What is the point of platform exclusive games?

[default]

Can someone tell me why any self-righteous games designing company would agree to only sell their game in one platform format? Surely the sales figures would double or even triple if a title was released on Xbox, Playstation and PC (I'm not including the Wii in this argument as it is not what I would call a 'generic' gaming platform)? Granted, some games work better in conjunction with some control schemes (controller versus mouse and keyboard), but we humans are adaptive things, and if we have to go from hacking up demons using a thumbstick and the X button to cursor keys and the spacebar I see no problems.

I see no advantage for the designers behind games like Gears of War, Resistance, a ton of Hack and Slash games I really want to play and a myriad of other titles for console not to be ported to both Xbox and PS and even to PC.
Gears of War is particularly confusing for me. The first game was released on the PC, and it sold thousands of copies. It worked perfectly. Why not the second? Can someone tell me what would entice them to do this? This and the hundreds of other designers who are only denying themselves greater publicity, sales and flexibility. All they have to do is change some button sprites.

 

[Funkysandwich]

Mainly to force people to buy consoles.

That's the only reason I can see.

 

[Mozza444]

Microsoft of Sony pay the game developers to just make the game for their console.. making people that wan't the game NEED the console to play it..

It is quite silly really..

 

[default]

Microsoft of Sony pay the game developers to just make the game for their console.. making people that wan't the game NEED the console to play it..

It is quite silly really..

Sure as hell is, and like I said, there is no benefit for the designers.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Microsoft of Sony pay the game developers to just make the game for their console.. making people that wan't the game NEED the console to play it..

It is quite silly really..

Money. Isn't that what it always comes down to?

Let's put it this way: If there were no console exclusives, why would anyone buy an XBOX? The ps3 would have all the same titles, and it would be roughly the same price, plus be a blue ray player.
I know I wouldn't have chosen XBOX over PS3 if not for the console exclusives.

If there were no console exclusives there would be no competition.

 

[Mozza444]

Microsoft of Sony pay the game developers to just make the game for their console.. making people that wan't the game NEED the console to play it..

It is quite silly really..

Sure as hell is, and like I said, there is no benefit for the designers.

Well I can only Imagen that they get payed MORE?? Than they would make by going cross platform..

I don't know I'm no expert.. I'm sure somebody on this forum knows how it works

 

[Pyode]

All they have to do is change some button sprites.

And herein lies the answer to your conundrum.

It takes waaaaaaaaaaaay more work to port a game to a different platform then just changing some button sprites.

It is a massive amount of coding work, especially to go from something like the 360 to the PS3. They are radically different systems and the games have to be coded way differently.

On top of the development work, the game will essentially have to go through the entire testing process for each individual version because all the versions will have different bugs because of the different coding, as well as different fixes for the bugs.

In light of all of this, many developers try to keep their focus on one or two systems so as to reduce development times and make a better more polished product.

Also, in the case of a game like Halo, Microsoft owns the rights to that game, so obviously they aren't going to want it to be ported to the PS3, 'cuz that would hurt 360 sales.

 

[Meemaimoh]

Repeating what I was told by a games industry lecturer:

- Games are often funded in part by the consoles under the stipulation that it will be an exclusive. Ie, either it's made exclusive or made more cheaply/poorly/not at all.

- Unless the game is specifically designed throughout every stage of its development for use on several platforms, ports tend to suck. Some developers simply don't want to create an inferior version of their product.

- The development cycle is shortened by a noticeable amount by designing the UI for only one platform, and so the process is overall cheaper.

I really don't see how self-righteousness comes into it.

 

[Continuity]

Can someone tell me why any self-righteous games designing company would agree to only sell their game in one platform format? Surely the sales figures would double or even triple if a title was released on Xbox, Playstation and PC (I'm not including the Wii in this argument as it is not what I would call a 'generic' gaming platform)? Granted, some games work better in conjunction with some control schemes (controller versus mouse and keyboard), but we humans are adaptive things, and if we have to go from hacking up demons using a thumbstick and the X button to cursor keys and the spacebar I see no problems.

I see no advantage for the designers behind games like Gears of War, Resistance, a ton of Hack and Slash games I really want to play and a myriad of other titles for console not to be ported to both Xbox and PS and even to PC.
Gears of War is particularly confusing for me. The first game was released on the PC, and it sold thousands of copies. It worked perfectly. Why not the second? Can someone tell me what would entice them to do this? This and the hundreds of other designers who are only denying themselves greater publicity, sales and flexibility. All they have to do is change some button sprites.

Well in the case of the PC at least its because the PC has qualities that consoles simply don't I.e. you can't get the game onto a console without nurfing it... Of course its not always reasoned like that, there are plenty of games that should never of seen console releases (like counter strike for e.g.) and others that would of done fine.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I think that PC games generally sell for less money so that may be why some games are not sold on PC. I have no idea, just a suggestion. Otherwise I don't really understand, particularly with the xbox and PC as I wouldn't have thought they would be that different to develop for. With games like Halo or LBP, it is obvious that these are going to be exclusive to their respective consoles but as for Gears and Resistance? I have no idea. Maybe so they don't have to compete with each other?

 

[Pyode]

When you only have to code and design for say, the PS3, you can make it to that console's specifics and your team knows what their general limits will be. But when it comes to multi-platformers they have to make it so the game can be played on all the consoles so it has to be under the limits of every console it's on...

Also, this ^

 

[maddawg IAJI]

So people who don't own an Xbox or a PS3 will go out and buy one. Remember Halo 3? Remember how it was an Xbox exclusive? The month it was released was the only month in 2007 where the Xbox 360 sold more consoles then the Wii. Don't doubt their power.

Another side note is that it is a bit cheaper to make exclusives. There is a tad more work put in when you need to change the code so the game can work on both consoles. It's not as easy as loading the game onto a PS3 disk and an Xbox 360 disk.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Supposedly to generate competiotion, prevent an established monopoly and prevent the market from becoming saturated... buuut we all know thats pretty much bullshit I doubt the market has even been more saturated fps, fitness, shovelware.

Oh gaming I will always remember you fondly.

 

[Entropyutd]

Can someone tell me why any self-righteous games designing company would agree to only sell their game in one platform format?

It is not the designers, It's the console manufacturers.
Basically Microsoft or Sony will look at the games coming out, then judging by the market anticipation they will offer a buttload of money to the games designer.

If the designer cannot be bought then we may see exclusive dlc.
But I am guessing in most cases the monies offered are more than adequate to cover the lost sales on the rival console.

It's all a meaningless virtual dick measuring contest really. But instances like maddawg IAJI mentioned are the reason it goes on.
Genre defining games like MGS or Halo 3 can and do sell consoles, you can throw a few more names in there, but overall console exclusives tend to be very overhyped and they need to be to get Joe Public to want them badly enough to buy a PS3 or Xbox just to play them.

 

[Penguinness]

It's hardly a new concept. It's not like you could put your N64 cartriges in your PS1.

 

[Darth Awesome]

What I don't get is why Microsoft would make X360 exclusives and not port them to PC, from what I understand it is easier than from other platforms. also Windows - Microsoft's product, is the only OS that can play these games (considering they don't make a Mac version of the game ofc!) specially in cases of games like Gears of War 2 & Halo 3.

 

[Bellvedere]

What I don't get is why Microsoft would make X360 exclusives and not port them to PC, from what I understand it is easier than from other platforms. also Windows - Microsoft's product, is the only OS that can play these games (considering they don't make a Mac version of the game ofc!) specially in cases of games like Gears of War 2 & Halo 3.

Console to PC ports are very notorious. PCs have way more potential than console so limiting a PC title to the same quality as a 360 is frowned upon. Third party game publishers for 360 (as in not Microsoft Game studios) have to pay a licensing fee to publish games for the system. The big thing is though all publishers have to pay royalties for every console game manufactured. And it must be paid at the time of manufacture unlike royalties in any other industry. That means that even if the game doesn't sell the royalties are already paid.

As far as I know unless Microsoft is the publisher they have no gain in a title being released for PC. If they are the publisher a console exclusive is still in their best interests as releasing a game that would sell their console (which would likely lead to purchasing other xbox games - feels like a waste to spend so much for just one game). It also avoids most piracy problems too.

There is also the matter of Xbox live. PC gamers play online for free, an Xbox gamer pays. It may only take on game to make them consider doing so or just one game may tip the balance between it being worth it or not.

This is just my understanding of it, if anyone more knowledgeable thinks I'm wrong I'm certainly not denying the possibility.

 

[Baby Tea]

It's hardly a new concept. It's not like you could put your N64 cartriges in your PS1.

This is an excellent point.
There was no Mario on Sega Genesis.

Besides, it's not exactly rocket science: Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all want you to buy their console. They provide games people like for only their console. People who want that game buy their console. Easy. These companies are in the business of making money, and each one wants to make more then the other two. So they attempt to 'lure' people to their console with exclusive content. After all, what's the lure of the 360 or the PS3 if they all played the same stuff? These companies want your money, so they make it enticing for you to go with them.

It's marketing 101.