Exclusivity has been a part of the gaming industry for as long as many of us can remember. To this day, Nintendo's core IPs such as Mario and Pokemon have never seen the light of day on a non-Nintendo game console, with the latter only recent making cameo appearances on mobile with Pokemon Go and the upcoming Pokemon Masters.
Sony and Microsoft have also gone down the same route with the likes of Gran Turismo and Forza respectively amongst other titles such as Gears of War, Halo, Spiderman and Uncharted and for years, exclusive games have fuelled console rivalries for almost three decades.
And whilst these loyalties and somewhat tribalistic factions have shaped the gaming landscape into what it is today, is that necessarily a positive or negative for the consumer? Where does exclusivity leave you as the end-user? I spoke to a variety of gamers and industry insiders about it and got their views on the matter.
Stephanie from NNESAGA offered her thoughts on the matter from both sides:
"[They can be] a good thing, because you [can] trust that you are getting your money's worth. But it can also be bad because it restricts customers and forces them to go out of pocket to be included."
"There are 2 extremes and there's no [out and out] right or wrong answer."
I then spoke to Asim Tanvir from CI Games about his views as an industry insider:
Do you think it's a good or bad thing, would you buy a whole console for an exclusive?
"Personally, as long as the quality of the game is good/great/excellent, doesn’t matter if it’s exclusive or not. No matter the console, I’d buy and play. From the consumer point of view, would be great if everyone got to play great games, but the video games industry is a business at the end of the day."
What are your thoughts on a timed exclusive model vs complete out and out exclusives?
"If a game is going to be exclusive, might as well go the full way! No, in all seriousness, timed exclusive is probably better overall for the consumer as at least they get to play the game eventually."
Thoughts on Epic taking that route to compete with Steam?
"As I said before, the video games industry is a business at the end of the day. The stuff we enjoy playing takes a lot of money to make! Also, in most cases, competition is good. You might not see the benefits immediately as a consumer, but ultimately it will take shape. Personally, I’m not on either side. Just want a happy balance between best for the consumer and the developers/publishers that make the games."
My views on the matter are erring towards it being a positive.
More often than not, an exclusive means that a studio will have the financial backing of a huge company, the likes of Sony, or Nintendo to go out and produce the best game they possibly can, specifically for their hardware, and more often than not, they're exceptional games.
The Epic Games route however, seems to be a bit different. They're buying into games that are already or at least partly built, and buying the exclusive rights to the game on PC to increase their market share to compete with the likes of Steam.
Now, considering PC gamers are very much used to being able to have the utmost freedom with their games, this recent tactic has come as something of a culture shock to the community and has been met with some hostility.
Whilst both approaches are essentially business moves designed to strong arm a section of the market into parting with their cash, Epic's model seems to have received far more backlash. Personally, as a PC gamer, I really don't mind it.
The inconvenience of installing an extra launcher is nowhere near the financial issue when it comes to buying a new console, and somehow people are more comfortable with the latter.
What it essentially comes down to is voting with your wallet. Exclusives are a perfect way of letting a console (or launcher) developer know exactly what you want, where the market is heading and what you're willing to do for the experience you want.
Now, am I going to buy an additional console for one or two exclusive titles? Probably not, however, the Nintendo Switch is far more likely to be an additional purchase than an Xbox, due to both quantity and quality, whilst also not really being positioned as a direct competitor to any of the other major consoles.
With Stadia around the corner, will this change the conversation on exclusives? Not by much I imagine. Stadia seems to have acquired a couple of IPs and has a pretty solid launch catalogue, but its very business model isn't geared to forcing a hardware or software purchase outright, so unless that changes, I can't imagine there'll be much of an interference.
For me, honestly, I'm okay with exclusivity, providing that it gives gamers a better experience.
What are your thoughts?
Hey you made it to the end of the article! If you like what we're doing here at Gamer Wager, why not join our waiting list on the Home Page and be among the first users when we launch...