Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

How Exclusive Will Exclusive Games Be? 58

Posted by Zonk from the not-very dept.
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"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Exclusive Will Exclusive Games Be? More

How Exclusive Will Exclusive Games Be?

Comments Filter:
  • 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.

    Anything else is prone to follow the dollar.

    What you see now is "limited exclusivity". GTA3 was exclusive to PS2, until they ported it to XBox. RE series was exclusive to the Gamecube for a short time.

    Third parties would be foolish to let themselves get locked in, li

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sqlrob ( 173498 )
      I'd be extremely shocked to see Halo 3 on PS3, given the publisher.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 )
        I'd be extremely shocked to see Halo 3 on Wii, given the platform. ;)
      • I wouldn't be any more shocked than I would be seeing Office for Macs.
        • Microsoft sells XBox 360s, which compete directly with PS3s.

          Microsoft does *not* sell PCs, which compete directly with Macs.
          • Correction: Microsoft sells XBOX Live subscriptions.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Phisbut ( 761268 )

            Microsoft sells XBox 360s, which compete directly with PS3s.

            Microsoft does *not* sell PCs, which compete directly with Macs.

            Microsoft sells Windows, which competes directly with OS-X, which is tied to Macs.

            • Microsoft sells XBox 360s, which compete directly with PS3s.
              Microsoft does *not* sell PCs, which compete directly with Macs.

              Microsoft sells Windows, which competes directly with OS-X, which is tied to Macs.


              And given that Macs are now basically PCs, it's safe to say Microsoft isn't going to make Games for Mac(R) anytime soon.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Maserati ( 8679 )
                No, but they used to. I still have a copy of Close Combat 2 for the Mac (System 7 or so), complete with Microsoft logo. And that wasn't the only one they published.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LKM ( 227954 )
          While MS does publish DS games, publishing games for the Wii, which competes directly with the 360, seems very unlikely.

      • I've run Halo 2 [wikipedia.org] on my PS1 and Halo 5 [wikipedia.org] on my Dreamcast.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by archen ( 447353 )
      I think following the dollar is going to be the rule for this generation. When all is said and done, I think the market share formerly held by the Xbox, and mostly the PS2 will be split evenly for the 360 and PS3 but will have shrunk by a fair margin. Nintendo will have the biggest market share with the least powerful console. If you port between the Xbox and PS3 you can probably better utilize the power but will be fighting for table scraps. Or you can take a step down and go for the nintendo.

      My only c

    • No, it does exist (Score:4, Informative)

      by jchenx ( 267053 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @03:07PM (#18321635) Journal

      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 [wikipedia.org] and Sony Computer Entertainment [wikipedia.org].

      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 [ageofempiresds.com].

      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.
    • Any Sony or MS published title will remain exclusive. Except MS will also bring their games to the PC (Halo/Fable)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kyokugenryu ( 817869 )
      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 mon

  • They don't have to be expensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @01:51PM (#18320291)
    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.

    • These games probably didn't cost that much to make.
      It's a lot easier to say that without proof. I would agree thy cost less to develop, in certain respects, to their next gen cousins, but that is not to say that Nintendo didn't spend more time marketing, researching, testing, etc. It just means they didn't spend as much time developing hd content, and porting it to multiple systems. This says nothing about the total cost of a project.
    • You're dreaming if you think games like Metroid Prime and Wind Waker aren't that expensive. Sure they might not be Gears of War expensive, but they still fall on the high side of game budgets. And all 5 of those games did actually sell a lot of units. Secondly, you, like the analyst in the article, seem to be focusing on 1st party titles. First party titles have been and always will be exclusive. There's just really no reason to port them to a competitor's platform. The real question should be around
      • According to the source [wikipedia.org] I could find, Metroid Prime only sold 1.5 Million units in the US. Even the most popular game on GC only sold 6 million copies. I agree that there really shouldn't be any reason for limiting yourself to 1 console, because you can make more money by putting your game out for all 3 systems, but there's no reason why making games has to be expensive.

      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Swanktastic ( 109747 )
          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
          • I think you're exactly right. This has been an issue for Nintendo consoles, where the strength of the 1st party titles can disuade 3rd party developers. If you develop an action/adventure game for a Nintendo console, you are at best going to be the action/adventure game someone buys after they buy Zelda. It's sort of like basketball in the 1992 Olympics -- everyone who wasn't the Dream Team was competing for 2nd place.

          • But in that case you risk profit over theory. Video games prices get cheaper as the game gets older and fundamentally, the general rule of thumb is, ($1+X)-X = successful product (X being the cost of development, marketing, producing etc.) In that case, although you may ultimately reach sales of 100% within your market, your profits may not ultimately cover X. As games production get more expensive, there are only three options available to companies.

            1. Raise the price. The effects of this are obvious as m

        • You forgot to include handhelds. Looking at what's out there, and being sold today, you'd be forced to conclude that the best bet is the DS-Lite, and the second best bet is the PSP, which "flopped". In other words, a poorly selling handheld outsells a best selling console. (Which is one reason why there are so many new PSP games despite it's "flopping").

          The other thing you need to consider is that developing for two platforms is much cheaper than twice the cost of developing for one. The decision to dev
        • Although Sony is limping in comparison to the Wii, they are on par or slightly ahead of the 360 ata similiar spot in it's life cycle. It's a hard call. Another difference is the Wii launched wiht a killer app, the 360 launched wiht no compitition, while sony launched with 1 decent game but no killer apps. Wait for a major title to come like MGS4 or FFXIII. If the PS3 doesn't perk up then, then it will be relagated to #2 or #3. Hard to call a winner at the start of the race. there is no question the 360 wil

      • First party titles have been and always will be exclusive. There's just really no reason to port them to a competitor's platform.

        Unless you're Microsoft and you're making Banjo-Pilot [wikipedia.org] or Piñata Crossing [videogamesblogger.com] on your competitor's handheld system because you refuse to make an Xboy [quartertothree.com].

        If you're a third party developer what possible incentive do you have for limiting yourself to only 1/3 of the market? Unless a game is unusually difficult to port to other consoles, there really is none.

        Smaller studios have to make PC-exclusive games because the console makers just won't talk to them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      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: (Score:1)

      by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
      the third place console

      I assume you're saying the Cube "got third place" because it sold less than the PS2 and Xbox. This is ridiculous. First, the numbers (copied from Wikipedia):
      • PS2 - 115M (shipped)
      • Xbox - 24M
      • GC - 21.5M

      Ooh look, the Xbox sold 2.5 mil more than the Cube. How is this significant? Oh right, it's not.
      • I don't have any supporting evidence, but I'd guess more Xbox games were sold than Gamecube games. IMHO, that'd be significant enough to give Microsoft second place in the previous generation.

        • Well... (Score:2)

          by LKM ( 227954 )
          All the Cube owners I know own more, and more diverse games than the Xbox owners I know. Many Xbox owners seems to own the Halos, Fable, and a Project Gotham, as well as some second-tier games. Cube owners, on the other hand, seem to have more diverse tastes. Most own several multipalyer party games - Super Monkey Ball, Mario Party, Mario Kart, stuff like that. Then there are the big single-player games. Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Beyond Good and Evil (which is also available for other consoles, of course, but
          • I find it the other way around. While most of the cube owners I know have a big diversity in their games, most of the xbox owners I know have a much larger number of games. I know one guy who has at least 10 FPS games. He has games he hasn't even opened yet. While i'm sure he's an exception, I don't think he's that far off from the norm. With most of the games from Nintendo, you only need 1 or 2 from each genre, while with some of the junk they put out on xbox, you need 4 or 5 just to equal 1 gamecube
      • Umm, what exactly is your point? It was the third place console. That means it sold fewer than the other two. More than 10% fewer than number two, by the numbers you cite. That's 10% fewer customers for a game, which is certainly significant to a game developer.

        If you meant to cite the fact that the GC was more profitable to Nintendo since it was cheaper to manufacture, remember that a game developer doesn't care about that at all. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's really the only p

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
          That's 10% fewer customers for a game, which is certainly significant to a game developer.

          This analysis is flawed, for several reasons. The first is that the Cube-to-Xbox ratio is not equal across all world regions. A simple comparison of total machines sold (as you did) cannot hope to account for this.

          Second, your "10% fewer customers" claim ignores the PS2. When compared to Sony's 115 million (again, shipped), the difference between the Xbox and Cube becomes pretty insignificant. Compared to this numb
          • Hey, I just looked at the numbers you quoted. The distribution may not be uniform across markets, but it's an uphill battle to argue that the GC outperformed the Xbox from a game developer's point of view. The first-order analysis says its market share, overall, is smaller. If you want to claim that a more detailed analysis will show otherwise, you've got to have some evidence. Merely pointing out that it might possibly be that way isn't very convincing.

            Your point about ratios is well taken. I don't th
      • I'm not really saying Nintendo lost, as they made a ton of cash. XBox actually lost a bunch of money for MS. It's yet to be seen whether the 360 will make them any cash. But GC was the third place machine, no matter how you cut it.
        • Since the whole idea of a 'console war' is ridiculous in any case, the discussion of place is useless. If the company makes money, it wins. It doesn't matter if another company also makes money.

  • B.S. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All three consoles have strengths, and I would advise [developers] to clearly develop with the console in mind


    really? what's the difference between a 360 and a ps3? Nada, amigo! It would be silly for dev's not to go cross-platform with those systems.
    The wii, on the other hand...

    • I agree. The Wii will get the exclusives by definition. You can't really port a game like Elebits or Second Opinion or Wario Ware (or even Rayman - although it did receive a port, it's hardly the same game without the Wii remote) to the PS3 or the 360. There is, however, nothing in the PS3 or 360 which would keep a game from being ported from one to the other. For all intents and purposes, they are equal consoles.

  • Exclusivity Only Makes Sense...if it makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lensar ( 1011229 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @02:02PM (#18320531)
    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.
    • 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.

      I would tend to agree with you, but seeing Ubisoft port Rayman Raving Rabbids (which makes extensive use of the unique features of the Wii-remote) to
  • This generation games that come out for XBox360 or PS3 and sell, will probably make it to the other system. However, wii games, even aside from 1st party nintendo ones, will be more likely exclusive to wii. We are already seeing different versions of new releases for the wii, and they are becoming more divergent from the xbox360 and ps3 versions (call of duty 3 to godfather). Assuming wii maintains it's marvelous popularity, all but the most popular wii games built from the ground up will have little rea
  • Obviously Nintendo's AAA titles will be exclusive, as will those coming from companies wholly or partially owned by Microsoft. Mario and Halo are not franchises to laugh at. (Plus there's the uniqueness of the Wiimote, for what that's worth.) Both those platforms will have no problem distinguishing themselves via their game selection.

    On the other hand, it seems like the issue of AAA games going multi-platform will hit Sony pretty hard, because they rely a lot on third-party titles. It seems like Sony's only

  • 3 types of exclusives: first party, paid, default (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ConfusedSelfHating ( 1000521 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @02:08PM (#18320625)

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @02:12PM (#18320685)
    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 [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3 _games [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Animats ( 122034 )

      Well, what did you expect? The PS3 is so different from other machines that either you design for it first and then port to a more conventional architecture, or you re implement. Unlike previous generations of game consoles, the weirdness isn't in the graphics; the PS3 has a more standard graphics engine than any previous Sony game console. It's in the main processing. So a graphics library won't help you.

      Also, in all previous consoles, the weird hardware architecture drove costs down. That didn't w

    • {{sofixedit}} (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      I wish there was a way to check the 360 titles in the same way, but alas, that list is not sortable.
      I just reformatted the Xbox 360 data into a table using the new sortable markup, but it's still missing exclusivity data.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close