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.'"

Comments

I see both sides

[CosmicDreams]

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'

Re:I see both sides

[hambonewilkins]

What do you think the console Market would look like with MS in the position Nintendo was in in the late 80s?

The exact same. After reading "Game Over" about Nintendo's rise and fall in the 1980s and 1990s, I can tell you there's not much more that company could have done to prevent competition. Nintendo was a monopolistic juggernaut who controlled all licesning and the entire market.

It's not like Sony and Nintendo are saints here. Sony entered for pretty much the same reasons as MS - to gain entry into a profitable market and to control the profitable market.

It's easy to hate MS just because they are MS. But Sony and Nintendo are businesses as well, and the early PS1 years remind me a lot of the current XBox scheming.

Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de

[mr_rattles]

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.

Re:The real reason for the port

[Ian_Bailey]

I think Microsoft and game developers are realizing that outside of a few special cases, PC games are not so hot for business. As it stands now a moderate success (250,000 units or so) on the XBox would probably make more money than a moderate success on the PC (probably closer to 100,000). Not to mention the testing becomes much easier with only one target platform.

As a result, the mediocre games get a poor treatment just to get it out there for free. It really becomes a self-fufilling prophecy like you say, though.

Re:Microsoft Borg icon

[UWC]

I think AtariAmarok might have been noting an apparent bias for the exact reason you cited. All consoles rely to some degree on exclusive titles. The columnist citing this trend in reference only to the XBox seems to be ignoring that very fact. And if that wasn't the original point of the post, then I'm claiming it as my own.

Re:A growing trend... or just involving Windows de

[srmalloy]

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."

You have the right reason, although your justification behind it isn't square. When you're writing for the Xbox, you know that you're always going to have a known set of graphic and sound capabilities; move to the PC, and you have to query DirectX to find out what the user's hardware can do. If the Xbox game uses a particular hardware acceleration, and the user's video card won't do that, you've got to have the code to do that in software as part of your graphics library, or change your code so that it can not use that particular graphics feature if it's not supported. All of which adds to the codebloat and the complexity of the port.

Early strategy paying out

[superultra]

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?

Re:Early strategy paying out

[SuiteSisterMary]

Asides:

DoA3 vs DoA2: Hardcore. Note especially Lei Fang's dress.

Here's the story I referenced above, actually:

First, a funny little bit of information regarding Team Ninja's development of the game. According to the magazine, Team Ninja received their Xbox development kits and wanted to test them out. So what would you do in this situation? Right - port your latest game to the new system as quickly as possible. And that's what Team Ninja did. Two members of the team got to work on a port of Dead or Alive 2: Hardcore from the PS2 to the Xbox. It took just two months to port everything but the sound, and when all was said and done, the game was running at 130 frames per second! On the PS2 and Dreamcast, the game runs at 60 frames per second (your eye tends to not notice the additional frames beyond this).

Original article.

Re:when will it end

[VividU]

Nicely put. Xbox Live players know that there's no going back.

It's amazing that everynight I get to play against the best players in the world while lounging on my sofa.

console exclusive?

[madygoosey]

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).

Real or Marketing?

[StocDred]

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.

Re:when will it end

[*weasel]

Who'd have ever guessed that it would be Microsoft of all companies to get a multiplayer gaming service right?

Voice Comm, no HPBs, friends lists, out-of-game invites, etc.

Xbox Live is a glorified matching service that's worth paying for. There really is no higher praise.

Any shooting themselves in the foot potential?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.