By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis said:
CGI-Quality said:
BMaker11 said:
I endorse exclusivity because it allows the game to be tailored to the strengths of the console it's on without having to worry about anything else. Full optimization, if you will

Also, without exclusivity, you can barely differentiate between consoles. You buy an Xbox for a reason. You buy a PS3 for a reason. You buy a Wii for a reason. Whether this is the "multiplatform gen" or not, what would be the point of choosing one over the other if they all had the same games?

Touche.

Your honor, I motion to have that "Touche" stricken from the record!  If all these multi-platform games weren't multi-platform, what would be the motivation to push a console as hard as you can?  The reason games like Uncharted, Killzone, and MAG are the technical marvels that they are is because Sony had to get up off of their asses and make people stand up and say "wow" when they saw PS3 games.  Believe me, Sony would have been more than happy to bask in insane PS3 sales while gamers bought Tekken 6 and Resident Evil 5 exclusively for the PS3.

And just because a game is available for both consoles doesn't mean that it can't be optimized for one console.  Look at Resident Evil on the Gamecube or Bayonetta for the 360.  Multiplatform doesn't mean a gimped PS3 version.  It just means more people get to play.  This generation, it's up to the first party to make sure that their console is worth buying.  Looking at my console collection, it seems like they're all doing a good job!!

Last gen, the PS2 completely dominated the market...yet GoWII was one of the best looking games. It's not a matter of "getting up off their ass" here, instead it's just that Sony's first party knows the technology at hand and will push it as far as they are capable. Beause they're first party, what'd you think would happen? They'd make sloppy games? They'd get shut down in a heartbeat if that were the case. It's BECAUSE those games are from first party studios that they are the technical marvels that they are. Majesco games could make a shitty game for the PS3, and Sony couldn't do anything to them about it. Naughty Dog releases crap that isn't up to standard, and you might just see an Activision/IW situation. 

"If all these multi-platform games weren't multi-platform, what would be the motivation to push a console as hard as you can?" umm I dunno? You see one developer make this excellent game, then you decide "I want to be better than this", so you go to the next level in terms of development, and use all the resources available on your platform of choice without having to worrying about changing optimization to fit another platform? I mean, what multiplatform developer has pushed any console? Don't say Crytek, because as much as they're talking about Crysis 2, I just downloaded the "The Wall" trailer in 1080p, and I swear to God that in game trailer looked no better than something on the Unreal Engine. Sue me for saying that =/ 

Oh, in the case of Bayonetta, multiplatform DID equal a gimped PS3 version. Just look at the differences lol. And lastly, I stand by the belief that multiplatform =/= more people get to play the game, but instead, multiplatform = the same people are playing the game, the fanbase is just split between consoles. I've used the MGS4 example many times, as compared to other former PS exclusives, and you see that exclusive compared to exclusive, the numbers stayed relatively the same, whereas former exclusive compared to multiplatform....well the numbers stayed relatively the same again. FFXIII is the latest example. What did FFXII sell? 5.69M. What has FFXIII sold? 5.37M. Virtually no difference. More people playing the game? Not at all. Same people playing the game