The console war between Xbox 360 and PS3 becomes a heated argument everyday (between the fanboys at least), but are third developing companies showing more favoritism towards one console over the other?
Lost Planet 2 and Mass Effect 2 will 100% come to PS3. Not sure on L4D though. Edit: 5 disagrees? really? You guys want to respond as to why it WONT come on PS3? Cause I can up with many many reasons why it will.
Who questioned lost planet 2?
it really depends on the situation. for instance, kojima chose the ps3 because it would only require ONE disc. multiple discs= high production costs. 360 on MGS4= multiple discs. so it all depends. looking at how much lost planet1 sold on ps3... yea, keep it on 360, they will be wasting money on producing it for another console (ps3) when it most likely wont do well on PS3 (sales wise).
It is smart if the console to which you cater provides the technology you need in order to see that the title comes to fruition in a way that does justice to it's original vision.
I think every third part developer should have 1 game represented as thier best offering so that the developers have competition among themselves. Developers should make their prize product platform exclusive to show the developer community at "what they can do, can you do better"? Benchmarks need to be set. Still need a RPG, Puzzle, and fighting genre benchmark.
It depends how much they get paid for an exclusivity deal.
Final Fantasy Versus and a MGS game... Booked marked.
the developers sell software..and of course they want a big profit, make a game today cost a lot more that before; it's not like they like one company over other one, their job is sell games instead of which console, if your a doctor and if you have to take care of someone you dislike..you must do it..it's your job and it's how business work
Kojima will disagree...
very good read. i do agree that the yes fans of a franchise and series would be angry or mad if there game goes multiplat . also exclusive dlc is a big downer towards fans.well theres always more mutltiplats then excclusive games so everyone is happy. :)
To a degree exclusivity can be beneficial to game. Everyone thinks that Gears of War would of sold better multiplatform right? Wrong, without MS super heavy advertising of the game, GeoW would of sold well but not as well as it would if it was an exclusive. So if a 3rd party thinks that going exclusive will get the game more coverage and having MS/Sony bankroll it rather then themselves, then maybe it is beneficial to developers to release 3rd party exclusives.
my biggest problem is when devs make a game multi then screw one side out of extra content. stuff like that makes me kind of hesitant to buy games from them in the future. except rockstar north i will allways give them my money. :)
MS marketed the hell out of GTA4 as if it was an exclusive, look how that turned out.
Why? It doesn't have a flaimbait title :)
It's toning down a bit. Still, I think we'll see something like "Will Gran Turismo 5 become a 360 exclusive in two minutes!?!?!?!" eventually.
Well unless you have a fanbase as big as MGS or GTA then i say multiplat is the way to go. Unless you would rather make a game which is superior and your only limit s your imagination then you make it a ps3 exclusive title. Sorry but after seeing the AAA games on the ps3 lately, i'd say third party devs need to think about diverting some games toward the ps3 only. That is if they wanna reach their true vision. If not make a turd and loose me as a buyer period.
Why does no one actually do research when writing articles!? ND isn't 2nd party by any stretch of the imagination . . . THEY ARE OWNED BY SCE. If this is what passes for an article in the blogosphere, PSLS is going to be a piece of cake. At least I make sure I get my facts straight.
what is ND?
ND is Naughty Dog. SCE is Sony Computer Entertainment. PSLF is Playstation Lifestyle (dot com). :D
His sources is at bottom, did you check them out (I did) it seem to be legit, so what is your beef with this article.
this is the nature of the business we all love so much. :)
If a developer wants to make the best game they can it's wise to focus just on one console and its strengths instead of playing the future mind games "like would this be possible if I want to port later."
I agree. Exclusives are good for the industry and can build hype for a studio if the game is polished and fun to play.
you make no sense dawg.
I just say 3rd party devs, need to seriously rethink, their strategies now, cause training wheels are off now. If your a lead dev, and you can't invision, a much more grand scale of your own project, then your wasting people's lives, with poor concepts. A lotta of devs are always b1t(h1ng, about how hard the architecture, for the PS3, is to develop for, but never stop to say "Hey, this is what I make a living by.
well if they go multiplat then more money for them lol
Not if going multiplat turns the game into a turd.
Common misconception, It takes substantial amounts of money and time to port a game to another platform. Often times It will require the dev to rewrite large sections on the games based on the limitations and strong points of different consoles. In essence you have to make a second or even third copy of the game, a feat that will cost your pockets dearly. Not to mention that procuring the rights to publish or develop on a platform costs money, as well as the fact that If you only made PC titles you would have to buy both ps3 and Xbox dev kits for your entire team. This is normally offset by the fact that most multiplat devs are slightly larger companies allowing them to pool more resources. Inevitably the developer will get back their money spent, and most likely a bit more because It cost slightly less to port. This coupled with the fact that If you PC version made a Profit of 50mil, and you ported it to the 360 and PS you would now get around 3x as much. Unfortunately this all hinges on the fact that the game will SELL, because If the developer spreads himself to thin and creates a bad product, it wont sell well on any console, and If the developer would normally have lost 10mil now hes out by 3x that much. It has little to do with the myth that exclusive devs don't like getting money, its has to do with the proportion of profits. If you can make a great game that cost 10mil to make and you can make 70mil off of it, or you can port a game to all 4 consoles and make 140mil yea 140mil dollars in profit looks a lot better then 70 mil but proportionally the exclusive made more, and had a lot less risk involved. also if you can get a contract with the 1st party, then you may actually have a percentage of you dev cost taken care of, or be given millions of dollars of the bat to keep you in their pocket.
Well, I seem to remember reading that being a first party developer for Sony gave Guerilla Games a larger budget, and the ability to work with and correlate with members of other studios owned/affiliated with Sony, for example, Naughty Dog and Insomniac. Also, having an important exclusive game usually means that it will be more heavily marketed than if it was a third party game. I'm not sure about other people, but here I see Killzone 2 ads 10 times a day. I'm sure it depends heavily on the region though.
"fans" of the franchise being "mad" because it jumped ship? Don't be silly, if they truly WERE fans, they'd have the game's developer's interests in mind. Games are expensive to make, developers need to make money on them in order to stay afloat, that's just how it works. Most of the time, it's more profitable to go multi-platform, but that doesn't mean sticking to ONE platform doesn't have it's advantages. If you tell Sony your game is ONLY coming out on their platform, they'll be very happy to lend you a hand in the development phase. This includes sending out engineers to show you how to best use the PS3 and even hiring some 3rd party artists to help you along, not to mention they'll do a lot of advertising for you. Microsoft is the same and so is Nintendo (to an extent). You still have to be fairly prominent to get the real meaty support (i.e. someone like Konami), but that support really does help development. Plus, you know, going multi-platform DOES cost more at first. I believe, on average, if you develop for 2 consoles, it costs about 1.5x as much as developing for one console. You'll make nearly twice as much, though, so it usually pays off, but for some companies, particularly smaller ones, it's cheaper and safer to develop for just the one.
umm.. Naughty dog is owned by sony, Insomiac is more likely the 2nd Party Developer.. I'm pretty sure I remember that correctly..
To write an article with such grammar ? English is not my main language, but you are suppose to use "an" for words start with a,e,i,o,u... just pointing out SOME of those errors... :D
They will stay on the 360 as a lead platform. Microsoft limited the 360 to DVD's (ever wonder why they chose not to go HD-DVD?)to make sure that that games would be created unfinished then they buy exclusive DLC from the developers for a large chunk of money. You can only get this DLC if you pay a fee to microsoft for Xbox live when you do they make back the money and more that they spent on DLC and the developers make more money on the original game. If they chose the PS3 as the lead platform you will get more game as the DLC would be able to fit on the blu ray as well as the full game. But if they do that they will be charged for production costs for multiple DVD's for it to work on the 360. So my answer is no third party developers wont go exclusive ( not to the PS3 anyway) as they and microsoft are making to much money out of it, why fill a blu ray and only charge for one game when they can go DVD fill it and then release all the other content that couldn't fit as DLC and then charge you again.
Some good points inthis thread. I guess mucvh will also depend on the market where you wull sell mort copies as well. For example a FPS isn't going to do so many copies at retail in the East whereas they love their JRPGs to death so maybe a Japanese dev with a JRPG would look at what they sell in the west before choosing to go exclusive to the platform with the highest sales in their area-if the cost of porting wouldn't get covered by the weatern sales.SE are, in this sense, an anomaly going for 360 exclusives and ignoring the PS3 which gives many the impression that the cheques from MSreally were pretty big! Then again you may have a star director with a good track record on one platform, a large following on it and the number of those wanting to play on the other consoles would not pay for the port. It might also annoy fans who got one platform expecting thwe games to be exclusive to it, however, I do think people get over that in general and just buy the games anyway. Or even a dev that's run by people with a preference for one platform(Valve-MS)because of personal, historical or coding reasons. Personally the exclusive DLC annoys me as I prefer playing MP titles on PS3(controller pref)so I often miss out having not bought the original game on 360. I don't feel too badly about it though as , really, I think if you release a game for a platform then the DLC should come as well and I don't like being forced into choosing one console over the other in this way. Eother be exclusive OR be multi but the inbetween way is kinda underhand to me.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.