| GauntletPython said: I go to a lot of various gaming message boards, and I always see fanboys making topics like "[insert PS3 game] will be ported because more people own the 360". Since when did the number of consoles determine a games exclusivity? I'm not denying that a large userbase is very attractive to developers and it would be dumb to imply that. However, it seems like a lot of people think that 3rd party developers publishing exclusives on a system with a lesser userbase is some new phenomenom. How can people have already forgotten the countless times it happened just last generation? Tecmo released several XBox exclusives, such as the Ninja Gaiden series and Dead or Alive 3/Ultimate/Volleyball. Tecmo usually only develops for powerhouses. If you'll recall DoA2 was exclusive to the PS2 before the xbox came out, because it was the most powerful system. Right now, they are developing for 360 and PS3 because they are basically equal, powerwise. True, they are developing a Ninja Gaiden DS, but they are doing it more to push the boundaries of what can be done on the system. Koei released Crimson Sea exclusively for Xbox. It's actually called Crimson Skies, and MS paid for that one. They needed a flagship game when Live launched. Capcom released Dino Crisis 3 exclusively for Xbox. This was near the beginning of the Xbox's life cycle, so they likely thought that the original box was going to do better than it did. They also released the RE0 for the GC exclusively. This was due to a 5-year exclusivity contract with Nintendo. Powerstone and subsequent sequels were released exclusively to the Dreamcast. Sega made Powerstone IIRC. Squaresoft released Crystal Chronicles exclsuively to the GC. I believe they also had a deal of some type with Nintendo, no? Currently, Nintendo holds second-party rights to the FF:CC franchise. Viviendi released the Riddick game for Xbox exclusively. Again, by far the most powerful platform. Game couldn't have been done to the same caliber on GC/PS2. I mean, I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. Can someone tell me why NOW this has become something out of the norm? |
It's usually on a case-by-case basis though. If you'll recall, the dominant console has always had the most exclusives by far--SNES, PS1, PS2, and DS have all shown that. That said, just because it doesn't have the most exclusives says nothing about the quality of said exclusives. N64, though it had few games, had more games that people generally recognize as the greatest of all time than the PS1. PS1 had FF7, while 64 had Mario 64, Zelda, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark. When you think about it tha way, while the consoles that have sold less have had less exclusives, it doesn't mean that they are bad ones.
I know you are referring to PS3, so you can rest assured that, though it will likely have less exclusives, in the long run, that says nothing about their potential quality.
