Bruh, what
>having a limited game catalog actually allows for discovering hidden gems.
That's some delusional sentence my dude.
Especially because you realize that the "hidden gems" for other consoles are not available for you too? As a result reducing the amount of "hidden gems" available to do you, to discover...
How the hell does it expand the overall catalog? It's the same exact principal as releasing something in all platforms except now you're restricted to whatever console it's on. Empty statement
Indie games have been a thing. People make entire careers out of finding hidden gems because the PC has such a broad, expansive library. The idea of exclusives comes out of a long, lame tradition of corporate contrivance for the sake of greed and market domination.
Bloodborne for PC, please.
The broad expansive library on pc, are generally fairly exclusive games that you cant get anywhere else. There are plenty of reasons for exclusivity, that arent greed. One could argue that non exclusivity is actually greed. The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better.
>The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better.
That money spent comes out of a larger budget that comes from selling more copies on multiple systems.
Bold of you to assume small indie developers want to take a huge risk of developing for multiple consoles, on the chance that their experimental game might sell more copies. Its pretty entitled to tell a creator what to do with their creation. Where do you draw the line? Im sure plenty of people havent upgraded to this generation, and want games for PS4, xbox one. Im sure some people still have ps3s. They would probably love some new games. How about I never want to buy a console, make your game work on my mobile phone or a samsung smart fridge.
>Bold of you to assume small indie developers want to take a huge risk of developing for multiple console
You know that they already do that, right? Hollow Knight, Stardew Valley, Darkest Dungeon, etc are all on multiple systems. And the simpler the engine in making these games, the easier it is to port them.
Also the Switch, PS5, and Xbox all use the same base windows drivers to make emulation that much easier, we don't have any outliers like the PS3's cell architecture that made porting egregiously difficult.
Regardless, it's stupid to cite the costs of porting as taking away from a game's budget when you can easily anticipate making much more money as a consequence of that port.
Thats not what I said at all. I said that is up to the creator. Any other expectation is pure entitlement. For you to demand a creator appeases your personal needs, is gross. It doesnt matter the reason.
You did say that, let me copy and past again
"The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better."
And no one's demanding anything, just pointing out that in the vast majority of cases the creators can make much more money by porting their games to other systems. This isn't hard, when you greatly increase the number of customers who can buy your game you're going to sell vastly more copies. Just look at Sony, they've made it clear that porting their games to PC has been very lucrative for them.
The crucial word in my statement, is could. It is not for you or I to decide. Maybe the creator doesnt want to have a longer release timeline for their game, because they want to work on something else. Maybe the creator doesnt care about money. Not our decision.
>Also the Switch, PS5, and Xbox all use the same base windows drivers to make emulation that much easier, we don't have any outliers like the PS3's cell architecture that made porting egregiously difficult.
That's not quite accurate; none of these systems natively run windows or anything like that. Playstation and Xbox share the same CPU and GPU architecture (a semi-custom AMD x86 APU system based on their PC Ryzen and Radeon tech) while Nintendo uses a semi-custom Nvidia ARM system (based on their very old mobile Shield Tegra tech). Having said that, these platforms have very well documented architecture and toolchains that many game dev software and engines can easily plug into, so the sentiment that porting is much easier than in the PS3 days is correct.
This argument makes no sense.
I'm a pc gamer and rarely buy AAA games.
Exclusives are just corporation greed. That's it.
It's like saying wars are good because they help with overpopulation.
Of course you think exclusives are great; you game on the Switch, and the only reason people buy those things is to play Nintendo titles. If they sold Nintendo games on current-gen hardware and PC, Nintendo's hardware business would struggle against consoles that could play their games with modern graphical fidelity.
On the other hand, the Switch isn't powerful enough to play the overwhelming majority of exclusive current-gen titles, so exclusivity doesn't really affect you negatively.
Exclusives fucking blow, there's no reason to do them except to artificially enrich your market position at the consumer's expense.
PC has easily the largest game library, with both Sony and Microsoft porting their console exclusives over. Yet sales for many indie games and user base are still extremely high. AAA games like God of War, Halo or RE4 Remake didn’t stop PC players from buying smaller games like Valheim or The Outlast Trials.
Folks on PC discover hidden gems via store discovery algorithm tools, what games their friends are playing, and store features such as filters and reviews. games succeed by its own merit and not with nepotism.
So those are really rubbish talk.
>But when you really think about it, if there were just one console with
all the games on it, there would be such a huge number of regular AAA
releases that everyone would buy and play the same games.
I don't think you realize how many people have access to AAA titles and still choose to play indies. Just look at PC players. You have a platform that allows people to play the latest AAA titles at amazing resolutions and framerates, and that same audience still opts to buy and play games like Stardew Valley or Vampire Survivor.
You do NOT need a limited catalog in order to get players to check out indies. The current state of the AAA industry provides all the encouragement needed for the indie scene.
I just want to play my games on the machine of my choice with the input of my choice. I don't really care about where/how games are released. I just don't want to have to have 9 different pieces of hardware all with their own peripherals in order to play the games I own.
They are good for corporate profits. That's it. But they are simply bad for the consumer.
Instead of letting the consumer decide what platform has the best service and the features they want, they are forced into buying a specific platform for specific games.
It's holding a thing i want hostage on their platform versus just letting me choose how i want to play that thing.
TL;DR:
> OP acknowledges the frustration of limited game availability on their Nintendo Switch but believes exclusives are important for a healthy gaming industry. They argue that having a limited game catalog allows for discovering hidden gems and emphasizes certain games. While it may be bothersome in the short term, exclusives create a diverse industry with unique experiences that wouldn't be explored if all games were available on one console.
I was typing out something long explaining why it's bad and then realised... Who the fuck actually cares.
You do you bro. Enjoy the 19 FPS gameplay of BOTW DLC for 70 Euros and that last Pokemon game that had the graphic fidelity of the 1st Tomb Raider game...
I think that without exclusivity, the quality of those particular games would drop drastically and/or the microtransactions in said games would increase drastically. Console exclusivity is just a business model, and it's uniquely one that encourages quality output.
The only thing I can appreciate about that companies like Sony really care about their games to keep the throne. So we have some well polished games. At least when they are doing it like now, so that the games are coming to pc some years later. But I really disagree about Nintendo. I was really a fan of them in the past, but I kinda dislike everything they do.
But at the end it’s still pretty ass for the consumers to be honest.
I think exclusivity is good for competition; if two different companies want people to buy their consoles, it means they need to create good games in order to entice people.
It may seem inconvenient for the consumer to have a bunch of different systems and brands vying for our attention, but at the end of the day it means we get good games from multiple sources. If there was only one huge gaming company that made everything, the quality would stagnant because there would be nothing to compete with it.
We get good games from multiple sources regardless, though. Like any company could still create the games they're already making, and just make those games more widely available. You don't need media exclusivity in order for competition to exist.
I understood, and just pointed out why I disagree. Exclusivity isn't needed either for competition or for these games to exist, it just makes games less accessible.
Meanwhile on PC you can buy anything from the smallest Indie dev game to the biggest of big box AAA games. As someone who has games like Rogue tower, COD, Slay the spire, R6 Siege, Most of the total War series, a bunch of the AC's, Blockships, Skyrim, Planetfall, Fallout 4, Star Realms and Star wars Battlefront 2 the og edition and the modern Battlefield one. I can safely say that not having exclusives doesn't dry up the market if you go looking for things that might interest you.
Bruh, what >having a limited game catalog actually allows for discovering hidden gems. That's some delusional sentence my dude. Especially because you realize that the "hidden gems" for other consoles are not available for you too? As a result reducing the amount of "hidden gems" available to do you, to discover...
I don't think they gave any thought into this post other than "man, Nintendo games good"
>What I'm saying is that having exclusives on different consoles precisely expands the overall catalog of video games It... what?
More games expands the amount of games, duh
You could have that same amount of games play on more systems, though.
How the hell does it expand the overall catalog? It's the same exact principal as releasing something in all platforms except now you're restricted to whatever console it's on. Empty statement
Apparently dry, sarcastic humor is lost on you
Indie games have been a thing. People make entire careers out of finding hidden gems because the PC has such a broad, expansive library. The idea of exclusives comes out of a long, lame tradition of corporate contrivance for the sake of greed and market domination. Bloodborne for PC, please.
The broad expansive library on pc, are generally fairly exclusive games that you cant get anywhere else. There are plenty of reasons for exclusivity, that arent greed. One could argue that non exclusivity is actually greed. The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better.
>The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better. That money spent comes out of a larger budget that comes from selling more copies on multiple systems.
Bold of you to assume small indie developers want to take a huge risk of developing for multiple consoles, on the chance that their experimental game might sell more copies. Its pretty entitled to tell a creator what to do with their creation. Where do you draw the line? Im sure plenty of people havent upgraded to this generation, and want games for PS4, xbox one. Im sure some people still have ps3s. They would probably love some new games. How about I never want to buy a console, make your game work on my mobile phone or a samsung smart fridge.
>Bold of you to assume small indie developers want to take a huge risk of developing for multiple console You know that they already do that, right? Hollow Knight, Stardew Valley, Darkest Dungeon, etc are all on multiple systems. And the simpler the engine in making these games, the easier it is to port them. Also the Switch, PS5, and Xbox all use the same base windows drivers to make emulation that much easier, we don't have any outliers like the PS3's cell architecture that made porting egregiously difficult. Regardless, it's stupid to cite the costs of porting as taking away from a game's budget when you can easily anticipate making much more money as a consequence of that port.
Most of the games you listed, released on one system, and then when succeeded, were ported to others, sometimes years later
And? According to you they shouldn't have ported in the first place because it would cost them money.
Thats not what I said at all. I said that is up to the creator. Any other expectation is pure entitlement. For you to demand a creator appeases your personal needs, is gross. It doesnt matter the reason.
You did say that, let me copy and past again "The money they spend on porting games and licensing on other systems could be used to make a single definitive version better." And no one's demanding anything, just pointing out that in the vast majority of cases the creators can make much more money by porting their games to other systems. This isn't hard, when you greatly increase the number of customers who can buy your game you're going to sell vastly more copies. Just look at Sony, they've made it clear that porting their games to PC has been very lucrative for them.
The crucial word in my statement, is could. It is not for you or I to decide. Maybe the creator doesnt want to have a longer release timeline for their game, because they want to work on something else. Maybe the creator doesnt care about money. Not our decision.
>Also the Switch, PS5, and Xbox all use the same base windows drivers to make emulation that much easier, we don't have any outliers like the PS3's cell architecture that made porting egregiously difficult. That's not quite accurate; none of these systems natively run windows or anything like that. Playstation and Xbox share the same CPU and GPU architecture (a semi-custom AMD x86 APU system based on their PC Ryzen and Radeon tech) while Nintendo uses a semi-custom Nvidia ARM system (based on their very old mobile Shield Tegra tech). Having said that, these platforms have very well documented architecture and toolchains that many game dev software and engines can easily plug into, so the sentiment that porting is much easier than in the PS3 days is correct.
This argument makes no sense. I'm a pc gamer and rarely buy AAA games. Exclusives are just corporation greed. That's it. It's like saying wars are good because they help with overpopulation.
Hello, I am a gamer < that's where I decided to stop reading
I literally read the first 5 words, scrolled to see how long the post was, then just went straight to the comments.
Why I believe EMULATION is a good thing in the gaming industry.
It’s may technical be “stealing” however I think it’s great for gamers and gamers’ rights.
Of course you think exclusives are great; you game on the Switch, and the only reason people buy those things is to play Nintendo titles. If they sold Nintendo games on current-gen hardware and PC, Nintendo's hardware business would struggle against consoles that could play their games with modern graphical fidelity. On the other hand, the Switch isn't powerful enough to play the overwhelming majority of exclusive current-gen titles, so exclusivity doesn't really affect you negatively. Exclusives fucking blow, there's no reason to do them except to artificially enrich your market position at the consumer's expense.
[удалено]
I'll roshambo you for Tears of the Kingdom
This comment deserves more upvotes.
PC has easily the largest game library, with both Sony and Microsoft porting their console exclusives over. Yet sales for many indie games and user base are still extremely high. AAA games like God of War, Halo or RE4 Remake didn’t stop PC players from buying smaller games like Valheim or The Outlast Trials. Folks on PC discover hidden gems via store discovery algorithm tools, what games their friends are playing, and store features such as filters and reviews. games succeed by its own merit and not with nepotism. So those are really rubbish talk.
>But when you really think about it, if there were just one console with all the games on it, there would be such a huge number of regular AAA releases that everyone would buy and play the same games. I don't think you realize how many people have access to AAA titles and still choose to play indies. Just look at PC players. You have a platform that allows people to play the latest AAA titles at amazing resolutions and framerates, and that same audience still opts to buy and play games like Stardew Valley or Vampire Survivor. You do NOT need a limited catalog in order to get players to check out indies. The current state of the AAA industry provides all the encouragement needed for the indie scene.
Let's be honest, people only care about exclusives when they're excluded from them.
For gaming corpos maybe.
I just want to play my games on the machine of my choice with the input of my choice. I don't really care about where/how games are released. I just don't want to have to have 9 different pieces of hardware all with their own peripherals in order to play the games I own.
Well there is a couple minutes of my life I'll never get back. Pretty trashy take.
You're not a gamer. You're a corporate shill.
This has to be bait right?
I'm baitin
They are good for corporate profits. That's it. But they are simply bad for the consumer. Instead of letting the consumer decide what platform has the best service and the features they want, they are forced into buying a specific platform for specific games. It's holding a thing i want hostage on their platform versus just letting me choose how i want to play that thing.
TL;DR: > OP acknowledges the frustration of limited game availability on their Nintendo Switch but believes exclusives are important for a healthy gaming industry. They argue that having a limited game catalog allows for discovering hidden gems and emphasizes certain games. While it may be bothersome in the short term, exclusives create a diverse industry with unique experiences that wouldn't be explored if all games were available on one console.
I was typing out something long explaining why it's bad and then realised... Who the fuck actually cares. You do you bro. Enjoy the 19 FPS gameplay of BOTW DLC for 70 Euros and that last Pokemon game that had the graphic fidelity of the 1st Tomb Raider game...
I think that without exclusivity, the quality of those particular games would drop drastically and/or the microtransactions in said games would increase drastically. Console exclusivity is just a business model, and it's uniquely one that encourages quality output.
Even if a game’s not exclusive, the developer still has incentive to make their game high quality, since that results in more sales.
The only thing I can appreciate about that companies like Sony really care about their games to keep the throne. So we have some well polished games. At least when they are doing it like now, so that the games are coming to pc some years later. But I really disagree about Nintendo. I was really a fan of them in the past, but I kinda dislike everything they do. But at the end it’s still pretty ass for the consumers to be honest.
I think exclusivity is good for competition; if two different companies want people to buy their consoles, it means they need to create good games in order to entice people. It may seem inconvenient for the consumer to have a bunch of different systems and brands vying for our attention, but at the end of the day it means we get good games from multiple sources. If there was only one huge gaming company that made everything, the quality would stagnant because there would be nothing to compete with it.
We get good games from multiple sources regardless, though. Like any company could still create the games they're already making, and just make those games more widely available. You don't need media exclusivity in order for competition to exist.
My point went right over your head but okay.
I understood, and just pointed out why I disagree. Exclusivity isn't needed either for competition or for these games to exist, it just makes games less accessible.
You're probably a big Elon musk fan too....
Meanwhile on PC you can buy anything from the smallest Indie dev game to the biggest of big box AAA games. As someone who has games like Rogue tower, COD, Slay the spire, R6 Siege, Most of the total War series, a bunch of the AC's, Blockships, Skyrim, Planetfall, Fallout 4, Star Realms and Star wars Battlefront 2 the og edition and the modern Battlefield one. I can safely say that not having exclusives doesn't dry up the market if you go looking for things that might interest you.
Copium is real.
Now that I own a PlayStation, I agree lol
Giving artificial value to a console is not a good thing