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".
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?
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.
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.