Pros and Cons of Multiplats

[ElkinFencer10]

So this is something I've thought about a lot on and off, but what do you guys think about multiplats these days? I think they've kind of sucked the soul out of console gaming for the most part. 20 years ago, each platform's version of a game had something that made it unique, at least for the most part. Sometimes versions swapped around levels, sometimes one version had better graphics whereas another version had more features, so on and so forth. With the exception of Wii and (on rare occasions) Wii U, though, they all tend to be exactly the same. Most of them are completely indistinguishable between 360 and PS3 or Xbox One and PS4, for example, but there tended to be major differences between the Super Nintendo and Genesis versions of a game or the Playstation and Saturn versions. I know part of that is the improvement and relative uniformity of hardware capabilities, but it's made console collecting a bit less exciting IMO. On the other hand, though, it's made games more accessible by having identical versions on multiple platforms.

What are yall's thoughts on it?

[isiolia]

What are yall's thoughts on it?

What I'd say makes looking at, say, 16-bit multiplatform games fun now is appreciating how developers were able to creatively utilize the hardware of the time. However, we're also often in the position of being both far more informed on the differences, and have the ability to play most/all of the versions we might care to.
At the time, it wasn't necessarily as easy to take a scholarly approach to it Fairly often, things weren't -that- different, other than different palettes and sound sets either - and all of them probably fell short of the arcade version, if applicable.

I think you do wind up with the occasional newer game that gets changed up between platforms too. Releases with a fair amount of time between them are likely culprits, and HD collections could potentially count as well. The Ninja Gaiden games, for example.
There are usually some minor technical differences between platforms as well. Digitalfoundry has plenty of comparisons.

Major discrepancies at release time tend to not go over well now - platform exclusive DLC, retailer exclusive preorder bonuses, etc. I'd rather keep things consistent than try to differentiate each port more.

[Sarge]

I think it's mostly a good thing. I like that I don't have to worry as much about the definitive version of a game. For that, I just pick PS4.

That's the drawback for Microsoft this time, because the architectures are so similar, and they don't compare favorably anywhere, really. The last generation was much more interesting, because of the vast difference in the PS3 architecture. A dev like Naughty Dog could make it sing, but most multi-platform games were best on 360. It was like Saturn-PSX redux.

I'm still absolutely fascinated by Genesis vs. SNES comparisons. Both systems had their strengths, and it's always interesting to see how well (or poorly) devs catered to those strengths. I was reading an older thread regarding SNES vs. Genesis audio, and while it contained the usual bickering, I learned a ton about each platform's audio chip, and why things were the way they were.

[Gunstar Green]

I'm all for the standardization of gaming and we're creeping closer to that every generation. I think it's about time. Console exclusives are nothing but a pain in the neck that force you to buy more pieces of nearly identical hardware that you otherwise don't need or want.

Back in the day it was unavoidable due to differences in hardware architecture and it was interesting to people like us who still care about those sort of things but now it would just look like another marketing tactic to get you to buy more than one version of a game.

No thanks. As exciting as they were I'd rather leave the console wars in the past.

[Exhuminator]

Good:

Multiplatform release means the game probably comes out on a system you own.

Bad:

Multiplatform release means it doesn't cater to the architectural strength of any one system, and its technological ambitions are hobbled to accommodate the lowest tier. Furthermore, cross development sucks away funding that could have been used to push and polish a game to a higher extent, if it was only being released on a single platform.

Ugly:

Multiplatform releases promote game design homogeneity in order to appease maximum demographic potential.

[ElkinFencer10]

Good:

Multiplatform release means the game probably comes out on a system you own.

Bad:

Multiplatform release means it doesn't cater to the architectural strength of any one system, and its technological ambitions are hobbled to accommodate the lowest tier. Furthermore, cross development sucks away funding that could have been used to push and polish a game to a higher extent, if it was only being released on a single platform.

Ugly:

Multiplatform releases promote game design homogeneity in order to appease maximum demographic potential.

How do you say so concisely what I failed to say adequately even with a rambling paragraph?

[Gunstar Green]

Furthermore, cross development sucks away funding that could have been used to push and polish a game to a higher extent, if it was only being released on a single platform.

One of the reasons I think standardization should be the ultimate goal, the only issue is how to do that. PCs are the closest thing we have to this with any company being able to supply hardware that's all essentially compatible with game settings being adjustable for the hardware its running on.

But it's not a perfect solution as consoles still provide the best idiot proof method. You put in a game and it works, or at least it should.

Multiplatform releases promote game design homogeneity in order to appease maximum demographic potential.

I think risk aversion is more to blame for that.

[Exhuminator]

I think risk aversion is more to blame for that.

Risk aversion is part of the equation definitely.

[BoneSnapDeez]

"Ports" don't really exist anymore. Now we have multiple "variations" of games - all developed and released simultaneously.

As a (primarily) retro gamer, this is something of a letdown as one of the most fascinating things about retro games was seeing how specific titles (especially those that were first released in the arcade) were retooled for home consoles. We ended up with some wild stuff on the 80s/90s: Double Dragon on Atari 2600, Altered Beast and Space Harrier on Famicom, every damn arcade game in existence on the Commodore 64... The Genesis vs. SNES and SMS vs. NES comparisons were always intriguing as well.

Oh, and so many different varieties of Ys Book I & II to play.

As stated earlier though, standardization means you probably don't need multiple consoles to play most (or all) of the games you're interested in. Those who are interested in the big-budget third-party games need an Xbone, PS4, or PC - but not all three (or two). Back in the 90s you could make a very strong case regarding the "necessity" of owning a Genesis, SNES, and TG16.

Really though, Nuon should have been the final console. A DVD player that plays games - what more is there? More advanced titles released subsequently could have gone straight to PC. I'm only half-kidding.

[Tanooki]

I haven't read others responses but my thoughts aren't probably too far off the mark for the modern systems. Personally given how the hardware is now I'd rather anything that isn't 1st/2nd party be multiplatform, but in that the companies should be made to not halfass port from the weaker box and cater to the systems capabilities. One should be made to buy one console for all their needs based upon their choice of unique 1st/2nd party games. Do you like the Sony stuff or the MS stuff (and their affiliates.) Someone shouldn't have to buy 2 or 3 systems to get third party games.

Pros:
- You're not stuck buying a system to get X game (ie: you know it'll be ported for you)
- Help you not have to buy another to play it on your box of choice
- Wide developer support means more owners
- More owners mean more choices in games
- Less likely to get bored as there's more general activity
- In rare cases games chit-chat/play between systems or the PC, so that's a plus

Cons:
- Game can be made for the weakest, then shoddily ported upwards(and you are up)
- Makes everything feel all me-too box
- Less diversity means boxes blur together, less reason to buy other than 1st/2nd party
- Online(or even in game) petty types about how their X is better than your Y types
- One bad version causes a delay for all, could even sacrifice its quality/content too**

** Look how long Pinball Arcade got delayed for PS3 on table packs thanks to MS being total dicks on certifying it for 360, it was over a year maybe 2 I forget for a full table package (it was season 2 or 3 I forget.)


Pro or con where you fall, multiplats get asinine system unique special preorder or otherwise bonuses. You may like it being on the plus side, you may be pissed to hell you got hosed having that other box.


Now in the past it's a different list, but some apply. Back then each system was fairly well more unique, SNES vs Genesis vs TG16, NES vs SMS and so on. The pros would be if a game were tailored to your box, it's a plus, but if it was slapped together just to exist that's a huge con as those usually sucked. Sometimes a game would be made for lesser hardware in some respect, then shifted to a better in some way system but they dont' bother to upgrade the game and it looks/sounds worse for it. Yet in other cases you could have such a wide change in quality one a game it could feel almost new and the best case of that would be old Ys1 ported to like a dozen things pre2000.