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.'"
Both Sony and Nintendo bank on console exclusives, so there's nothing surprising or even underhanded about MS doing the same. I'm not typically a fan of MS products, but I can't fault them for this move.
Paul Lenhart writes words!
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.
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".
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?
If a game is available for the PC, how is it an Xbox exclusive again?
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.
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.
I don't think anyone can really fault them for it. After all, they are a company and their only purpose is to make money. However, because of the relatively unique position that Microsoft holds (lots of money and no need to turn a profit right now) it can be pretty irritating for us PS2 and GC owners.
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?
Nintendo was a monopolistic juggernaut who controlled all licesning and the entire market.
I didn't dispute that, what's in dispute is what the company did from a consumer standpoint with their effective monopoly. And what they did was release some of the best games ever and leverage it for "quality control" purposes. Yes, crap came out, but a lot less crap than comes out today. Gaming prices weren't much higher then than they are now, and they used FAR more expensive media. The SNES and NES were both quality products as were all Nintendo original games.
Sony pretty much had portable audio locked with the walkman for a while, and yet the quality of their product was still good.
Microsoft meanwhile, used their position to push utter garbage onto the Desktop and Server markets. Only fixed things when absolutely forced(and still not always then), etc., etc.
All companies strive for a monopoly position, it's what they do when they get there from your standpoint as a consumer that you need to pay attention to.
Are you honestly asserting that to us, as gamers, Nintendo screwed us in the 80s worse than MS screwed us in the OS market in the 90s?
To reiterate, it's not the monopoly it's what they do with it. Nintendo was IMO a faaar more benevolent dictator in the gaming market than MS has been in the OS market.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Actually, so the story goes, Team Ninja took the source code to DoA 2, which on the PS2 looked worse than the Dreamcast version, ported it enough to get it to compile on the Xbox, and were astounded to see it going at over one hundred frames per second.
On the Xbox, they can create somebody's clothes as clothes, not as textures, with bump-mapping so that silk looks like silk, rough-weave cotton looks like rough-weave cotton, embroidery looks like embroidery, and so on.
The PS2 might have the potential to outstrip the Xbox, visually speaking, but in reality, nobody can actually get the damn thing to do it.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I agree, but will also point out that this icon already gets used all the time when Microsoft does the exact same thing it's competitors do and everyone in the industry has to do (e.g., wmp included with windows is "borg" while iTunes coming with mac os is not).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
would you pay $90 for a GameCube game?
No, but I rarely pay even $50 for games unless it's something I know I'll still be playing in a decade. I tend to rent or buy 'em used and cheap.
Oh, and nowhere near $100, try $70 of todays dollars for a $50 game. Which btw is about the pricepoint most N64 games came out at, long after Nintendo lost their monopoly. They were expensive because of the cartridge medium, not because Nintendo priced higher than people do today.
And one could argue that Sony or Nintendo have pushed "utter garbage" onto gaming markets.
Utter garbage in the sense that you didn't like the products? Absolutely. Utter garbage in the sense that they didn't work as advertised, no.
If you really want to argue that all of the long-running console series which started during this era suck, go right ahead. You won't find many who agree with you.
Why couldn't they do that under competition? What if competiting games were better?
There WERE competing games from third parties out for Nintendo's platforms. They regulated quality, that was it. They also put out systems that still work to this day, were very whiz-bang for their time, and were actually less expensive at launch(adjusted for inflation) than Systems are now. Heck, they were less expensive (adjusted for inflation) than the PS2 or XBox are now AND they included a game.
If you asking why Nintendo chose to limit content on their platforms. Look into the gaming crash Atari caused by being completely unregulated. Nintendo pretty much single handedly created the console market from the ruins of that crash. They did it by not making the same mistakes Atari did.
When it comes to dictators, Nintendo and Sony have been quite benevolent in their past(not to other businesses but to the consumer) when they exercised absolute control. MS hasn't been and still isn't.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
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.