Next Gen evolution of Platform Bias

In the last few years, the gaming industry has gone through some drastic changes. My previous posts have enlightened many people about some of those changes, but today I am going to elaborate on an old issue called Platform Bias and its emerging evolution, which is ‘pretending to be an exclusive’, with inputs from my colleague Chirantan Raut. 

Platform Bias

The console manufacturers have been cutting deals with the publishers of successful third party franchises to provide some extra benefit to their platform for quite a few years now. This extra benefit can range from timed exclusivity to exclusive content. Since the PC is not a platform controlled solely by any Megacorporation, it usually gets the short end of the stick because of these deals. There is however, something similar happening with bias towards one hardware manufacturer or another in the PC space. This bias is used to entice gamers to buy the game on that particular platform instead of their preferred platform.

What is ‘Pretending to be an Exclusive’? 

A 3^rd party multiplatform game that releases for multiple consoles in the same window, in which all press showings and marketing are catered to only one console is one that is pretending to be an exclusive. Exclusive console bundles, being the lead platform, as well as timed exclusivity or exclusive betas and game content also strengthen the claim. The final effect is that the uninformed gamer will be convinced that the advertised platform is the only and/or best place to experience the game. If you still do not get it, you will be able to better relate to it with some recent examples like the Call of Duty franchise, Watch_Dogs, Destiny, Titanfall and many more to come. Though an informed gamer who frequently visits different gaming websites may not be easily mislead, the general audience who come to know about these games from different advertisement sources (TV, Newspaper, Magazine etc.), can be easily come to believe this illusion. 

After writing a few articles I have started feeling that Call of Duty can be used as a source to explain most of the unhealthy practices of the Gaming Industry. But this time, I wanted to try a different road (game). The big release of May 2014, Watch_Dogs was one of those games which was targeted as a PlayStation 4 ‘exclusive’. The irony of this is that Watch_Dogs was announced at E3 2012 as a PC exclusive since the next gen consoles weren’t announced yet. After the launch of the new consoles, at every gaming event Watch_Dogs was showcased as running on a PS4. Moreover it was also used to show the advantage of the PS4 in the graphics department when compared to the Xbox One. Sony tried their best to promote Watch_Dogs as a product best experienced on the PS4 with Ubisoft receiving a humble ‘donation’ from them for the exclusive content deal. There was even a Watch_Dogs branded PS4 to add to the hype. The consumer had seen advertisements like “Best experienced on PlayStation“, “Exclusive content on PlayStation“, etc. In addition to all this, they had also seen fewer adverts saying “available on Xbox” or “available on PC”. In the end, thanks to Sony’s marketing strategy, the game was well received on the PS4 which naturally leads to more people marching to buy that version of the game.  This was just one example of such practices. If we start digging, we could easily find games who followed a similar method. In the coming months, a bunch of games will be released for both consoles which will be utilising these type of marketing practices. 

So what is the problem with that?

While this benefits both the console manufacturer and the publisher with more sales, the problem with any form of exclusivity is that it leads to exclusion of that content from other platforms. Gamers on those platforms may not necessarily want to switch just for the sake of some extra content and might feel left out. Also the game may not push the other platform systems to their fullest or may suffer from poor optimisation which hurts the end user the most as it comes in the way of their enjoyment of the game.

Exclusives come with the promise of a system defining game which they may not always fulfil. Also they end up limiting their potential market by being locked to one platform only. That said, being locked to that platform does translate into greater sales on it. Because of the promise of quality and sales potential that exclusives hold, it seems quite natural that marketing teams of multiplatform titles consider using the exclusive approach. The problem with that is that the customers end up confused as to which platform to buy a game on unless they are already committed to using one platform for all their gaming needs. Such customers then end up feeling cheated out of content which can lead to negative publicity for the publisher.

So what can we do about it?

The best way to get a publisher to hear you is to vote with your wallet. However, given that the general consumer isn’t aware of there even being an issue, this can prove a challenging task.

The objective of this article is to inform people about such (mal)practices. We want our readers to convey this message to other gamers and spread the word within the community, to create a healthy and fair gaming industry.