By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kain_kusanagi on 15 March 2013
Edit Thread
Soriku said:
Soundwave said:

There's never really been a console transition like the one about to happen though. 

I suspect it'll be made for the PS3/360 primarily, but pushed to 1080p with some better textures/character models for a PS4/720 version. 

Gotta recoup those dev costs somehow. 


I don't see them doing this at all.

But whatever.

kain_kusanagi said:

 

MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.

Well one they can focus on the strength and capabilities of one console to make a better game tailored to the hardware it's on. Two, they might find that one platform is enough for sales because they believe their fanbase isn't split up everywhere. Then they can just continue to focus on making the best game on one console, and also not worry about the costs of another version of the game for another platform.

Everything you said is very reasonable. But I'll tell you why I'd rather have 3rd party games tay multiplatform unless they are paid for 2nd party type partnerships.

"Well one they can focus on the strength and capabilities of one console to make a better game tailored to the hardware it's on."

Sure, but the PS3 and Xbox 360 have the same capabilities. Unless Sony gives a 3rd party dev Naughty Dog secrets or MS gives a 3rd party dev 343i secrets it's not going to matter. Even if a primary console was picked a port could still be made even if the primary release is superior. I'd rather have a dirty port than no port at all.

"Two, they might find that one platform is enough for sales because they believe their fanbase isn't split up everywhere. Then they can just continue to focus on making the best game on one console, and also not worry about the costs of another version of the game for another platform."

If one platform is enough than the sales of another is gravy. Multiplatform engines and tools are so good now that there it's cheap and easy to both develop in parallel and port after the fact. Devs should always focus on making the best game, but they should also get that game into as many hands as possible.