 |
| PlayStation and Nintendo exclusives don’t just sell hardware. They define what each platform stands for. |
By Jon Scarr
The loudest take online right now is that console exclusives don’t matter anymore. Everything should be everywhere, and anything less is treated like the industry refusing to evolve. I get why people feel that way. If you’ve ever watched a game you wanted get locked behind a platform you don’t own, you’ve lived the downside. That fatigue around platform arguments isn’t new either. A lot of the old console war framing has already lost its bite.
But former PlayStation executive Shawn Layden frames exclusives in a way that’s harder to shrug off. He isn’t defending them as a sales weapon. He’s defending them as a creative tool. One that shapes platform identity and gives developers room to push design without flattening everything down to what runs everywhere equally.
Source credit: The comments discussed here come from a recent Character Select interview with former PlayStation executive Shawn Layden, hosted by Naomi Kyle and published on the Pause for Thought YouTube channel.
This is part one of a two-part mini-series. Part two picks up where this leaves off, because Layden’s thinking doesn’t stop at exclusives. It pushes into something bigger: whether the console model itself can stay the default forever.
Coming next: Even Former PlayStation Executives Are Questioning the Console Model
Exclusives Were Never Just About Locking You In
It’s easy to reduce exclusives to a simple argument. Either you think they’re good for competition, or you think they’re bad for access. The problem is that framing misses the reason exclusives became important in the first place.
If this framing sounds familiar, it’s because the industry has already shifted its centre of gravity. Hardware matters less than it used to. Accounts, libraries, and long-term buy-in matter more. That shift is part of why the exclusives conversation feels so different now.
When a platform has a lineup that feels unmistakably like itself, it builds trust. You know what kind of experience you’re signing up for. You also know the platform holder is willing to invest in games that define the vibe of the hardware, not just fill a release calendar.
Layden’s point is basically this: certain games make a platform “sing”. They don’t just run on the box. They help define what the box is. That’s why the idea of Mario showing up on PlayStation feels wrong on a gut level. Not because it would sell poorly, but because it would smash together two identities that were built to be distinct.
That identity piece matters even more now because gaming culture is louder than it’s ever been. People don’t just play games. They follow studios, directors, and franchises the way music fans follow labels and bands. Exclusives can turn into cultural anchors. When they hit, they’re not just products. They’re moments.
Lowest-Common-Denominator Design Is Real, Even If You Hate Hearing It
Multiplatform games can be amazing. Some of the best games you’ve played probably launched that way. This isn’t a “multiplatform bad” argument. It’s a design reality argument.
When a team has to ship across multiple platforms at the same time, compromises happen. Features get simplified. Edge-case systems get trimmed. Risks get avoided because the cost of getting it wrong across several hardware targets is brutal. Even when a studio does everything right, you’re still building inside a set of guardrails.
Exclusives remove a lot of that. Developers can push specific hardware features harder. They can tune load times, streaming tech, controller feel, and visual targets around one ecosystem instead of designing for the widest possible spread. It’s not about “power”. It’s about focus.
That focus is also why exclusives so often become the games people point to when they talk about a generation. They’re not just showing off graphics. They’re showing off confidence. When a platform holder is willing to fund something ambitious and let a studio go all-in, you feel it in the final product.
Fewer Exclusives Doesn’t Mean Exclusives Are Dead
The industry has changed. Ports come faster. PC releases land sooner. Timed exclusivity is more common than permanent lockouts. Layden doesn’t ignore that. He accepts it, and honestly, it tracks with how people play now.
Some types of games basically have to go wide. Massive multiplayer games need the biggest funnel possible. If you’re converting a small percentage of your audience, you can’t afford to limit the audience in the first place. That’s just math, and it’s why cross-platform play and multiplatform launches keep growing.
But Layden’s point is that not every game lives in that category. Big single-player games still benefit from being designed with one platform in mind, at least at the start. Prestige narrative games. System sellers. The games that exist to show what a platform feels like, not just what it can technically run.
So the smarter version of the exclusives debate isn’t “exclusive or everywhere”. It’s “which games actually benefit from exclusivity, and for how long”. That’s a much more honest conversation, and it gets you out of the endless comment-war loop.
Why Exclusives Still Feel Different
If you’ve ever played a game that felt like it belonged on a specific platform, you know what Layden is talking about. The polish isn’t just about resolution or frame rate. It’s about cohesion. UI decisions, controller feel, pacing, and technical shortcuts that don’t show up on a bullet list but absolutely show up in how smooth the experience feels.
That’s what people mean when they say a platform has “a vibe”. It’s why you can often tell when a game was built as a flagship experience versus a game that arrived everywhere at once. Again, that doesn’t make the second category worse. It just makes it different.
Exclusives are also about signalling. When a platform holder invests in a big, bold game, it tells you they’re serious about earning your time. That matters in an era where your backlog is stacked and your free time is limited.
Part Two Is Where This Gets Spicy
Here’s the twist, and it’s why this mini-series works as a pair. Layden can argue that exclusives still matter while also questioning whether discrete consoles can stay the default model forever. They don’t cancel each other out. They sit uncomfortably side by side, which is exactly where the industry finds itself right now.
If you want the bigger picture, Part Two picks up the moment the conversation stops being about exclusives and starts being about the box itself.
Next up: Even Former PlayStation Executives Are Questioning the Console Model
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. Please stay respectful and on topic.