Slashdot Mirror
Xbox-Exclusive Games a Growing Trend
securitas writes "The New York Times Technology's Michel Marriott reports (free reg. req.) on the growing trend of developers making Xbox-exclusive games, bypassing the Sony PS2 and Nintendo GameCube. Microsoft is 'playing catch-up on the console' with some notable examples of Xbox-exclusive (or Xbox-first) console games that include Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, Advent Rising and Full Spectrum Warrior. Marriott interviews Todd Hollenshead (id), Mark Rein (Epic), J. Allard (Microsoft), and Donald Mustard (Majesco) among others that include Sony and THQ. The question is, will gamers follow the developers' preferences? Sony's dominance in the next game console wars could be toppled if they do. 'If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change.'"
I've seen the Microsoft Borg icon used in places where I did not think it belonged, but this story perhaps is one that needs it added.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I don't know about this. Most of the games being cited are Windows ports, or involve design studios that heavily work on Windows games. Of course they'd eyeball the X-Box, not because it holds some excusive domain they want access to, but because it's what they're familiar with; work on the machine is a lot easier to them than taking on the alien monstrosity known as the PS2 dev kit. A lot of them have ties to Microsoft through their windows work (see: Bioware) and thus are more likely to do a console game period when they know the hardware and have a relationship with the manufacturer already.
It's no surprise to see this, and it's not really a trend, it's just a natural side effect of the X-Boxen's nature.
It would almost seem like Unreal would go with Playstation II and Doom 3 would go with XBox.
If those games ever caught on with the console/home crowd like they did on the PC...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/technology/circu its/29xbox.html?ex=1083816000&en=fcdcd3c4c45d12b3& ei=5062&partner=SLASHDOT
Let's look at that list. Doom3? What? Who cares? This list includes "games I'll buy for my PC, and that were easily portable to the XBox as a 'gimme' for developing for the PC" This is like saying "Final Fantasy franchise continues to by-pass XBox" or "Solaris continues to not run on my toaster".
catching up the console
While the analyst in the article is claiming its because of the Xbox's power, and a few developers mention its functionality, the real reason they're doing this is DirectX.
Microsoft made a smart choice when they used standard PC components and DirectX. All the games mentioned will also be available for Windows. From the publishers perspective, it's a no-brainer. Spend a few weeks to port the code (as opposed to months for GC/PS2) for the Xbox to take into account its controller, and maybe XBox Live, and you end up with a 10 million plus market to exploit.
Even though the margins are smaller, some of these games might have slipped under the radar as PC games. On the Xbox (and consoles in general), the volumes are much larger.
However, the article also mentions how this should carry over to the XBox 2. With the rumored PowerPC Architecture and lack of standard hard-drive, these ports would be on the same level as the other consoles. Perhaps XNA is intended to fill this gap?
"The New York Times Technology's Michel Marriott reports (free reg. req.) on the growing trend of developers making Nintendo-exclusive games, bypassing the Sony PS2 and Microsoft Xbox. Nintendo is 'playing catch-up on the console' with some notable examples of Nintendo-exclusive (or Nintendo-first) console games that include Super Mario Sunshine 2, Metroid Prime 2, Wario Ware Inc and Pacman Vs. Marriott interviews Todd Hollenshead (id), Mark Rein (Epic), J. Allard (Microsoft), and Donald Mustard (Majesco) among others that include Sony and THQ. The question is, will gamers follow the developers' preferences? Sony's dominance in the next game console wars could be toppled if they do. 'If Nintendo can woo more developers to the GameCube, the balance of power in the next round could change.'"
"The New York Times Technology's Michel Marriott reports (free reg. req.) on the growing trend of developers making PS2-exclusive games, bypassing the Microsoft XBox and Nintendo GameCube. Sony is 'extending its dominance' with some notable examples of PS2-exclusive (or PS2-first) console games that include GTA: San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Dark Cloud 3 and Killswitch. Marriott interviews Todd Hollenshead (id), Mark Rein (Epic), J. Allard (Microsoft), and Donald Mustard (Majesco) among others that include Sony and THQ. The question is, will gamers follow the developers' preferences? Sony's dominance in the next game console wars could be extended if they do. 'If Sony can woo more developers to PS2, the balance of power in the next round could cripple the competition.'"
--What a useless article.
I am of two minds with next generation of consoles. 1. PS3 technology sounds really cool. I've chosen the playstation and PS2 during previous generations of consoles. I am comfortable with the PS2's controller and am adverse to changing consoles.
2. I don't belive that it is a good thing to have one company dominate the gaming market (ex. Nintendo of the 1980's). Monopolistic motives drive more than just MS. I also believe that MS's development tools will make Xbox games easier to program. That may be the X factor for many developers.
So I'm willing to sit back and evaluate which next generation console offers the best technology, best games, for the best price. Since I don't have the money to waste on more than one console I'
Go Gusties
If a game is available for the PC, how is it an Xbox exclusive again?
I agree. It would be much easier for Windows developers to make an Xbox game than it would be to the GC or PS2. What I do have difficulty grasping though is how a game can be made for the Xbox but NOT be made for Windows.
I'm a little ignorant about Xbox development but it seems to me that if Microsoft were a little better about letting people easily do hobby development on the Xbox they'd truly have a good foundation all around for game geeks, both on the development side and on the playing side.
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
To run Doom 3 on a PC, you'll need a video card that costs more than an xbox. It may not be AS great on the xbox, but it will be close (because it's tuned to the console specifically). For a lot of people, that's pretty financially compelling. Also, Full Spectrum Warrior is not currently slated for Windows release. This game was designed from the ground up for xbox, specifically because the army wanted the developer to put together a simulation for the xbox (it's easier to deploy). It may eventually come to PC, but no word as yet.
Yay! More exclusive first person shooters! However will anyone compete?
Gah.. the authors improper use of buzzwords, comparison of processors using clock speed, and highlighting of Windows based games (naturals for porting to Xbox) leaves me little doubt he has no idea what he is talking about.
My guess would be because the XBox is a fixed set of hardware, with known capabilities. If I'm an XBox developer, I don't have to worry about making my game take advantage of Gee-Whiz Blip-Texture-Buffered Cell Shading (TM) that currently only exists on the Radeon 10K+1/2. If I choose to port my game from XBox to Windows, though, I'll be competing with games that do exploit these features, and I'll get a reputation of being "behind the curve."
When will people stop using "technology" as a reason for one system being superior to another? When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed. I'll stick with Nintendo all the way. They know what makes good games, not just what appeals to the sheep that only know about which system has the faster processor. The difference is negligable as far as technology goes.
"If Microsoft can woo more developers to Xbox, the balance of power in the next round could change."
I'm blatantly biased here, but I'd be thrilled if Microsoft were to make overtures to the independent game developer community. Some noises were made along those lines in November, 2000, but they didn't follow up tangibly. As an independent developer, I don't feel drawn towards Xbox development the way I did, Pocket PC development. In that arena, MS gave the development tools away for free, (something I always felt Palm should have done to keep Pocket PC from gaining market share from 2001 onward).
Xbox development is said to be technically similar to Windows desktop development, so from a development standpoint, I imagine that authors of 95/2K/XP software would feel comfortable developing for the console. Further, 3d engines such as Torque and Conitec's 3DGS make it possible for modest-sized groups to develop popular titles. But both the developers of such engines, and the developers of games, face restrictions imposed by the console manufacturer(s). Conitec's Doug Poston states his case -- the manufacturers make the cost-of-entry too high for smaller studios.
Does the manufacturer-imposed barrier-to-entry for console development raise the quality of games, or does it mean fewer interesting titles and less experimentation? (I suppose the businessman-side of me would be thrilled if larger studios abandoned the desktop PC, leaving the market open. But somehow, I think that'd be a phyrric victory for all of us.)
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
Microsoft has cornered the market of First Person Shooters. Good for them. Personally, I can only stand to play one or two FPS games a year.
the cosmos in 20 words or less: thumbuki.com
When did gaming become cut-scenes and graphics, while gameplay and innovation get shoved under the bed
By my best estimates, about the same time gaming became synonymous with "first-person shooters" (and very similar games). Most of the games that everyone seems to be so hot about these days look to me like just YAFPS--maybe they've got graphics a bit cooler, and physics a bit better, but they're all just rehashes of PiD, Marathon, Wolfenstein, and Doom, when you get right down to it. Most of them don't even have the kind of story that Marathon had--though I've heard that Half-Life does actually have *some* story to it (haven't played it, so I can't really judge).
It will pass, though. It may not be until the technology slows down a bit, but people will start to realize that it's really not *that* cool to have whatever the latest-and-greatest 3D features are, and start to think about the difference in gameplay and story. We will see a gaming renaissance, and I'd put it about 3-5 years down the road.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
If people do 'hobby development' on the Xbox, it could cause serious problems with the revenue stream.
Microsoft makes money on every game sold. The typical home-grown game programmer is not going to give MS their cut.
Why subsidize the hardware, if you don't make money on the software?
No reason to lie.
I really have a hard time seeing this as anything but a good thing. Games that get ported to all 3 systems rarely look, play or feel as good as a game developed for one of the consoles exclusively. Even the much mocked PS2 can deliver some really impressive visuals and game play when the game is specificly developed for that platform.
The only people exclusive titles are bad for are the people that don't own multiple consoles, but now it just means that if you want to buy a console you have to make a choice doesn't it? Isn't choice good? If you think that all games should get ported to all systems please tell me how that would be any better than there only being a single console standing? Neither Nintendo or Sony are going anywhere for awhile, it is a long road before either one of them gets busted apart by MS.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
Every system has their mascots. So should I have brought up GTA , or all the Tomb Raider games?
And then the rest of your post you simply helped prove the point I was making. Graphics don't make good games (regarless of the fact that the majority of the GameCube games DO in fact look great).
Each company has their own priority:
Microsoft: Advertising and hype + buying up companies to make exclusive games
PS2: Just shove a bunch of crap at people because they know quantity over quality is the key
Nintendo: Make quality games that play and look great.
Each company has their own priority? Yes, to make money. And they all work their ways to do that. Microsoft, it appears, will be porting PC games. MS does offer quality games and isn't just advertising and hype. I would say PS2 has far more advertising and hype of far more marginal games, but again, it uses marketing to make money. And Nintendo's games may be the cat's pajamas, but if no one in the U.S. is buying them, who cares? Nintendo hasn't been going up in this country for a while. You may think Nintendo is some gaming eden, a non-profit entity putting forth quality games. They are as cut-throat as anyone else but losing in the US market.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
I can't link to a specific article, but I remember very clearly that early on in Microsoft's strategy with the Xbox, perhaps even before they released it, J. Allard said that exclusivity on games for the Xbox meant hardware exclusivity. I recall thinking when I read this that this was extremely brilliant of Microsoft. You can pay someone to be exclusive, but when the money stops flowing there's no reason for them not to port it. On other hand, if it's that much more difficult logistically (and therefore financially) to port, why would publishers bother?
Allard was specifically referring to the hard drive, which I think we'd all agree has gone quite underutilized. Full Spectrum though is an excellent example though of how this strategy played out with Xbox Live. The US Army merely gave the developers of Full Spectrum a list of requirements. It had to be on console, it had to be able to be multiplayer, and it had to have realistic "trainable" AI. The Xbox is a no brainer here, particularly since when they developed FS Sony Online and barely transpired. I suppose one could speculate that the Army had a geographical preference ("Made" in America).
The other games listed are exclusive probably because of the hardware requirements or the ease in developing for the Xbox in relation to the PC. Not surprisingly, games using PC engines (like Splinter Cell, which uses the Unreal engine) have also been exclusive or at least came out well before a PS2 and Gamecube version. Another unsurprising characteristic that Xbox exclusives have shared is that they've almost all been western developers. The exception to this are the early Xbox Sega titles, which was probably just Sega pissed off at Sony. Tecmo/Team Ninja has been Xbox exclusive, but I think it's obvious that someone has a lot of extra money in their pockets for that deal
Which makes you wonder why the guys who developed these strategies in the inception of the Xbox have almost all been fired and replaced. I wonder what that bodes for Xbox2. If hardware is the key for Microsoft exclusives, then is giving Sony an extra year to buffer their system specs as the Xbox1 did really that smart?
But if it's a port, by definition, it's not an exclusive game. If I can buy the game on PC and on XBox, it can't be exclusive.
Even more, if I upgrade my PIII computer to something that can play Doom 3, I'm looking at a (potentially) $2-3K system. For that same $2-3K, I can buy a low-end HDTV, an Xbox, component cables, and play Doom 3 at a nice resoution. This is all assuming that progressive scan is supported.
I think as the price of digital TVs comes down, and the price of consoles remains in the $150-300 range (counting the launch prices), we'll see more developers gravitate in that direction. After all, why would I spend thousands on a computer to play a few games when I can spend the same on a TV and a console. Throw in set-top functionality and I now get more bang for my buck!
Actually, a PC version is slated for release.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
That this is because of the xbox's pc architecture? The xbox is one cool little gizmo because essentially it's a PC with excellent tv connectivity. That's about it, nothing else novel about it. Like all MS lines, it has a GREAT business strategy behind it, that's why they're rich don't forget.
But honestly... xbox is getting these titles because of it's nature, it's much easier to take a game developed for the pc, and bring it over (either as a port, or side development project) than it is to port it to an entirely different architecture.
If the xbox was a traditional console, it would NOT have these titles. It's a no brainer for the developers. Take your excellent pc titles (for which the market is waning) put them on a PC/Console thingy for a lot less cost, and reap the profits.
I mean... c'mon.. Thanks mr obvious!
These are games that probably wouldn't have been made for the playstation and gamecube anyway either cause they didn't really want to change as much code as they would have wanted since they spent so much time just making the pc version or they feel it wouldn't fit "the demographic" . What Id game did they ever make for the N64, was it quake 2 or something. No one wanted that cause they had a much better console game called goldeneye. These games were all designed for the PC, they're sort of just porting them to the X-Box. Who knows how much fun they'd be without the mouse when they were made with a mouse in mind. Plus, usually games cost $10 more or something on consoles than they do on the PC? Why, I don't know. I doubt that doom or unreal will be any cheaper, but people can still buy it for their computers, and they wont have to pay sixty buck a year to play online(If an online mode is included - I really have no idea).
DJs were the developers of the 1950s. They did something like this, with record companies in the role of Microsoft. Back then it was called "payola", and a number of laws were passed to prevent it. That seems quite unlikely now.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Are these true exclusives or time-based exclusives, like the original Splinter Cell? The word 'exclusive' doesn't mean much anymore if Microsoft is allowed to tout a game as exclusive when it comes out for PS2 three months later.
sell any ps2 games + ps2 exclusive games to Japan = sell more ps2 consoles
Where, exactly, does one of the most profitable exclusive in the history of video gaming fall into your formula? You know, that little license called GTA, which Sony paid an "unspecified sum" for (read: a gazillion dollars). Or, should I say "$ony?" Oh yeah, that other one too, the one in which $ony very nearly bought out another company to get the exclusive...um, gee what is it, oh yes, Final Fantasy. That's it.
Please, retreat, MS (sorry, "M$") troll, back to main.slashdot.org.
I'm tired of multi-platform games catering to the lowest common denominator. I paid money for tha 64megs of money, developers should put it to use.
The people that got the leaked alpha managed to get it to play at a reasonable frame rate on a GeForce 3 TI 500 at 800 by 600. A search on Froogle shows that you can get one for $100 which is $40 less than an XBOX. Of course you could buy a newer card that is faster than a GF3 for less.
Oh, did I mention that this is on alpha, un-optimized, debug code?
Also, control wise, consoles suck for FPS. Give me a mouse and keyboard anyday.
Nice one, Mike. Still at it, huh?
Isn't there a risk to MS's OS marketshare in moving more games to an XBox base? Also, will this not have a negative impact on the graphics card market?
As far as XBox exclusivity, I see this as a potential cyclical issue: XBox trailed PS2 in release so naturally had better HW specs. If PS3's release sufficiently trails the XBox2, it will likely have better HW specs, etc. However, IF (emphasis on if) the rumers pan out regarding XBox2's lack of a harddrive and no 1st gen game compatibility, then all bets are off.
...are what has kept the console industry alive since the mid 80's.
The Great Videogame Crash was caused by the fact that anyone with a few bucks could publish a horrible game in a box that looked like all the others. People got tired of sifting through the endless, repetitive crap.
The "Nintendo Seal of Quality" (and the corresponding tech that prevented any old Joe from making an NES cart) literally saved the industry - first by raising the quality bar, and second by providing a source of income that allowed consoles to be sold cheap. Now that there is a more established gaming media, that first purpose is largely redundant. The second, though, has become the industry's bread and butter.
Could a licensing scheme be arranged in such a way as to preserve this cut, and still allow independent entrants?
I think it's clear that the vendors don't think so. We'll see more initiatives like the XBox independent program - but they won't be what you or I want (I'd love to port Jumpman to the GBA, but it's such a hassle). Instead, they'll provide programs designed to create more software that fits in their business model and provides the same income.
MS doesn't want free or even "$10-ultra-value" titles for the XBox. It wants more sprawling, mass-market $50 ones that it'll take its standard cut on. Independents will have access to the hardware to exactly the extent that they can provide such titles.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Sorry about that Mr Gates. Did not know you would take it so personally.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
When given the choice between xbox and PC version of a game, more than likely the xbox version has DD5.1 support out of the box, and possibly xbox live. Doom3 has both, so it is a no brainer for me to get the xbox version, not to mention the fact I can play it on my 61" big screen also. In order for me to be able to play the PC version of doom3, I would have to spend easily $1000 on upgrading my 1.2ghz athlon and GF2 card to get an equal experience. Remember, coding for consoles allows them to optimize a lot more and squeeze out all the horsepower they can.
Actually only about $500-1000. Still a lot more than an Xbox. But saying that you need to spend $2k on a computer to run HL2 or Doom 3 is just wrong.
An Athlon XP 2800+ with 512MB and new motherboard can be had for little more than $300. Add in a $200 video card and you're all set. Even if you built from scratch instead of upgrading, it would only be about an additional $400 more (OS+hard drive+CD-RW+case).
None of these games make me wet my pants.
The Unreal series on XBox, while original games...are shit.
Doom III? I'll take it on PC.
The other two mentioned I don't even care about.
When you have to pack a LAUNCH TITLE in with your system - when it's STILL the top selling game for your system - then you, my friends, are fucked for this generation.
--Moo.
That's weird. The original post had the Google link in it (see below). But it didn't have the links to all the game sites - didn't have time to add them.
It makes sense for developers who are already familiar with PC game development to work on Xbox console games. That is not a trend in itself and will not overthrow the reigning console king, Sony.
What is interesting is that many highly-anticipated and benchmark-setting games are Xbox-exclusive or Xbox-first. Besides those mentioned in the article, the most notable Xbox-exclusive example was Halo - originally a PC title - but that was following Microsoft's acquisition of Bungie. These are third-party developers who are opting to go the Xbox route, with no overt interest or incentive in developing for Xbox-only beyond the relative ease of development vs. the notoriously arcane PS2.
If Microsoft can convince third-party developers to make the Xbox their first choice when considering new development projects, Sony will have to respond with some strong incentives to stay on top. If gamers can get the titles that they want most only on one console why wouldn't they vote with their dollars?
"Mr. McNealy said that recent sales figures indicate that Xbox will outsell PlayStation 2 in North America this month, by 275,000 units to 200,000, versus 100,000 for the GameCube"
The GameCube price drop really did long term wonders didn't it?
Since when is Doom3 being released for XBox exclusively? Answer: It isn't. Ahh, so according to the article, it must therefore be being released *first* on XBox, right? Nope, wrong again.
The article contains false and misleading information attempting to prove a point. If you need to lie to prove a point, that makes you a politician, not a journalist.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
In other words, it's harder to write for a more flexible platform, which Linux and open source coders could easily attest to I am sure.
Of course, if you don't put in the effort, you won't get the reward. If you're not sure whether it's worth it, watch what happens as Far Cry, Half Life 2 and Doom 3 obliterate the PC gaming market for the rest of the year. Money will talk.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Actually, according to Carmack, the XBox version of Doom3 will be drastically different because the power just isn't there for Doom3 to work as it is.
They're doing a special re-write just for XBox with overly simplified graphics.
It won't be close because DX8 can't get close to doing any of the lighting or shading features incorporated into Doom3, and the CPU/GPU lineup in the XBox doesn't have the grunt to handle the sheer number of polygons the Doom3 engine pumps out. The absolute best quality you could hope for would be graphics similar to Halo, and they don't come close to touching Doom3.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
That's overkill!
In Australian dollars you could buy a 2500+ ($100), mainboard ($100), Radeon 9600XT ($250), case + CD/RW ($100), HDD ($100) and monitor (if you don't already have one ($200). That's about $600 USD for a system that is quite adequate for running any game on the shelves today. And $200 of that is the cost of the monitor, which is a buy-once item much like the more expensive TV set you need to buy for an X-Box.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Though, I probably do play shooters once or twice a year, I just replay old ones since I've yet to notice any great difference in the new ones.
Sure, perhaps MSFT has had a lack of XBox exclusive games since they launched when compared to the GC or PS2. And let's go along with the assumption that the games listed in the article ARE being released exclusively for the XBox (contrary to what others have already pointed out).
That being said, as the XBox is closing on it's life cycle (as evident by the flurry of activity surrounding XBox Next -- or whatever it will be called -- and the recent price drops/promotions) does exclusivity on new games really matter? If the price drops didn't get non-XBoxers to rush out and buy a system, what makes them think that DOOM3 will make 'em go out and buy a console now?
Let's suppose that there are DOOM (to pick a game for use in the example) fans out there who DON'T already have an XBox. And let's say that all those fanboys rush out and buy the XBox just to play DOOM3. Not only is MSFT going to lose money on this overall transaction, but I'm guessing that the reason fanboy never bought an Xbox in the first place was because he just didn't care about the other games on the system enough to buy one, exclusive or otherwise.
YES, at launch and during the first year or two of a console's existence, there are HUGE reasons why being the exclusive home to a title or series is important to building a customer base. Late in the console's lifecycle after you've already started cutting prices multiple times to also build marketshare? Not so much.
We call it supply and demand.. Apparently people still by the PS2, therefore Sony doesn't have to drop the price. You can say whatever you like, but the PS2 has still sold, what, ten times as much as the XBOX? Sony will not have any problems with the next generation either. I don't think Japan could care less about the XBOX.
Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux. Tu delenda est!