| Squilliam said: They'd only move away from this mindset if it could truly be proved that exclusivity or a reduced number of platforms would lead to higher profits for the company making the games. As of this point in time I cannot really point to any data which implies this is the case for even a substantial minority of games released. Given the fact that games have two substantial costs, marketing and art work, both of which transfer readily between platforms I cannot see them changing their ways. |
Except, I believe it can be shown that games that take advantage of the strengths of the platforms they are released upon while minimizing the weaknesses of those platforms generally sell far better; and that it is nearly impossible to take advantage of the strengths of a diverse group of very different platforms.
Effectively, consider what would happen if you have to develop a game that supports a keyboard & mouse, conventional controller, Kinect (like) device, Wiimote/Playstation move, and a touch screen compared to developing a game designed around a sub-set of related user interfaces. The game that supports a small set of similar user interface devices is (probably) going to be able to provide a more unique, interesting, and compelling gameplay experience than the game that has to support all of those user interfaces; and (as a result) will likely end up being a better game that sells better.
Now, I'm not saying that multiplatform games are a bad idea but that it is possible that adding additional platforms can end up with lower game quality and (potentially) lower game sales.
