Third Party Exclusives: Good or Bad?

[stolenxnametag]

A huge subject of scrutiny is the status of third party exclusivity in games. Some people think it's great, some think it's abominable, and others are all like, "Yeah, whatever." My question is this: Do you think third party exclusivity for games is good or bad?

I've noticed several people think that it's good if it suits their favorite console, and that's understandable. For example: Kingdom Hearts and Metal Gear Solid were third party exclusives on PlayStation consoles at first, but they've recently entered the multiplatform realm, which gives other console makers (err, Microsoft) a chance to beef up their repertoire of games.

Then there's the argument about "dumbing down" games. This generation has already seen PS4 and Xbox One games having a bit of disparity between framerates and resolutions. Some argue that if a game is only made for a particular console, then these problems won't occur; the games will look as intended if they're geared toward a single console, like first party titles Forza on Xbox One and Infamous: Second Son on PS4.

So what do you guys think? Should we have equal choices with a disparity in graphical quality, or should games be made as intended on a single console? Also, what do you think about timed exclusivity, like the additional PlayStation and Xbox missions on Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes?

 

[Lifewish]

I think third party exclusives are just fine really and in cases like FF XIII I would argue that the games starting suffering around the time they brought in Microsoft and went away from being exclusive. This leads me to believe the games would have seen more focus and possibly a better game if it was exclusive.

 

[BigPete7978]

My issue is this, and I know I will get a ton of disagreements with this. Yes the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. That's already been proven. But gamers as a whole tend to blame another console rather than a developer of the actual game. When Final Fantasy XIII came out I just didn't understand why people were mad at Microsoft, rather than Square Enix.

There were also several instances where some multiplatform titles looked better on 360 because the Cell processor was harder to develop for. Then why isn't there blame on the PS3 for a subpar title?

Games are games. They are made by a developer. If shortcuts are taken, then that's on the developer, not a console maker.

As for 3rd party exclusives I am fine with them. I just don't typically care for the times exclusives or times exclusive DLC.

 

[stolenxnametag]

There were also several instances where some multiplatform titles looked better on 360 because the Cell processor was harder to develop for. Then why isn't there blame on the PS3 for a subpar title?

I agree with this. Being a PlayStation-centric forum, the dumbing down statement could easily be understood to mean that PS consoles are more powerful, but there are examples of things working the opposite way, too, like you mentioned. For instance, the online play was better for almost every multiplatform fps title on Xbox 360 last gen, and Bethesda seemed to have some serious issues making stuff work for Skyrim on PS3, which made it MUCH better on Xbox 360 and PC. Before this gets out of hand, let me be clear that I'm not attempting to flamebait.

I think third party exclusives are just fine really and in cases like FF XIII I would argue that the games starting suffering around the time they brought in Microsoft and went away from being exclusive. This leads me to believe the games would have seen more focus and possibly a better game if it was exclusive.

Agreed also. I think that the shift in audience targeting caused what was one of the most loved RPG series into the butt of many jokes and topics of disgust by fans. Rather than targeting those who have an interest in JRPGs, the shift (starting with FFXII, I would argue) seemed to be western audiences, and FFXIII was the first main multiplatform console title in the series. Perhaps this is stereotyping (South Park did an amazeballs work at playing this off), but Sony-centric gamers and Microsoft-centric gamers do not appear to typically share the same love for the same things. I don't think that targeting western audiences made FFXIII bad. I think that the bland characters and gamebreaking glitch that I encountered on it did, however.

I guess that I tend to lean toward the "third party exclusives are good" side of the ballpark. If Microsoft or Sony doesn't have games that I want, then I'm not going to buy their consoles. If Sony and Microsoft both have what I want, I'm gonna go for who has the best first party exclusives (IMO Sony). I think this is the stance that Platinum games is taking with Bayonetta 2. What moves consoles more than anything else? It isn't power, as most Sony fans would suggest, and it's not functionality, as Microsoft is trying to say - it's brand loyalty and exclusives that sell consoles. People buy into the ecosystem where they're already existing, but they also buy consoles that play the games that they want. If every console plays the same shit, then where is the incentive to buy another?

 

[Chandler Wood]

Third party exclusives are completely fine, as a full title. Exclusive content however, is bullshit, unless it is console exclusive content (Like adding Kratos to Mortal Kombat, obviously you can't do that on Xbox). But having one console have "exclusive missions" that the other could easily have as well? It usually ends up being crap that can be a pretty selling point on a box, with no real value in the end.

 

[Jacky]

Third party exclusives are completely fine, as a full title. Exclusive content however, is bullshit, unless it is console exclusive content (Like adding Kratos to Mortal Kombat, obviously you can't do that on Xbox). But having one console have "exclusive missions" that the other could easily have as well? It usually ends up being crap that can be a pretty selling point on a box, with no real value in the end.

HIGHLY AGREE

 

[cigarley]

Third party exclusives are completely fine, as a full title. Exclusive content however, is bullshit, unless it is console exclusive content (Like adding Kratos to Mortal Kombat, obviously you can't do that on Xbox). But having one console have "exclusive missions" that the other could easily have as well? It usually ends up being crap that can be a pretty selling point on a box, with no real value in the end.

Problem with console exclusive content is that the little brother syndrome kicks in. Mortal Kombat is actually the perfect example, because 360 players actually got a discounted season pass to compensate for the extra character that PS3 owners got. Not that Sony is without fault, hell I think every Assassin's Creed since AC2 has had Sony-exclusive content (timed or otherwise). But I guess those are the perils of living in the Day 1 DLC generation.

Personally I don't feel that "console exclusive content" has been done right since Soul Calibur II, but that's just me.

 

[Jacky]

Problem with console exclusive content is that the little brother syndrome kicks in. Mortal Kombat is actually the perfect example, because 360 players actually got a discounted season pass to compensate for the extra character that PS3 owners got. Not that Sony is without fault, hell I think every Assassin's Creed since AC2 has had Sony-exclusive content (timed or otherwise). But I guess those are the perils of living in the Day 1 DLC generation.

Personally I don't feel that "console exclusive content" has been done right since Soul Calibur II, but that's just me.

I don't think exclusive content or just plain old dlc has ever been done right.

 

[dragon82]

Exclusive content however, is bullshit, unless it is console exclusive content (Like adding Kratos to Mortal Kombat, obviously you can't do that on Xbox). But having one console have "exclusive missions" that the other could easily have as well? It usually ends up being crap that can be a pretty selling point on a box, with no real value in the end.

This ^^^

The only time I would have a problem with third party exclusives is if a franchise had been exclusive to one platform for years and suddenly switches to another. If a game like Gears of War suddenly went exclusive to PS4 I would have a problem with that. Now if the game just went multi platform and was still available to it's original fan base then I would have no problem with it.

 

[Jacky]

This ^^^

The only time I would have a problem with third party exclusives is if a franchise had been exclusive to one platform for years and suddenly switches to another. If a game like Gears of War suddenly went exclusive to PS4 I would have a problem with that. Now if the game just went multi platform and was still available to it's original fan base then I would have no problem with it.

If it's to make money, the company could care leas

 

[BigPete7978]

This ^^^

The only time I would have a problem with third party exclusives is if a franchise had been exclusive to one platform for years and suddenly switches to another. If a game like Gears of War suddenly went exclusive to PS4 I would have a problem with that. Now if the game just went multi platform and was still available to it's original fan base then I would have no problem with it.

Gears of War exclusive to PS4? That would be weird.
I do agree on it being available on the console it originally launched on, but at times it causes the game to be rushed (because of multiple console developments). I felt as if so much was held back on Final Fantasy XIII because Square Enix chose to go multi platform with the title. This caused so much to be cut from what was traditionally in the games by default, that many fans were furious with the game they received.

 

[stolenxnametag]

Gears of War exclusive to PS4? That would be weird.
I do agree on it being available on the console it originally launched on, but at times it causes the game to be rushed (because of multiple console developments). I felt as if so much was held back on Final Fantasy XIII because Square Enix chose to go multi platform with the title. This caused so much to be cut from what was traditionally in the games by default, that many fans were furious with the game they received.

Yeah, I would totally buy an Xbox One for a solid Final Fantasy title. Not even joking.

 

[John j]

I think 3rd party exclusives are bad news. 2nd party exclusives are wonderful as there tends to be the opportunity to become a 1st party developer. I really think investing in a third party exclusives is a mess akin to building a house on poor foundation. Eventually bad things happen to that house, ie. Microsoft losing mass effect exclusivity.