PS3 exclusivity disappearing

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-24 07:05am

More PS3 exclusives head to 360
Koei makes Fatal Inertia and Bladestorm multiplatform, announcing both will come to Microsoft's next-gen console.

It would appear that the PlayStation 3 may not have as many exclusive titles as previously thought. First came the announcement in September when Ubisoft said that the much-publicised Assassin's Creed--which had previously been billed as a PS3 title--would be coming to the Xbox 360 and PC as well.

Producer Jade Raymond told GameSpot in an interview that the reason for this was that Ubisoft had at first been unsure how many consoles it could support but that it had "always wanted to share our next-gen vision with everybody."

Then came an article earlier this week, by Newsweek correspondent N'Gai Croal, in which he stated that both Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto IV were originally intended to be exclusive for Sony's next-gen console, but Kaz Hirai's "slowness" in finalising the deals meant that the developers decided to port to Microsoft as well.

Today, two more games which were previously presumed to be PS3 exclusives have been announced for the Xbox 360 as well: Koei's aerial combat racing game Fatal Inertia and its miltiary actioner Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War.

Fatal Inertia is the debut title for the Toronto-based studio Koei Canada, which is led by Takazumi Tomoike, creator of the Dynasty Wars series, and Koei cofounder and chief advisor Yoichi Erikawa. The game features "an evolutionary sport mixing high-performance street racing, rally, and demolition derby."

Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War is set in the first half of the 14th century in Medieval Europe, and players will assume the role of a mercenary leader commanding troops in real time.

A Koei spokesperson confirmed to GameSpot that Fatal Inertia and Bladestorm would be launch titles for the PS3's 2007 debut in Europe, but wouldn't comment further on the Xbox 360 versions of the game.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2006-11-24 07:30am

Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2006-11-24 11:42am

Personally I like the route that Soul Calibur 2, X-men Ledgends 2, and I am sure there are more takes. Each platform gets the game, but each platform also gets a different character or something.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-11-24 11:48am

I don't know but square is primarily why I own a PS2....

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-11-24 11:50am

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-11-24 12:38pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I don't know but square is primarily why I own a PS2....

Same+Namco+Capcom for me.

(SC2 and CvS2 ports to Gamecube/Xbox weren't arcade-perfect, before someone brings that up).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-11-24 12:48pm

General Zod wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].
It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.

Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-11-24 12:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].
It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.
Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

I'm fairly sure the last part is a combination of factors. Anything from marketing agreements to developer fees to the hardware simply not being suitable for the games in question. IE - develop this game for just us, and we'll agree to help with advertising costs & cut back on our licensing fees, etc.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-11-24 01:00pm

Dev costs are HUGE factor, it will often be far more profitable to develop and release for a single system, especially if you lack the initial capital to purchase devkits and set up everything for multiple platforms.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2006-11-24 01:19pm

weemadando wrote:Dev costs are HUGE factor, it will often be far more profitable to develop and release for a single system, especially if you lack the initial capital to purchase devkits and set up everything for multiple platforms.

As I pointed out before though, this may apply to shitty games that have no hype - but why keep games such as GTA4 exclusively to one console when it is guaranteed to top the console chart for weeks on what ever platform it is released on?

So Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pay developers/publishers for one-system deals?

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-11-24 02:06pm

Ubiquitous wrote:So Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pay developers/publishers for one-system deals?

I assume that is the case.
There's also the factor of contracts, some spanning 10 years or more than bind developers to them. So while a developer may be respected and guarantee sales now, 10 years ago they might've needed the support of one of the big console makers.
I imagine it's also easier to develop a game with one specific type of console in mind rather than two or three.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-24 02:13pm

Ubiquitous wrote:So Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pay developers/publishers for one-system deals?

Partially, what happens as far as I understand is that the console makers agree to help advertise and market the game, get shelf space for it, etc. in return for exclusivity.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2006-11-24 02:15pm

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].

Because the console owners give you fat checks so you don't have to publish elsewhere, or at least yo keep you from doing it for a while.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-11-24 02:50pm

Darth Wong wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach? I realise there are costs involved in porting a game over, but for mega-hype games they should make their porting money back comfortably [and then some].
It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.
Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.

Perhaps if the owner of the console platform were to pay the independent developer a *LOT* of money...

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-11-24 07:16pm

Praxis wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
General Zod wrote: It's all about having the "killer app". If you have fantastic titles that nobody else will have and people are clamoring for, it gives them more incentive to buy your console in order to get the game, and thus rake in more profits since the consoles cost more. Having it available on other consoles gives them less incentive to buy your system.
Which is why the owner of the console platform would want to have a single-platform game, which is in turn why the owner of the console platform might want to buy up a software developer as Microsoft did with Bungie. It is still entirely unclear why an independent developer would restrict his sales to a single platform.
Perhaps if the owner of the console platform were to pay the independent developer a *LOT* of money...

Moneyhats.

The reason I'm so ticked off on this round of the console wars is cause I'm not about to shell out $700 for a PS3 cause they have a bunch of exclusives.

edit: upon more googling, apparently the term "moneyhats" is an internet meme on par with O RLY but it perfectly describes what's being described in here. Or at least so I read on Wiki.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-11-24 07:35pm

Meh if the PS3 turns out to have one or two super-duper exclusives we can always take a trip to the Nevada desert and dig up a unit for free after they have them buried there next to copies of E.T. The Extra Terrestrial next year or so.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-24 07:36pm

Hey, remember Munch's Oddysee?

No?

That was one of the big games early in XBox's life. Hilarious, no?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-11-24 08:21pm

Stark wrote:Hey, remember Munch's Oddysee?

No?

That was one of the big games early in XBox's life. Hilarious, no?

You know, if you hadn't mentioned that, I'd have been ignorant of it still after all these years. I actually recall all the videos of it before the launch and how good it looked after they defected to Xbox. For some reason, I keep thinking it was Xbox 360 now. Doesn't seem like half a decade ago.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-24 08:24pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:You know, if you hadn't mentioned that, I'd have been ignorant of it still after all these years. I actually recall all the videos of it before the launch and how good it looked after they defected to Xbox. For some reason, I keep thinking it was Xbox 360 now. Doesn't seem like half a decade ago.

The marketing blitz after they got an exclusive was HUGE. I still tremble to this day of thousands of people looking forward to a 3d platformer with farts.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2006-11-24 08:48pm

I hope Sony loses exclusivity to the GTA series. Maybe now I can get a PC copy less than a year after the console version.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-11-24 09:28pm

Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach?[and then some].

Because it's not worth it trying to make the game work on Sony's fucked up and retarded memory management system....life's much simpler on the 360.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2006-11-24 09:32pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:Single platform only games always struck me as a stupid idea. If you are a publisher, why limit the amount of customers you can potentially reach?[and then some].
Because it's not worth it trying to make the game work on Sony's fucked up and retarded memory management system....life's much simpler on the 360.

Would that be before or after the 360 catches fire?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-24 09:33pm

Or gets killed by an update!

But that's irrelevant from a dev perspective. The PS3 is an architecture nightmare to all reports, and the dev kit is quite expensive. That means plenty of developers won't be able to 'buy in' to the PS3 market.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-11-25 12:12am

remember MS BOUGHT Shadowrun, Battletech, R.Talsorian, etc in order to get exclusive X-Box only Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, and Champions games. Anyone seen any of the above?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-11-25 12:56am

Stark wrote:Or gets killed by an update!

But that's irrelevant from a dev perspective. The PS3 is an architecture nightmare to all reports, and the dev kit is quite expensive. That means plenty of developers won't be able to 'buy in' to the PS3 market.

So true. Yet the Wii's dev kit is apparently a few hundred bucks.

Which disturbs me. Why?

Because it means SDNet could conceivably whip around a collection for such. And that would go no-where the ratings system would like.