LogFAQs > #942895495

OP is dumb bait but I thought I'd answer anyway.

The issue with exclusives is that by and large, they don't need to exist any more. Console architecture is so similar to PC architecture that it fundamentally doesn't matter what a game is playing on - a PS4 could run Halo: MCC, and an Xbone could run Bloodborne. Everything is made for an engine that can be run by a decent enough piece of hardware - which tends to be all/most consoles + PC. Games have evolved past the technical limitations that arguably birthed console exclusivity to begin with - hardware differences aren't as drastic as the differences between the SNES and Genesis, or the N64 and PS1. Everything is basically a PC nowadays, just with different window dressing and slightly different power needs.

That doesn't mean that exclusivity isn't justified - if a company holds the rights to a property, they can keep it confined to one system as a "draw", or to preserve some sort of integrity they perceive the original game to have on a platform of choice, or just because it's "theirs". Stuff like PC developers who don't port to consoles, or companies who bankrolled a game's development and/or acquired a studio to create games for their own platform specifically. But the understanding is that there isn't really a major technical reason for anything to be exclusive to one platform any more.

So when there's a game that can (and will) be ported to everything under the sun - PS4, Xbone, Switch, PC, mobile - and the only reason it's not appearing on everything is because a company paid for timed exclusivity, it feels cheap and fake. It stirs up "console war" bullshit for a product that ultimately won't play into console war bullshit in the future, prolonging a stupid tribalistic internet slap-fight in the hopes of stirring up some vocal fanatics for some extra cash in the short term. And then they launch on everything else anyway, basically amounting to a second launch day for a wider audience and a second wave of profits. It feels very cynical and dishonest.

There's some nuance to this situation, in that companies like Sony and Microsoft might bankroll some of a game's development in exchange for timed exclusivity. That falls into "the business owns the franchise/game and can release it however they want" - look at Cuphead for example, Microsoft bankrolled it but now it's on Switch and PlayStation years after release. That was their call. But outside of that, there's no reason to time an exclusive. Publishers and developers have a wider marketplace to release their products, and it feels kinda manipulative and shitty to go "well we're not releasing a game on this console for a year, but eventually you'll get to play the game on your platform of choice". In cases where a company has specifically paid for exclusive publishing rights, for the sole purpose of saying "Fist on PlayStation/Xbox", there is no good reason not to release it on everything at the same time.

Corporate ownership matters, and hardware differences matter. When neither of those things exist, there are only two outcomes - developer/publisher preference, and anti-consumer business deals that exist solely for the money. That's an entirely artificial reason for exclusivity, and it's bullshit.

---

Are you proud to be a Mayonnaise American?