Tell me a hardware product that doesn't have exclusive Software? Mac, Windows, iOS devices, Android devices, Samsung TVs and etc they all have exclusive software and apps. Exclusivity has existed since the dawn of computers and Video games. I'm not arguing it's pro consumer or anything like that but I do wonder why this question is being raised more recently by a lot of people. I can't help but feel that it coincide with the rise of PC Master Race people and the whole Valve doesn't like exclusivity therefore Steam and Valve "fanboys" are the one who started raising that question recently because of their emotional connection to a consumer product.
OK, first of all, just to get the fallacy out of the way - The fact this happens on hardware unrelated to gaming does not make it a good thing, or less bullshit. It just means the problem is bigger.
Anyway, I will try to use neutral language in regards to software in this post just so I'm not accused again of applying this logic only to games.
I think I should have elaborated that there are different kinds of exclusivity. For an obvious example, if any software requires a technical specification or control scheme that is not supported in another hardware, it will have to be exclusive to the hardware that supports the software as it was intended to run. If you need a motion detector for the application to work, it's obvious for it not to be available on hardware that lack that feature. There is also "exclusivity" caused by financial considerations of the developers. Some software sell less on certain hardware, and sometimes porting is too expensive for small teams. Its understandable for teams to make an informed decision on where to launch their products to minimize cost and maximize profits. I am not asking for all software to be available everywhere out of blind principle. I would WANT that, and I think that is what we should strive for, but I am quite aware this is a financial impossibility.
But, all of those types of "exclusivity" are mandated by the reality of software development and
decided on by the team. But there is also exclusivity mandated from above, by a stakeholder in a hardware or platform. Exclusivity that is paid (in whatever form) in order to lock a certain software in a certain hardware. It has nothing to do with the developmental/artistic/whatever considerations of the team outside of "would the benefits they are offering us make up for it." In a way, it's a disruption to the natural process of the team deciding how to develop and market their product.
I think this type of exclusivity is less common outside of gaming. I can't think of many hardware-owners who actively pay teams to develop their software exclusively for their platform. Even as far as "first-party" software is concerned. Google release most of their software on iOS as well, MS release much of their software on macOS and iOS and Android. Apple is of course, as always, the asshole of the bunch. It seems clear that while these companies compete on platform, they realize they must also remain competitive as app developers. Of course Google wants as many Android handsets with the Play store out there, and they'll want to make it as competitive a platform as possible, but that has nothing to do with making Google Maps as competitive a app as possible (which includes making it as widely available as possible). They need to balance these two roles. This is part of the reason I find the oft-used argument "The game wouldn't be made otherwise" weak. If Nintendo, for instance, wants to enter as a publisher for a game, they are free to do so, but I don't think mandated exclusivity should be a mixed into the deal, at the very least not as a default condition. They need to sort their "game publisher" and "platform holder" hats and make the best decisions as the hat they currently have on.
Now, of course whatever I'm saying applies to ANY gaming platform, not just hardware. Be it Origin, Steam, Windows/Xbox Store etc. "PC" is irrelevant in this sort of discussion.
So, to make clear what I'm saying, let's use an hypothetical example. Let's say Naughty Dog is developing the hypothetical The Crash of Us. To best focus their resources, they develop exclusively for PS5. This is
fine, it make sense to work on hardware they have access to and are familiar working with. It's not ideal for people who don't own the platform, but it's
understandable at the very least. What's important here is that is was not the ONLY decision they could have made as a team. Because if they had the choice, maybe once they finish the game and move over to the next project, they'll want to outsource porting the game to another platform, because like all artists they want to reach as big of an audience as possible. Or maybe they'll want to start developing on multiple platforms because the game's online mode works best with as many players as possible.
Not to mention, that I don't recall seeing similar comments about Steam exclusives, that don't appear on consoles.
Now, both of you talked about Valve and Steam, which I did not mention at all in my post. Now, you can have fun beating on the straw man for all I care, but just to make clear: If Valve will be mandating for teams how to release their games, they take part in this bullshit practice. But most of the "exclusives" on Steam either stem from the easier/cheaper access to PC development and release channels, marketability of the games on consoles etc. I mean, I'd like for all PC games to be available on consoles, but as I said, it's
understandable if this is not always the case or if it takes a while to happen because of considerations
taken by the team in order to make the game the best it can possibly be in every form it's released on.
That came out longer then I expected.
