Immortal said:
Do you have any sales data that shows this? I've seen people throw this around a lot, but "lack of hype" isn't exactly holding franchises like CoD back. Overall, considering that this hype cannot even be proven to increase sales significantly, appealing to different audiences of different consoles definitely seems like the best option saleswise. The only reason to go exclusive, I'd think, would be lower prouction costs, but then you might as well not make games for HD consoles at all |
Well, it's really impossible to compare the exact same game multiplat vs exclusive.
The example you give is COD. A game like that will not benefit from exclusivity. While I appreciate the fact that you're trying to figure it out, it's also dubious that you've substituted the worst example for what I'm trying to explain.
If you really want to understand, don't apply arbitrary games happenstance. Exclusivity helps new IPs, or games that don't come from long established franchises. It helps increase the sales, and the platform owners are usually ready to help the entrant gain experience and show them tricks, etc.
Additionally, exclusivity has other reasonings, other than straight up "benefits". For example, say 360 sold 80% of COD. (It's ok to use COD here because it's tangential to the original point). In situations like that, it makes sense to become exclusive because you're not losing much profit, and the revenue is closely made up by the platform owner's help, special perksfrom the platform owner, and sales increase from exclusivity hype. Additionally, when consoles become "tied" to specific genre's (or more closely matched, Style), it increases the adoption of that platform from those buyers (read: buyers driven by potential), which later results in better sales for sequels.
Later on, a lot of those companies form contracts or get bought out, and continue with them for a long time. Lots of big name titles, franchises, and brands started out from exclusivity.
