quality control and a very low barrier of entry. That's a good thing too; I do not want platform holders deciding for me what games I should be allowed to buy. I want to make that decision.
Last edited:
Keep your preaching for the Vatican. You won't get any of these games because they won't get made at all as I said.
You will get LESS games and less investments in gaming. Many studios will close and IPs will die. No risks and no innovation. You will get EA and COD factory.
Your fairytale world doesn't exist.
So are paintings, statues, etc. yet there isn't a copy of every piece of art in every and each museum in the world.
So is music, where there are songs only available on one service.
So are movies/shows, of which some are exclusive to a single streaming service.
I don't think all games should be multiplatform. That's a moronic solution to a real problem - how do you expand a game's reach to the broadest possible audience. One console future is the way. Develop everything for PlayStation and force everyone to buy one if they want to play games. Easy.
These are all bad things that should be fixed
Yeah fuck all the painters who only made a single copy of their paintings....
Sorry Oprah but we don't live in that world. Where's the car key under my seat?
If you paint something and never make it digital and never allow anyone to make a digital version of it ever then yes, I think youre doing something wrong.
There is only one true Mona Lisa, yet I can see pictures of it on the internet and at least see the art piece because it, like video games, has been made a digital thing that can be easily shared.
Otherwise, if you mean to compare single one of a kind physical objects to digital software I think you're getting too far from what video games even are. Video games are software, they are not like physical things that exist in this world. Not everyone can have a one of a kind original statue or vase or even painting in their homes, but everyone can have a video game or movie or song in their homes, provided they have a piece of hardware it is available on and have purchased that game/movie/song.
Are you saying Sony make exclusivity deals with their own 1P studios? Because that is fundamentally false.
A platform holder is supposed to drive value proposition to their platform. SIE's primary gaming platform is PlayStation consoles. The main way you drive value proposition is through content differentiation, i.e exclusives.
It is funny, that the people who demonize game exclusivity, don't take that to a logical conclusion and demonize exclusivity altogether. Why should Valve be the sole owner of DOTA 2 IP rights? Why should Microsoft be the sole owners of the Elder Scrolls, DOOM, Halo & Forza IP? Why should Nintendo be the sole owners of the Mario & Zelda IP? Why should Valve be the sole owner of Steam?
I mean "exclusivity is bad", right? If it's bad for consumers, it should be bad for companies, too. Heck, why should Microsoft be the sole owner of their own corporate revenue and net profits? More money in more places is pro-industry right? Similar to that mantra of more games on more platforms is "pro-consumer"?
All the people, IMHO, who parrot this type of "exclusivity is bad" sentiment, never take it to its logical conclusion because then they'd realize how bad of an argument it actually is. The only way exclusivity is anti-consumer, is if content is locked to a product customers legally cannot access whatsoever, even if they have the money to buy it.
If that's down to the company banning them from buying its content, or not providing service in the country the customer resides yet requiring them to do something that uses that unavailable service in order to legally access the content, those are the only types of actual anti-consumerism (alongside the typical stuff like monopolized unfair pricing).
Without first-party exclusives (which are motivated by the requirement to differentiate a platform from the competition), games development retreats into a risk averse, by the numbers, mindset. Risks and innovation die down, everyone chases the same trends. Why? Because there no longer are incentives to do otherwise.
If all games were multi-platform, they would become the same. Competition would die immediately as consumers converge to one platform (since there no longer is anything distinguishing them).
Believe me, a world where every single game is multi-platform would be even worse. Especially for consumers.
If all games were multi-platform, they would become the same. Competition would die immediately as consumers converge to one platform (since there no longer is anything distinguishing them).
Believe me, a world where every single game is multi-platform would be even worse. Especially for consumers.
So watch a playthrough of a game on twitch or YouTube, if you don't want to own the hardware to run the game.
The piece of hardware a game is available on, can be pretty defining for the created art itself. Building a game around the strengths and weaknesses of a console, optimizing it as much as possible to create the best possible version of the developers vision, is only possible if you don't have to split resources for multiple platforms (or if you don't care about money).
OP
OP
If you can't understand how those are different when they are literally different targets... I don't know how to help you
Playstation should release there games exclusively to Xbox. They dont need PS5 to sell games
You basically want everything to end up as trash and then look shocked wondering how everything became trash.
Exclusivity isn't the only component that often drives motivation for quality, but it is one of the key ones. Even in your preferred future, exclusivity would still exist. Only specific individuals would be creating those games...should everyone on the planet get credit for making the game just because they exist?
EFF Mutahar and Gene Park.
And how the hell does Gene keep getting promoted by people? He's just an ordinary, old crumb-bum, who will flip-flop depend on whoever he is hanging out with. He has absolutely zero personality.
Mutahar is just a typical e-tuber that has grown way too big, and needs to be knocked down several thousand pegs. He doesn't even offer any good insight on ANYTHING. And when he's gets insecure, he defaults to "well I'm e-famous and I have a White Girlfriend"... SMH
Last edited: