3rd party exclusives don't make sense without a hat and some money.

Best post of the thread, as far as I'm concerned. Business is complicated and definitely not as simple as more platforms = more sales. If that were the case, Wiiu would have gotten a port as well.

That argumentation style works in both directions:

To all the people saying it doesn't make sense to be on x1 because more sales... how do you know
1. People would have bought a ps4 to play an exc 'll shove
2. Multiplatform owners simply bought it on PS4 over XB1
3. Money invested wasn't worth the sales
4. Games weren't sold at full price

More and more developers are bringing former exclusive games and IPs to other platforms, most AAA games of the last years are multiplatform titles for PlayStation + Xbox + PC unless Sony or Microsoft payed for exclusive rights.

Sure, some games may flop or underperform on one of these platforms (for many different reasons), but if these situations would be the rule rather than the exception, multiplatform announcements would get much rarer.

It definitely is worth it.

The PS4 version only just about broke 1m, so 220k is a fine addition to that. If the PS4 version sold 5m and the X1 version only 200k, then that'd be a different story as the money used to port to the xbox could instead be invested in producing more content to sell to the 5m PS4 owners. I believe this is the situation with Ubi and Wii U.

Also the Ground Zero isn't exactly MSGV, its a gloried demo being sold at retail so expect its sales (especially physical), to be quite muted on the xbox where there are not the hardcore fans., Phantom Pain however will probably break 1m on Xbox One quite easily. Its a no brainer from a business perspective, especially considering the similarity of the PS4/X1 hardware.

The arguments people are suggesting for exclusivity really aren't that strong. In this day and age, sony and MS are gonna fight to promote your product if they think it will help them shift hardware (as seen with Watchdogs, Destiny, Fifa, COD, Far Cry etc). The gains from exclusivity could be numerous but they're really not that tangible and most likely will not equal the same amount of profit as selling 1m on xbox. If this was an unknown IP or a struggling/small studio, the benefits of exclusivity would stand out more.

Note that the Dragon Quest franchise didn't really benefit at all from Nintendo pushing it with their marketing. Sometimes products operate within a specific niche and doubling your marketing budget isn't going to double your sales. Instead concern yourself with marketing efficiently to that niche, which is often more a creative struggle then a financial one.

P.S: They should scrap the 360 version :p

Really? Do people really buy a game (that they were not going to buy originally) just because it is exclusive?

In that scenario where the install base is hugely slanted in favour of one console then no it's not always true.

I agree also. There are a lot of factors to consider.

But even though 1 game might lose them money, it could be worth it long term by establishing the franshise on a console. MGS has had a disjointed past on Xbox. If Konami keep releasing MGS games on the Xbox, they might actually build up a fanbase and earn more money in the long term than they could recieve off of Sony to be exclusive.

See also: Final fantasy, Kingdom hearts, Resident Evil...

That's a great point. I completely agree with you. 

The only thing that does not make sense is how the hell MGS V is even possible on 360 after all that nonsense about MGS IV only being possible on PS3?