Erik Aston on 07 January 2007
Daddo Splat said:exclusivity on a console is paid for by the console maker not because some developer wants to only be on that particular ystem.
Pfft. That's not true.
The cross-platform trend we're seeing right now is the result of huge development costs. Developers would much rather only invest in one console, just like movie studios don't want to invest in multiple HD video formats right now. On the PS3 and 360, its practically impossible for them to make a profit without going multi-platform, especially with their low install bases. But historically, the best way to get exclusives is not to just pay for them, but to provide an environment which will attract developers by a.) putting consoles in homes and b.) keeping development costs low.
If the console maker can keep the cost to developers low enough, and put enough consoles in homes, a point can be reached where its more profitable for a developer to develop new software for the dominant platform then it is for them to bring existing software to other platforms. This happened most clearly with the PS1. Once it happens, no company, not even Microsoft, could begin to shell out the cash to get a meaningful amount of exclusives.
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
