| HappySqurriel said: 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. |
Games which take advantage of the 'strengths of a platform' are not the default. They are all computers at heart, all turing complete so at the heart of it any computer which is fast enough can run effectively any program which can run on other architectures which leaves controls as the default means of differentiation.
In this generation of consoles even with various motion controllers to add further differentiation there are very few titles which are truly differentiated by the controls used to play the games. I don't see it as a significant factor as the majority of what can be achieved on a motion controller can be achieved on a regular controller and touch screen games have a tendency to be developed separately.
Tease.
