[OPINION] Are Console Exclusives Still Good for Gamers?

If you enjoy independent indie game coverage, consider supporting Indie-Games.eu on Patreon. It helps keep the site independent.

Today, movies, music and TV shows are increasingly available on every major platform and many gamers are asking why video games still remain locked behind specific console. A recent debate on X has brought that question back into the spotlight, focusing on Nintendo’s long-standing strategy of keeping major franchises like The Legend of Zelda exclusive to its own hardware. The discussion highlights a growing divide between players who see exclusives as outdated and unfair, and those who believe they remain essential to the health of the gaming industry.

The debate began around which platforms dominate in different countries, whether that be a particular console or PC gaming. The same applies to my home country, Croatia. Based on my experience and the people I know, Xbox consoles are rare, and Nintendo systems even more so. Instead, PlayStation and PC clearly dominate the market.

This naturally leads to discussions about playing exclusive titles from other platforms as if they were available on PS5 or PC, since the majority of players are unwilling to buy a Nintendo Switch for just a handful of games. This perspective reflects a broader regional reality. With many players already invested in powerful consoles and gaming PCs, purchasing an additional system solely for exclusives can feel unnecessary, expensive, and frustrating. For these players, exclusivity feels less like healthy competition and more like a barrier.

However, we can also argue that exclusives are not just a business tactic, but a matter of survival for companies like Nintendo. Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo has traditionally relied on weaker hardware that prioritizes affordability, portability, or unique features over raw power. Without exclusive games to justify those compromises most consumers would simply choose more powerful alternatives.

From this perspective, franchises like Zelda, Mario, and Pokémon are not just popular games. They are the foundation of Nintendo’s entire ecosystem. Players buy the hardware to access these titles, which in turn funds future development. This self-reinforcing cycle has helped the company sell more than 155 million Switch units worldwide, making it its most successful home console ever. For supporters of exclusivity, this model proves that tightly integrated hardware and software can still thrive in a competitive market.

It’s true that exclusives fragment the market and punish consumers who cannot afford multiple systems. With modern consoles often costing €400 or more, the expectation to buy several devices to access different franchises feels increasingly out of step with modern entertainment habits. In regions where Nintendo’s market share is weak, this fragmentation feels even more severe.

The broader industry trend seems to support some of these concerns. Both Sony and Microsoft have moved toward releasing more games on PC and, in some cases, rival platforms. This shift reflects the reality that massive franchises like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty dominate regardless of exclusivity, and that broader reach often means higher long-term profits. Some analysts also question whether exclusives always translate into proportional hardware sales, suggesting their impact may be more limited than companies assume.

For Nintendo, however, abandoning exclusivity would be a far riskier gamble. Unlike its competitors, it lacks a strong presence in high-end hardware or subscription-based ecosystems. Its identity is built almost entirely around its intellectual property. Recent momentum around the Switch 2, driven by backward compatibility and promised exclusives, suggests that this strategy is still working, at least for now.

Why does this debate matter to players? Because it shapes how games are made, priced, and distributed. Exclusivity affects who gets access to major titles, how much consumers must spend, and whether smaller hardware makers can survive alongside tech giants. It also influences whether the industry prioritizes platform-specific creativity or universal accessibility.

In the short term, exclusives undeniably limit choice. Some players will always feel locked out of experiences they want. In the long term, however, they may help preserve competition and diversity in a market that could otherwise consolidate around a few dominant platforms. The tension between accessibility and sustainability is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. This is why I’m leaving you with a question: “Should games belong to everyone everywhere, or does a healthier ecosystem require walls between platforms?”