Imo it doesn't affect it much, maybe the FW but LTD sales are practically the same in the long run, timed exclusive are what's not worth it imo, as instead of waiting to port and porting straight away you could have gotten exceedingly more sales, unless of course, the platform paid well for the timed exclusivity.. It's a hard call

1. For most games it is counter productive, and the biggest games of all show this to be true. Consider Red Dead Redemption, GTA, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, NFL, Fifa etc, all multiplatform and considerably bigger overall than comparable exclusives which appear on the same platforms. If even launching as an exclusive was assured to have helped we would have seen many more new I.P. or I.P revivals go exclusive. Overall the larger revenue from going multiplatform means that they can be advertised more prolifically. Remember all the complaints about Sony games not being advertised enough in comparison?

2. For Ninja Theory they had about 3 options.

1. Let Sony fund the next game, you're assuming that Sony even tabled this option.

2. Get bought out, given Sony controls their most valuable I.P. it means that either Sony wants them or noone would be willing to pay what they are worth.

3. Make a multiplatform game.

4. Go out of business (not really an option)

So their original mistake was probably exclusivity. Enslaved is a result of their original mistake and not a result of a mistake after they stopped making Heavenly Sword and considered their next move. Had they been able to get an exclusivity deal which enabled them to control their own I.P. then option 2 and 3 would have had better results.

As for exclusivity deals, a large number of those who went with Microsoft retained their I.P. whereas a small fraction of the ones who went with Sony did so. Exclusivity only really makes sense with Sony if it is your intention that they buy you out. So like always it really does depend and the choices which don't close down the options are typically better than the ones which do with few exceptions.

Mod Nation Racers, Alan Wake, and Mass Effect 2.  Three great exclusives that didn't blow the world away with their sales.  I loved Enslaved (I cried into my pillow when I saw its sales) but I don't think being exclusive would've helped it.  There's just too much diversity/competition at this point.  Early on, exclusives can build their audience and build upon that fanbase.  People are starved for good games when a console launches.  Now, no matter which console you own, you're gonna feast on whatever is best and not on what's exclusive.

Last time I checked, Mass Effect 2 has over two million in sales. I don't see how that's even comparable to Mod Nation Racers and Alan Wake...

Oops, double post.

I don't see how it's comparable to games like Assassins Creed, either.  We have a game that many consider game of the year and was exclusive and hyped AND marketed and it sold a respectable two million.  It'll sell a few more copies on the PS3 because the audience is hyped for it, too.  They don't care if it's exclusive or not.  They only care if it's good.  

The point I was going for is that being multi-plat would only help a good game.  As much as I loved Enslaved, it didn't sell well because there were other games that I must admit were simply better.

I still stand by my statement that going multiplatform doesn't "expand" the userbase or "allows more people to play the game". It merely splits the fanbase. Look at the sales of every franchise that was exclusive to the PS2, then went multiplatform this generation.....comparable sales right? Now compare every exclusive franchise that stayed exclusive this gen....again, comparable sales!

I'll even extrapolate this to something else: Prototype vs. inFamous. Very similar games, but one was mutliplatform, the other exclusive. Look at the total sales. Prototype - 2.2M across two platforms inFamous - 1.8M on one platform. Very close in terms of sales.

Hell there was even a thread about Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 selling 1M between the 360 and PS3. UNS1? 0.87M. Pretty damned close to a million, right?

A game is gonna sell what it's gonna sell. If it's exclusive to one console, it'll sell X amount. If it's on two console, it'll still sell X amount. It's been proven. People are going to buy the games that they want to play. Which is why I find it so ignorant and stupid when people "well multiplatform means more sales and more profit and more people play the game". No, multiplat = same sales and higher cost since you're devving for two platforms.

Unless someone can prove to me the going multiplatform has significantly improved the sales of a franchise, "going multiplat is the smart thing to do" really isn't as smart as everyone seems to think it is

GET HIM, BOYS!

Yes, and no. Most of the arguments have already been said. Exclusive = more budget and more hype = more sales, but established franchises going multi-plat = more sales (COD, Devil may cry, Mass effect shortly)

Yes, and no. Most of the arguments have already been said. Exclusive = more budget and more hype = more sales, but established franchises going multi-plat = more sales (COD, Devil may cry, Mass effect shortly)