With this write up I want to discuss two things: first the idea of consoles having "no games" and do platform exclusive games do more harm than good when it comes to games preservation and games being attainable and easy to port.
I'll discuss the first point, the idea of a console having "no games" is pretty silly to me. Just the saying of it makes no sense. If a console has "no games" then by saying that it means a console shouldn't even be able to play video games at all.
It began back in the 7th gen when PS3 released at a super high price which was a mistake on Sony's part but I'll avoid discussing that. A bunch of gamers in the console wars supporting the 360 was attacking the PS3's lack of worthwhile exclusives that is worth spending $600 on. The insult is only there because there was nothing worth spending $600 for a games console for, all though I argue there is no game or selection of games that is worth spending $600 on a console on but that is besides the point. Plus most early model PS3s can play PS2 games so by that logic doesn't it mean that the PS2 "has no games?"
Also, by this logic, the Xbox 360 has no games since now most of it's major releases can be played on the Xbox One. On top of that, the PS3 had more exclusive titles than the 360 that gen, yet it's the 360 that is remembered very fondly. On top of that, all the 360 exclusives at the time back in 2007 like Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Halo 3 can be played mostly everywhere now and those games benefit more for it.
Now history seems to be repeating itself with the PS5, you see many bashing for it's lack of "proper" exclusive titles since now they are either on PS4 and PC but if we go by this logic, doesn't that mean that the PS4 "has no games" since every major PS4 release can be played on PS5? And also, don't you need a high end PC just to play games like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart since it can't run on PS4? So the PS5 still has it's use. It's also easier just to play multiplats on consoles since you don't need installers and AAA multiplatform games to this day comes with the "made for consoles first" mentality. If the broken PC launches of Last of Us Part 1, Forspoken, and the Callisto Protocal are anything to go by. That and consoles in general have a quick and easy to access feel to it that PCs don't really have. You plug in a console and it's just made to play games where with PC there are so many different uses for it that it's hard to remove your internet use for game playing. I'd rather play games in a way where I don't have access to Twitter for one thing.
Now on to my next point, I make the argument that despite exclusives being good in the short term since it gets you to buy the console while it's still new, it is disastrous long term for playing older games.
While companies like Microsoft have done a decent enough job at keeping their legacy titles easy to access. Sony and especially Nintendo have done a rather poor job. Nintendo especially being ergregious about it since they take down emulation sites like emuparadise just to barely offer a worthwhile alternative of their own if Nintendo Switch Online is anything to go by and their closure of the Wii U and 3DS Eshop. Sony is a bit better by comparison despite the fact that the head of Sony, Jim Ryan has infamously stated he's not a fan of older games. They have definitive versions of some of their older games like the Syphon Filter series and Killzone Liberation coming with Chapter 5 the moment you buy the game rather than being a seperate download, making that version of the definitive version. Also even making their more obscure titles like Pursuit Force and Intelligent Cube can reach a new audience just by putting the game on the Premium at all and as seperate purchases to boot something Nintendo doesn't even have with Switch Online.
With all that said, even Sony's preservation methods aren't perfect. Some of their games like Ape Escape use the PAL versions rather than the NTSC, not all the games can be purchased seperately like Resident Evil Director's Cut, Tekken 2, Ridge Racer 2 and Super Stardust Portable, they have not put on PS2 titles since the Premium began and all their PS3 titles are stream only. The sheer number of PS3 games they are kind of impressive all though some I doubt should be on there since some of these games aren't really classics, ie. Eat Lead the Return of Matt Hazard, Quantum Theory and Rogue Warrior.
After saying all this, I argue exclusives being stuck on one console forever is far from an ideal way to have these games being played by those who are curious about it. I still own my PS3 to this day. Just to play so many of it's exclusives I enjoy like Killzone 2 and 3, Resistance Trilogy, Ratchet and Clank Future games, Starhawk, Sly 4, Puppeteer, Infamous 1 and 2, Twisted Metal 2012 and the Greek God of Wars besides 3(I am not a big fan of streaming) and even games that are delisted that are no longer avaliable on digital storefronts like Tranformers Cybertron games and High Moon's Deadpool game or games with no Steam versions like Dead to Rights Retribution. I know for a fact that older systems, and games are decaying and will eventually reach a point where I will resort to emulation but I doubt my PC is powerful enough to run one. I am not even sure how long my PS3 will last and I want to ask, is this really ideal? Keeping a bunch of aging discs and consoles that won't last forever just to replay games that I recall liking from years back? And if my PS3 does eventually run out of life. How do I know other similar aging PS3s will have longer life expectancies? If you ask me, an ideal version of this scenario is that all these games should be avaliable to play on the latest hardware. One because it keeps a developer's previous work, games they poured hours of their soul into already avaliable for future generations to try out and to satiate that curosity regarding those older games for the cult following who wants to play them. Plus especially on PS2, you can get bad discs from sellers making it hard to get past certain sections in games thus making these older games even bigger hassle to play and that is also not including that some games aren't the easiest to emulate due to being made with the console in mind, more on that later.
This is what I mean, having platform exclusives and demanding them just isn't the right thing to do since these things are never beneficial in the long term, only beneficial in the short term.
Say if Sony pulls a Nintendo and pulls the PS3 and Vita stores down? Since games like Tokyo Jungle, Siren Bloodcurse, Ratchet and Clank Quest for Booty, and Rain are digital only in North America and are exclusive to the PS3 Store, they will be much, much, much harder to obtain later on. I hope you have a PC powerful enough to run a PS3 emulator because boy in a couple of years that might be the future way to play these games. This can also apply to the PS2 as well. I will admit, I do get a kick out of seeing how many PS3 games I can play before the PS3 decides that it is aging but that is because I am a masochist who is willing to try out all kinds of random stuff. I don't think everyone even cult following game collectors are willing to try out and play all kinds of random stuff but I am getting off topic.
Now my next point, console exclusives also make the games hard to port to newer hardware, some games were made with the game systems and their limitations in mind. The Ratchet and Sly ports on PS3 can be questionable since they were made with the PS2 in mind. All though I still didn't mind the Ratchet HD collection. The Sly Collection crashed numerous times on me. Another example is how come the PS2 SOCOM games never got a port to PS3, 4 and 5 to this day? It's due to one reason, it's because of the PS2's pressure sensitive buttons which modern Sony controllers do not have. If you want to play them through emulator, you need to tinker with the controls just and remove some control options just to be able to crouch. Another example is MGS3, in that game when you grab someone in a chokehold, you can use the PS2's pressure sensitive button to not kill them but play it on PS3, and if you grab someone in a chokehold, guarentee that you instantly throat slit them which I doubt was the way the game was meant to be played and limits options. This is what I mean, by platform exclusives aren't ideal since you get quirks like this.
Another issue is that platform exclusive games just limits the potential audience of a game, this is rather obvious but it's true. When the Last of Us was a PS3 exclusive, it did have a sizeable following, and critical acclaim but when it came to PS4, it was even more popular and got the following it has today. It wouldn't be possible if it was locked to the PS3. Then there is the Halo series. Many people really wanted the series past Halo 2 to be avalible on PC and now that the MCC is on PC more people who don't own an Xbox now get to experience the series or at least most of it outside of Halo 5. Now there is more people who get to potentially try out Halo and especially get to see how the series temporarily end on PC without buying a 360 or Xbox One. This only helped expand Halo's audience, not retract. Now there is one game in a popular series people are begging to come to other consoles and that game is Metal Gear Solid 4. Sure at the time, when MGS4 was a PS3 exclusive, in the short term, it helped the PS3's bad reputation, but now, it's the ending of the MGS franchise and it's locked behind platform exclusivity and with the release of the MGS Master Collection even more people want MGS4 to be out of PS3 exclusivity. Did MGS4 being a PS3 benefit it in the long run? Not really, all it did was make potential new players to the series need to buy an old console just to play it, or rely on PS3 emulation which neither of are better than just buying the game on a modern console or on a digital storefront.
Now my final point, PC backwards compatiblity outside of emulation isn't that great. Playing older PC exclusives without the Nightdive Studios treatment is a pain since their remasters make these older games easier to access and play then patches of older versions of games ever will. But even ignoring that playing PC versions of older games is a bigger pain than hooking up an old console. For example, I recently played Splinter Cell Conviction, and it took me 3-4 hours if not longer just to play it. First I had to install the Ubisoft installer, then I had to set compatiblity mode to Windows 7, then I had to set up my Uplay account and I still wasn't done, I had to make sure the game recognized my PS4 controller since there were custom controller bindings and the bindings without Steam Big Picture mode and hiding my DS4 tool would just screw up the controls. I eventually got it to work but all this for a game I beat in 2 days and a game I hardly liked all that much to boot. If I had a 360, this game would've been easier to start up and play but the PC version start up took way more time than needed. Another example is how when I played Crysis Warhead years back, I needed to install a bunch of Gamespy DRM stuff just to play it and it was an annoying hassle that I needed to install a seperate program just to get rid of. Was all this worth just to play one game? Not really.
In conclusion, I feel like platform exclusivity and the demand for them to buy consoles in the short term is a rather misguided attempt at boosting platform sales in the sort term but very, very very detrimental in the long term. If I was running the gaming industry, almost if not every game would be multiplatform and there'd barely be any platform exclusive games.
No comments:
Post a Comment