While some developers have been outspoken about the difficulties with multi-platform development, particularly problems with the PS3 hardware, Guillemot said that Ubisoft now creates games for PS3 and Xbox 360 simultaneously.

“We consider those two machines close in what we can do with them,” he said.

“...It doesn’t cost more than 10 percent extra to develop for the other machine. So you start [development] on either 360 or you start on PS3.”

I guess that's why Capcom stated there'd be no more exclusives.. Expect to see even fewer exclusives this year

Source: http://www.edge-online.com/news/ubisoft-well-have-quotnintendo-likequot-quality

btw this is old news so excuse me if it's been posted before - a lot of people throw around figuers that aren't in line with this so I thought I'd post it

It sounds great, but in reality it's part of the problem. To get at a descent user-base and to recover the huge costs of development, devs have to add in an additional 10% cost. That 20 Million dollar game just went up to 22. Most companies would like it a lot more if they could save that 2 million and just have a game sell well on one system.

Well that just made no sense. Who would you care about an extra 2 million dollars if you already have a huge budget of 20 million? Hell, if the company only got 20 bucks per copy sold on the platform the game was ported to, and the game shipped 100,000 copies to store (which would make sense for a 20 million budget game), then they've already made back the cost of porting.

I think it makes a lot of sense that in a time when most companies are bleeding and firing that they wouldn't want to spend an extra 10% on their games. I'm not saying porting doesn't pay off. Of course it does and the companies are right to do it, in fact they can't afford not too. But the fact that they HAVE to increase their budgets by 10% by making all their games multiplat is a problem when budgets are already through the roof.

What would you rather as a company, a game that sells a million copies on one console? or a game that sells a million copies on 2 consoles and cost an extra couple million bucks to make? I'm just saying that the smaller user bases of the HD consoles this gen is putting dev's in a bind. I'm sure they're really missing the PS2 right now.

Is this paving the way towards one universal gaming console where the only difference would be the manufacturer and the bonuses (like online and DLC)?

Hell no!

Yes. Clearly they are if EA's earnings call was any indication. That's why the Wii is getting such a big swing in support this year.

Then why are most companies planning to turn towards multiplatform development? If developers cared so much about development costs for their games (down to the cost of a few million dollars), then why would they have 20 million dollar budgets? Why not just develop on the Wii or DS then if a couple million dollars is so important? The budget may be slightly higher, but I JUST explained why the cost could be easily made back and you seemed to just dismiss that point.

Your scenario is incredibly unlikely. Can you really name a single multiplatform game this gen that would have sold more as an exclusive? Pretty tough to think of one. If your scenario (which almost never happens) actually were to occur, the company may have made one or two million dollars less. I'm sure that's a big deal to companies like EA who are losing over 600 million dollars.

i find that number hard to believe.

you are however basing this on the fact that a multiplat would sell equally to a single-platform title.  If the title is good and the port doesn't come after the next ice age has ended, there is no indication that such costs cannot be recovered on the second system, even increasing revenue and profit.

So your saying putting it on a 2nd console would add no sales??  I agree with Montana, your not making any sense.  As a company, I'd rather sell 1.5 million on 2 consoles than 1 million on 1 console if it only costs an extra couple million bucks to make.