Annoyed by exclusive content

#21natevinesPosted 12/20/2013 8:57:01 AM
Featherwind posted...
natevines posted...
No exclusive = one console. What fun is that?


There can be many consoles. Like I said hardware competes with hardware, and different electronics have different properties like cost, performance, looks, reliability/build quality etc.


I suppose. But then what differentiates consoles from PC?
#22ElPolloDiablo87Posted 12/20/2013 8:58:16 AM
Featherwind posted...
natevines posted...
No exclusive = one console. What fun is that?


There can be many consoles. Like I said hardware competes with hardware, and different electronics have different properties like cost, performance, looks, reliability/build quality etc.

If the same games are coming to all the consoles, then all the consoles will have basically the same specs and features to accommodate them and then having more than one console on the market will be redundant. Exclusives are literally the only reason for there to be more than one console.
---
Madre de Dios, es El Pollo Diablo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E28WrhpTzQA
#23Featherwind(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2013 9:06:57 AM
That's not true. It depends on the gamer what hardware is best. If there was a console that has very powerful GPU but cost 1000 dollars or euros it wouldn't the console of choice for everyone, but it might be the best console for some.

If you look at PC for example games generally support as many hardware setups as it financially makes sense to support (though occasionally some trickery goes on too, see CoD: Ghosts for example).
---
pathological
#24ElPolloDiablo87Posted 12/20/2013 9:13:09 AM
Featherwind posted...
That's not true. It depends on the gamer what hardware is best. If there was a console that has very powerful GPU but cost 1000 dollars or euros it wouldn't the console of choice for everyone, but it might be the best console for some.

If you look at PC for example games generally support as many hardware setups as it financially makes sense to support (though occasionally some trickery goes on too, see CoD: Ghosts for example).

I'm confused then. Basically what you're saying is you want consoles to cease to exist and all their games go to PC, but you want to call these PC's with variable specs consoles. And you want developers to have to make every game so it can run on PCs of all specs, so a game would have to run on intel integrated graphics as well as a Nvidia Titan. Not sure how you see this working...
---
Madre de Dios, es El Pollo Diablo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E28WrhpTzQA
#25Reflex-ArcPosted 12/20/2013 9:14:47 AM
All fast food joints should sell Big Macs.
All television networks should air the same program.
All record labels should release the same album.


This sounds like a boring world to me. I like playing exclusive titles on their respective platforms for the experience of playing it on that platform. I like the variety.
---
Case | Mother Board | CPU (OC'd!) | Video Card x 2 | RAM | PSU | SSD | HDD | Some Fans | Monitor | Mouse | Keyboard
#26Featherwind(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2013 9:27:47 AM(edited)
I never said that every game has to run on all specs. I want the "blackmail factor" removed from the calculation on financial viability of supporting different hardware.

For example PC games don't have DOS support anymore because it makes no sense financially to support this platform anymore (nobody wants to game on DOS, nobody uses it anymore etc). Games do support both Nvidia and AMD GPUs because it makes sense financially to support both. Now a shady game developer could think that if he received sufficient bribes from Nvidia or AMD it would make financial sense to not support the opponent's hardware, and Nvidia or AMD could think that bribing a dev makes financial sense for them because this coerces people into buying their products (it would not improve the electronics themselves though). Without taking this blackmail opportunity into account the dev would have supported both platforms.

For example MGS is a series that gamers across all platforms are interested in. I was interested in it even though I was not interested in the PS3 console itself. I'm 99% sure that it would have made sense to port it to Xbox 360 and PC if they did not consider the possibility of using it to coerce people into buying the PS3.
---
pathological
#27natevinesPosted 12/20/2013 9:27:38 AM
Featherwind posted...
"blackmail factor"


Why do you keep referring to it in this way, as though it's somehow coercive? It's the same with literally any product on the market. I don't feel any "blackmail factor" that the iPhone has features my Droid RAZR does not. I still prefer my RAZR, but there's certain things on the iPhone I wish I had.
#28ElPolloDiablo87Posted 12/20/2013 9:28:23 AM
Featherwind posted...
I never said that every game has to run on all specs. I want the "blackmail factor" removed from the calculation on financial viability of supporting different hardware.

For example PC games don't have DOS support anymore because it makes no sense financially to support this platform anymore (nobody wants to game on DOS, nobody uses it anymore etc). Games do support both Nvidia and AMD GPUs because it makes sense financially to support both. Now a shady game developer could think that if he received sufficient bribes from Nvidia or AMD it would make financial sense to not support the opponent's hardware, and Nvidia or AMD could think that bribing a dev makes financial sense for them because this coerces people into buying their products (it would not improve the electronics themselves though). Without taking this blackmail opportunity into account the dev would have supported both platforms.

But if games can't run on systems of all specs, then there would be games exclusive to higher spec machines. Wasn't your whole argument that you wanted to get rid of exclusives?
---
Madre de Dios, es El Pollo Diablo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E28WrhpTzQA
#29Featherwind(Topic Creator)Posted 12/20/2013 9:36:58 AM
ElPolloDiablo87 posted...
Featherwind posted...
I never said that every game has to run on all specs. I want the "blackmail factor" removed from the calculation on financial viability of supporting different hardware.

For example PC games don't have DOS support anymore because it makes no sense financially to support this platform anymore (nobody wants to game on DOS, nobody uses it anymore etc). Games do support both Nvidia and AMD GPUs because it makes sense financially to support both. Now a shady game developer could think that if he received sufficient bribes from Nvidia or AMD it would make financial sense to not support the opponent's hardware, and Nvidia or AMD could think that bribing a dev makes financial sense for them because this coerces people into buying their products (it would not improve the electronics themselves though). Without taking this blackmail opportunity into account the dev would have supported both platforms.

But if games can't run on systems of all specs, then there would be games exclusive to higher spec machines. Wasn't your whole argument that you wanted to get rid of exclusives?


Nope. Read the OP, not just the topic title.

I said that there is rarely a good reason presented for the exclusivity. And that most of the time it is a marketing trick.

It makes sense to not make games for platforms that people don't want to use. The difference is that many people very likely would have wanted MGS for the Xbox 360 and it would have made sense to let them buy it. A very small group of gamers want games for, say, Windows 95 anymore so it is justified to not support it.
---
pathological
#30IzraeilPosted 12/20/2013 10:04:25 AM
Most exclusives these days are only first party anyhow, MS has bought some from 3rd parties, but they'll probably stop in a year or two like they usually do. And if you want Either Sony or MS to be making games for their competitors then i don't know what to tell you.

And it seems you're just whining because you don't want to spend money on multiple consoles but want to play all the games, and yet you want consoles to basically act like DVD players, which means console makers will no longer be in a position to take a loss on their hardware in hopes of making it back on software sales. So you would for example be paying close to a $1000 for a PS3, because instead of sony taking a $200 loss, they'd probably want that profit.

So yeah basically you seem to be very ignorant about how this industry works, and are just whining, and none of your proposals make any sense.