Slashdot Mirror
How Exclusive Will Exclusive Games Be?
Gamasutra's regular 'Analyze This' column (which gets answers to topical questions from industry analysts) today ponders the exclusivity of next-gen games. With the costs of developing a AAA title ever on the rise, the article seeks out the answer to whether truly exclusive titles (games that are only released on one platform) are a thing of the past. "I feel title exclusivity for [third-party] developers is less important then title differentiation. All three consoles have strengths, and I would advise [developers] to clearly develop with the console in mind, and I would stress differentiation within their titles. This clearly poses a problem for smaller, more financially strapped developers who don't have the budget to develop what is in essence three separate games. - Ben Bajarin, Creative Strategies"
Well you wont be seeing Halo 3 on the PS3, thats for sure.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Nintendo is the only player who is basically a game designer first, hardware manufacturer second. They're first-party titles are about the only thing that will count for exclusive, unless they one day go Sega's route of only publishing games.
Anything else is prone to follow the dollar.
What you see now is "limited exclusivity". GTA3 was exclusive to PS2, until they ported it to XBox. RE series was exclusive to the Gamecube for a short time.
Third parties would be foolish to let themselves get locked in, like they did to Nintendo back in the day. But I forsee the same thing for some first/second-party titles too, non-Nintendo that is.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Halo 3 ported to PS3, after it's XBox 360 and PC run, of course. I wouldn't be shocked to see a Metal Gear title on something other than a playstation, like, say, gamecube.
Hell, I wouldn't even be shocked to see Zelda titles on the CD-I.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Games don't have to be expensive to produce. Look at some of the more popular games for GC. Animal Crossing, Metroid, Zelda WW, Smash Bros. Mario Kart, . All great games, All did well enough, even exclusively on the third place console. They didn't sell a ton of games, yet I'm sure they made enough money. These games probably didn't cost that much to make.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
really? what's the difference between a 360 and a ps3? Nada, amigo! It would be silly for dev's not to go cross-platform with those systems.
The wii, on the other hand...
I think we will start seeing less and less platform specific games that are exclusive. The only ones which will be exclusive will be first party titles - those developed by nintendo for the wii and ds, by sony for the ps3 and psp, and by microsoft for the xbox360. I think many third party titles will be headed to multiple platforms, since it can maximize revenues for the big companies, like EA. I think, however, we will continue to see a trend of games coming out as "exclusive" but being ported within a year, which is pretty common by the big guys like EA and Rockstar Games.
From the Article:
"In my view there is no incentive for third parties to develop exclusively for a single platform, unless there is some form of financial inducement from the hardware manufacturer. If you want the largest potential user base, you go multi-platform." - Ed Baron
This pretty much sums up the issue. Until such time as the platforms themselves provide such differentiation factors that affect core game design, developers are much better off by releasing products on as many platforms as possible.
The Wii Remote is one example of the type of thing that can differentiate platforms. If the core design of your game is one that hinges upon a feature that is only available on a single platform, then you almost de facto exclusivity. If the core elements of game play can't be pulled off if you port to another platform, then it makes no sense to do that port.
Ultimately, the issue of exclusivity remains in the hands of the hardware manufacturers. If they design new hardware with unique and compelling features that ultimately support unique design elements on their platform, they will win the exclusivity they so desire. On the other hand, they can simply resort to the checkbook and buy their way into exclusivity.
This generation games that come out for XBox360 or PS3 and sell, will probably make it to the other system. However, wii games, even aside from 1st party nintendo ones, will be more likely exclusive to wii. We are already seeing different versions of new releases for the wii, and they are becoming more divergent from the xbox360 and ps3 versions (call of duty 3 to godfather). Assuming wii maintains it's marvelous popularity, all but the most popular wii games built from the ground up will have little reason to undergo the major graphics upgrades and control changes neccessary for porting. If you took Wii out of the equation...or guessed at the next generation of consoles, I'd agree most big games would port to every console. But combine the low cost (comparatively) of developing Wii games with it's projected console sales (huge), and there is a big reason to think this system will see many true exclusives.
Obviously Nintendo's AAA titles will be exclusive, as will those coming from companies wholly or partially owned by Microsoft. Mario and Halo are not franchises to laugh at. (Plus there's the uniqueness of the Wiimote, for what that's worth.) Both those platforms will have no problem distinguishing themselves via their game selection.
On the other hand, it seems like the issue of AAA games going multi-platform will hit Sony pretty hard, because they rely a lot on third-party titles. It seems like Sony's only real hope here is that the Cell chip is powerful enough to lure in developers who are going for the most technically cutting-edge games - companies like id, although I have no idea about them specifically.
First party games are those games that are developed by the maker of the console. Halo, Mario, Zelda, Project Gotham Racing, etc. They are not going anywhere unless the console maker no longer makes consoles. This is why you don't see Mario games being developed for the PS3.
Paid exclusives means that a publisher paid money for the title to be exclusive. Either for a limited period of time or forever.
Default exclusives occur because it costs money to port games to other consoles. When a console has the majority of the market, some game developers will make a title for just that console. Think of the NES, Playstation and Playstation 2. Many game developers would just develop for the major console and ignore the rest. This is unlikely to happen this time because of the Xbox 360's weakness in Japan, PS3's cost and Nintendo's recent history of poor 3rd party game sales.
From how it is shaping up so far, if Sony wants exclusives for the PS3 it's going to have to make them itself. The Wikipedia lists for PS3 and Wii games have been put in a sortable format. Sorting by exclusive titles gives some interesting data. So far, the PS3 only has between 12 and 14 (depending on region) exclusive games far enough along to have a release date more concrete than 'Q4 2007'. Compare that to the Wii which has between 26 and 42 exclusives with release dates. The range of publishers that are making the Wii games is also interesting to look at. I wish there was a way to check the 360 titles in the same way, but alas, that list is not sortable.
3 _games
Check them out for yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_
The only exception is in the portable space, where MS doesn't have a platform. There are already first-party IP that have been developed for Nintendo portables, such as Age of Empires DS.
It's interesting how fanboys of all consoles tend to have a very narrow view of things. Nintendo fanboys live and breath the Mario/Zelda/Metroid-universe, Xbox fanboys with Halo, Age of Empires, etc. and Playstation fanboys with Gran Turismo, SOCOM, etc. There are plenty of great first-party games available on all the big platforms, despite what fanboys might claim.
-- jchenx
I've run Halo 2 on my PS1 and Halo 5 on my Dreamcast.
Unless the hardware prices on the current generation of machines drops dramatically there aren't going to be nearly as many multiple current gen console owners as there have been. That means getting your game into the hands of as many buyers as possible will require non-exclusivity.
Linux. . .and Japanese games.
All the Cube owners I know own more, and more diverse games than the Xbox owners I know. Many Xbox owners seems to own the Halos, Fable, and a Project Gotham, as well as some second-tier games. Cube owners, on the other hand, seem to have more diverse tastes. Most own several multipalyer party games - Super Monkey Ball, Mario Party, Mario Kart, stuff like that. Then there are the big single-player games. Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Beyond Good and Evil (which is also available for other consoles, of course, but seems to mainly have been bought by Cube owners). Cube owners also tend to go for quirky games. I actually know people who own Killer 7 :-)
:-)
So... My anecdotal evidence beats your anecdotal evidence
I agree. The Wii will get the exclusives by definition. You can't really port a game like Elebits or Second Opinion or Wario Ware (or even Rayman - although it did receive a port, it's hardly the same game without the Wii remote) to the PS3 or the 360. There is, however, nothing in the PS3 or 360 which would keep a game from being ported from one to the other. For all intents and purposes, they are equal consoles.
The Wii Remote is one example of the type of thing that can differentiate platforms. If the core design of your game is one that hinges upon a feature that is only available on a single platform, then you almost de facto exclusivity. If the core elements of game play can't be pulled off if you port to another platform, then it makes no sense to do that port.
I would tend to agree with you, but seeing Ubisoft port Rayman Raving Rabbids (which makes extensive use of the unique features of the Wii-remote) to the 360 I no longer believe publishers see unique controls as a particular limitation to taking a title cross-platform.
It ultimately comes down to profitability: if they think they can make money on something, they're sure going to try.