Would Castlevania and Enslaved done better if they were exclusive?

[twesterm]

Zlejedi said:

twesterm said:

No!

God, I hate it when people think this because it's just one of the dumbest things imagineable.  A smaller userbase doesn't mean better sells.  Even if they were exclusive that doesn't mean they would be first party and that means Sony or Microsoft would not have advertised them like a first party exclusive.

The only people that care are the people that constantly browse game forums and news blogs and those people represent an incredibly minor piece of the userbase.

But don't you think you are losing free advertisement by going multiplatform? And by free advertisement i don't mean ads sponsored by Sony or Microsoft but rather the gaming media attention.

Look into case of Quantum Theory - this game was receiving quite a lot of blogs and portals news space when it was hailed as PS3 version of Gears of War with japanise twist but then when they announced it's multiplatform it kinda disappered.

Some people might not like it but exclusives get lot more attention.

It was belived that multiplatform development is always better I belive that Enslaved is good proof that it isn't always true.

No, the game would have gotten just about the same attention.  I don't know if you noticed, but Castlevania and Enslaved both got a good amount of attention from all the gaming blogs.  Being an exclusive wouldn't have really changed that.

And again, exclusives only get a lot more attention from people that constantly browse forums like these and check the gaming news blogs every 10 minutes and those people don't really make up a significant part of the audience.