LogFAQs > #932933739

Darmik posted...

Exclusives can be important but context for when and how they're important is...also important.

Breath of the Wild also being on Wii U didn't hurt the Switch at all. People bought a Switch to play it.

If Halo Infinite ends up being some amazing game console players will most likely want to play that on a Series X. So it does the job.

I don't even factor Nintendo into these discussions because they're a whole different thing, although I guess at this point you could argue that all three are becoming their own thing which is why I get so perplexed at CE's insistence that Sony's exclusives mean so much.

Exclusives mattered a lot more when there was an actual large amount of exclusives due to third parties having to pick sides due to cultural/techincal reasons. SNES and Genesis and Nintendo 64 and Playstation have damn near completely different libraries because of how different games were on the platforms. Playstation 2 exclusives mattered a lot more when Japanese third parties were hesitant to even do anything with Xbox. Exclusives when the property is Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, or anything else that had a legacy mattered a lot more than Sony's new IP's they trot out every generation. And with the way gaming works now, these legacy series are rarely if ever exclusive to a single platform. Hell they tend to not even be exclusive to consoles anymore.

Do they matter? Sure. Not anywhere near as much as CE likes to think. Most people I know that own a PS4 don't even own Uncharted 4, The Last of Us or God of War.

And this isn't meant to be directed at you specifically Darmik I'm just kind of throwing my thoughts out there while also replying to you bringing up Nintendo just FYI

---

The personal is the political is a totalitarian progressive decree that I reject entirely.