Printable View
Games that are available in all 3 consoles (Nintendo's, SONY's, Microsoft's) loose their value/magic in my opinion, there are a few exceptions of course. But imagine if Metal Gear Solid was in all 3 consoles???...............imagine if Halo was in all 3 consoles? Imagine if FF was in all 3 consoles(the MAIN series)?
I STRONGLY believe that games which are made SPECIFICALLY for a console does better than those which are put out in every console to make money.
Discuss!
Well that's not always the case. Look at the case of Killzone. I might be questioned for this, but that was horrid. The case tends to be that games made for all three consoles are made by big pubishers, like EA who want lots and lots of money.
Certainly, the case is almost always true on the PC, where bad ports are abundant and more competent games like Civilization 4 and Rome Total War are made specifically for PC. Personally, I like the idea that Creative Assembly dreampt up. Made similar settings for PC and console, but change the genre to suit them better.
(also: you spelt losing wrong)
Yes cause games like Soul Calibur 2 were horrible. Actually Soul Calibur 3 was worse because it was PS2 exclusive, if they made it for all 3 systems it would have been far better and not made as many people mad.
Oh and I would see no problem with them putting things like FF on all the consoles. It's fine if third party companies go multiconsole, but it'd be stupid for any first party or second part companies did. Games such as Halo would be stupid multi platform, but games like Metal Gear Solid would not be, I mean Snake is going to be in SSB:Brawl
THE JACKEL
Not particularly true. You could say that, but allow me to show you why some games are exclusively for one console and not for others. Oh yes, there's a thing called first party developers. Look in the case of the Halo series. Bungie is a first party developer for Microsoft, so Halo was made exclusively for the XBox. Now, it could also be made for the PC, but not for the competiting consoles. That is because Microsoft owns the right to the games. Now, Metal Gear Solid was a poor example, because there is a GameCube gamel under the title "Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes" Of course, it was developed by Silicon Knights rather than Konami, however, it did prove that a game like Metal Gear Solid can be made for the GameCube.
Anyway, there are some good reasons for games to be on all consoles. More consoles = more purchases, correct? Perhaps so, because there is a larger market on every console rather than sticking to one. Who is to say that the game loses its "magic" when it's available on every console? What if someone who only has an XBox 360 wants to get Final Fantasy X-2? He or she couldn't because s/he doesn't have a PlayStation 2, so a potential purchase wasn't made because of console restrictions. So it is my firm belief that some games for every consoles tend to make more money since there is a larger market of gamers than those that are exclusive to one console. Now, do they make more money than exclusive titles? Not all the time.
There are some ignorant people who will not buy games that have been out on another console because they think that their games are superior. But that's the only argument against your theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Proto
I have never once based a purchase solely on if the game is an exclusive or not. If a game is good, then it's good. I could care less if it's on 5 consoles as long as I have fun with it. Games are for fun after all, so if you have fun then they're working. Gamers make their own politics too much.
And like Agent Proto said, it could always boost sales. More sales means more money being put into games in the future, and that's always good.