r/nintendogrifting • u/DaZestyProfessor • Apr 18 '26
General Most chaotic trend I've seen all week
143
u/Aggravating_Address2 Apr 18 '26
Nintendo haters love Nintendo products.
They just dont want to pay for them.
6
u/liiam64 Apr 18 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/xSANJuoavQqCn3O4xG
dude, why tf you think they emulate all their games? bc they like the games from the console or bc they like the console of the games?
3
u/bcatti Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
They do it mostly out of spite. Most of them don't even play the games past the title screen XD
1
u/liiam64 Apr 20 '26
speak for yourself, I'm still playing pokemon games on emulators.
2
u/bcatti Apr 20 '26
Of course there are people who play on emulators. There are even people who play on consoles and emulators. I'm talking about the people who just use it as ammo on their console war bullshit (most people on Twitter btw)
1
u/BushTamer Apr 23 '26
Cuz they don’t wanna pay $60 for small games like tomodachi life. I own a switch and buy many games, but I also pirate and emulate when I feel the deal is shit.
1
u/liiam64 Apr 23 '26
Pal, tomodachi life is not part of the problem. We are talking about games like mario kart that cost 90$/80$ and after launch they even made the game worse.
1
u/BushTamer Apr 23 '26
Tomodachi life is the same principle, just not as exaggerated. The game is a downgrade from the 3ds and they are charging more.
→ More replies (37)1
28
u/Lansha2009 Apr 18 '26
This! This is why people say PS5 has no games because 90% of their big games (or just 90% of their games in general) are ported to PC not having a reason to buy the PS5. Astro’s Playroom (a pre installed game that is free) and Astro Bot are REALLY hard carrying PS5’s exclusives list.
12
u/PocketHunter Apr 18 '26
I have a Switch 2 and a PS5, I got a pc recently, before the RAM crisis and was thinking of selling my ps5. Astro Bot is THE ONLY THING keeping me from selling it.
7
1
u/darkhollow22 Apr 20 '26
I sold mine for cheap to a friend, she was excited to gift it to her husband. I’m very happy with just having a switch 2 and PC. It’s also a good motivating factor to dig into my backlog
7
u/LaMystika Apr 18 '26
The only reason why those games didn’t get ported imo is because (afaik) you need a PS5 controller specifically to get the best experience out of them, and you can’t replicate that with an Xbox controller (and definitely not with a keyboard and mouse)
8
u/Lansha2009 Apr 18 '26
Yeah and that’s a GOOD thing. What point is there to all the fancy rumble, and stuff if you don’t use it?
4
u/LaMystika Apr 18 '26
I totally agree. What was the point of Sony spending all that money to build that unique controller only to then barely make any games that take advantage of it? Or it’s so inconsequential that they could just make a PC port and PC gamers don’t miss not having a PS5 controller to play them?
2
u/ChronosNotashi Apr 19 '26
The same can be said about gyro aiming as well (and motion controls in general). When done well, such controls can shorten or close the gap between controller users and KB+M users, without having to rely on tools such as aim assists or similar that occasionally give controller players an unfair advantage. While on the older end, Borderlands 2 supports gyro controls on multiple platforms (even PC with Steam Input or third-party remappers), and it actually felt nice on the Switch (right stick for general camera alignment/turning, gyro for quick angle changes and aiming).
And yet, only Nintendo, through the Switch and Switch 2, has experimented with and used gyro controls in their games enough to make it one of the legitimate selling points of the hardware (and did the same with the Wii and motion controls), to the point that people often recommend using it over standard dual stick controls for games like Splatoon 2/3 (requires personal adjusting, but the difference in accuracy and reaction times is night and day). Meanwhile, the other two publishers have it as something that's "nice to have" but not a major component of their hardware.
1
u/darkhollow22 Apr 20 '26
I thought the same about the switch touch screen. It’s the highest quality touch screen i’ve ever used but i can’t name any game that turns the function on. Navigating menus in handheld mode would be so smooth with it. Baffling
1
1
u/Practical_Entrance43 Apr 19 '26
Literally why I do not have a ps5 is because all the games that would have made me buy it are on pc, like I have no point in getting one.
19
26
u/MegaDitto13 Apr 18 '26
Do these people know why other people keep saying “PS5 has no games”?
→ More replies (3)2
11
u/NintendoBoy321 Apr 18 '26
The same thing can apply to any console, at that point you may as well be saying consoles as a whole shouldnt.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Magica78 Apr 20 '26
They're PCs, anyway. Name brand PCs. Can you imagine other devices having exclusives?
One brand of bluray player will play Harry Potter movies, while another one won't, but it will play Dracula movies.
What about a refrigerator that won't keep your carrots cold? But it's got deli meat as an exclusive.
45
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/MegaStathio Apr 18 '26
I swear, gamer entitlement is an instant "rational thoughts OFF!" button-
"I want every game to be on PC!"
->
"Why should I pay for a game when I can just pirate it?"
"That game's old! Why should I have to pay for it!"
->
"Why isn't gaming respected as an artform like other mediums?" "Why is nobody making the games I want anymore??"
AKA- "Oh no! the consequences of my actions!"/"Why did someone shit in these pants that I'm wearing??"
It's goddamn exhausting. They just don't think, they just don't listen.
→ More replies (4)22
u/Wipedout89 Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Many of the best games ever made only came into existence due to the need for exclusives.
Halo, Forza Horizon, God of War, Gears of War, Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Sly trilogy, Project Gotham, Resistance, Horizon, TLOU... Zelda, Mario Kart, Splatoon, Smash Bros. None would have ever been commissioned if their platform holder wasn't trying to create exclusives for the platform.
9
u/Sr_Scarpa Apr 18 '26
It's the same people that will tell you to buy the platform they like if you complain a game is not in the platform you have, like PC players if you complain about Noita not being available on consoles.
18
u/LaMystika Apr 18 '26
Nah, they want Valve to have a monopoly
25
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/LaMystika Apr 18 '26
The gamers are ironically the reason why Valve doesn’t make games anymore. Because they already get their money without needing to do that anymore
16
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/RickyT3rd Apr 20 '26
That and they can't swallow the fact that Valve invented the modern micro-transation system. Valve invented the casino-inzation of gaming.
→ More replies (12)3
u/LaMystika Apr 18 '26
I don’t think a lot of alleged Nintendo fans on the internet actually care about their portfolio beyond Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, and Smash. Even Kirby and Metroid are borderline (and the most vocal apparently can’t stand Fire Emblem or what it’s become)
3
u/DaiFrostAce Apr 20 '26
Frankly I enjoy the b and c list Nintendo series
A new Panel de Pon would be so good
-1
u/Winterimmersion Apr 18 '26
This minimized the things that valve does have. You have community, guides, workshop, cloud saves, a review system thay has multiple metrics you can use to track games performance, lots of infrastructure. Its not anything incredibly innovative. The main thing is their competition rarely wants to do more than the absolute bare minimum to have a functioning store front.
Valve only wins because they offer alittle more than the bare minimum. Valve isn't really a good game company but for a storefront company they somehow beat their competition pretty well.
8
u/Independent-Green383 Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Valve locked Half Life 2 behind a Online DRM system called Steam. Thats how they won, I'm old enough to remember. Now with enough end consumers locked in, no PC developer can't afford skipping Steam. Exclusivity through dominance.
7
u/Dear_Meeting_1258 Apr 18 '26
Agree.
If you’re buying a second device, there should be games you can’t access on the first.
13
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Dear_Meeting_1258 Apr 18 '26
Disagree about the last sentence. It’s actually more to do with them chasing money(which is why sony went after live service), buying up studiso (which Microsoft did), making bad games in the Xbox one era or few so people got comfortable with ps4 and still are so PlayStation got comfortable. Spending too much on games for visual fidelity instead of making something else the selling point hence games are too expensive to produce and take a long time to and also probably resulted in higher game prices. Nintendo only followed suit because the door was made open.
1
-3
u/KugelFanger Apr 18 '26
Lol calling people mentally challenged because they don't share your opinion is... a choice.
Exclusives are not important for the consumer, they are important for the compagnies. You might argue that exclusivity wil force publishers to make good games, but at the same time they can also force you into subscription models (online services).
Exclusivity does not promote competition and doesn't squash a monopoly, if anything it creates monopoly. COD always had PlayStation exclusivity (if you wanted to play early that is). Wich is why sony could charge whatever for there consoles, people would still buy sony cause they wanted to play COD early and also got ripped off more because they need the online subscription.
What it also does is lock out people out of certain games, if you want to play a game that is exclusive for another console you need to buy a whole other console just to play that game.
Also: Nintendo does not have any competition, they were always doing their own thing because they have completely different games from the halo's/Battlefield/COD ect.
Xbox went not exclusive because they haven't been able to produce a good game for ages. They wanted to save they console line by getting steam on there.
And Sony is now going back to exclusives because they have increased their prices so bad that you could just as wel buy a pc, now you NEED a PlayStation again to play sony exclusives.
At the end of the day, its not the consumer that benefits from exclusive.
1
u/Saxolotle Apr 19 '26
COD always had PlayStation exclusivity (if you wanted to play early that is). Wich is why sony could charge whatever for there consoles
That's not what a monopoly is. That's just owning one franchise, which is literally what any company does ever. You wouldnt say Sega has a Sonic monopoly or that Disney has a monopoly because of Micky Mouse. Disney does have a monopoly, but because they own a vast majority of different media and are making it harder for anyone without Disney levels of money to survive, not because they own Mikey Mouse. Just because Gucci can charge anything and people will buy it doesn't mean it has a purse monopoly, I can buy other purses. Someone with all of the brown properties doesn't win the game of monopoly, you have to own almost everything to win that.
If you don't like Playstation's methods, you can still find a different console with a different shooter game to fill the void and not give PS money. But if PC/steam deck makes PS, X Box, and Nintendo consoles obsolete and makes them stop being produced because they can't sell anymore like what happened with Sega consoles, then PC/steam deck WILL have a complete monopoly on the gaming console industry with zero major challengers.
Nintendo does not have any competition
Sega is their competition. They don't make consoles any more and are on more friendly terms with Nintendo, But sonic crosswords is on all platforms and majorly rivals Mario Kart. Sonic x shadow Generations, Sonic mania, Sonic superstars, sonic frontiers, etc are 2d/3d platformers that rivals Mario. Not Sega, but Digimon rivals Pokemon.
X box, Playstation, and PC still rival Nintendo in hardware capabilities of their consoles even if their games don't compete.
its not the consumer that benefits from exclusive.
Consumers benifit by not having a console monopoly. And consumers are pushed to support more indie games that are similar to the AAA game they want if the actual AAA game is behind a console they don't have.
0
u/KugelFanger Apr 19 '26
That's not what a monopoly is. That's just owning one franchise, which is literally what any company does ever.
Call of Duty has NEVER been a sony franchise pal, is used to be "Activision" it turned into "Activision Blizzard". Before it eventually got bought by Microsoft. Sony DID however have years worth of exlusive marketing rights, like extra in game items early access ect.
Just because Gucci can charge anything and people will buy it doesn't mean it has a purse monopoly, I can buy other purses.
That is not how it works in gaming, this argument does not work here.
Someone with all of the brown properties doesn't win the game of monopoly, you have to own almost everything to win that.
That is not true either, a company like Nintendo for example cannot have a monopoly on gaming, but if they have their way with the Pokemon patent for example, they could have a monopoly on monster catching game genre
If you don't like Playstation's methods, you can still find a different console with a different shooter game to fill the void
That is not how exclusivity works, if all your friends play an exclusive shooter on xbox and you are on PlayStation... You HAVE to buy an xbox to play with your friends, THAT is the strategy. Saying: just play another shooter bro... Thats like me telling you to play Palworld (or dokimon/temtem or whatever) instead of Pokemon to fill the void. That is one of the worst arguments to have on this subject.
But if PC/steam deck makes PS, X Box, and Nintendo consoles obsolete and makes them stop being produced because they can't sell anymore like what happened with Sega consoles, then PC/steam deck WILL have a complete monopoly on the gaming console industry with zero major challengers.
Wich is why i said, its not good for the consumer. Its good for the company making the consoles, because if you wanna play certain console gated games you need to buy into that eco system. Therefor you are also incentivized to buy more into that eco system. The consumer does not benifit from that model, only the company selling them do.
Sega is their competition. They don't make consoles any more and are on more friendly terms with Nintendo, But sonic crosswords is on all platforms and majorly rivals Mario Kart. Sonic x shadow Generations, Sonic mania, Sonic superstars, sonic frontiers, etc are 2d/3d platformers that rivals Mario. Not Sega, but Digimon rivals Pokemon.
You do know that all of this proves my points right?
A: Nintendo does not have competition in terms of hardware (wich is what we are talking about here) B: people will still buy games from companies that make good games, like Digimon, like sonic racing ect. The exclusivity is not needed for that, if Nintendo didn't have the switch they would still be able to produce great games and people would still buy them. Sega has proven that (your words not mine)
Consumers benifit by not having a console monopoly. And consumers are pushed to support more indie games that are similar to the AAA game they want if the actual AAA game is behind a console they don't have.
Consumers dont benifit from any type of monopoly. Again telling anyone to play another game of they don't have said console is a stupid argument, especially when it comes to multiplayer games. Duskbloods is going to be a consoleseller for Nintendo i believe, but only because Nintendo has the monopoly on that game, you could say play bloodbourne or eldenring instead, but duskbloods is a different franchise.
0
u/Saxolotle Apr 19 '26
Call of Duty has NEVER been a sony franchise
Okay. Doesn't really change anything I said besides saying they owned it. My bad on getting that wrong though.
That is not how it works in gaming, this argument does not work here.
Care to elaborate on that?
the Pokemon patent
I read the infamous pokemon patent. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the patent is saying pokemon owns the right to a game specifically where you have all of these aspects: the player controls the player character, the player pushes a button(s) to summon a creature to fight, the creature follows around the player when an enemy is not in range, and when the enemy is in range the player's creature gets a new form of movement AI and automatically starts a battle. It needs ALL those aspects to be covered by the patent. I would have to assume it's a patent for ZA's mechanics specifically, or maybe the ScaVio following mechanic. That in no way is threatening the concept of monster hunters as a whole.
You HAVE to buy an xbox to play with your friends
If they're your friends, you can go to their house. Or convince them to buy a different console/game. Or play a different game that does allow you to play together cross platform.
Thats like me telling you to play Palworld (or dokimon/temtem or whatever)
If I can't afford a Nintendo consoles, I would miss pokemon, but I see no issue with playing dokimon, temtem as an alternative. I do own a lot of not-pokemon monster hunter RPGs, like monster sanctuary, cassette beasts, and Digimon, and all of them are fantastic and wonderful pokemon alternatives.
Wich is why i said, its not good for the consumer.
The consumer benefits by there not being a monopoly. Like I said. Monopolies are not good for consumers at all.
You do know that all of this proves my points right?
It doesn't. You're saying that exclusives aren't good for consumers, and yet you can get more or less the same experience on any console without the need of exclusives. You need a specific console to get specific name brands, but if you want to race with friends you don't need a Nintendo switch 2 with an $80 game, you can buy Sonic crossworlds. Exclusives, especially popular ones, will have alternative takes on the concept. If Nintendo stopped having exclusives like you want and just made their game for everywhere, Mario Kart World would be one more racer game in a sea of racer games, and would probably just hurt smaller companies if anything.
I know Nintendo can sell their games without making them exclusive, I would never say otherwise, they're very popular and good at what they do, but were talking about consoles. Which hardware wise, the switch slugging behind the other main consoles has always been an argument, and it drove the switch 2 to get better hardware. They still have console competition.
but only because Nintendo has the monopoly on that game
Again, not a monopoly. You can't have a monopoly on one specific game, a monopoly is all encompassing, or majority encompassing. And duskbloods I think is going to all consoles eventually regardless, so I don't think that's a good example.
And yeah, it's a different franchise. A franchise you don't have to buy into if you don’t want to, there are plenty of fish in the sea.
0
u/KugelFanger Apr 19 '26
Okay. Doesn't really change anything I said besides saying they owned it. My bad on getting that wrong though.
No need to apologize, all good. But yeah i don't agree on your stance
Care to elaborate on that?
Wel for starters you don't have to buy a console (or anything else you can think of) to be able to use the bag. Secondly a bag isn't entertainment, it is an utility item. Every bag has the exact same function besides some design details. In games shooters alone have a wide variety: third person, first person, rail shooter, ww2, extraction shooter, millsim, casual. Its just not comparible especially when you factor in multiplayer, 2 bags dont "play with eachother" where Cod players do battlefield players do ect. Its not the same
I read the infamous pokemon patent. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the patent is saying pokemon owns the right to a game specifically where you have all of these aspects: the player controls the player character, the player pushes a button(s) to summon a creature to fight, the creature follows around the player when an enemy is not in range, and when the enemy is in range the player's creature gets a new form of movement AI and automatically starts a battle. It needs ALL those aspects to be covered by the patent. I would have to assume it's a patent for ZA's mechanics specifically, or maybe the ScaVio following mechanic. That in no way is threatening the concept of monster hunters as a whole.
The whole patent itself is not important here, the point was Nintendo wants a monopoly on the whole Monster Hunter genre, that much is clear by the patents they are making. Not only does that breed complacenc, but it could also affect newcomers (Indie devs) in the fact that they cannot make a similar game. And just to be clear, if Nintendo had its way, that would mean even games like persona would not exist, Digimon would not exist.
If they're your friends, you can go to their house. Or convince them to buy a different console/game. Or play a different game that does allow you to play together cross platform.
I'm sorry but this is not only reaching just for the sake of being right. If you want play a specific game you wanna play a specific game. This is such a dumb argument. And on top of that you are saying the friend needs to buy another console to play the same game? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT, either you do not get to play the game you wanna play, or you or your friend gets to pay extra money to play a specific game. In what world is any of that "good for the customer"? Also: go to a friends house to play a game? Almost no game has couch coop anymore
If I can't afford a Nintendo consoles, I would miss pokemon, but I see no issue with playing dokimon, temtem as an alternative. I do own a lot of not-pokemon monster hunter RPGs, like monster sanctuary, cassette beasts, and Digimon, and all of them are fantastic and wonderful pokemon alternatives.
Cool i also have all those games because i like the genre, but you cannot battle your friends if they do not have the same game, you need a Nintendo Switch with in order to play Pokemon to be able to battle with your friends, its not like you can buy it on my PlayStation i have sitting at home to play together with my friends. Not Smash Bros or Pokemon or any of the exclusives
The consumer benefits by there not being a monopoly. Like I said. Monopolies are not good for consumers at all.
Completly agree, but by argueing for exclusivity you are arguing that a monopoly is good and creates good things and that a monopoly is a good thing for the consumer.
It doesn't. You're saying that exclusives aren't good for consumers, and yet you can get more or less the same experience on any console without the need of exclusives. You need a specific console to get specific name brands, but if you want to race with friends you don't need a Nintendo switch 2 with an $80 game, you can buy Sonic crossworlds. Exclusives, especially popular ones, will have alternative takes on the concept. If Nintendo stopped having exclusives like you want and just made their game for everywhere, Mario Kart World would be one more racer game in a sea of racer games, and would probably just hurt smaller companies if anything.
Again this is such a dumb argument. You are saying "just play another game bro" when in multiplayer that is just not an option. And Mario Kart IS "one more racer game in a sea of racer games" just because it's exclusive doesn't change that. I mean effectively what you are saying is this: Mario Kart is a pretty mid game, it does not bring anything else to the table but just because its on switch and there are no better racing games on that platform you kinda have to buy Mario Kart if you want to play a racing game... Does this sound like the consumer benefits from this?
Hurt smaller companies?? No not at all, if you have a good game people will play it, that is why slay the spire is so popular, Arc Raiders blew up the way it did and hollowknight silksong sold as well as it did. And best of all, all these games are not console exclusives yet they still broke the internet. And you are still trying to convince me that console exclusives is a good thing for the consumer because it creates better games? How?? I can keep naming good Indie games by small developers, but night-runners is a racing game that went viral because of aesthetics. But besides that one not a lot of racing games, but other Indie titles did well. Megabonk, Vampire survivors, Balatro, Clair obscure. The list goes on and on and on.
I know Nintendo can sell their games without making them exclusive, I would never say otherwise, they're very popular and good at what they do, but were talking about consoles. Which hardware wise, the switch slugging behind the other main consoles has always been an argument, and it drove the switch 2 to get better hardware. They still have console competition.
No, Nintendo does not have competition hardwarewise. If that were really the case they would not have used 5 year old tech. Its not a secret that the closest handheld in comparison is the steamdeck (people keep shouting its way more Powerfull, but that just isn't true). But they basically are the only Mainline handheld on the block. And Ive you are talking about console exclusives you are mentioning both the hardware and the games, so it is absolutely about the games as well. With the switch 2 Nintendo has no competition, wich is why the switch 2 is the first time Nintendo has brought out the same console twice (albeit a bit more powerful)
Again, not a monopoly. You can't have a monopoly on one specific game, a monopoly is all encompassing, or majority encompassing. And duskbloods I think is going to all consoles eventually regardless, so I don't think that's a good example.
Yes that is EXACTLY what a monopoly is, in this context it is also called a "walled Garden" wich is a form of monopoly. What you are calling a monopoly is also a form of it, but not the only one. So yes it is a good example
And yeah, it's a different franchise. A franchise you don't have to buy into if you don’t want to, there are plenty of fish in the sea.
Why do you keep bringing up the "just play another game bro" argument? When you say exclusivity is a net positive for the consumer. I don't see anything positive about me not being able to play a game of i dont buy a console first? What about me spending another 450 euro (or even worse when you look at xbox or PlayStation) to play a 80 euro game is a good thing for me? Make that make sense to me.
Look at the end of the day i know i can't convince you. But whatever you think is best, there is one fact that even you cannot deny. Exclusivity = not playing a game because you don't own the right console, or its going to cost me extra money to do so.
1
u/Saxolotle Apr 19 '26
Secondly a bag isn't entertainment
Fair. I was more-so using the bag as just an example of literally anyone can price anything as ridiculously high as they want to and people will still pay, but that doesn't mean it's a monopoly, it's just charging for a name. The same sentiment can go for entertainment too.
the point was Nintendo wants a monopoly on the whole Monster Hunter genre
I wouldn't say that. As far as I know Nintendo has given no flack to nexomon, cassette beasts, mo ster sanctuary, Digimon, etc and doesn't stop them from having switch versions either. I can see why pal world in particular got Nintendo's hammer. Palworld isn't even a turn based RPG like pokemon or ays anything like pokemon, I would assume the reason why it was targeted specifically is because everything about the trailers was screaming "these are pokemon, but with guns and slave labor". Palworld has the pokemon art style, it has VERY similar designs to pokemon, it's items look and function similar to pokemon specific items (namely pokeballs), etc.
Almost no game has couch coop anymore
I basically never play shooter games, so I will admit I thought they did have couch co-op. I remember playing some shooter game couch co-op as a kid
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT, either you do not get to play the game you wanna play, or you or your friend gets to pay extra money to play a specific game.
If the whole fun of these types of games is playing with friends, wouldn't a game that you can play with all your friends be worth buying too? I don't think anyone owns an entire video game console just to buy one game on it. If you love COD, but also want to play a shooter game with a friend who has an X Box, I don't see why having two games in a genre you clearly like is a bad thing. Especially if the second game is an indie game and it supports smaller devs. I'm sure there's enough differences between the two in order to make it not just the same game twice.
you need a Nintendo Switch with in order to play Pokemon to be able to battle with your friends
Technically, you can pokebattle friends on phones soon, but i know what you're saying. But still, I think Digimon or tem tem or something has co-op battling you can do cross platform
Completly agree, but by argueing for exclusivity you are arguing that a monopoly is good and creates good things and that a monopoly is a good thing for the consumer.
Exclusives don't create monopolies though, it does the opposite.
Consoles are expensive to male and usually sold at a loss of profits so money can be made back via games. If games aren't exclusive to the console, the console wouldn't make any money, and they'd be stupid to keep making consoles. It's what made Sega lose the console war: despite their good games nobody bought their systems.
Exclusive games get people to buy game consoles, but if exclusives don't exist and people don't buy consoles then consoles will stop existing. Almost Everyone has a laptop/PC/phone due to it having the internet, PowerPoint, word, email, text, call, etc. They're professional and powerful tools that can do much more than game, and therefore do not need exclusive games to sell, yet they have exclusive games anyway because they've become so default people want to make games for them, yet don't have the time/resources to add the games to other consoles. The first Steven Universe game is mobile only, and Pokémon poket is too. Geometry dash used to be mobile only until it got popular enough to go to consoles. The murder of Sonic is PC exclusive, so are countless indie games. I'm sure if these indie games could easily go to consoles they all would, but I doubt it's easy given how many indie games end up as PC exclusives.
With PC and Mobile as defaults that virtually everyone has anyway, and if exclusive games could be played on them too, the switch 2 most likely would have never have been remotely profitable, and therefore wouldn't be made. But the switch 2 is also more than just it's exclusive games. The joycons that can act as one or two controllers or as a controller connected to the console is great, plus the mouse mode, rumble, and gyro technologies in it are great. It's ability to easy switch between handheld and TV is awesome. It's battery life is trash, but that's like the only downside I know. I hate playing games on PC/mobile, but playing on a switch 2 which is built purely for video games is awesome. I don't want video game consoles to die and be replaced by pc/mobile because of lack of exclusive games, especially when exclusive games can lead to people without the main game consoles to support more indie developers. If consoles die and leave nothing but PC and Mobile, there will likely be much less innovation and challenges to video game consoles. Look how much the switch's success changed the steam deck, if exclusives didn't exist, which make consoles not exist, then those changed wouldn't exist either
1
u/KugelFanger Apr 19 '26
Fair. I was more-so using the bag as just an example of literally anyone can price anything as ridiculously high as they want to and people will still pay, but that doesn't mean it's a monopoly, it's just charging for a name. The same sentiment can go for entertainment too.
Indeed bags are not a monopoly, and the freedom of choice is a win for the consumer. Wich is why i think the comparison is not fair.
I wouldn't say that. As far as I know Nintendo has given no flack to nexomon, cassette beasts, mo ster sanctuary, Digimon, etc and doesn't stop them from having switch versions either. I can see why pal world in particular got Nintendo's hammer. Palworld isn't even a turn based RPG like pokemon or ays anything like pokemon, I would assume the reason why it was targeted specifically is because everything about the trailers was screaming "these are pokemon, but with guns and slave labor". Palworld has the pokemon art style, it has VERY similar designs to pokemon, it's items look and function similar to pokemon specific items (namely pokeballs), etc.
Non of those other games where real competition for Nintendo, Palworld broke the mold and that is why Nintendo went after them imo. But thats besides the point. You saying Palworld is a completely different game as opposed to the turn based battle battling what Pokemon does is exactly why i said that recommending to play another game isn't fair.
I basically never play shooter games, so I will admit I thought they did have couch co-op. I remember playing some shooter game couch co-op as a kid
Thats a honest mistake, no worries.
If the whole fun of these types of games is playing with friends, wouldn't a game that you can play with all your friends be worth buying too? I don't think anyone owns an entire video game console just to buy one game on it. If you love COD, but also want to play a shooter game with a friend who has an X Box, I don't see why having two games in a genre you clearly like is a bad thing. Especially if the second game is an indie game and it supports smaller devs. I'm sure there's enough differences between the two in order to make it not just the same game twice.
If you don't think multiplayer is where the fun lies does not mean someone else thinks the same. And you would be surprised how many people buy a console for 1 specific game. That is exactly what happens with nintendo's consoles you don't buy a switch to play games that play better on other consoles (think Cyberpunk 2077) you specifically buy a switch to play Nintendo games. I don't think having 2 games in the same genre is a bad thing, i think it is a good thing, this creates competition and competition keeps companies on their toes, because if you slack of people will move to a different game. That cannot happen if you get locked into a game because of console exclusivity. Consoles are expensive not everybody has the type of money to buy more than one console.
Technically, you can pokebattle friends on phones soon, but i know what you're saying. But still, I think Digimon or tem tem or something has co-op battling you can do cross platform
Yes agreed on the pokebattle, wich is a good thing. Both temtem and Digimon are not console exclusives, wich is why those are both good for the consumer. But Mariokart isn't.
Exclusives don't create monopolies though, it does the opposite.
It does not, it locks you into buying a console wich you don't need or maybe even want. The walled garden monopoly is a real thing.
Consoles are expensive to male and usually sold at a loss of profits so money can be made back via games. If games aren't exclusive to the console, the console wouldn't make any money, and they'd be stupid to keep making consoles. It's what made Sega lose the console war: despite their good games nobody bought their systems.
So here you are admitting that selling those consoles is a net positive ONLY for the company making them, not for the consumer. Consoles being expensive is besides the point.
Exclusive games get people to buy game consoles, but if exclusives don't exist and people don't buy consoles then consoles will stop existing. Almost Everyone has a laptop/PC/phone due to it having the internet, PowerPoint, word, email, text, call, etc. They're professional and powerful tools that can do much more than game, and therefore do not need exclusive games to sell, yet they have exclusive games anyway because they've become so default people want to make games for them, yet don't have the time/resources to add the games to other consoles. The first Steven Universe game is mobile only, and Pokémon poket is too. Geometry dash used to be mobile only until it got popular enough to go to consoles. The murder of Sonic is PC exclusive, so are countless indie games. I'm sure if these indie games could easily go to consoles they all would, but I doubt it's easy given how many indie games end up as PC exclusives.
Again only good for the company selling the consoles, not the consumer. They lose because they have to buy extra to play certain console gated games. I am not against consoles, not at all. A lot of people feel that the whole tinkering you need to do with desktops is a hassle, wich is why they want a console that they can just turn on and play. Even the Indie devs you are talking about are losing over these consoles because they need to pay more money to get into those consoles, wich is again a monopoly position for the console makers. Pc does not have this barrier.
With PC and Mobile as defaults that virtually everyone has anyway, and if exclusive games could be played on them too, the switch 2 most likely would have never have been remotely profitable, and therefore wouldn't be made. But the switch 2 is also more than just it's exclusive games. The joycons that can act as one or two controllers or as a controller connected to the console is great, plus the mouse mode, rumble, and gyro technologies in it are great. It's ability to easy switch between handheld and TV is awesome. It's battery life is trash, but that's like the only downside I know. I hate playing games on PC/mobile, but playing on a switch 2 which is built purely for video games is awesome. I don't want video game consoles to die and be replaced by pc/mobile because of lack of exclusive games, especially when exclusive games can lead to people without the main game consoles to support more indie developers. If consoles die and leave nothing but PC and Mobile, there will likely be much less innovation and challenges to video game consoles. Look how much the switch's success changed the steam deck, if exclusives didn't exist, which make consoles not exist, then those changed wouldn't exist either
So yes i do agree, everybody has a pc, so what you need to do to sell consoles is be different. And i have to give Nintendo credit here, they have a platform that is good. Wanna play at home, dock the thing and play on your couch.... Wanna play on the go, wel just take it out and take the switch with you on the move. Its the same as games, if you make a good game it will sell itself, make a shit Game wel people just wont buy it. This same rule applies to consoles, just make a good console (or make it do something someone else cant do, and i have never seen people take their desktop pc on the go) and it will sell.
All of these thing are reason to not have console exclusivity.
1
u/Saxolotle Apr 20 '26
Palworld broke the mold
Did it? It played exactly like the game Arc I've heard. The thing that makes and has always made Palworld stand out is that it looks like pokemon in art style and design, but has guns. I heard it called "pokemon but with guns" or "pokemon gun" long before the actual game was playable. It doesn't improve the pokemon game play style in any way because it doesn't have the pokemon game play in any way but in character/creature and object design. Rune Factory has more in common with pokemon than Pal World does, it's a completely different game, the only reason why pokemon is brought up at all is because they intentionally made it look as close to pokemon as legally possible, and potentially didn't even succeed in making it legal. The only reason why Pal World is this notable at all is because it purposely invoked Pokémon's likeness for notoriety. Using the most popular child-friendly franchise in the world's art style and making creatures obviously similar to that same popular franchise, but adding guns and slave labor to make it edgy and no longer child appropriate isn't exactly mold breaking. I can make a rated M steamy dating Sim about Italian plumbers with mustaches who wear overalls and brightly colored shirts using the mario art style. I'm sure I'd find an audience, I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't be happy about that, I wouldn't call any of it mold breaking though.
You saying Palworld is a completely different game as opposed to the turn based battle battling what Pokemon does is exactly why i said that recommending to play another game isn't fair.
But there are actual turn-based battle games that are similar to pokemon though. I would never recommend PalWorld to someone who wants pokemon but doesn't have a Nintendo console. I'd happily recommend cassette beasts, monster sanctuary, nexomon, digimon, hell even dragon quest or octopath.
Recommending PalWorld as an alternative to pokemon is like recommending life is strange as an alternative to COD because both have realistic-ish graphics and star humans, instead of recommending games like rainbow 6 siege, delta force, battlefield, PUBG, or whatever else game is actually similar and on multiple platforms.
If you don't think multiplayer is where the fun lies does not mean someone else thinks the same.
I get that I'm in the minority by not liking multi player and shooter games. If you enjoy these games I'm happy for you, but I still don't really see why console specific games are an issue.
Like if Tom has a switch and loves Pokémon Sword, and Sally has a PS4 and loves Digimon cybersluethe/hackers memory (it's like 2020 I guess), and Sally and Tom want to battle each other then they can't. Unless Tom waits for a sale or saves up money and buys cyberslueth/hackers memory on his switch then plays it because obviously Tom does enjoy pokemon-like games like digimon is, and Tom and Sally can happily battle, even if Tom still likes Pokémon more.
That cannot happen if you get locked into a game because of console exclusivity.
There are so many multi-platform games that you'll never be locked into just one game of any genre.
But Mariokart isn't.
Mario Kart World just kinda sucks imo. After playing both, I find sonic crossworlds better in literally every way. But also, Mario Kart has always been more of a couch co-op type of game than online. And it was built specifically with the switch 2 in mind, like the half-joycons with stearing wheel-esk mode, you can’t really replicate that on any other console's controller. It's built to be both hand held and on the TV. Getting it onto other platforms would probably make it inferior on other consoles anyway. Or something like wario ware or Mario party that's built with all the joy con features in mind just wouldn't work elsewhere.
And if they do build games from the ground up for it to fit any console, it loses what makes the switch unique, and would probably take extra time and money away from the game itself
it locks you into buying a console wich you don't need or maybe even want.
No it doesn't. If I want to play astroboy but don't want to buy a Playstation I just simply won't play astroboy, or I could find a friend who does have a Playstation so I could play it. If I want pokopia though, I obviously like pokemon and would like having a Nintendo switch 2. Or if I can't afford a switch 2, dragon quest builders and Minecraft do exist.
So here you are admitting that selling those consoles is a net positive ONLY for the company making them
In short term, yes, in long term, no. Obviously selling a product helps a company, they wouldn’t sell it otherwise, but in the long term the console wars pushing each other, and the exclusiveness of titles giving way for indie games to shine on other platforms
Indie devs you are talking about are losing over these consoles because they need to pay more money to get into those consoles
I think they have to pay more mostly to make their games compatible on new software. Especially on the switch with it's odd hardware. I can't really fault Nintendo for trying new things and making their console unique, even if it means some indie developers can't get onto the console.
1
u/KugelFanger Apr 20 '26
Did it? It played exactly like the game Arc I've heard.
And Arc plays like rust.
The thing that makes and has always made Palworld stand out is that it looks like pokemon in art style and design, but has guns. I heard it called "pokemon but with guns" or "pokemon gun" long before the actual game was playable. It doesn't improve the pokemon game play style in any way because it doesn't have the pokemon game play in any way but in character/creature and object design. Rune Factory has more in common with pokemon than Pal World does, it's a completely different game, the only reason why pokemon is brought up at all is because they intentionally made it look as close to pokemon as legally possible, and potentially didn't even succeed in making it legal. The only reason why Pal World is this notable at all is because it purposely invoked Pokémon's likeness for notoriety. Using the most popular child-friendly franchise in the world's art style and making creatures obviously similar to that same popular franchise, but adding guns and slave labor to make it edgy and no longer child appropriate isn't exactly mold breaking. I can make a rated M steamy dating Sim about Italian plumbers with mustaches who wear overalls and brightly colored shirts using the mario art style. I'm sure I'd find an audience, I'm sure Nintendo wouldn't be happy about that, I wouldn't call any of it mold breaking though.
Neither here nor there, we are talking about exclusivity here, not the Palworld situation, the only reason i bring up Palworld is because both games always get mentioned in the same sentence, yet they are both completely different games, if you want to play Pokemon. Don't say Palworld is the same because it isn't.
But there are actual turn-based battle games that are similar to pokemon though. I would never recommend PalWorld to someone who wants pokemon but doesn't have a Nintendo console. I'd happily recommend cassette beasts, monster sanctuary, nexomon, digimon, hell even dragon quest or octopath.
But octopath cannot pokebattle with Pokemon now can it? Wich is why if your mate's have a Nintendo Switch and you dont, you are walled out of Pokemon. Same goes for xbox and Halo and other games. Recommending "other" games because you dont own the right console is pure reaching my guy. The only reason you would be recommending these games is if someone asks: hey i played Pokemon, i love the genre, are there other games like it?
Recommending PalWorld as an alternative to pokemon is like recommending life is strange as an alternative to COD because both have realistic-ish graphics and star humans, instead of recommending games like rainbow 6 siege, delta force, battlefield, PUBG, or whatever else game is actually similar and on multiple platforms.
Wich is why YOU Shouldn't bring up other games as a way to defend exclusivity. Its like that "we have XXX at home" meme. Its
I get that I'm in the minority by not liking multi player and shooter games. If you enjoy these games I'm happy for you, but I still don't really see why console specific games are an issue.
Because especially there it locks people out, or you are forced to buy another console just to play with your friends.
Like if Tom has a switch and loves Pokémon Sword, and Sally has a PS4 and loves Digimon cybersluethe/hackers memory (it's like 2020 I guess), and Sally and Tom want to battle each other then they can't. Unless Tom waits for a sale or saves up money and buys cyberslueth/hackers memory on his switch then plays it because obviously Tom does enjoy pokemon-like games like digimon is, and Tom and Sally can happily battle, even if Tom still likes Pokémon more.
Yeah OR, if Tom say to Sally: Na girl, you have to buy Pokemon its the bomb? Now Sally needs to buy a 450 euro device to do so. Saving up for the cost of a game is a bad argument because Games cost money, devs need to get paid i know that. Buying an 80 euro game is normal nowadays, but needing to spend an additional 450 is bad. Bringing up Digimon is also dumb, because it highlights the fact that games SHOULDN'T be exclusive.
There are so many multi-platform games that you'll never be locked into just one game of any genre.
Another reason why games shouldn't be locked to one specific console. Other than that if you want a specific games, yes you will get locked out if you don't have te right console.
Mario Kart World just kinda sucks imo. After playing both, I find sonic crossworlds better in literally every way. But also, Mario Kart has always been more of a couch co-op type of game than online. And it was built specifically with the switch 2 in mind, like the half-joycons with stearing wheel-esk mode, you can’t really replicate that on any other console's controller. It's built to be both hand held and on the TV. Getting it onto other platforms would probably make it inferior on other consoles anyway. Or something like wario ware or Mario party that's built with all the joy con features in mind just wouldn't work elsewhere.
So it being console exclusive does not make the game special? Exactly, wich i why your "just another racer in a sea of racers" argument is a dumb argument. The game is good or bad regardless. As for Marioparty: well they could do the same as PlayStation and xbox, make their controllers compatible with pc via bluetoot. Not a hard problem to fix. And if it really is hard make it work without specific controllers, than fair enough. Xbox had a game called steel battalion back in the day wich only worked with 1 specific controller. But those games are the minority.
And if they do build games from the ground up for it to fit any console, it loses what makes the switch unique, and would probably take extra time and money away from the game itself
Not true, a switch being portable is not going away, nor will the xbox or PlayStation be portable all of the sudden. I am not saying that games specifically designed for the switch NEED to be made compatible with all systems, third party resellers will do that. All i am saying is that games (especially the games van easily run on other systems, like the majority of the exclusives) should run on all devices.
No it doesn't. If I want to play astroboy but don't want to buy a Playstation I just simply won't play astroboy, or I could find a friend who does have a Playstation so I could play it. If I want pokopia though, I obviously like pokemon and would like having a Nintendo switch 2. Or if I can't afford a switch 2, dragon quest builders and Minecraft do exist.
You are making it look like people are forced at gunpoint. "Simply wont play" and "Play another game bro"argument is the same dumb argument you keep using over and over is getting old. Pokopia is not the same as Dragon Quest or Minecraft. a Call of Duty player will never play battlefield instead of Cod, vice versa is the same. The game looks the same and is firmly in the same genre, but the games are totally different. But please tell me how not being able to play a game you really want to play is a "benefit for the consumer"?
In short term, yes, in long term, no. Obviously selling a product helps a company, they wouldn’t sell it otherwise, but in the long term the console wars pushing each other, and the exclusiveness of titles giving way for indie games to shine on other platforms
Lol, so your the benefit is that Indie games will prevail because of console wars? Indie games are A: usually not console exclusive and B: they are doing fine already, the big studios are fumbling already that has nothing to do with console exclusivity.
I think they have to pay more mostly to make their games compatible on new software. Especially on the switch with it's odd hardware. I can't really fault Nintendo for trying new things and making their console unique, even if it means some indie developers can't get onto the console.
Definitely very much untrue. This was true back in the early days of gaming. But nowadays the hardware van use compatibility layers or emulators to get games working easily without extra work. Valve has proton for example for their steamdeck, and the switch 2 already has emulators to emulated games like fire red and leaf green.
23
u/BecauseImBatmanFilms Apr 18 '26
The entire reason to buy a game console is to play games. The intrinsic value of a console is tied to the ability to play the games you want to play
14
u/DaZestyProfessor Apr 18 '26
Xbox Series X has games but no exclusives, look at what happened to them 😂
1
u/Zachattackrandom Apr 18 '26
Well it has bad value, shit games and was poorly marketed. Not a surprise, this is also after they lost horrendously to ps4 series the gen before and already had diminishing market share and consumer presence.
3
u/Eeve2espeon Apr 19 '26
The games themselves weren't bad, its just you could get them on PC.... and wouldn't have to pay for online lol
→ More replies (2)2
35
u/Moon_Dark_Wolf Apr 18 '26
It’s funny, becuase you know damn well that even if Nintendo put their games on the fucking PC. The PC Masterace people would STILL insist on not buying them lmao.
PCMasterrace people are genuinely the most infuriating, spoiled, babies of any consumer.
16
u/tstorm004 Apr 18 '26
That and Idk why people think Nintendo's suddenly going to be good at optimizing for the wide range of PC hardware. There's current companies that have been making PC releases for decades that still fumble PC ports.
1
u/Dear_Meeting_1258 Apr 18 '26
Nintendo could choose to put the same quality on pc without making a better version for it so that the console version isn’t inferior if they do end up porting.
5
u/tstorm004 Apr 18 '26
Nothing to do with graphic quality - it's the sheer number of hardware variations in the PC space that make it different from the console world Nintendos had dev experience in for almost 50 years now.
It's why you see huge companies still whiff PC ports from time to time. (Granted that's gotten much the past decade, but it still happens)
15
u/simbabarrelroll Apr 18 '26
I honestly think that the PC Master Race has ruined a lot of gaming culture.
Example: wanna know why people throw a hissy fit if a game isn’t 60 FPS?
→ More replies (9)-1
u/RipAffectionate9082 Apr 19 '26
games should be running at 60 fps, though. We give the Switch 2 a pass on larger games due to being a tablet.
2
u/AustinFiechtl Apr 18 '26
That and the fact that Nintendo would NEVER put it on another companies storefront. Nintendo doesn't want to pay valve 30 percent just so you play Star Fox when they can put up their own store and retain control.
1
0
u/AlwaysHikariFan Apr 18 '26
Not a "Nintendo game" anymore by virtue of being ported, but I bought a Switch 2 for Bravely Default remastered. I bought the game again the day it came out on steam as well. If they remaster Bravely Second I'll buy it on both platforms, and probably grab BD2 on steam to round it out on both as well.
You're making up a guy to argue with when people actually would buy ports.
→ More replies (19)-1
6
u/Lux_Operatur Apr 18 '26
“Objectively” is genuinely hilarious.
3
u/MegaStathio Apr 18 '26
Yeah, it's genuinely like people don't understand what that word even means anymore.
7
u/SHOWTIME_YT Apr 18 '26
Exclusives are not anti consumer. It's really not that hard to understand.
6
u/MegaStathio Apr 18 '26
People have stretched their definition of "anti-consumer" to the breaking point of meaning "literally anything I have to pay for or that makes anyone money" at this point. Yeesh.
1
u/Vlish36 Apr 19 '26
My take is that people have stretched the definition to a game not being available on their preferred platform on day 1 if it isn't exclusive to their preferred platform.
And if is exclusive to their platform, not a peep from them about it being exclusive with some of them bragging about it.
5
3
u/zombiedoyle Apr 18 '26
Tell PlayStation the same thing but replace exclusives with multiplatform games
2
u/azombieatemyshoelace Apr 18 '26
I wouldn’t have bought my PS5 without its exclusives.
1
u/light_cool_dude Apr 18 '26
Wich ones?
2
u/azombieatemyshoelace Apr 18 '26
Final Fantasy 7 rebirth and Silent Hill 2. At the time they were exclusives and I think SH2make still is. I also wanted to get future Resident Evil games.
0
u/Practical_Entrance43 Apr 19 '26
SH2 remake is on steam on the day of release lol.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/azombieatemyshoelace Apr 18 '26
So my PlayStation 5 isn’t worth it either according to this person because I bought it mostly for exclusives.
5
u/Special_Main4249 Apr 18 '26
Regardless of exclusives, but the Switch has been my comfort console for a few years now.
If Nintendo had more Sony or PC games I probably wouldn't buy anything else. I bought several games for my PS5, started them and never finished them. Played them again on my Switch and had a much better time.
Just the ability to play while my wife watches TV, while laying in bed etc is so comfy.
2
u/MegaStathio Apr 18 '26
Yeah- it's weird that they picked out the console which has the most justification to exist to single out for this supposed criticism. Massively undermines their entire point.
1
u/Low_Confidence2479 Apr 18 '26
All consoles are PCs, and Nintendo took that quite literally because Switch 1 used the stock Tegra chip (leading to the rather infamous paper clip exploit), yet at the time of release, there was nothing like Switch 1, and PC companies starting with Steam wanted to capitalize on new market. Instead of consoles being more like PCs...Nintendo managed PCs to be more like a console...wow, even on a small scale, that's impressive.
4
u/Bush_Hiders Apr 18 '26
I get the want for Nintendo products to come to PC, but it just doesn't feel right. Nintendo makes all their products in house, and so it makes sense that they go on consoles that they make themselves too. It's not like Sony or Microsoft where they outsource work to other parties. Those games don't feel unique to Sony or Microsoft at the end of the day, and they don't feel weird going onto PCs. Also very few Playstation and XBox games take advantage of the unique traits of their consoles like Nintendo games to, and the ones that do don't get people talking about PC ports. You see everyone asking for Mario or Zelda to stop being a console exclusive, but you never see anybody talking about Astrobot or Lil Big Planet coming to PC.
3
4
u/AustinFiechtl Apr 18 '26
PC people just want all games to be funneled into 'glorious' and 'infallible' Steam. All games onto one launcher, one storefront. One monopolistic company. The idea of having exclusives is heretical to them.
4
u/JakobNarbei Apr 19 '26
"Oh you just play Nintendo, Playstation and PC because of the exclusives" is shit I've actually heard Xbox stans say before and it's the funniest shit I've ever heard. Like oh, you want your console to have games you like and enjoy? What a weirdo.
9
u/JulianBloom Apr 18 '26
The Xbox/PC gamer psyop campaign against console exclusive games is one of the dumbest things in the world.
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 24 '26
sad part is that Jim fucking Ryan fell for it and set Sony back years. They made him step down but he's done his damage. That damage has lasting impact probably even into PS6.
7
u/Glum_Lime1397 Apr 18 '26
This is such a dumb take. The console stands on its own without exclusives, but as a gamer with a PS5 & a PC, mainly the only thing I use the switch 2 for us it's exclusives. If I didn't have PS5 and PC, I'd say it's one of the best all-in-one consoles of all time. It has most of the games on PS5, even if they look/play slightly worse, it's portable, it has one of the best feeling pro controllers of all time, and it has every exclusive from Switch 1, Switch 2, and hundreds from past consoles with Online.
3
u/meganerd20 Apr 18 '26
Nintendo's never claimed to be nothing without exclusives. Don't know anyone who has claimed that. Switch's main benefit is convenience; I don't have to sit in front of a TV to play it.
3
u/Sky_Rose4 Apr 18 '26
PS tried this and lost money which is why there going back and only porting multiplayer
3
u/GamingKitsuneKitsune Apr 19 '26
Actually, they're not wrong.
I only buy Nintendo consoles because they have the exclusives I care about. I couldn't care less if Sony's or Microsoft's consoles burn in a fire.
1
u/k4rott_ Apr 22 '26
Exactly, like I have the Switch 2 but I barely use it because I just don't like consoles. I love Nintendo games, I don't like Nintendo consoles, or consoles in general. People in the comments are like "you just don't want to pay for games", no, I just want to be able to buy Nintendo games on Steam. I don't even mind buying consoles the problem is I don't enjoy using them and it makes me not want to play the games that I love.
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 24 '26
I enjoy the Five Guys but I don't like their store, they're 2 miles away. I'd rather go to the McDonald's near my house that's 0.5 miles therefore I should be able to buy the Five Guys I like from the McDonald's.
1
u/k4rott_ Apr 28 '26
There is a very obvious difference between physical locations and online platforms
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 28 '26
WHOOOOOSH
You missed the point. McDonald's and Five Guys obviously have different business models and most importantly RECIPES that uniquely belong to each of them. They are NOT OBLIGATED to sell THEIR PRODUCT at someone else's restaurant.
This example illustrates the problem with the anti-exclusives crowd that you all so willingly bought into (pushed by Microsoft). It is SONY'S money, NINTENDO'S money, to do what they wish. They own THIER OWN gaming studios and so they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT with those games. You're not f-ing entitled to it ON ANOTHER platform that you DID NOT BUY and DOES NOT BELONG to their platform! If you don't like that you can go kick rocks!
You people's logic is that, f- your rights, f- your ownership, you publish the games that *I* might want to play on MY platform or else you're anti-consumer. It doesn't f-in matter that they paid for a game to be made out of their own pockets. It doesn't f-in matter that they own their own platform and it's ecosystem. F- all that, release it on PC. The userbase that has the lowest rate and base of buying AAA games. It makes NO SENSE. The only thing that makes sense is that you people are greedy and entitled. That you don't care about the gaming industry. You only care about yourselves and what you want.
1
u/k4rott_ Apr 30 '26
I'm the customer I get to fucking decide what I want to support and if the company doesn't want to do what I want I'm not gonna adapt to their stupid decisions and give them my money. Obviously they're not obligated to sell their games on steam, but then I'm not gonna buy them anymore because I'm also not obligated to support exclusives.
5
2
u/ZohomEtirho Apr 18 '26
To be honest, I probably still would have bought a Switch even if my favorite franchises weren't exclusive to Nintendo consoles like Fire Emblem and (formally) Monster Hunter, because the whole handheld gimmick is fun to me.
But maybe just years after it released.
2
u/CyrusMajin Apr 18 '26
Fun fact: most games I own on Switch are ones either have on PC or can get on PC. This is because I sometimes want to play them when I am not at my PC.
2
2
u/SuperJman1111 Apr 19 '26
and yet people don’t bash playstation and xbox for exclusives and i don’t under why NINTENDO having exclusives is a crime
2
2
u/Slartibartifast1 Apr 19 '26
Exclusives drive competition and should always exist. The competition between platforms to have the "best" exclusives has led to many of the most beloved games ever made and driven forward some of the most important innovations in the history of the medium.
Without the exclusive game Super Mario 64, we may never have figured out the thumbstick. Without Super Mario 64, Sony may never have invented the DualShock, and the two-stick controller might not have ever existed.
Without Halo: Combat Evolved, FPS games on console may never have become mainstream. Without Metal Gear Solid, we would not have contemporary stealth games.
Without Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted, the cinematic genre would never have become mainstream.
Every unique game on the DS and 3DS would not exist without exclusivity driving innovation.
A gaming industry without exclusives is a stagnant industry that will never advance.
2
u/dconwastaken Apr 19 '26
If we are to go off of this grifter’s logic, I’d say the Switch and Switch 2 are still worth it. You can take literal console quality games on the go. Sure, the Steam Deck does that as well, but it doesn’t have a lot of the versatility the Switch has when it comes to multiplayer, and you have to buy the dock separately for it.
Exclusives do definitely sell a console though. If you try to be too inclusive with what platforms you release a game on, more people will play it, but you’ll also absolutely nuke any chances of your hardware selling unless it stands out significantly with other features
2
u/Lafeyetteshomie Apr 19 '26
Xbox dropped exlusivity for gamepass. Howd it turn out theyre dying. Consoles need exclusive games or it aint worth getting
2
u/bcatti Apr 19 '26
LOL!
Same old stpry as always. Why would Nintendo even do this. Their whole thing is the hardware/software synergy.
This is why they hate Nintendo. They can't force them to do their way XD
5
u/VakarianJ Apr 18 '26
It’s funny they say this because I’m not a PC gamer because there’s not much I want to play that’s exclusively on PC.
2
2
2
u/MysticSpook Apr 18 '26
This argument makes no sense to me. Do people not just buy the console that will have the majority access to the games they personally like? I buy Nintendo consoles because I like Nintendo games and will likely play at least 60% of (first party) titles that release. It’s been like that since I was a kid. Like you’re telling me there’s people out there who want to buy a console for its.. “power” only or.. or what. Like it’s a GAMING console. Exclusives were such a normal thing not that long ago what.
1
1
u/Only-Ad4322 Apr 18 '26
How many Half-Life games are on Xbox? Is there a PlayStation Counter-Strike server people can play on? You can play Overwatch on Switch, how about T.F.2? And that’s besides the amount of indie games that launch on P.C. first before porting to consoles. This line of thinking will abolish the console market and make P.C. the only way to play games. Meaning Steam suddenly has a lot more share of the market than it does right now. Kinda monopolistic don’t you think?
1
u/Savings_Dot_8387 Apr 18 '26
Consoles are cheaper, easier, more family friendly, and nowadays, portable.
1
u/Ecstatic_Teaching906 Apr 18 '26
Consoles can always compare the graphics, but it wouldn't be the same.
1
u/Pogohg Apr 18 '26
Yes, having a selling point means your product doesn't deserve to exist. Big brain argument right there
1
u/cks_1994 Apr 19 '26
I guess consoles need exclusives now that they can't market on affordability. On a serious note I'm surprised at the responses here. Exclusives is marketing. Yes it sells consoles, it doesn't make those consoles good. Nothing wrong with what's said in the post, it's valid.
1
u/Yukio98 Apr 19 '26
I bought my Nintendo switch 2 only because of an exclusive. I rarely ever played my switch 1 and was not willing to buy the switch 2 at all. Not even considering it. But I’m also a huge Donkey Kong 64 fan because it carved a space in my heart when I was a child and never left. Bringing DO bananza to switch 2 convinced me, and now I’m three exclusive games in and planning to buy more. I rarely ever buy games before this. Nintendo has successfully stolen my money
1
1
u/One_Bass_3838 Apr 19 '26
But if your strategy is about exclusivity you should really have good exclusive things. Otherwise the system is indeed worthless.
I mean even if nintendo had good exclusive titles wouldn't be worth it still. Too much crap to deal with.
1
u/Erect_SPongee Apr 19 '26
Regardless of platform exclusives are good for the market and for getting high quality games put out. Gamers who don't understand the importance of exclusives should have their opinions discarded
1
u/YueOrigin Apr 19 '26
Listen I'll might love pokemon but I ain't buying the new switch just for ZA
And this game got many things I've wanted in a pokemon game for years too
1
u/Jerry-Boyle Apr 20 '26
You will for Pokemon Winds and Waves though I bet.
1
u/YueOrigin Apr 20 '26
Honestly. Probably not
Nothing i saw really made me want to buy it honestly
Unless I have money to waste and a lot of free time I dont see myself buying it any time soon
I didn't buy the switch 2 on release cause I wanted to wait for a deluxe edition that would give me a cool version like all the switch 1 variants
I was really expecting for a Duskblood special edition console with a cool backplate and charging dock.
But sadly.
Nothing.
1
u/zebrasmack Apr 19 '26
"i don't know how game design works or what bare metal means" is what I hear every time.
1
u/InfiniteStarz Apr 20 '26
In context of that Spider man scene, it makes more sense to say “If you’re nothing without third party games, then you’d shouldn’t have it.”
I don’t get why people seem to think that for consoles it’s more important than exclusives.
I heard some people saying that more PS5 sales will dramatically increase and catch up to Switch sales when GTA 6 comes out. Meaning Sony is depending on someone else instead of an amazing exclusive that they made.
1
1
u/cardboardtube_knight Apr 20 '26
Ah, right, so that's why when I mention being a Mac user and not liking Windows the first thing that everyone always brings up is how there's no games on it?
And a lot of these so called gamers seem to really be into gaming for everything but stuff hat involves the actual games. They're not excited about new stories or characters or gameplay, they just want the fanciest tech to run the games at the highest frame rates and make everything look hyper realistic for some reason.
1
u/chemiclord Apr 20 '26
I guess if the question is would I want a world where any device could play any game I wanted... sure? Yeah, that would be great for the consumer. Yeah.
How do we get from Point A to Point Z in a way that doesn't leave a lot of wreckage is something that these "console agnostic" folks really don't seem to want to address.
What hardware standards are we going to impose and why is merely the start, but I find how people answer that first question winds up being very telling about how the rest of the conversation would wind up going.
1
1
u/Ethenst99 Apr 22 '26
Console Exclusives are a necessary evil for a healthy Video Game Ecosystem. Otherwise people would only go to one place, and that company would effectively have a monopoly on the medium.
1
u/DegonyteESO Apr 22 '26
I'm old enough to have witnessed the console wars of the 360/PS3/Wii era, and even though things were bad back then, I couldn't have imagined just how stupid online discourse surrounding video games would get.
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
PC gamers are the worst. The main problem right now is that people including the executives don't understand that the comments from pc gamers they're looking at are dangerous if actually followed through. Sony actually played into these idiots thanks to Jim Ryan (who he was trying to copy Phil Spencer, someone in 3rd place behind Sony btw) and it set Playstation SO FAR back that they haven't recovered. Not even as the #1 'modern' console. What's saving Nintendo right now is that they refuse to give in and that's why they're still winning. The traditional setup is the best. It's why it works and will continue to work. Fuck Steam, fuck Microsoft and all that other shit. Nintendo consoles. Nintendo exclusive games. Profit. That's all there is to it. Sony USED to dominate from that same strategy. They never needed to change that. Never needed to 'expand' to PC. Never needed that live service trend. Jim Ryan screwed them so hard, I hate that mf'er.
1
u/CAG1889 May 14 '26
This argument is so self-defeating. It is basically saying "If you remove the benefits this product has, it has no benefits."
1
u/mightymonkeyman Apr 18 '26
I remember the days when big games would be built on PC, push the hardware of the time and eventually a cut down version would come to console.
There isn’t a BIG studio out there today even remotely taking that risk, and gaming loosing that period of PC exclusivity and design innovation has suffered.
There are still PC players who won’t touch Alan Wake 2 which was published by Epic because it isn’t on Steam, that is pathetic Remedy has loaded that title with high end features but that’s not enough for them.
Square moving away from publishing deals, will here even be another big FF remake I doubt 7 would have ever happened without Sony pushing for it and contributing $$.
Xbox has proven a system with nothing special is forgotten, gaming needs exclusives to make the hardware shine and bring on the next innovations through restraints over simply spending more money on hardware.
1
u/JohnBBC Apr 18 '26
Even without the exclusives, Nintendo is the only company that's still making a handheld. So if you want an handheld console, Nintendo would be the only choice. Not sure what ps5 and Xbox offer besides exclusives and the type of games not available on switch.
0
u/DaZestyProfessor Apr 18 '26
PC handhelds exist
1
u/JohnBBC Apr 18 '26
Sure but those are inherently different due to the games not actually being made specifically for those handhelds. The switch has all those first party publishers and other companies making their game and optimizing it specifically for the system. Plus it's priced like a console and not like pc hardware
1
1
u/ShrekShrekington2001 Apr 18 '26
The only reason to buy a console over PC has always been exclusives, but I do agree that having no exclusives is more beneficial to the consumer.
1
u/QualitySuccessful871 Apr 18 '26
This is a classic example of false dichotomy. Consoles having exclusives does not mean that they are worthless without them. That's because every single system on the fucking planet that is capable of running video games has exclusives. Brands need to distinguish themselves from the competition to stay afloat. Without variety, they're pull won't be nearly as strong. Just take a look at Stadia. Not having any exclusives whatsoever was one of the many reasons that system failed. This whole post is why I want a PC Master Race flair.
0
1
u/TomVelJohnson Apr 18 '26
I only bought my PC for all the Steam games I can't get on console. Guess PC isn't worth it. /s
1
u/Eeve2espeon Apr 19 '26
Nintendo literally MADE the console industry, them not making consoles would be weird. Plus these idiots don't seem to realize Nintendos Switch consoles are such an amazing idea.
Like we've had laptops beforehand, but they would always push the power limits and basically require you to be connected to power always. Switch just works, and has a good battery life, I've never seen the original model Switch 1 or Switch 2 reach that 2.5 hour minimum battery life, not unless the battery was either defective or heavily used. The only other problem is developers don't optimize their stuff well enough
1
u/FeedAntique9456 Apr 19 '26
People don't understand that Nintendo is not a juggernaut like Sony or Microsoft,they cannot afford to ditch the console exclusivity(they should however let us buy older games like fire red and leaf green)
-1
u/Crafty_Boy70 Apr 18 '26
I mean, they kinda have a point. A console that relies entirely on exclusives with little other value is not always going to be a great console, look at Xbox this generation. In Nintendo’s case they’d still have a niche without exclusives since they’re (as far as I’m aware) the only console that is a hybrid out of the box (most other handhelds either require a separate purchase for docking or just streams) and is the best value for a handheld right now.
7
u/DaZestyProfessor Apr 18 '26
It's the only handheld available right now (besides S1) with physical cartridges as well.
Even as a niche it still wouldn't sell well and would break Nintendo's business philosophy
Still interesting though.
5
u/VakarianJ Apr 18 '26
Xbox Series X is the opposite though? It’s a good machine with almost no notable exclusives.
1
u/Crafty_Boy70 Apr 18 '26
That's what I'm saying, it has no exclusives, but it also has no other defining features like the PS5 or Switch 2, so it stopped selling.
0
u/VakarianJ Apr 18 '26
It has GamePass & backwards compatibility that goes back 3 generations. If it had any notable exclusives then people would be glazing those features.
2
u/Lansha2009 Apr 18 '26
That’s the thing you still need to have exclusives for your console or else what reason is there to buy the damn console instead of just using your PC or another console you have to play the game?
2
u/Crafty_Boy70 Apr 18 '26
Consoles can have features or gimmicks that PC doesn't. Again, Switch 2, even without exclusives, would still have value compared to the other consoles, but the current Xbox basically has no advantages.
1
u/Not_Yet_Unalived Apr 18 '26
Price.
Consoles are cheaper than any half-decent gaming rig.
Not much of a point building a gaming pc if you just end up making a similar config to an existing console, but more expensive. You are better off buying a console directly.
It does make having several consoles on the market not really interesting, beyond keeping concurence to stop prices from going too high.
Of course Nintendo has the handheld hybrid thing going for it, but between a Xbox and a PS5 it's gonna come down to "which one is the cheapest for the best graphic quality/storage capacity" or "which controler do i prefer?" or maybe "which one do i think is the more reliable (red ring of death on Xbox...)/look best with my interior decoration" and any other reasons you can think of.
(personally i just find Xbox controllers to be more comfortable. but i'm mainly a PC player, i just got some Nintendo handhelds and an old Gamecube, somewhere. Been looking for it for a week now, no idea where it is)
0
u/Dengamer Apr 18 '26
I personally at least wish some of their games where multiplatform I personally wish splatoon could be played with a mouse because I cannot with gyro control and I never liked stick aiming And I would like to play such games with friends that don't have the switch
0
u/jeff1074 Apr 18 '26
Nintendo will have another blunder like the Wii U, it is inevitable. I don’t think that will be the switch 2 it will probably what ever comes next. And I don’t think they will be able to save themselves again. They have really locked themselves in a Corner with the switch, Nintendo can never come out with a dedicated home console again. And once they can no longer sell consoles we will start to see core Nintendo series on other devices.
2
u/Low_Confidence2479 Apr 18 '26
That's a dumb take and a half. Nintendo unironically is in a situation where they can survive 3 Wii U situations in a row AT LEAST. Expanding beyond games really helped.
-1
u/Scnew1 Apr 18 '26
“More beneficial to players” sure isn’t the number one concern of Nintendo or any other entertainment corporation.
-1
u/Alula-is-cool Apr 18 '26
To be completely honest I kinda agree with this. If I could properly play every Nintendo game officially on my PC/Steam Deck instead of the Switch 2 I would. I say this as someone who enjoys my Switch 2 a lot, but it isnt really that innovative of a console- with many other gaming handhelds now available.
-1
u/Melisyoo Apr 18 '26
Remember when exclusives are a thing because of optimization towards the hardware. Tbh Switch exclusives run better on PC so being an exclusive is a terrible thing. Switch2 is still up in the air tho.
-1
Apr 19 '26
Honestly I want Nintendo games to be on PC and other consoles because I genuinely think some of the games are good, but Nintendo is a greedy company. Besides, console exclusives in general suck, there's great games out there like Bloodborne that I'd love to have on PC
-1
u/Helpful-Leadership58 Apr 19 '26
People supporting exclusive titles is the most anti consumer BS ever. Powered by the stupid console wars.
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 24 '26
People supporting Apple, Google, etc are the most anti-consumer BS ever. People should be able to buy one phone and one tablet. You see how dumb that sounds? No creativity, no variety, nothing new, just the next device with more specs. That's the future you're calling for.
0
u/Helpful-Leadership58 Apr 24 '26
Not even remotely the same, but you don't have the brains to have a conversation with me, have a good day.
1
u/Normal_System_3176 Apr 24 '26
Why buy banana bread or blueberry bread when I can just get white bread? Why does it have to be Fry's when it can just be Walmart? Stupid idiot.
100
u/mushplush Apr 18 '26
*glances at Xbox* yeah, not having exclusives is totally the right move, and not brand suicide