Are 3rd party exclusives more lucrative than multiplatform titles

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the missing factor in your point on the Wii is that from day 1, before it was the market leader, it had a high ratio of exclusives which had nothing to do with momentum or market leadership. Part of that is GCN legacy, part of that is small investment in the actual games, part of that is not knowing the demographic, and part is the trend toward casual games that are shorter. Wii games, in more than one sense, are "cheaper" than PS3/360 games.
...etc.

Well yes, but I don't quite understand your point. Regards the topic, are 3rd party exclusives more lucrative than cross-platform, of course if you're targeting a unique platform, cross-platform isn't a consideration. From a developers perspective, if you start with the mentality 'this is the game I want to create, what platform(s) will it work best on?' then you may find a particular idea fits exclusively to Wii or DS, or be more suitable for PS360. From the perspective of 'I want to make money, what platform(s) shall I create a game for?', which is more the point of this thread, then a platform's unique abilities are somewhat irrelevant. All that matters if whether you'll make more money on Platform A, B, C A+B, A+B+C, etc.

In case the origins of the thread have been forgotten, I'll just remind us all that it came from the announcement of Epic Games title considering a new IP, and eastmen suggesting they should go platform exclusive because that makes more money. There is implied, for all the points you've rasied, a console divide between Wii and PS360 from the nature of the beast, and pointing to a large exclusive library on Wii doesn't really deal with the argument of how developers can court the most money for their efforts. It is also an awkward semantics argument - "there won't be 3rd party exclusives." "There will, look at the Wii." - The talk about 3rd party exclusives is about the PS360 market where there's room for crossover, and not the whole generation, for which you may as well include handhelds. Wii is something of the odd one out that we just leave to its own devices!

 

[dobwal]

nevermind

 

[Acert93]

Shifty, I was actually replying to fearsome... I got busy, came back to the PC, replied, and yours had snuck in during my time away.

 

[fearsomepirate]

A lot of Wii titles are cross-platform with PS2 though.

Yes, but many are exclusive. The longer it's out, the more new titles are exclusive.

You're also wrong about developing for the market leader not needing to sell as much [/sic]

I was talking about the current market leader, which is Wii, not market leaders in general. Hence, I'm right, as Wii costs significantly less to develop for, especially if you're doing a cross-platform 360/PS3 game. The earlier claim that at this point, going exclusive with the market leader is no longer financially beneficial is simply not true. Whether it's for Joshua Luna's reasons or my reasons, the simple fact is that the current market leader is getting a substantial number of exclusive games, and a number of the publishers are making solid money on them. We can invent a hypothetical situation where if, hypothetically, the current market leader was a totally different type of console, then we wouldn't see much in the way of exclusives, but the real market is generally more interesting than the hypothetical market.

Regarding shovelware, the point remains that in general, cross-platform development costs more than single-platform development. If you're going to poop out some poorly-done piece of garbage and only have the budget to develop on one platform (which is probably why you're doing shovelware in the first place), the market leader is the way to go. Not every developer has the budget of EA or Activision.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We can invent a hypothetical situation where if, hypothetically, the current market leader was a totally different type of console, then we wouldn't see much in the way of exclusives, but the real market is generally more interesting than the hypothetical market.

The real market is 30 million Wii's versus 35+ million PS360s; nothing hypothetical about it. Furthermore how well do 3rd parties fair on Wii versus the PS360 market? Guitar Hero 3 sold 3 million on Wii, 3.2 million on XB360, 1.4 million on PS3 and 4 million on PS2. You're saying a Wii exclusive would have made more sense?

If you're creating a game that would only work on Wii, it's going to be exclusive. If your game would work as well on the other machines, abandoning them in favour of Wii exclusivity doesn't.

Regarding shovelware, the point remains that in general, cross-platform development costs more than single-platform development.

But not hideously more. If you're using the same assets, you're talking a far greater ROI going cross platform. Using pie-in-the-sky illustrative figures, if it cost $10 million to make The Game on Console A with 20 million consoles out there, it may cost $1 million to port to Console B with an install base of 10 million, so a 10% greater investment results in a 50% increase in market. It's for this reason the likes of Bioshock get ported, because the economies are heavily in favour of spending out on the port to get a much larger pie to take a piece from.

 

[obonicus]

I wonder, though. When Resistance makes a game exclusively on the PS3, published through Sony (or Epic/360/MS), isn't it possible that they get better licensing deals than multiplatform devs do? Or am I talking nonsense?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Quite possibly (I presume you mean Insomniac Games here, makers of Resistance ). But the reasons to be platform exclusive aren't entirely financial. Insomniac have a comfortable place, with a publisher they have a great relationship with, a development practice that gives them an excellent quality-of-life, focussing on one platform allows them to make better product with that platform, and they already have buckets of dough. Going cross-platform if likely going to make them more money, but they don't need more money, and are happy to have less (but still lots and lots) of money and a less stressful, more rewarding life with it.

It's principally the same reason for developers to go first-party, I suppose. Fable 2 would sell more if cross-platform, but the security and quality of life that comes with becoming a console company's developer is better than just having more money working for harder task-masters on inferior cross-platform products.

 

[-tkf-]

And now we can the possibility of making a deal on the DVD royalty thing when it comes to the 360.

 

[joker454]

but the security and quality of life that comes with becoming a console company's developer is better than just having more money working for harder task-masters on inferior cross-platform products.

Just for the record, the quality of life part has nothing really to do with being platform exclusive. Many companies just choose to work their employees into the ground with poor schedules and excessive crunch, and that's both exclusive and multi platform companies. It's definitely possible to run a game company and have the employees lead a normal life, if the company is run right and even if it's multi platform. When overtime pay was instituted at the last company I worked at, magically our work hours suddenly because totally normal 8 hour days every day, and no weekends. It was awesome, and that was a 360/PS3 shop. Multi platform also gives you greater peace of mind in case one of the versions gets cancelled, or if say a far better version of a game similar to what you are working on comes out on one platform then you still have the other platform version as backup, it gives you better leverage in case one of the platform owners starts getting attitude, etc.

There's really doesn't need to be any negatives being multi platform. It's just the age old slave driver mentality that makes some places seem like hell to work at. Likewise, I bet there are plenty of platform exclusive shops that totally suck to work at. I think what we really need is way more women in this industry, I suspect they would be way less tolerant of some of the crap that gets forced on employees at some places.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just for the record, the quality of life part has nothing really to do with being platform exclusive...

I'll grant you the most of that, though in my mind simplicity is a good part of QOL. One platform means less stuff to worry about, fewer devs all working on the same platform, fewer complications. You've a fair point about the multiplatform securities, which makes it a balance thing - I wasn't suggesting that single platform is the best and only way to work!

There's really doesn't need to be any negatives being multi platform...

There are going to be some negatives. It ca'nt offer a perfect solution as a strength in one place means a eweakness elsewhere. eg. A single platform developer can focus on making his game the superior one that the multiplatform developer sees as strong enough competition to abandon that version of their cross-platform game. There are no perfect choices. You're very right about the workplace sucking because of (mis)management which plagues so many companies (was very pleased to hear Carmack avoiding management roles 'coz he knows he'd be rubbish at it!). As a developer you have to decide how you want to approach the business. Cross-platform is nigh-on guaranteed to gross you more money, but that doesn't make platform-exclusivity a bad choice either.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

I'm surprised no one brought up Viewtiful Joe 2. The first game was a success on the GCN, but then quickly lost it's exclusivity and had a PS2 port that sold less (I think). Then came Viewtiful Joe 2, a multiplatform game. There goes the series's 15 minutes of fame.