here's a cool idea, why not making movies exlusive to certin DVD/blueray players??

[JolyJew СлаваУкраине]

If a rich company that makes good DVD/blueray devices like Sony for example. would sign a conract with, for example Pixar, that all the movies they release will only be compatible and playble on Sony's special new disc player, that would let sony to make A LOT of money.

because now, if people want to see a good movie, they first must buy the correct DVD player that is authorized to play that movie.
and of course, other companies like for example philips will try to do the same and will make all Dreamworks movies exlusive to their special video format, so you will need to have serveral media playing devices to watch all your favorite movies, this could make a very healthy competition.

and naturally, they should be able sue anyone who tried to convert said disc's to different formant to get it working on a different player that way said company can strinctly control all the movies the studio the bought makes.

sounds like a good idea?

OF COURSE NOT! people will rage, and legal actions will be taken.

so why the hell everyone are ok with this coroprate BS of console exclusives!? in the 90's it made sense because they had different performance and hardware, and a game changed when it was ported to a diffeerent console (different graphics/sound/speed etc.)
but now, all games run the same on all consoles, including the PC.

anyone should be allowed to port games to other systems but right now, anyone doing so without clear authorization will have they ass sued.

console exclusives should not exist anymore, this corporate scam should have died 10 years ago. why the hell are people ok with them??

EDIT: just beacuse its industry standard now, doesn't mean a company can make a new device that is not industry standard and no other DVD/bluray can be played on it.

[JolyJew СлаваУкраине]

wow, how the hell this thread went downhill so damn fast??? REMINDER: the topic of this thread is about console exclusive is a ripoff.

unless there is doubtless proof that the game cannot be played on a different platfrom, anyone should be allowed to port the game to a different system.

[chibilibi]

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

Which is also exactly why you cannot use the "plug in and play" argument. Most of the arguments for and against it are purely anecdotal evidence. You may not have had problems, but plenty of other people did. Likewise, I've never had any problems with getting Steam games to work on my PC, nor have many other people, but some people have.

By the way, there is a "better." For example, 60 FPS is better than 30 FPS for playing games. Ceiling lights are better than flashlights at illuminating entire rooms at once.

Some things are straight-up better than other things at certain tasks.

And that's the point -some things ARE straight-up better (which I have not denied). However, YOU made the claim that why are consoles relevant nowadays?
Simple - because of reasons which don't apply to YOU. You cannot discount the reasons that ARE valid to others. Ergo, there is no such thing as a "better" - only better for the purpose relevant to the user.

So, to illustrate this, I have PCs for gaming as there are PC games I want to play.
Are the tech specs that you hold so dear remotely relevant to me? Not a bit.

I have consoles for gaming too. In fact, I have over 70 working platforms in total. Why do I have each of those? Because they serve very specific purposes that only THEY can do - and that is mostly playing the games specific to those platforms.

And they are every bit as valid a reason as yours. Look, I'm sorry you can't grasp this, but it does not invalidate it in any way.

Actually, I wasn't the one who asked "why are consoles relevant?" That was chiefputsa.

You're the one who brought up tech specs, by the way. Not me.

"Ergo, there is no such thing as a 'better' - only better for the purpose relevant to the user."

In other words, there is a "better." Just not a "better for all purposes."

If you go back, I did not deny that consoles have exclusive games that some people would like to play. I only mentioned that PCs have exclusive games as well, of which you are certainly aware.

Consoles are "better" at playing their exclusive games than PC is because they are not available for PC. Likewise, PC is "better" at playing its exclusives than the consoles are because consoles cannot play them.

Also, I'm just gonna leave this here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/guide

[Fork_Q2]

Here's why console exclusives can make business sense for both parties (unfortunately):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-business-realities-of-microsofts-tomb-raider-exclusive/

[chibilibi]

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Here's why console exclusives can make business sense for both parties (unfortunately):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-business-realities-of-microsofts-tomb-raider-exclusive/

I think we all understand WHY exclusives exist. We just don't like the concept of it. Especially with franchises like Tomb Raider that have, as far as I can recall, always been multiplatform.

[Fork_Q2]

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Here's why console exclusives can make business sense for both parties (unfortunately):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-business-realities-of-microsofts-tomb-raider-exclusive/

I think we all understand WHY exclusives exist. We just don't like the concept of it. Especially with franchises like Tomb Raider that have, as far as I can recall, always been multiplatform.

Whenever the subject comes up, there are always someone piping up to say that console exclusives hurt the game, in fact I think the second response to the OP was along those lines. Yeah, we all hate it because it's effectively holding games we want to play to hostage, but it isn't done out of pure spite or idiotic business sense, like many people seem to think.

[chibilibi]

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

I think we all understand WHY exclusives exist. We just don't like the concept of it. Especially with franchises like Tomb Raider that have, as far as I can recall, always been multiplatform.

Whenever the subject comes up, there are always someone piping up to say that console exclusives hurt the game, in fact I think the second response to the OP was along those lines. Yeah, we all hate it because it's effectively holding games we want to play to hostage, but it isn't done out of pure spite or idiotic business sense, like many people seem to think.

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, making it exclusive doesn't even make sense (though it is a timed exclusive according to the contract, let us speak as if it was a full exclusive). Square Enix complained that Tomb Raider 2013 didn't sell enough copies, so wouldn't making it exclusive to the platform that has fewer systems sold than PS4 or PC hurt their sales even further?

[Fork_Q2]

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Whenever the subject comes up, there are always someone piping up to say that console exclusives hurt the game, in fact I think the second response to the OP was along those lines. Yeah, we all hate it because it's effectively holding games we want to play to hostage, but it isn't done out of pure spite or idiotic business sense, like many people seem to think.

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, making it exclusive doesn't even make sense (though it is a timed exclusive according to the contract, let us speak as if it was a full exclusive). Square Enix complained that Tomb Raider 2013 didn't sell enough copies, so wouldn't making it exclusive to the platform that has fewer systems sold than PS4 or PC hurt their sales even further?

Article addresses that point: "Signing an exclusive deal with a console maker like Microsoft can remove a lot of that risk, giving the publisher a big cash infusion before they've even finished development or sold a single copy. Or the business benefits might come in more indirect forms. As EEDAR CPO Geoffrey Zatkin told Polygon, these exclusivity deals sometimes involve increased marketing, reduced royalty rates, or even the loaning of development talent to the game publisher."

TR did not meet targets, but with MS offering to absorb some of that marketing costs (likely the biggest expense) and loaning out developers, the bar for success would be much, much lower, even if they are expected to get less overall sales in the exclusivity window. From all accounts, Square-Enix want to keep producing AAA-budgeted TR titles, but probably won't want to take the same risks again. After the exclusivity period is over, they'll likely get all the sales they would have anyway from PC/PS4.

[Val]

Boycott peasant boxes! Join the glorious pc master race today!

[chibilibi]

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, making it exclusive doesn't even make sense (though it is a timed exclusive according to the contract, let us speak as if it was a full exclusive). Square Enix complained that Tomb Raider 2013 didn't sell enough copies, so wouldn't making it exclusive to the platform that has fewer systems sold than PS4 or PC hurt their sales even further?

Article addresses that point: "Signing an exclusive deal with a console maker like Microsoft can remove a lot of that risk, giving the publisher a big cash infusion before they've even finished development or sold a single copy. Or the business benefits might come in more indirect forms. As EEDAR CPO Geoffrey Zatkin told Polygon, these exclusivity deals sometimes involve increased marketing, reduced royalty rates, or even the loaning of development talent to the game publisher."

TR did not meet targets, but with MS offering to absorb some of that marketing costs (likely the biggest expense) and loaning out developers, the bar for success would be much, much lower, even if they are expected to get less overall sales in the exclusivity window. From all accounts, Square-Enix want to keep producing AAA-budgeted TR titles, but probably won't want to take the same risks again. After the exclusivity period is over, they'll likely get all the sales they would have anyway from PC/PS4.

I suppose that is true; exclusivity deals often result in a massive bag of money being given to the developer.

In reality, I'm actually more pissed that they said they weren't turning their backs on their fans on the PC and PS4, when making the sequel exclusive clearly is turning their backs.

[Fork_Q2]

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Article addresses that point: "Signing an exclusive deal with a console maker like Microsoft can remove a lot of that risk, giving the publisher a big cash infusion before they've even finished development or sold a single copy. Or the business benefits might come in more indirect forms. As EEDAR CPO Geoffrey Zatkin told Polygon, these exclusivity deals sometimes involve increased marketing, reduced royalty rates, or even the loaning of development talent to the game publisher."

TR did not meet targets, but with MS offering to absorb some of that marketing costs (likely the biggest expense) and loaning out developers, the bar for success would be much, much lower, even if they are expected to get less overall sales in the exclusivity window. From all accounts, Square-Enix want to keep producing AAA-budgeted TR titles, but probably won't want to take the same risks again. After the exclusivity period is over, they'll likely get all the sales they would have anyway from PC/PS4.

I suppose that is true; exclusivity deals often result in a massive bag of money being given to the developer.

In reality, I'm actually more pissed that they said they weren't turning their backs on their fans on the PC and PS4, when making the sequel exclusive clearly is turning their backs.

Yeah, they made it sound like we should be thankful the next Guardian of Light game will be ported to the PC!

I'm actually more more annoyed that it was MS and not SE that gave the straight answers regarding the conditions of the whole "exclusivity" thing.

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por FuG chibilibi:

Originalmente postado por Fork_Q2:

Whenever the subject comes up, there are always someone piping up to say that console exclusives hurt the game, in fact I think the second response to the OP was along those lines. Yeah, we all hate it because it's effectively holding games we want to play to hostage, but it isn't done out of pure spite or idiotic business sense, like many people seem to think.

In the case of Rise of the Tomb Raider, making it exclusive doesn't even make sense (though it is a timed exclusive according to the contract, let us speak as if it was a full exclusive). Square Enix complained that Tomb Raider 2013 didn't sell enough copies, so wouldn't making it exclusive to the platform that has fewer systems sold than PS4 or PC hurt their sales even further?

When did SquareEnix last show any signs of making sense?

[JolyJew СлаваУкраине]

again, im not against the game corporations for not porting games to other systems, im against them because they FORBID everyone to do so and the sue anyone who tries, anyone ever heard of 'Bleam!' ? they were folks who made special disks to allow PS1 games to be played on the dreamcast, what happened to them - after they released about 5 disks sony sued them and they were gone.

we need to condemn this disgusting buisness model, it should be ILLIGAL.