Fumanchu, we named four... name four more. I can name dozens that follow the pattern we're discussing.

I don't understand. Just how are you going to prove by examples that you can sell more copies of a game collectively by delaying a release on a platform?

It can't be done all it shows is that the games popularity is higher with the install base on the platform with the latter release. Not that it wouldn't sell more had it been released time and date as the former platforms' release, which obviously it would have.

Not always.  Enchanted Arms came out first on 360 AND 360 has the larger install base.

Do you want to re-read my post? I said popularity as in target audience.  In no way shape or form are you proving that it wouldn't have sold more had it been released time and date as the 360 version.

@ Fumanchu )

what many people seem to overlook is that ports do cost money and manpower, so if a dev doesn't have enough of both of those, it just makes far more sense to develop one version to the end, get some money back and then start with ports

even a huge devloper like squareenix doesn't seem to be able to develop both FF13 versions at the same time (which may be because of the grand scale of this project and the late decision to do a port), but stated they will start developing the 360-port after the PS3 version is completed

You are avoiding the argument by picking on one game. My point is that MOST OF THE TIME a delay of a title on one platform has lesser sales on the later-release platforms.

You're not doing anything to disprove my point. You just keep blindly attacking anyone who seems to disagree with you.

First, clarify YOUR point. Second, provide evidence. Third, if you attack someone else's argument provide evidence that they are wrong.

It's very hard to prove something that doesn't exist. There are only a handful of games that get timed-exclusivity on minority console first.

Most timed exclusives are going to be on the majority console or the console with the audience that's more fitting.

The only thing I can prove is the obvious, that MOST OF THE TIME a delay of a title on one platform has lesser sales on the later-release platforms.

Causation is tricky because each game, console, developer, schedule, and audience response is unique.

Now my opinion is that marketing departments know this, so they only do it when it's fitting or do a miscalculation (see: UT3 and Haze).

You can take the average sales of a multiplat game with no time exclusive, then take the average sales of a timed exclusive and see which is higher. There should be enough titles that it could indicate which strategy is more successful on average.

I think we're agreeing but arguing different points.

Your point; "MOST OF THE TIME a delay of a title on one platform has lesser sales on the later-release platforms."

My point; releasing a game simultaneously across multiple platforms will lead to greater sales than if one platform were to have a delayed release.

My reasoning is that because of an overall 'newness' buzz and increased marketing campaigns at the games launch they have a bigger slice of the gaming market to lure gamers.  

So we have the same reasoning, but arguing different points.  You're trying to prove a generalisation with exceptions and I'm trying to prove a sales trend with no exceptions.

I agree, there are no exceptions to "multiplatform releases sell more". They may not always be more profitable or fit into a companies overall strategy.

Sure that makes sense if the developer is more volatile, but the fact that they're in decline doesn't mean they're nearing bankruptcy.  Your strategy sacrifices greater long-term remuneration for short-term gains at the exact same expenses (and even more if two marketing campaigns are launched to coincide with the games release dates).