EDIT: To clarify, all of the console exclusivity is absolute bullshit and does nothing positive for those who enjoy games, nor does it serve any necessary purpose - it’s just a weapon for businesses to use against each other.
Generally, “exclusive” in this context is referring to exclusivity on a console involved in the (IMO completely unnecessary) console wars.
I do agree that PC is an important item there too but, the problems there are a bit different - for example shoddy ports (no justification for porting from x86/amd64 consoles to PC to be bad), excessive and intrusive DRM, and unreasonable delay or unwillingness to port.
Linux runs Starfield with no problems. If it’s on a computer and doesn’t use restrictive DRM to control how and under which circumstances you run the software, it’s not an exclusive. Microsoft doesn’t have exclusives anymore, which is a giant pro-consumer move that doesn’t get enough applause in the gaming community. That doesn’t mean they need to develop stuff for one specific DRM box owned by their biggest competitor to be “anti-exclusive”.
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console’s DRM to play it on PC. Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators - that’s actually what WINE stands for (Wine Is Not an Emulator). Starfield is natively available for more than one platform and not only does the Proton compatibility layer handle it but it’s being sold on Valve’s store and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck. Games that are released on one console and PC aren’t exclusives. God of War just isn’t on xbox and Starfield just isn’t on Playstation.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it’s not a game exclusive to that console. I have a PC. I can’t play exclusives like Demons Souls Remake without buying Sony’s $500 DRM machine. I can play non-exclusives like Starfield without buying Microsoft’s $300 DRM machine.
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console’s DRM to play it on PC
Ummm… what? Lmao according to who? Can you find me a single definition of “exclusive” anywhere that bars games that were acquired through broken drm? That’s so bizarrely specific, it could only be made by someone deadset on not being wrong in an internet argument ffs.
Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators
I literally called it a translation layer above, please read. My point is that Starfield isn’t native to Linux, just as Pokemon isn’t native to Windows. Saying that somehow one retains its exclusivity status while the other doesn’t despite this is a little silly.
and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck
And Pokémon is widely run on Windows as well. Still an exclusive though.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it’s not a game exclusive to that console.
Again, according to who? This is a very specific definition that nobody has ever used until just now.
So like, if someone managed to rip a PS5 disc and play it through an emulator, it wouldn’t be an exclusive because they didn’t actually need to purchase a PS5? But if they acquired the game through dumping it off of a modded PS5, then it’s still an exclusive? This is so convoluted.
Would be more, if it wasn’t an exclusive.
EDIT: To clarify, all of the console exclusivity is absolute bullshit and does nothing positive for those who enjoy games, nor does it serve any necessary purpose - it’s just a weapon for businesses to use against each other.
God of War. Spiderman. Horizon. Last of Us. Ghost of Tsushima. Bloodborne. Uncharted. Ratchet and Clank. Death Stranding. Grand Turismo. Persona.
Add Final Fantasy. Would also have more if they weren’t exclusive.
Spite always creates a better system.
Definitely, though it can be said for every exclusive game.
Agreed. Exclusives are complete bullshit, regardless of vendor.
It’s not an exclusive, it’s just not on Playstation or Switch. When did people decide PC releases didn’t count?
Generally, “exclusive” in this context is referring to exclusivity on a console involved in the (IMO completely unnecessary) console wars.
I do agree that PC is an important item there too but, the problems there are a bit different - for example shoddy ports (no justification for porting from x86/amd64 consoles to PC to be bad), excessive and intrusive DRM, and unreasonable delay or unwillingness to port.
Windows is made by Microsoft. Would you feel better if people called Starfield a “Microsoft exclusive”?
Linux runs Starfield with no problems. If it’s on a computer and doesn’t use restrictive DRM to control how and under which circumstances you run the software, it’s not an exclusive. Microsoft doesn’t have exclusives anymore, which is a giant pro-consumer move that doesn’t get enough applause in the gaming community. That doesn’t mean they need to develop stuff for one specific DRM box owned by their biggest competitor to be “anti-exclusive”.
Linux only runs it through a translation layer, Proton, it doesn’t run it natively.
Would you also not call Pokémon an exclusive just because technically it can run on a pc?
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console’s DRM to play it on PC. Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators - that’s actually what WINE stands for (Wine Is Not an Emulator). Starfield is natively available for more than one platform and not only does the Proton compatibility layer handle it but it’s being sold on Valve’s store and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck. Games that are released on one console and PC aren’t exclusives. God of War just isn’t on xbox and Starfield just isn’t on Playstation.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it’s not a game exclusive to that console. I have a PC. I can’t play exclusives like Demons Souls Remake without buying Sony’s $500 DRM machine. I can play non-exclusives like Starfield without buying Microsoft’s $300 DRM machine.
Ummm… what? Lmao according to who? Can you find me a single definition of “exclusive” anywhere that bars games that were acquired through broken drm? That’s so bizarrely specific, it could only be made by someone deadset on not being wrong in an internet argument ffs.
I literally called it a translation layer above, please read. My point is that Starfield isn’t native to Linux, just as Pokemon isn’t native to Windows. Saying that somehow one retains its exclusivity status while the other doesn’t despite this is a little silly.
And Pokémon is widely run on Windows as well. Still an exclusive though.
Again, according to who? This is a very specific definition that nobody has ever used until just now.
So like, if someone managed to rip a PS5 disc and play it through an emulator, it wouldn’t be an exclusive because they didn’t actually need to purchase a PS5? But if they acquired the game through dumping it off of a modded PS5, then it’s still an exclusive? This is so convoluted.
I said Pokémon is an exclusive because it’s not released on other platforms. Bloodborne would still be a PS4 exclusive if an emulator could run it.
You said having to own the console is what makes it an exclusive. But I can get a game running on Windows without a console.
Starfield isn’t on Linux, just as Pokémon isn’t on Windows.