starcraft on 11 March 2009
| Reasonable said: Well, it's clear from other titles that a late release due to timed exclusive costs you sales and negative brand loyalty - particularly when you launch full price on one console with the title already a budget title on another. They did first tease number 2 on the PS3 version and would appear in a position to develop for both platforms now. They are slow to confirm platforms. I surmise they intend a simultaneous release but MS are trying to woo them to go timed exclusive again, hence the current delay on confirming platforms. Personally I think they'd be mad to go timed again. A quick review of the sales (in ratio) to install base for most decent multiplatform games shows they stand to lose many, many sales on PS3 going that route. I know MS can give them enough money to counter that, but the loss of brand loyalty to PS3 owners is now not worth that approach IMHO. Globally there are now too many PS3s and multiplatform games sell too well on PS3 now. |
I don't think that really holds up in this situation. The "brand loyalty" for Bioshock went out the window the first time, at which point the tiemd exclusive nature of the game didn't matter because there were next too no PS3 owners. We truly have no idea what sort of demand there is for a PS3 version of Bioshock 2. Unless you are implying that any significant number of consumers would avoid OTHER Take Two franchises because of a timed exclusive Bioshock 2, which I feel is ridiculous.
If people want to play a great game, very few will avoid playing it because the company once made another game timed exclusive.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
