| bluesinG said: I agree that Malstrom's writing style is often obnoxious. However, the basic argument that he's making boils down to this: 1. The 360 and PS3 motion-control interfaces are quite different from each other. 2. The PC does not have a motion-control interface. 3. Therefore, it would be very difficult to port motion-controlled games across the 360, PS3, and PC. (From 1 and 2.) 4. It's important for third-party developers to make profit from their games. 5. Because HD games are expensive to develop, it's very difficult to make a profit from them if you don't release them on multiple platforms. 6. Therefore, developers will not develop many motion-controlled games for the 360 or PS3. (From 3, 4, and 5.) That argument makes sense to me, although I think Malstrom might be missing one thing here: Because the Wii and PS3 motion-control interfaces are rather similar, third-party developers may develop Wii-PS3 multiplatform motion-controlled games. Or am I missing a major problem with Malstrom's basic argument here? |
1. The PS3 interface feeds off Wii M+ development. The middleware comany used for M+ is used for Sony. I cannot comment on what Microsoft is doing as it seems more internal.
2. The PC is less important than ever for the consoles. I doubt the PC market has expanded to nearly the same extent that the HD consoles have essentially starting from 0.
3. I don't think at this point it would matter. Programming is not the major expense with HD games and like the above, the PC is less important than it used to be. The legacy controls are still available as well.
4. It goes without saying really.
5. See above.
6. See above, but the cost of the controls will be marginal and the initial attempts will not need a large adoption as the console manufacturers would subsidise such development.
Tease.
