Gaming Is Serious Fucking Business (Audio Dialogue Inside)

http://tiredgamer.ytmnd.com/

This is in response to this:



When this forum post was found, holy... I was crying when I found this. It... no words. Just listen and be amazed at the amount of butthurt.

Great, another console fanboy.

But really, he missed the lesson about being able to share your experiences with different kinds of people. He failed to see the light of which SquareEnix showed.

True, but still, the whole "Final Fantasy on 360" just had every fanboy come out with torches and pitchforks, it was ridiculous.

I agree with your post though, why limit a game to be an exclusive when you can have more people experience the game and see what made it so good (or bad).

Because having a "Great" exclusive game means more people will buy your console with the game. It's basic company math, they don't care about how many people will experience it, they care more about how many consoles that they can sell because of one exclusive game.

You'd think Sony will give out the exclusiveness of Uncharted and God of War to Microsoft? lol

Will Microsoft share the popularity of Halo to Sony? Not going to happen lol

Will Nintendo finally make Pokemon a PC MMORPG? Can't see that happening. XD

this reminds me of a friend who said nintendo was selling the rights of zelda to microsoft. my response was "WTF! are you serious? thats freaking suicide!". anyways i see both of your points, making games multiplatform so fans who don't have that particular system can enjoy it. but like kaimax said it's just good business to make them esclusive. does this guy not realize that FF has already been on other non-sony consoles? i mean why start now?

While true, I don't see first parties doing that anytime soon, but third parties wouldn't have much of an incentive for console exclusives. Unless the company payed them a crap load of cash (obviously) then possibly. As for Nintendo, they live and breathe their exclusives, and Nintendo is a game company only (weren't just exclusively in the past but whatever), so they absolutely cannot put their games on other platforms.

The example for this was the creator of Flow. If I recall it right, they got Sony backing them up financially for 3 exclusives. the result, beautiful simple games like Flow, Flower and Journey.

Yup, I guess having unique ideas would be great for console exclusives, as the ones you mentioned. Still, besides for first party companies wanting to broaden the appeal of their system (with games such as Flower, Journey, The Last of Us, etc.), companies might as well put it on every platform. I realize the business-side of it, but from a third party perspective, it would make more sense from a financial stand point to put your game out on any and every platform you can to maximize profits. That's just my thoughts on it though.

Well, the problem is the third party developers doesn't always call the shots though. It all depends on how the negotiate between the console companies.

Yeah, but I don't know, I guess to conclude my debate discussion, I'd say it is a double-edged sword. Exclusives are needed in order to lure more people towards your console and keep the market from being over-saturated with multiple versions (if that even makes sense). But there is the chance of making more money on multiple platforms if you did otherwise. Oh well, I think we pretty much debated all the available points that could be had. If there is something else that could be debated, I would be happy in discussing it.

Well, to be more specific.
The ones that benefits more from exclusives are mainly the console companies, while Multiconsoles benefits more on the game developers.

Agreed and very true (although I could say Call of Duty is an exception considering that pushed a number of Xbox sales. More due to Xbox Live but whatever).