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

They don't have to be expensive

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:They don't have to be expensive

[stratjakt]

That is a big reason why Nintendo is still in business.

They can create a hit-game without a blockbuster budget in the 10s of millions. Simple graphics and fun gameplay carry many of their top-tier titles.

There've been similar successes on other consoles - Katamari Damacy comes to mind. But most of the industry seems to be migrating towards the big-budget blockbusters.

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.

Re:They don't have to be expensive

[Swanktastic]

I would imagine the decision-making process is a bit more complicated than simply looking at current and forecast market shares of the consoles. Most consumers have a limited budget to buy games- say 6 per year. If there are 10 amazing games coming out Wii and 2 for the PS3, then I can imagine a scenario where my chances of securing a PS3 owner would be better than for a Wii owner.

Gamers would choose from the best games available for their platform, and my chances for being in the consideration set for an individual gamer would be higher for the PS3 than the Wii. I would then multiply my probabilities for being in the consideration set for an individual gamer on each console times the number of consoles sold to come up with an estimate of sales.

There's a reason some developers are Mac exclusive, and I think it's based on the above logic.

Re:Outside of Nintendo, it doesn't exist

[sqlrob]

I'd be extremely shocked to see Halo 3 on PS3, given the publisher.

Re:Outside of Nintendo, it doesn't exist

[__aaclcg7560]

I'd be extremely shocked to see Halo 3 on Wii, given the platform. ;)

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.

3 types of exclusives: first party, paid, default

[ConfusedSelfHating]

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.

PS3 Exclusives

[Telvin_3d]

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.

Check them out for yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3 _games

No, it does exist

[jchenx]

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.

Uhh, what are you smoking? Both MS and Sony have extensive groups in charge of developing 1st party "can't get it anywhere else" content: Microsoft Game Studios and Sony Computer Entertainment.

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.

This is silly. Halo 3 is being developed by Bungie, which is a first party studio that is owned by Microsoft. Metal Gear is developed by Konami, which is very much independent. There is no chance at all for Halo 3 to go to the PS3, unless you somehow envision MS being bought by Sony or something similarly insane. Equally impossible is the chance that a Sony first-party title, such as Gran Turismo, will be published on the 360, or a Mario game to show up on the PS3/360.

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.

Console costs have an impact as well

[Chess Piece Face]

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.

Re:Outside of Nintendo, it doesn't exist

[Kyokugenryu]

I'd be extremely surprised to find Halo 3 on any Sony system as long as Microsoft is still making hardware and publishing software. Comparing software in the PC world to software in the console world is totally apples (lol) to oranges. Microsoft can do Mac software all they want, since people typically will stick to one format, PC or Mac. Not to mention that they make no money off hardware, and that Macs can already run Windows. There's no real competition out there for them on the Mac, so it's free money essentially.

In the console world, their direct competitor is also making money off the hardware and software. Typically, most gamers don't limit themselves to only one console, so there's no reason to extend yourself to a competitor's console to try and get the software sales you'd already miss out on. It'd be dumb to release an exclusive on a competitor's console if you're a first party developer, because it creates no incentive to buy your hardware in the first place.

Would the Xbox 360 even be here if not for the Dead or Alive or Halo series? Would Sony have ever become the powerhouse they are now without Squaresoft's massive contributions? Would Nintendo be in business at all if they decided to publish games on every console, plus continue manufacturing their own consoles?