CGI-Quality said:
See, this line of thinking has always bothered me. "More access to everyone" means just put it on any (and in some cases every) system and call it a day. But what about the console itself? I'd rather see consoles be taken advantage of then to just have everything put on every system just for "more access". To me, the access is there already. If you can't get the system a game is on, then you can't play the game, it's just that simple. It's also another reason why I think we see so much praise for PS3 exclusives, in terms of tech, but not as much for the Xbox 360. Is it the 360's fault, absolutely not. Problem is, people aren't building new engines for the console. They just depend on the UE3 and put it on the 360 where it's "cheaper to develop", and then the console can't show it's real potential. BUT THEN........... when you look at games like Alan Wake, Forza 3, Splinter Cell: Conviction and the like, you see the 360 has potential to shock the masses from a technical standpoint. That's when I start scratching my head. Would I rather just have a moderately better looking/performing Assassin's Creed 2 on the 360, or a full-fledged, well thoughtout/developed project like Alan Wake in my hands, and the answer becomes clear. Exclusives will continue to shape the market IMO, though there will be multiplats that contrinbute as well (MW2, Assassin's Creed 2, Batman Arkham Asylum). But taking away excclusives from the industry has not helped it much IMO, it's just given developers a reason to say: "ah well, put it on multiple systems, we'll profit that way". Sure, making money back on your product is always a plus. But I think with that train of thought should also come with the idea that taking your time on a project and making it the best it can psossibly be, while taking advantage of the work the manufacturers put into their specific product, should be at the forefront.
Ok, sorry for the rant it's just something I've thought about a lot, and it's one of the reaons why I think this gen, as with future gens, may never eclipse gens like the 16 or 32-Bits because it no longer seems like innovation is at the forefront, but just making sure your pocket is fat. Again, just my opinion. |
Trust me when I say that I love technological advances a lot, but actually making a profit is probably the most important thing about creating a big game. Without profit, you lose potential to create bigger and better games.
@ bolded: No, making money back on your game is not just a plus. It is absolutely essential that you make money. If you don't, you won't be able to finance other projects or guarantee the people working at the studio continued work.
Some studios gain the luxury of being financed by someone like Sony or Microsoft , but that doesn't mean we are guaranteed sequels to their games. Lair 2? Not happening.
Would I want to see a game being more refined if it means being exclusive? Absolutely. Would I rather see that the game is insured a profit, and thus increase chances that we will see more games from the studio? Absolutely.
All of this is a tradeoff you get for increasing production costs, simple as that.
Just my 2 cents of course 
