Topic: Are exclusive games dying?

I think the mentality is different now. back in the day SEGA and Nintendo's marketing tactics were showing off gameplay of their exclusive titles and selling mascots. That doesn't seem to be the game Sony and Microsoft play. They sell the brand in a way that resembles nationalistic pride. Sony fanboys and Microsoft fanboys are typically die hard fans of the consoles, sure they'll use the console's respective exclusives, but it's the hardware and the graphics race now. That's why you see so much cinematic, computer generated trailers at E3 now from them.

It depends on how you define exclusive. Is it just a game that got released on one console alone, like the upcomming Tomb Raider farce, or is it a game that was especially crafted for the respective consoles strong points ?

For me, its definitly the latter. And that seems to have died, because game development has become so insanly costly, that its just not worth it to produce for one system alone.
The PS3 for instance, had a rather healthy load of games, that could only be realized on it:
MGS4 for instance was one of the only games to ever come close to filling the BluRay medium. It took every feature the PS3 had to offer into account, from its higher processing power to smaller gimmics like MP3 support, the controller port interface etc.

Nintendo basicly lives off of such games. All of their work is crafted around the console and not the other way around, wich is what makes them so unique.

With the PS4 and Xbone, i have yet to see a title catering towards the systems features....well, a few Xbone exclusives featured the consoles ability to further ripp people off by shredding the game into confetti and selling it back to you in small kilobyte portions.
But in all honesty, we have yet to see the Xbones promised unlimited cloud computing power, or what the PS4s social interaction featured add to the game.

Another factor is, that a series of exclusives quickly gets mascot status. And you can hardly market photo realistic everyday joes as a mascot. Sony has (had?) quite a bunch of them, but mistreads them pretty badly. Thats why crash and spyro, who defined sonys rise into the gaming market quickly went the way of the dodo. A shame really.
And, well, Microsoft has this green bloke with the gun. Kids seem to love him because...well, why exactly ?

No, they aren't, exclusives are still important to the industry and still common place,.........

So, first up to bat, Nintendo, and I really don't need to beat this horse much.............Kyoto puts greater emphasis on the exclusive than any of the major software/hardware developers, and I consider that to include the Pokémon Company and HAL, as well as traditional first party developers like Nintendo EAD and smaller non-associated houses like Next Level Games.

Sony has a very vibrant list of first and second hand developers as well that most Nintendo fans may not be familiar with (Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Santa Monica, Media Molecule, Japan Studio, Polyphony Digital)...............and it really does range the gambit from small developers, like Housemarque or ThatGameCompany, to AAA studios like Guerilla Games.......if anything, Sony probably has the greatest variety in associated developers.

Microsoft is a bit of a different story, during the 7th gen, a lot of the studios that mostly fell under the publishing umbrella of Microsoft Games Studios closed up and / or were let go (Bungie, Bizzare Creations, Indie Built, Day 1 Studios, Artoon, the list goes on), .............instead, Microsoft began shifting to the tactic of paying for specific third party exclusive titles, and Tomb Raider falls under this camp as well,......but it also showcases the problem of not having a large load of internal assets like Nintendo and Sony. Microsoft could pull this off to a degree during the 7th gen, as the 360 has a strong following, and most third party developers looked at the 360's hardware as the basis for console game development (which led to less than optimized ports to the PS3)..................however, now that they aren't the de facto platform of choice, the somewhat small group of still active Microsoft first / second party developers (Rare, Remedy, Lionhead) kinda puts them in a fragile position.............and the fact that Epic and Bungie were not keen on being cash cows forever forced Microsoft to create 343 Industries and Black Tusk in order to keep their most valuable Xbox associated IP's exclusive (Halo and Gears of War). So in some ways, Microsoft is rebuilding it's first and second party exclusive family after giving up on most of it during the 7th gen.

Indies, so you have Steam, but when it comes to consoles, due to limited resources, most Indies tend to gravitate to the software / hardware developer that has the largest user base and the least restrictive policies. Since the launch of the PS4, Sony has led this camp, and it's led to a fair amount of exclusive indie content that also happens to be of good overall quality. Nintendo has also made strides, and Microsoft has arguably back-stepped after an early lead with the 360 (which is now gone due to restrictive policies and competition from Sony).

Nintendo and Sony also have a edge in the Japanese market, so that also leads to some exclusives in the west given Microsoft's weak existence in the far east (see the current situation with the 3DS, PS3, and Vita). In fact, a good portion of those systems, especially the 3DS and Vita, very much rely on exclusive Japanese content being ported over to the west.

@sub12 A fantastic, unbiased synopsis. Thank you for that
And youre right, when it comes to exclusive content, SOny tops the list with its mass of studios, while Nintendo has a much stronger destinctive personality and style.
Microsoft falls rather short on both terms, as they often come off as a one trick pony and their recent buyout actions show how dire the need for exclusives is. Taking into account, that the firt Tomb Raider was most successfull on PlayStation systems, a LOT of money had to be given to the devs to secure this (temp) exclusivity contract.

To an extent. Game development costs are so high that keeping games on just one system is seen as a risky bet to make nowadays.

But they do still exist, and will always exist. Companies like Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft are either making their own exclusive games, buying developers to make them or paying other companies for exclusivity, since it's in their favour to do so.

Microsoft's position is still the strongest because nothing that Xbox can do really makes any difference to the company being profitable.

So instead of buying Skype or Nokia they buy some studios its not going to make much difference to them they always do that sort of thing and waste loads of money on failed ventures.

Yes but the focus is on the game consoles and games made for them.. not the other crap said companies venture into.
I feel that Nintendo and sony have the most to work with.. Microsoft.. they REALLY need to get more first party studios working.. and stop firing them cause a game performs under their expectations.. it's unproductive.. and if that's how it worked everywhere.. other companies would have fired everyone by now.

Anyhow.. i did a video on this on youtube... No matter what anyone thinks, an third party game is just that.. third party.. MS does NOT own said IP.. so it should have been obvious that this new Tomb Raider game would not be stuck on their console... it's NOT their IP...

My focus is for the subset of games not on Steam or Wii U.

I still think Microsoft has all the interesting options and what they do is by far the more interesting part.

The hardware is uninteresting from both parties (Compared to say the PS3).

The games also are that are available. (But in terms of full retail games Microsoft has more).

Well apparently exclusives are bad these days. So sure

Yes they are, but it's a product of the system out there now. That's also why people took hard offense to the Tomb Raider sequel news since the existing game and remaster sold clearly worse on their hardware.

Last gen the third parties hit up the big 3 out there, 2 responded correctly and they both made systems with specific needs met for CPU, GPU, audio, storage (internal and disc), network capabilities and speeds, and so on. Notice how all the word out there is they're like 90% similar but PS4 does edge out the One, yet when you see ports, they look the same yet individual works on PS4 shine a hair nicer even in first gen stuff? There won't be much for any exclusives when it comes to third parties. This generation will be won by whoever can primarily make the most in house or second party in house product that people want and will have to get the system for. Sony has a double edge there because they have Nintendo-like proportions of mascots and franchises to milk and re-milk people like while MS has forza, halo, gears and little else. The other side of that edge, Sony stuff won't hit the PC, MS's stuff will and it dilutes the sales chances when so called 'system only' stuff like Titanfall hits the PC and is superior.

MS in turn had to drop a huge bribe to SE to get Tomb Raider 2 there for their system and the initial smoke and mirrors was it was only for them, then after a lot of moaning it appears to actually be timed, likely a year, six months at the least. It's infuriating, but from a business stand point in this one case it's a good one. TR2 will go up against its superior (on Sony) which is Uncharted 4, they'd sell for crap on the PS4 against the One. Have MS comp them the 'lost sales' that Sony would have brought, and they get an exclusive, then it comes out a year later and U4 is old hat and people will snap it up a lot since few really are hardcore enough to buy PS4+One (them + WiiU is more likely which will never get it.) Exclusives outside of oddball situations and bribes will go away as the hardware is so performance alike there's no gain in doing it, so it will be just the system maker made stuff that'll stand out.