You for some reason assume that games would not have existed if not for being exclusive. But you do not actually know that. Yes, exclusive games do exist. But also quite obviously non-exclusive games exist. It is obviously possible to get games funded without being exclusive.
It is impossible to predict the future, or similarly, predict alternative versions of the past. I do not claim to know for sure that the same amount of games would exist without exclusivity. But since non-exclusive games are possible, and actually in the majority, it seems very likely to me that when a consumer demand is there, supply for it would be created.
In the end, this is an argument about cooperation vs competition. The argument for exclusives is basically an argument for competition. The argument against exclusives is one for cooperation. My base thinking is, why create many different consoles, that all just contain a CPU, some graphical processing unit, some way to load games on it, when you can just save the work of everyone developing their own thing and duplicating work, when everyone could just work together to create the same thing, just with more minds working together and without duplicating work.
Yes but can you really know that Bayonetta would not have been made without exclusives? Maybe if exclusives didn’t exist Bayonetta would’ve just secured funding some other way. You can’t know that now anymore, because that’s not what happened, but it’s not entirely unreasonable to believe that Bayonetta could have turned to other funding sources, if the situation was different at the time.
I mean ya. Bayonetta doesn’t sell well but as an exclusive it brings variety to the system. I think the creators themselves said something like 2 and 3 wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t funded by Nintendo.
You for some reason assume that games would not have existed if not for being exclusive. But you do not actually know that. Yes, exclusive games do exist. But also quite obviously non-exclusive games exist. It is obviously possible to get games funded without being exclusive.
It is impossible to predict the future, or similarly, predict alternative versions of the past. I do not claim to know for sure that the same amount of games would exist without exclusivity. But since non-exclusive games are possible, and actually in the majority, it seems very likely to me that when a consumer demand is there, supply for it would be created.
In the end, this is an argument about cooperation vs competition. The argument for exclusives is basically an argument for competition. The argument against exclusives is one for cooperation. My base thinking is, why create many different consoles, that all just contain a CPU, some graphical processing unit, some way to load games on it, when you can just save the work of everyone developing their own thing and duplicating work, when everyone could just work together to create the same thing, just with more minds working together and without duplicating work.
Not all games? I mean the exclusive games like Bayonetta 3.
Yes but can you really know that Bayonetta would not have been made without exclusives? Maybe if exclusives didn’t exist Bayonetta would’ve just secured funding some other way. You can’t know that now anymore, because that’s not what happened, but it’s not entirely unreasonable to believe that Bayonetta could have turned to other funding sources, if the situation was different at the time.
I mean ya. Bayonetta doesn’t sell well but as an exclusive it brings variety to the system. I think the creators themselves said something like 2 and 3 wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t funded by Nintendo.