What's up with game system exclusives>

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Idk if there was a thread about this or not.
I was just wondering why do some game systems havs game exclusives. Not Nintendo I'm talking about the Playstation and Xbox. The Xbox has Gears of War, Halo, and etc But Playstation has God of War, Killzone, etc. Why don't the developers release it for both or does the developers have a contract with Sony or Microsoft (XBox)?

Please no discucssions on which system is better cuz they both have their pros and cons.

 

[machomuu]

Because then there'd be little to no reason to buy the other console, people would just buy the one that's cheaper. That, and plenty of developers owned by the companies that make/own the aforementioned systems, they'd only be hurting their sales by releasing them universally. Plus, exclusives are sometimes hardware based, sometimes they just want better visuals, features, power, or memory that the other system can't match. Other times it's because the developers or publishers want to strengthen the relationships between the companies. There are countless reasons that developers make exclusives, but those are probably the most prominent of them.

Also, I wouldn't exclude Nintendo in all of this, this applies to them as well. After all, other than the Wii and DS, their systems have always been the strongest (but, for instance, the PS2 had far more games, despite the fact that the Gamecube was stronger), ever since the Game and Watch, so they are definitely relevant.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

To explain your examples...

Halo is a Microsoft franchise and an exclusive to the Xbox family, because it was developed by Bungie (who Microsoft used to own) and is now developed by 343 Industries (which is a subsidiary of Microsoft) and the franchise is published by Microsoft (which is to say that Microsoft pumps money into the game's management, distribution, marketing, etc.). Microsoft also owns the rights as far as I know.

Now, with Gears of War on the other hand the developer, Epic Games, owns the rights. But, Microsoft puts up significant money to publish the game - and by extension keep it an Xbox exclusive. Microsoft isn't going to pay to distribute it on a rival console. But, again, Microsoft doesn't own that franchise and Epic Games can go elsewhere if Sony wants to offer the cash. Or ditch exclusivity altogether, it is their call. But, clearly they see more of a financial benefit to sticking with the 360. It comes down to what lines their pockets, not what gamers want. They are a business.

God of War is developed by Sony Computer Entertainment. This would be the equivalent of Mario and how Nintendo develops those games. So, that's why it is a Sony exclusive. For Killzone, it is developed by Guerrilla Games - which is owned by Sony. Much like Microsoft with Bungie or 343 for Halo; or even Nintendo and Rare (way back in the day) or Retro.

The reason is simply money and market share. You said "Not Nintendo", but it is like Nintendo. Nintendo, for all the flack it gets about hardware, has franchises and properties that draw audiences in, sells a ton, and makes them oodles of money (which is the point). They own these franchises. This is the inherit value of the Nintendo company; of their brand. This is what they see as an advantage and why their games are exclusive to them. Similarly, Microsoft has Halo. This is their bread maker. A new Halo game is a guaranteed success. They will make money. No risk, all reward. And Sony has Gears of War and such.

All same. Have exclusive properties that people we continually buy and want so much that they'll buy your console for over another one. If they have only one console and they've picked yours, well congratulations you've just secured more money out of that customer.

That's why there a time or limited exclusives. That's why some platforms have additional content or DLC included. The first-parties (Microsoft, Sony) pay the publishers for these benefits to give them a competitive advantage over their competition and make more money. If the developer sees this as being more profitable than having it released on multiple platforms at once - then they'll stick with. I'm sure the do some analysis. Cost, risk, benefits. How much do they stand to gain for going exclusive? How much can they lose? Does whatever Microsoft of Sony offer them more than make up for it?

In the end, the developer will most likely do what is in their financial interests

 

[Legobricks]

The part I don't get is why Microsoft don't get Windows versions of new Halo games made. CE had a fine port; they used 2 to push Vista, and then... nothing. Is it simply that PC gaming has become such a small scene (and dominated by Steam)?

 

[machomuu]

The part I don't get is why Microsoft don't get Windows versions of new Halo games made. CE had a fine port; they used 2 to push Vista, and then... nothing. Is it simply that PC gaming has become such a small scene (and dominated by Steam)?

The sales they for the PC Halo ganes were far outweighed by those of the consoles, and thus, there isn't much demand. Plus it's better for Microsoft since there are thousands upon thousands of people who pay for Live just for the sake of playing Halo online, and GfWL online play is free (also, GfWL is terrible, but that's beside the point).

In short, it nets Bungie and Microsoft less money and they don't see it as worth the trouble.

 

[Cherrim]

TRIFORCE89's answer is pretty much the end of the thread, but I do wanna add that when it comes to mobile/handheld games, there's often a split simply because each console has different features that games make use of. A lot of touch or dual-screen heavy 3/DS games would never work because the technology simply doesn't exist on the PSP/Vita and vice versa with whatever PSPs do better (TV console connectivity, etc).

 

[Mephodicus]

Except that portable gaming is dying. iPhones, iPod Touch and Android formats are taking over because they're better equipped. Why bother slugging my PSP or DS around when I can play on my iPhone?

Sure, there are better games for those systems... but which ones are easier to just pick up and play instantly?

 

[Cherrim]

Except that portable gaming is dying. iPhones, iPod Touch and Android formats are taking over because they're better equipped. Why bother slugging my PSP or DS around when I can play on my iPhone?

Sure, there are better games for those systems... but which ones are easier to just pick up and play instantly?

Not necessarily... sure, a lot of developers are running to the app markets to make a quick buck (emphasis on buck) from mobile users but that's a really cheap userbase. It would take essentially a full game (that I would expect on a DS or PSP) to get me to pay more than $3 for an app whereas I happily pay upwards of $40 for a good game on a handheld console. Maybe ad revenue from free copies of games on iOS/android makes a developer more money (I'm actually not sure) but I don't think handheld gaming is outright dying. People've been saying that for years and the big players in the gaming industry keep making games for both.

So yeah, you can just ditch your handhelds if all you want to play is Angry Birds all the time but if you want a game with more content or depth, you'll almost always be looking at handhelds.

This is a separate debate from OP's topic though. :P

 

[machomuu]

Not necessarily... sure, a lot of developers are running to the app markets to make a quick buck (emphasis on buck) from mobile users but that's a really cheap userbase. It would take essentially a full game (that I would expect on a DS or PSP) to get me to pay more than $3 for an app whereas I happily pay upwards of $40 for a good game on a handheld console. Maybe ad revenue from free copies of games on iOS/android makes a developer more money (I'm actually not sure) but I don't think handheld gaming is outright dying. People've been saying that for years and the big players in the gaming industry keep making games for both.

So yeah, you can just ditch your handhelds if all you want to play is Angry Birds all the time but if you want a game with more content or depth, you'll almost always be looking at handhelds.

This is a separate debate from OP's topic though. :P

Maybe we should create another topic for it, but I don't know if there's much to debate. I'd agree with you, iOS games are usually smaller and made for less playtime during a single session or altogether, and games such as TWEWY and Final Fantasy, while longer and higher quality, are also few and far between on mobiles. That, and games are getting to be pretty big, and it'd be unlikely that people would develop larger games, such as...pretty much any 3DS or Vita game (or most DS and PSP games) that isn't on the eShop or PSN store, on the iOS. Why? Because there's no demand for them and there's less money in it. The majority of iOS users have little to no interest in serious gaming, and the serious gamers that do own iOS devices probably own dedicated gaming consoles as well, therefore there is very little demand from gamers as well. That, and due to the size of games (which, in later years, will probably be 6+ GB), they wouldn't be able to store several games with an excess amount of space.

But Portable gaming definitely isn't dying and there's no sign of it, nor do I think there will be for many, many years.

 

[Spinosaurus]

Except that portable gaming is dying. iPhones, iPod Touch and Android formats are taking over because they're better equipped. Why bother slugging my PSP or DS around when I can play on my iPhone?

Sure, there are better games for those systems... but which ones are easier to just pick up and play instantly?

Not really. The DS had one of the biggest library in video gaming history, and it's a beast in that it's the second most successful video game console, not far from surpassing the behemoth that is the PS2, especially when Nintendo is STILL supporting it. The 3DS is growing very strong, the library it has is magnificent and the hardware is satisfactory, I wouldn't be surprised if it catches up with the DS due time. (It's only been a year and it caught up with the Gamecube and Xbox already.)

Like it or not, I think it says much when the clear winner of this generation is the DS, so if anything handheld gaming is stronger than ever. The PSP is pretty strong, but the Vita's failure was more of Sony's fault and lack of advertising, and for the sake of being on-topic, lack of a good library and exclusives.

The reason why the DS is considered the best of this gen is two reasons - 1. Sales. 2. The huge amazing library and exclusives it has. While you can argue that Android devices got more sales, you can't ignore the fact that people bought the hardware for the hardware itself, not for the games, so it's a different case.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Except that portable gaming is dying. iPhones, iPod Touch and Android formats are taking over because they're better equipped. Why bother slugging my PSP or DS around when I can play on my iPhone?

Because I can play better games on a handheld most of the time than I could on a mobile device?

Sure, there are better games for those systems... but which ones are easier to just pick up and play instantly?

I find them both as easy to pick up and play but mobile games are more like diversions and handheld games are more like full-fledged experiences

 

[machomuu]

Because I can play better games on a handheld most of the time than I could on a mobile device?


I find them both as easy to pick up and play but mobile games are more like diversions and handheld games are more like full-fledged experiences

Not too mention that, with the eShop at least, "small diversion" games have been brought over to the portables (as well as larger ones at reasonable prices). Sure, they're pricier in some cases, but they are also pretty good, better than most games you can find on the mobiles, I can tell you that much.