Yes, exclusivity can sometimes benefit consumers by creating a sense of prestige or uniqueness around a product.
Yes, exclusivity can sometimes benefit consumers by creating a sense of prestige or uniqueness around a product.
I recall seeing a video by boogie2988 discussing how exclusivity used to be viewed positively for customers, even though it's now seen as problematic. There were times when it was considered advantageous. Yes, there was a period when exclusivity was appreciated for the consumer.
Only exclusivity appears to favor the seller, not the buyer. Perhaps I’m overlooking a scenario where it genuinely helps the consumer.
The only idea that comes to mind is how exclusivity can sometimes enable games that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Recent case in point is Bayonetta 2. Bayonetta didn't perform well at launch, yet it's a solid title; Nintendo stepped in with a significant investment, which was a relief. First-party exclusives are fine too—I don't mind Last of Us being exclusive to Sony since it's developed by Naughty Dog. However, Rise of the Tomb Raider presents a different situation altogether.
It seems competition might play a role, with major exclusive titles receiving financial support from companies like Microsoft and Sony. Many of these games appear exceptionally well-made, which would make me want to own a console just to experience them. However, from a consumer perspective, the impact isn’t really noticeable.
Perhaps in a limited way. It's like concentrating on one platform and building a game that matches your budget perfectly there. However, in the broader picture, I don't think it really helps consumers overall.