Why the industry should get rid of "exclusive" titles.

[hooby]

Let's do a little "What if" thought experiment.

What if the video market used exactly the same methods as the gaming market? What would that be like?

Well first of all HD-DVD and Blu-Ray would still both exist simultaneously. There possibly even would be a third format - Laserdisc HD maybe.

You'd only be able to buy Blu-Ray players produced by Sony, whilst all Pioneer and Philips players would be Laserdisc HD only, and only Toshiba would sell HD-DVD players.
Addons like sound systems, remote controls, etc. would all be incompatible inbetween the different brands.
And then there'd be some modular system which would allow you to combine product from many different manufactures at your own choice (pre-assembled packages existing too of course), which simultaneously would also be able to let you watch TV, record TV-shows to watch them later, and to even surf the web. But those systems would be decisively more expensive, and although they'd feature combo drives that could read both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray they wouldn't be able to play back HD-DVD movies nor Blu-Ray movies, since they need specially encoded videos not compatible with regular players. As an added obstacle not every combination of parts of different manufacturers would be able to play any movie released on combo-drive discs, since there could be internal incompatibilities within the system.

The players themselves would be much cheaper - but the movies themselves would cost more, as the player-producing companies, would collect a royalty for each movie using their disc-format. They'd make a financial loss on the players, but they'd make much profit on the sales of discs. That would be true for any type of disc, except for movies released for combo-drives, which would be a bit cheaper then.

In order to maximize their profits, the player producing companies would push hard to get exclusive deals with the big movie companies. So let's assume that movies produced by Sony Pictures and by Sony Pictures Classics would only be sold on Blu-Ray an nothing else - which makes sense. Let's randomly assume many other movie companies had similar exclusive contracts.
Maybe Universal Studios, Warner Brothers and/or Paramount would side exclusively with HD-DVD and only sell on that format.
Maybe Dreamworks and Walt Disney would exclusively release on Laserdisc-HD - the format that is a little bit behind the others in terms of visual fidelity and not able to do full 1080p. Laserdisc is considered a bit of a more children friendly platform because of that, and is therefore shunned by the more hardcore action-movie/horror-movie audiences.

The combo-drive system wouldn't feature much exclusive titles, since there was no single manufacturer behind the hardware, trying to get exclusive deals. So if some movie was exclusive for that system, it was only because the movie producer was to lazy to produce different versions for the other players.

The independently produced movies would be more or less evenly spread amongst all four systems. Earlier those would mostly have been produced on combo discs, since independent film makers just weren't big and important enough to strike a deal with the big player manufacturers - but during the last few years the player companies started special indie supporting programs, managing to gain a share of the market.

When buying a movie player you'd have to take into consideration which movies you'd really like to watch - since many movies would only be released for a specific player. Whatever player you buy could severely limit your movie choices.
Asking for advice on what to buy online would inevitably end in a flame war, as fanboys of each respective platform would start to argue about which kind of disc has the best movies, which features the best kind of compression algorithm and which has the best bonus features like special menu effects, and multimedia capabilities and other stuff. They'd always start to fight over that.

If you wanted to be able to see all the movies you like, you'd definitely had to buy all the four types of players.

Wouldn't that be great? Shouldn't the movie-player manufacturers start to try and get exclusive content for their player/platform?
Wouldn't that greatly benefit the movie market as a whole?

No it wouldn't. It would pretty much fuck the whole thing up, since it is very convenient to be able to buy whatever player one prefers, without having to worry that it won't play certain movies. Buy your favorite player from your favorite brand - and then you can buy and watch ANY movie for it.

So, would it be bad for the games market to have NO exclusive titles whatsoever? If the Xbox supported OpenGL and/or DirectX would become an open standard (not Microsoft exclusive) - creating games that run on any platform would actually be pretty easy. If the console manufacturers would not forbid their bought up developers to produce multiplatform games and would not pay third party developers massive lumps of money to have them produce exclusive titles, any game could be enjoyed on any platform.

If some standard was devised for plugs (or converters could be bought), and the software would allow it - any peripheral could be used with any console. Kinect on PS3 or Move on Xbox? Sure thing! No problem!

Then you could choose to buy whatever platform you prefer from whatever is your favorite brand - and it would play any game you like.

So what would we loose, if no game was exclusive? Nothing but the fanboy wars.

[Void(null)]

Its not going to happen often hooby so enjoy... but I agree with you 100%, You are absolutely right and that was a very eloquent and well reasoned argument.

My hat off to you.

[pts]

I agree. Having to buy a Wii just to play Zelda is pretty sad, when you really just want to play it on your Xbox.

On the other hand though, would the Wii be able to handle more high-end games? Well yeah, if the guys-that-makes-decisions want the developers to spend time making the game being able to look like crap in comparison and then market it as the same game. Minor differences are one thing, but it would only look remotely similar to the pretty 360- and PS3-versions. OR they could make it exclusively for the PS3 and 360.

Nintendo on the other hand, should make their titles look better on Microsoft's or Sony's consoles, for the sake of non-exclusiveness? Nah, then the Wii wouldn't sell at all, exclusive it is.
This scenario would work a whole lot better if the gaps in hardware were not so huge (Wii U; hint hint).

But what about titles exclusive to 360 or PS3? The differences between the two consoles are not that huge (I think...). What would happen if all PS3 games worked on a 360 and vice versa?
What to consider if having to choose between them:
* Cost of console
* Cost of games (not always different)
* Hardware capabilities (for (possibly) prettier graphics)
* Social parts of the platform
* Cost of peripherals
* Controller look, feel and usability
* etc?

The first three will always apply. Regarding the fourth, it's hard to say what's wrong and right, but I consider limits a bad thing here, while potential for alternatives to the default is a good thing. The remainder of the list are things that apply as it is now, but not necessarily if it worked as hooby suggested earlier:

If some standard was devised for plugs (or converters could be bought), and the software would allow it - any peripheral could be used with any console.


Having killed some braincells thinking about this, one could really question the need for multiple consoles at all. The three champion-boxes are all plugged into a monitor, they all have controllers attached, they all play games. Why can this not be done on some universal solution? It most certainly could, just like DVD and BD are standards of another area.

The biggest questions I think of are:
* Who will develop and manage this console?
* What is a, as we swedes say, lagom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom) hardware setup and retail cost for this solution?

Difficult? Yes.
Impossible? I think not.

[shawnmck]

I disagree.
Companies have exclusives to entice consumers to buy their product.
Imagine if you launched a console of your own, and wanted to persuade people to buy it. You would use your money to develop special "exclusives" that hopefully people would want to play, and in order to do so they would have to buy your product.

This does more than just provide incentives for the consumer to choose one product (console) over the other, but also encourages incentives for each of the companies to try and improve & innovate.
Without any reason to innovate then games start to become more & more generic.

I can guarantee you that without this type of competition you wouldn't have games like Zelda, or anything else like it. There would be no Uncharted, Demon Souls, Gears of War, & etc, & etc.

The competition that exists between companies is what drives innovation. Without it there would be a lot less innovation, and gamers would ultimately suffer.

The reason why I feel the movie argument doesn't really work here is because the makers of these movie players don't make movies (with the exception of Sony). Toshiba or Phillips don't produce movies the way Microsoft, Nintendo, & Sony produce their own games.

Since we are talking "what if", Lets just pretend that Toshiba was going to get into the video game console arena, and make their own console. And lets say they partner up with Sony so that their console plays anything that the PS3 does. What would happen is that Toshiba wouldn't invest any money to publish or produce any exclusive games and would leave it to Sony or the other companies to do that. If every company had this mentality then we would end up with a lot of cookie-cutter games.

There is a reason why manufacturers like Toshiba or Phillips, or whatever, don't produce movies....because they don't have to. You have companies like FOX, Universal, Paramount, Disney, et-al, that make the movies.
Sure, there are third party companies like EA, Activision, Ubi-Soft, etc, that make games, and they can make some really good games....but just think of all the great exculsive titles that would never have been made from Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc.
Just look at SNK....When they had the Neo Geo game system, they made a lot of games. SInce the Neo Geo went belly up, they haven't really made anything.
Or how about Sega...How many great games have they made now that they don't make exclusives anymore?

Another thing to consider is that without these companies making exclusive games in order to convince us to part with our hard earned money, their respective consoles wouldn't push any boundaries either.
When the PS2 kicked the butt of the X-Box, Sony did not expect Microsoft to implement a new console. The original specs for the PS3 were weak compared to what they are today. When MS released their specs for the XB 360, it forced Sony to reevaluate the PS3's specs and beef them up considerably.
Now that Sony & Microsoft are trying to get into motion controls Nintendo is trying to try something new with the Wii-U. This type of innovation just would not happen if there were no attempt to stand out and push the boundaries. Having exclusives is just part of the equation.

[SHODANFreeman]

The quality of an average Hollywood film is pretty god damned terrible, so if exclusive players meant an increase in the average film quality, I'd be all for it.

(Also, a movie makes a huge chunk of its money in theaters, rather than home video, so the analogy falls apart even harder when you consider that)

[hooby]

This does more than just provide incentives for the consumer to choose one product (console) over the other, but also encourages incentives for each of the companies to try and improve & innovate.
Without any reason to innovate then games start to become more & more generic.

I can guarantee you that without this type of competition you wouldn't have games like Zelda, or anything else like it. There would be no Uncharted, Demon Souls, Gears of War, & etc, & etc.

The competition that exists between companies is what drives innovation. Without it there would be a lot less innovation, and gamers would ultimately suffer.

I agree that competition drives innovation. And that getting rid of competition could be bad for innovation.

But actually exclusive titles are all about avoiding competition.

A God of War clone on the Xbox is bound to be a success, since it does not have to compete with God of War on that platform. Gamers who own a Xbox but no PS3 have no other choice but to take the clone.

A Halo clone on the PS3 is bound to be a success, since it does not have to compete with Halo itself. Exactly the same thing.

If I do own a PS3 and want motion controls, I buy move. It's my only choice. Kinect is no competition here.
If I own a Xbox I buy Kinect, since I can't have Move.

Only if both were available on both systems, there would be a real competiton, and the better product would win.

Now it is possible, that one console has more gamers wanting some sort of motion controls - buying the only one available to them - sells more of it's motion controllers, regardless of which motion controller these people would choose if they actually could choose.

Anything that reduces buyer choice - if you have product A then you get game/addon A, no other choice (the very definition of exclusivity) - reduces competition.

Don't you think so?

[hooby]

Having killed some braincells thinking about this, one could really question the need for multiple consoles at all. The three champion-boxes are all plugged into a monitor, they all have controllers attached, they all play games. Why can this not be done on some universal solution? It most certainly could, just like DVD and BD are standards of another area.

The biggest questions I think of are:
* Who will develop and manage this console?


This already does exist. One "console" that is open for anyone to produce, and actually there is a ton of different manufacturers, all producing the same thing - so hardware competition does stay in full effect.
But all those manufacturers keep the same open standards - so that all those different machines do stay compatible. And they not only play games, they do a lot of other stuff as well.

The common name is "PC". The problem is, they are more expensive, since they are not sold below their production cost, since the manufacturers do not gain royalties from game sales to make up for the loss.

[pts]

This already does exist. One "console" that is open for anyone to produce
...
The common name is "PC". The problem is, they are more expensive, since they are not sold below their production cost, since the manufacturers do not gain royalties from game sales to make up for the loss.

True enough! Still no luck with those exclusives though, without an emulator (and a high-end rig!) at least. It's a pity so many games are non-PC, when it does everything those consoles does and so much more.

In the end it's about marketing your console. And hell, it works painfully well. I don't own a 360, but if the next Metroid game is 360 exclusive (for some weird reason), I'd most likely buy it, together with the console. The only reason I'm buying Nintendo hardware is for just a few Nintendo games. Spending loads of money on a console+peripherals to play two games doesn't feel too good.

On a sidenote, the highest resolution output of the Wii even requires you to buy a "special" cable, talk about milking money off the poor users!