In a press release yesterday, Capcom announced that the next installment of their popular Devil May Cry series will not be exclusive to the PS3, as many people had speculated, but will instead be released simultaneously on the PS3, XBox 360, and PC.
After my surprise wore off, I channeled Martha Stewart and decided this is "a good thing."
A million years ago, I commented on this same phenomenon when someone reported that MGS4 would see an XBox 360 port. As far as I know, MGS4 on the 360 remains unconfirmed, but that could change at any time and I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Remember that MGS2 came to the XBox and the PC in addition to the PS2. The MGS4 "news" was hot on the heels of the announcement that Assassin's Creed, once touted as a PS3 exclusive, would be shared with the 360.
Those items weren't too alarming, though; MGS4 360 was an unconfirmed rumor, and Assassin's Creed, though a hot topic, is an untried original IP. It could turn out to be terrible for all we know (for the record, it won't; it's going to be OMG teh awesome). The PS3's sterling lineup of third-party exclusives was dwindling from the original robust list, but it still had Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII; Metal Gear Solid 4; and . . . Devil May Cry 4.
Let's assume we've reached an age in which the third-party exclusive is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Why is this bad? I still get to play DMC4, MGS4, Assassin's Creed, and every other game that has been announced for PS3 so far. Nothing has been taken away from the PS3; they've just been added to the 360 as well. I haven't lost anything, and I'm not meanspirited enough to begrudge anyone else these great games. And conversely, I'm looking forward to XBox 360's Enchanted Arms and Oblivion porting to the PS3 so that I can play them, and hoping that Eternal Sonata and Dead Rising will follow suit.
More titles on more platforms is good for consumers. Every dollar that Sony spends paying a developer to keep a title exclusive to the PS3 is a dollar Sony isn't spending elsewhere---like on its first-party titles, its Playstation Home network, or on a much-needed new PR campaign. When developers sell more copies of their games, they get a return of more dollars to spend on making more games. If there are 2 million PS3s out there worldwide and 11 million 360s (I made up those numbers), it doesn't make sense for any third-party developer to keep a game exclusive to one console or the other unless they have a good reason to do so---a good reason might be, for instance, that the requirements of the game don't mesh with the capabilities of one system (a game that needs rumble is going to the 360; a game that needs motion controls is going to go to the PS3 or Wii). If going multiplatform gives you at least 2 million more potential customers, why not?
It is possible to access the total sales figures for 360 and PS3 consoles, but we don't really know how many 360s are out there due to well-documented hardware defects, and we don't know how many homes that have PS3s also have 360s. Those data would be helpful in figuring out how much of a market is out there for 360 exclusives, PS3 exclusives, and multiplatform titles.
There has been speculation that FFXIII will go the way of DMC4 and jump ship as well. All things are possible, but I don't think FFXIII is going anywhere. People have been pointing to SquareEnix's recent licensing of Unreal Engine 3, an engine known for its crossplatform portability. However, SquareEnix has confirmed that their proprietary White Engine is being used for FFXIII, and that they will continue to use the White Engine for SE games that are going to remain exclusive to the Sony console. I imagine that it's a bit too late for them now to scrap the White Engine build and move to Unreal Engine for this title (though I could be wrong). FFXIV may turn up on multiple platforms, but I think FFXIII is likely to stay put.
If we as console owners need to feel elite, there are still the first-party titles to consider. I will feel a twinge of pity for 360-instead-of-PS3 owners who won't get to experience Heavenly Sword, Lair, Gran Turismo, LittleBigPlanet, KillZone, and White Knight Story---all first party titles being published by and for Sony and only Sony. I'm sure the 360 owners feel that same twinge of pity for those of us who will never get to play Blue Dragon, Crackdown, Halo, and Gears of War---some of Microsoft's AAA first-party exclusives.
This situation is not going to sink the PS3; it's going to push Sony to develop more and better first-party titles so that they can sell more PS3s and secure more third-party exclusives. Microsoft, in turn, will push their first-party properties to the limits for the same reason. Then everybody wins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"More titles on more platforms is good for consumers."
It's not always good to push a title to multiple platforms. For each additional platform you add, you have to add that much time to re-engineer and QA that version of the game. With market pressures, companies will tend to let things slide and will in the end release games of poorer quality.
You're definitely right. I especially dread the inevitable "developed with one machine in mind and then hastily [sloppily] pushed onto the other(s)" phenomenon.
I hope that this will incite Sony and Microsoft to call upon developers to add unique content and special features as a way of making a game more enticing for one console versus another (for example, GTA:IV bonus episode packs rumored to be exclusive to 360, or the playable Rachael character in Ninja Gaiden: Sigma for PS3).
I think there is potential for the "console war" to make real enhancements to the gaming experience; there's a certain danger in a company assuming that consumers will accept whatever the manufacturer throws at them (which looked like the way Sony was heading with PS3 until they got a wakeup call).
On the other hand, there is a lot of potential for developers to be sloppy, especially if each console company is desperate to prevent the other from getting an exclusive (i.e., accepting a hastily engineered port so that the competitor doesn't have the exclusive edge).
I think one of the big hang ups is the pressure for the feel good, Zionist *simultaneous* launch. The staggering of release dates for different platforms is a far cry from temporal exclusivity, and being open about the process in the first place is usually well received by the consumer.
If someone is intent on getting a game like Marvek Ultimate Alliance, for example, they may get it as soon as possible for whatever platform drops first. Or they may want the 360 version for the Online Co-op. Or the Wii version for the controls. Or the PSP version for the unique characters.
Or the GBA version, if they, like, hate video games or something.
But knowing what version drops when gives the the end user a choice, and can limit buyer's remorse. And allowing for some delays in porting helps ensure a smooth experience... ideally anyways.
Marvek... ugh. Forgiveness, please.
i find special content on different versions of one game ridiculous.
now, a GBA version of a 360 game is obviously just a marketing trick. but having exclusive content on a ps3 version over 360 (or the other way around) is generally speaking ripping off customers.
also, porting a game from one console to another (in the same generation) is much MUCH cheaper than doing a new game. so if the console guys are not paying for exclusivity there is really no good reason for the developer and the publisher (provided they are third party) not to go multiplatform.
in other news, gamespot has some news today about ff13 NOT going to be ps3 exclusive.
Post a Comment