26 replies to this topic

[xg4bx]

I'm of the mind that yea they do but not to the extent that certain fan(boys) would like them to. Frankly the best games I've ever played have been multiplatform titles. In a year that sees such games as crysis, elder scrolls,arkham city, etc, I'm not going to be crying or hurting for games to play if my console of choice doesn't have a few niche exclusives.

And unless you're nintendo, most exclusive titles sell relatively crappy anyway. Why pump tens of millions of dollars into an exclusive game that may break even at most if you're lucky. I think that's why most 3rd party developers are moving away from exclusives, development simply costs to much to ignore 66% of the modern console market.

I think were headed towards a 1 console future in a few generations. It simply doesn't make sense to spend a fortune on r&d to end up with the essentially same results as your competitor. Except for like xbl and blu-ray I still fail to see any true genuine difference between the 360 and ps3. I think the future will bring a "game player" much like any dvr or that onlive thing. Maybe the licensing will vary but they will all do the same stuff with a few varying bells&whistles. Honestly I think there's too many consoles on the market as we speak (handhelds included and the new iterations thereof). It just doesn't make financial sense for developers to spend the money developing 6 variations of the same game.

[A_Locomotive]

xg4bx, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

I'm of the mind that yea they do but not to the extent that certain fan(boys) would like them to. Frankly the best games I've ever played have been multiplatform titles. In a year that sees such games as crysis, elder scrolls,arkham city, etc, I'm not going to be crying or hurting for games to play if my console of choice doesn't have a few niche exclusives.

And unless you're nintendo, most exclusive titles sell relatively crappy anyway. Why pump tens of millions of dollars into an exclusive game that may break even at most if you're lucky. I think that's why most 3rd party developers are moving away from exclusives, development simply costs to much to ignore 66% of the modern console market.

I think were headed towards a 1 console future in a few generations. It simply doesn't make sense to spend a fortune on r&d to end up with the essentially same results as your competitor. Except for like xbl and blu-ray I still fail to see any true genuine difference between the 360 and ps3. I think the future will bring a "game player" much like any dvr or that onlive thing. Maybe the licensing will vary but they will all do the same stuff with a few varying bells&whistles. Honestly I think there's too many consoles on the market as we speak (handhelds included and the new iterations thereof). It just doesn't make financial sense for developers to spend the money developing 6 variations of the same game.

I personally like when games aren't exclusive for one simple reason, it allows me to choose which console I feel will be the most suited to the game. Which in this generation almost always ends up being the 360, the PS3 has plenty of great games but its controller is garbage from an ergonomic standpoint IMO so unless its a game I really want and its only available for PS3 I'll almost always favor the 360, it just feels better in your hands. I really hope they start from scratch on the PS4 controller, there really is no redeeming qualities to its current controller design other then it being instantly recognizable as a play station controller. I personally wish they had stuck with the original banana/boomerang design they first unveiled as I'm sure it probably had great ergonomics.

Edited by A_Locomotive, Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:39 PM.

[MagitekAngel]

A_Locomotive, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:34 PM, said:

the PS3 has plenty of great games but its controller is garbage from an ergonomic standpoint IMO

Really? I find the Dualshock controller to be extremely comfortable. I also find its D-Pad to be superior to the 360's. I'm not sure I prefer one controller over the other, though. Let us simply agree that both are better than the Wii's classic controller (haven't tried the revised model with the grips, though).

As for multi-plat titles, if online is an issue, I usually get the PS3 version because I won't pay for Xbox Live.

[A_Locomotive]

MagitekAngel, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:29 PM, said:

A_Locomotive, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:34 PM, said:

the PS3 has plenty of great games but its controller is garbage from an ergonomic standpoint IMO

Really? I find the Dualshock controller to be extremely comfortable. I also find its D-Pad to be superior to the 360's. I'm not sure I prefer one controller over the other, though. Let us simply agree that both are better than the Wii's classic controller (haven't tried the revised model with the grips, though).

As for multi-plat titles, if online is an issue, I usually get the PS3 version because I won't pay for Xbox Live.

I agree with you on the d-pad but its used so rarely in 360 games(at least in the ones I own and play) that I think its kind of a non issue. My big issue with the duelshock is its to small. It just doesn't sit right in my hands at all(My hands I'd say are pretty much about average in size), the grips need to be bulkier and a bit longer with the rest of the controller a bit curvier. The way the controller is designed has your thumbs naturally land on the d-pad and buttons, which works great and is plenty comfy for games where those are the primary controls but makes the controller crap for anything that requires the use of both thumb sticks as the only way to use them with any sort of precision requires a rather awkward and loose grip on the controller which makes pressing the triggers awkward. This isn't a problem I've ever faced at all with the 360 controller as you can hold it one way and reach everything fairly comfortably. I totally agree with you on the original classic controller, its probably the worst controller design I've ever held in my hands. I've never used the newer version but I have held one and it feels much much better.

[Mord]

xg4bx, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

I think were headed towards a 1 console future in a few generations. It simply doesn't make sense to spend a fortune on r&d to end up with the essentially same results as your competitor.

In order for that to happen, all other console companies would either have pull out of the market OR all current console companies would have to agree to co-build a single system and divide the profits.

I don't see either happening honestly.

[MagitekAngel]

A_Locomotive, on Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:58 AM, said:

MagitekAngel, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:29 PM, said:

A_Locomotive, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:34 PM, said:

the PS3 has plenty of great games but its controller is garbage from an ergonomic standpoint IMO

Really? I find the Dualshock controller to be extremely comfortable. I also find its D-Pad to be superior to the 360's. I'm not sure I prefer one controller over the other, though. Let us simply agree that both are better than the Wii's classic controller (haven't tried the revised model with the grips, though).

As for multi-plat titles, if online is an issue, I usually get the PS3 version because I won't pay for Xbox Live.

I agree with you on the d-pad but its used so rarely in 360 games(at least in the ones I own and play) that I think its kind of a non issue. My big issue with the duelshock is its to small. It just doesn't sit right in my hands at all(My hands I'd say are pretty much about average in size), the grips need to be bulkier and a bit longer with the rest of the controller a bit curvier. The way the controller is designed has your thumbs naturally land on the d-pad and buttons, which works great and is plenty comfy for games where those are the primary controls but makes the controller crap for anything that requires the use of both thumb sticks as the only way to use them with any sort of precision requires a rather awkward and loose grip on the controller which makes pressing the triggers awkward. This isn't a problem I've ever faced at all with the 360 controller as you can hold it one way and reach everything fairly comfortably. I totally agree with you on the original classic controller, its probably the worst controller design I've ever held in my hands. I've never used the newer version but I have held one and it feels much much better.

I can see where you are coming from. The Dualshock isn't too small for me personally, but I see what you are getting at with the sticks. I'd say that problem comes from the fact that the Playstation controller wasn't originally designed to accommodate thumbsticks. The Dual Analog and later Dualshock kind of just tack them on to the existing ergonomic design.

In general, I have not been satisfied with Nintendo's controls for about a generation or so. The Wii remote has too many buttons that are out of reach when holding it in the upright position, the Nunchuck feels cheap and the single handed grip reduces thumb precision, the Nintendo DS Lite and onwards have lousy, small buttons, and a squishy D-Pad that doesn't register diagonals, and let's not forget the classic controller.

Also, returning to the orignal topic, IGN has an article mentioning one of the lead developers of Angry Birds predicting the death of home consoles period: http://wireless.ign..../1155372p1.html

Edited by MagitekAngel, Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:01 PM.

[save2600]

This phenomenon of non-exclusive games is when I pretty much lost interest in modern gaming. Throughout the decades, it was fun to go over to a friends house and see/play something different you didn't have that was on another system. That was one of the magical dynamics to socializing and introduced an element that made it compelling to sit and visit with someone else.

Even if you had a cross platform game, but a different system than that of your buddy - there was still this mystique of seeing how it compared. To me, that's all been stripped away by the genericism of today's hardware. Nintendo is still trying to be "cutting edge" in their cutesy or innovative ways - and I applaud them for that, but I dunno how that relates today now that kids have several "next gen" systems in the same house. The spoiled bastards!

[Christophero Sly]

I'd say the opposite--that the best console games I've ever played have been exclusives, not mulitplats. Exclusives are what define and differentiate consoles, so I'd say that they matter a great deal.

[Tr3vor]

Really, to me, exclusives pretty much choose what console I buy, like how i bought the ps3, I wanted to play the exclusives like inFamous, while being able to play the multiplatform games with my friends, like mw2.

[StanJr]

I'm not big on exclusive games, being a single platform household. I miss out on a lot of games that look really cool because they are for one of the systems I do not own. I think developers miss out a lot of sales by developing for only one console. If the are in-house games like Mario or the like, then I get it, but when it comes to third party developers I just don't get it. There are a lot of games I did not buy because I did not own system X.

[vdub_bobby]

Anymore it seems that the number of exclusives is shrinking to be pretty much only niche games (that aren't worth the money to port) and 1st-party titles.

But I think exclusives still matter - you can't play Halo on a PS3 and that's probably a pretty big deal to a lot of people. Same for Gran Turismo, Fable, Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, God of War, Gears of War, etc.

And obviously, Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid and the rest of Nintendo's big franchises.

[toptenmaterial]

Nintendo.

I think of the PS3 and 360 as being nearly indistinguishable when it comes to new games.

[raskar42]

only when it's for a console i don't have.

[Reaperman]

vdub_bobby, on Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:37 PM, said:

Same for Gran Turismo...

Gran Turismo itself isn't a big deal at all. It's more the low number of competing titles, and that the ps3 takes standard PC steering wheels, where competing hardware requires specially licensed wheels be purchased for it.

Edited by Reaperman, Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:19 AM.

[Mendon]

Certain exclusives, such as Halo or Killzone or Mario, its easy for me to understand why they aren't on multiple systems. But I've been recently trying to figure out why some games from 3rd party companies (unless they have a financial deal) are only on one system.

As an example, I've been on an RPG binge lately and am currently playing Tactic's Ogre: Let Us Cling Together on the PSP. This is an incredible game and I'm having an absolute blast with it. But why is it only on the PSP??

I thought the plan for most companies was to port a game to as many systems as possible in order to achieve maximum profit. If so, why did Square decide to release this game only on the PSP and not also on the PS3 or other systems? Same with Lunar or Valkyria Chronicles 2 & 3... why did Xseed and Sega decide to only release on the PSP? Did these companies sign exclusive deals with Sony or was it just their choice to make these PSP exclusive releases?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining that these games are out only for the PSP, just curious as to why Square might have made this decision.



Mendon

[Petran79]

You have also to consider that a lot of games were limited only to Japan and only thanks to the internet are those games getting popular and we are seeing a worldwide release.

So this gives Sony and Nintendo an advantage. Xbox fares not that well in Japan I heard.

But there are also the localization and translation expenses. Also not every company wants their title exported.

The only multiplatform titles are usually the popular ones, developed by western companies.

But windows games have also their own exclusives that vary accordingly.

The golden age of consoles is over anyway so you can not expect that much variety.

It is unfortunate that it is very hard to fansub a japanese psx iso for example.

[Eltigro]

Not to me. With each generation, there seems to be fewer and fewer platform exclusives. I mean, in the 8 bit days, almost every game was an exclusive, then in the 16 bit days, we started to see more games like Mortal Kombat that crossed platform lines. These days, about the only games that are platform exclusives are first party games or games that require something specific to the system (like the Wii's motion controls for example).

I've got a Wii and a 360. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think I need to get a PS3. The closest was the latest Gran Turismo. But I just went and got Forza III and I'm happy with that for now.

[Reaperman]

Mendon, on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:18 AM, said:

As an example, I've been on an RPG binge lately and am currently playing Tactic's Ogre: Let Us Cling Together on the PSP. This is an incredible game and I'm having an absolute blast with it. But why is it only on the PSP??

It's also on SFC, Saturn, PS1 and Virtual Console. But yes, it should be everywhere. PSP is this generation's home for tactical SRPG's, so it makes sense to show it a little preference.

Edited by Reaperman, Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:20 AM.

[HammR25]

Forza 3 is a better game so people who only have a 360 aren't missing out on anything.

[Rex Dart]

Mendon, on Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:18 AM, said:

I thought the plan for most companies was to port a game to as many systems as possible in order to achieve maximum profit. If so, why did Square decide to release this game only on the PSP and not also on the PS3 or other systems? Same with Lunar or Valkyria Chronicles 2 & 3... why did Xseed and Sega decide to only release on the PSP? Did these companies sign exclusive deals with Sony or was it just their choice to make these PSP exclusive releases?

Mendon

I imagine it's pretty cheap to produce a PSP game these days, since sony's got to be dying for material.

Valkyria, I assume, didn't sell well enough on the PS3 to warrant home console sequels. Lunar's also been on Sega CD and PS1. What else would you have them release these on... the Wii?

[SlowCoder]

Mord, on Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:06 PM, said:

xg4bx, on Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:32 PM, said:

I think were headed towards a 1 console future in a few generations. It simply doesn't make sense to spend a fortune on r&d to end up with the essentially same results as your competitor.

In order for that to happen, all other console companies would either have pull out of the market OR all current console companies would have to agree to co-build a single system and divide the profits.

I don't see either happening honestly.

+1 (though I'm on my phone so that +1 is imaginary . I'll try to fix you up in a few)

Don't forget this is a competitive environment. If there isn't competition, game and hardware quality will decrease because the one company will let its guard down. There would be no "we can do better than the other guy" mentality, so production will stagnate.

In light of lack of existing competition, it's extremely likely that a new company will spring up to fill the voids of the other company. Hence, it's almost impossible that there will be no competition for any measurable length of time.

[Austin]

In the multiple-console model that we still live in today, the occasional exclusive is nice. It gives me a reason to buy (and keep) each system, otherwise there would be no reason to own all three (or even two). Maybe that will be a good day, when there is only a single gaming platform (if that day comes).

[Mendon]

I've played the recently released Y's series on the PSP, along with Lunar Harmony and now Tactic's Ogre. And while these titles have been on other, older systems (and the Nintendo DS with Y's 1 & 2), these new PSP releases aren't really the same games as their older versions. They have included new graphic's, music, text, cut scenes, fleshed out story, and more. I've played Tactic's Ogre on the PS1 and this PSP version I'm now playing doesn't "feel" anything at all like that game.

So I agree, yes these are older titles that have appeared on other systems. But what Xseed and Square have done with these titles for the PSP is bring a different game experience and "feel" to each of them, making each well worth their purchase and replay.

Oh, and to answer your question Rex Dart.... what would be wrong with any/all of these titles appearing on the Wii? If nothing else, they would be a welcome addition to ANY of the 3 home consoles since there really is a lack of quality RPG's on all of them.

Getting back to my original post, I'm wondering if another reason these titles only appear on the PSP is maybe because Xseed and Square didn't feel these titles would fit into the "HD Graphics" console world. Even with their new graphic's on the PSP, these games wouldn't look real pretty if you put them next to a Oblivion or Dragon Age.


Mendon

[Random Terrain]

If someone didn't buy my Xbox 360 for me, I still wouldn't have one. An 'exclusive game' for another console just means I'll never be able to play it.

[Lord Helmet]

I suppose if an exclusive game were good enough that I just had to play it then it would matter to me. So far there isn't a PS3 exclusive out there that makes me feel like I just have to get a PS3.