Multiplatforms this generation

[RCBH928]

I know this is kind of the wrong place to ask
but can any one tell me if this generation seems just too multiplatform?
specially between ps3, 360

I recall consoles had their own games with sega games, nintendo games, and sony games...but this generation seems wierd as most games are shared except for few it seems.

I never really followed all console news before (earlier generations) but I recall systems had their own games to identify them. This generation seems it the only reason you want to buy 360 or ps3 is if you want bluray or not, which controller you choose, and if you would like online experience.

exclusive games are minimal that you cant pay too much attention at

[Pulsar_t]

It's simple really. Games cost more to make. But fanboys in their monotonous minds think that corporate loyalty is a big deal. It's still applicable in Japan of course, with Konami's reluctance to bring MGS to the Xbox being one (if not the only) of the remaining examples, but with publishers sinking left and right they need to expose their products to as many people as possible, and even diversify their target audience. Squenix are doing this very thing for Japan which is quite telling.

So enjoy our new world with less borders and consoles with even lesser exclusives. It is probably better this way for publishers and gamers alike.

[lordofduct]

I could say a few things about this.

1) Back in the day a lot of exclusives were in house titles. Not all of them of course, but a good deal of them were. Due to the faster dev time of the titles and lower cost as well the in house studios could pump out games much faster and fill up their console with plenty of exclusives.

2) Comparing retro consoles was a huge hardware change from console to console. Compare the Genny to the SNES and you had two completely different machines on which most games were coded in Assembly or something. They had different speeds and capabilities along with several other things. Making cross platform titles was a big pain in the butt because say you wanted the huge colour palette of the SNES, your Genny version couldn't have it. You had to remix the soundtrack because the Midi processor was different. Nevermind the fact that coding it was just a huge change from processor to processor.

Take for instance "Out of this World"/"Another World". It was multiplatform (came on all kinds of consoles), but porting it to each was a task all its own. The original on the C64 used all vector art, and when they ported it to the Genny it was relatively easy because the 68000 in the Genny supported the drawing technique because it was the same processor. But the SNES version needed a tons of changes to it because they couldn't draw all the art the same... it needed Sprites instead. Then each console didn't have the memory to support the "restart point" so each version had restart points at different points in the game.

Todays consoles aren't really coded in Assembly anymore first off. And despite any major hardware differences, the final out come is about the same. The audio from console to console is at minimum Red Book CD Quality and the conversion doesn't really have any major handicaps accept maybe the 360 getting 5.1 DD while the Wii only gets Pro Logic II. Or one can only support textures up to a certain resolution or models of a certain poly count. But in total the game looks and feels relatively the same, just maybe with a little lower resolution. It isn't like trying to put FF6 on the genny and having to figure out how to mimic the Mode7 when in your air ship.

Or compare Aladdin on the SNES and Genny. They are both two completely different titles. Why? Because the developers and publishers knew that if they made the same title on both they'd handicap the titles. So they had two completely different games made for each, so that way the games utilized the console to the best that they could... with in reason that is (it was a movie game, which usually suck anyways, though I really liked Aladdin!).

3) It's a little harder to put all your eggs in one basket now a days as well. Consider it, in the NES days it was a given... you put your eggs in the NES, nothing could take it down due to their psychotic license agreement. Or the Genny days, you had SNES or Genny. And the demographic for each was simple. Genny was your sports and action fans. And the SNES were your Mario and RPG fans. As time passed on the demographic started to blur from console to console. To today where it's really non-existent. People say the "jock top sports guy" plays the 360, but they are just as excited by the PS3 and secretly love the Wii. Yeah they love their Halo, but the sleak look of the PS3 gives them a woody!

[Pulsar_t]

You make very valid points lordofduct, but you romanticise them as well. Sony started this whole trend 14 years ago when they introduced C libraries for coders to work with, whilst Sega went old school and made the Saturn beast which could only be mastered through Assembly. But things change and yet up until last generation there were dozens of console exclusives for each platform. But the sheer costs of making games, not to mention Microsoft's wads of cash that tempted publishers (though I don't have any sources to back my claim), coupled with consolidation of publishers and the Darwinism that swallowed up the rest, all of that has pushed companies to seek as much exposure as possible. Coders haven't had a say in marketing for nearly two decades, so programming is no longer the main issue here. Development budgets on the other hand, are THE issue.

Or compare Aladdin on the SNES and Genny. They are both two completely different titles. Why? Because the developers and publishers knew that if they made the same title on both they'd handicap the titles. So they had two completely different games made for each, so that way the games utilized the console to the best that they could... with in reason that is (it was a movie game, which usually suck anyways, though I really liked Aladdin!).

I hate to nitpick but David Perry was not involved in the making of the SNES game. In fact his multiplatform games were quite similar. GameFAQs lists him and others from Virgin in its credits page but I don't think that's the case at all, since Capcom developed the game in Japan (due to licensing issues).

[lordofduct]

pulsar - first I don't feel I romanticized. Romanticized means I envision something in an unrealistic and perfect state. I don't feel game design was any bit perfect back then and has come a long way since the 8 and 16 bit eras. And I don't feel my views were unrealistic either.

second I was continuing on from your valid point. I do believe budget has a big part of it, not the only. I guarantee no developer out there would say, "yes, it's all because it's too expensive."

third I didn't say that the SNES and Genny Aladdin s were made by the same guy. The fact two different people made them is my point.

lastly, yeah different libraries have been around for a while. And Assembly was used a lot through out different generations. That wasn't my point. Genny games even used some C libraries and the sort. But each passing generation the coding of games has moved far far FAR away from procedural coding and use much more object oriented design patterns. That wasn't my point... my point was back in the day we could do Assembly more often, it assisted in pushing the console to its fullest extent. But it's HARD, and back then games were much easier to code, so doing it in Assembly wasn't so bad. And a lot of the stuff you wanted to do with the hardware had to be done in Assembly or near to it because you were utilizing different hardware modes and the sort that had to be accessed a special way.

[thejamessea]

Getting back on to the topic of the current generation of games, I think that the main reason you see less exclusives per system these days can easily be broken down to monetary issues.

Lorofduct makes valid points, but misses the big picture I think. His points present evidence for why there were more exclusives in the past, but I think the real question is, "Why are there so few exclusives now-a-days?" The reason behind the question is money, plain and simple.

Almost all 3rd party developed games are developed multi-platform to make the most amount of money possible.

1st party games are fewer because in order to develop a Triple A title the company has to pay a large staff a salary for roughly 2-3 years, and cover all the technology development costs. Big bucks.

That's basically it. There aren't really any more facets to the conversation unless you're going to go into the realm of niche titles that are 3rd party developed and remain console exclusive. I think everyone would agree that games which fill these 3 requirements are rare, and make up less than 1 percent of combined videogame sale totals.

The outstanding Valkyria Chronicles, for example. The game is PS3 exclusive, 3rd party, and appeals to a niche market. Will it sell like a multiplatform game, or a first party exclusive? Hell no. Would it sell more copies if it was released on 360 and PS3? Hell yes.

And that's the reason there are so few exclusives in this generation.

[lordofduct]

I still don't think money is the only reason for going in to it in that manner.

A marketing a production team won't just think of it in that manner...and there are a lot of stuff that plays into cost. The plain & simple isn't so plain & simple.

For instance take any modern title... triple A or not. Many things will go into considering cost and out come. And in all that consideration making a title multi-platform costs more! Because you now need to code it on multiple consoles. So does the profit of making it cross platform out-weigh the cost to make it cross platform. Will exclusivity give us any bonuses.

My points about the past bring up that the margin there has altered massively. But then again I assume people can infer information, because my posts are too long as is.

[Pulsar_t]

Sorry about the Aladdin bit. How about a big manly hug?

[RCBH928]

i dont think money issues
i think multiple consoles or gaming systems existed since the 70's
why would it take them all the way to 2006 to realize it more profitable to make them multiplatform?

This might be wrong, or old thinking, but i have this belief that if a game is exclusive it will sell more(given its not niche) because it will utilize the console's to its best performance.

[elvis]

It's still applicable in Japan of course, with Konami's reluctance to bring MGS to the Xbox being one (if not the only) of the remaining examples

The cynic in me wonders if Konami don't get a few kickbacks from Sony for avoiding alternative platforms.

There are some obvious business deals of course. Namco get mega discounts on Sony hardware to run their Tekken arcade games, but the requirement is that the home release is a Sony exclusive (which oddly doesn't apply to the Soul Calibur series). That one's well known, but I'm sure there are a few others too.