i see more and more third party which exists for xbox and PS2 and not for gamecube. ie: burnout 3. and official explanations from the 3rd party of the lack of GC port weren't satisfying to say the least.. i had some kind of idea:
microsoft must have understand they couldn't get the 1st place this gen, anyway they must have figured they at least have to take the 2nd place if they want this gen and xbox not to be a failure. nintendo's demise should be their first step to console domination.
i think that for a 3rd party it must be a tough choice to go xbox exclusive.
but if MS specifically ask to the 3rd party NOT to make a GC version in order to be allowed them to make a xbox version ? and compensate the 3rd party with lower royalties ?
is it plausible ?
do you think it's fair ?
(does it have to be fair ?)
microsoft must have understand they couldn't get the 1st place this gen, anyway they must have figured they at least have to take the 2nd place if they want this gen and xbox not to be a failure. nintendo's demise should be their first step to console domination.
i think that for a 3rd party it must be a tough choice to go xbox exclusive.
but if MS specifically ask to the 3rd party NOT to make a GC version in order to be allowed them to make a xbox version ? and compensate the 3rd party with lower royalties ?
is it plausible ?
do you think it's fair ?
(does it have to be fair ?)