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"

Comments

Exclusivity Only Makes Sense...if it makes sense.

[Lensar]

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.

Re:They don't have to be expensive

[AKAImBatman]

If you're a third party developer what possible incentive do you have for limiting yourself to only 1/3 of the market?

That's a rather simplistic economic model, there. If you actually want to make money, you have to project your sales based on the number of consoles. Which means (for the moment) that the marketshare sits like this (approx. numbers):

XBox 360: 62.0%
PS3: 9.1%
Wii: 28.8%

(Numbers may not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.)

From those figures alone, it would make the most sense to target the XBox 360. You get almost 2/3rds of the market with an exclusive! Which is why many publishers are doing exactly that. The games that used to be PS3-exclusive are quickly showing up on the 360.

Of course, that model is pretty simplisitic itself. It's good for games that can be quickly ported to take advantage of the current market situation. For anything that's in development right now, you'd want to do projections based on their current sales rates. Which, if they hold true, will have the Wii surpassing the 360's market share before fall, and the PS3 continuing to limp along. Which means at the end of 2007, you'll be seeing a pretty even split of the market between the 360 and the Wii; making either one a good choice for developing for.

If the current sales rates continue, Nintendo could own upwards of 2/3rds of the market by mid-to-late 2008. Which would leave only one good choice in the market for game makers.

The only reason why developers don't follow models like these is that projections != reality. Issues like Sony's "Home" announcement can impact the sales (and thus marketshare) of a console. What the developers are trying to do is divine that clear leader that they can make money from. The rest simply won't matter, or will get licensed out to a porting company for net of no real risk to the original developer.