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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
Sorry about that Mr Gates. Did not know you would take it so personally.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.