No Game Platforming?

So I find it ridiculous that most games now don't seem to jump to other consoles. I don't see what's holding them back. Halo Reach grossed $200 million on day one, but, what if they had it on the PS3 as well, $400 million, $500 million the first night? Same with games like Uncharted, those action types fit any console. Even specific target audience games like JRPG's could do better on both (even all three) systems. Besides, a Game Informer poll revealed that the ownership of consoles is split one third each way (and that includes the Wii). Any one else agree or know why they do this?

It's basically a marketing strategy.

It's like this: "Oh, there's this amazing game that can only run on our console. You should totally buy it so that you can play this amazing game."

I!....


not even going to...

Often, game developers have a contract with Sony or Microsoft to make games exclusively for their consoles. It's just a way for Sony/Microsoft to rake in more dough.

dont forget that some games wont look as good on one console as they did with another. games like heavy rain you cant play on the 360 because there is no six axis controller. or how about the blu ray a certain game that is 1 cd on ps3 can be about 3 cds on the xbox and it wont look as good. may be its that they dont want to its that each console has different technologys and all games make use of that technology in very different ways

Halo's the only reason I bought my Xbox 360. And, I bought my PS3 for the blu-ray drive. I'll only buy a game I want on the consoles if it is not available on the computer. But, that's just because my computer kicks the consoles asses up and down the street, oh and its usually cheaper.

Well, consider what it means to have an exclusive. It means YOU have it and the OTHER PERSON DOESN'T.

When two people go into the store and say, "Dude we should get a PS3, it has better graphics I heard."

His friend will say, "Yeah, but I only really want to play Halo and maybe call of duty. I don't really care about the graphics as much."

Microsoft 1, PS3 0.

Think of all those people who thought, "Dang, FFXII is going to force me to get a PS3. I have to play that game." Then when it went to the 360, they were able to delay that purchase a little longer.

I understand your point, Square Enix probably made more money going Multiplatform. But part of making sure you don't lose to much market share is making sure the other guy doesn't get to big. You play defence by taking away his ace in the hole. The developers stay exclusive because Sony or Microsoft promised to make it worth their while, or because they don't have e capital to develop fo two systems simultaneously.

Even so, more things are going Multiplatform. Mass Effect to the PS3 and Bioshock as well are just some examples.

This. It's usually about funding.

Take the OP's examples for... example, Bungie was a subsidiary of Microsoft. They got most of their funding from Microsoft, and in turn Microsoft made sure that their investments were secured. Even if Bungie wanted to release the Halo games on the PS3, Microsoft has the final word. And even though Bungie is a private company now, Microsoft Games Studios published all of the Halo games, so they still own part of the rights to series. Meaning that Bungie can't go "Well, we're a private company now, let's port the Halo games to the PS3."

Same goes for the Uncharted series, Naughty Dog is a subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment. Sony wouldn't allow Naughty Dog to release Uncharted for the 360, and as long as Naughty Dog is owned and/or funded by Sony they have no choice in the matter.

It's exactly as Solva-tan said. If there is nothing unique about each and every platform, then it wouldn't matter which one you bought, no reason to chose one over the other. Now people have to buy all consoles to be able to play all game, so in the end, even if it sounds like they'd make more money by making all games cross-platform, the case is the opposite.

Also, it is not cheap to get a permit to make games for any consoles, and it's literally a real pain in the ass, so smaller game dev. may not feel the need to release the game on several platforms.

It doesn't have to apply to you. It apply to enough people other than you though. Didn't Maddog just say he only bought the Xbox because it had Halo? Somewhere down the line he probably bought another 360 game. But if it wasn't for an exclusive, he may of just stuck with PS3 since he got it for Blu-ray anyways. If every game on the 360 was on the PS3, he would never have a reason to of bought it.

Exclusives are game changers for some people. I have all my multipalyer games that are multiplatform for the 360. The reason is that my friends had a 360. They only had 360s because they wanted Halo 3.

So because of one Halo 3, I bought bomberman for the 360 instead of PS3.

You might not care for Halo or for graphics, but a lot of other people do. So the point does matter.

There are good points to multi-platforming and bad point.

The good is that the game gets more exposure throughout all forms of interactive media, as well as selling better in other systems.

The bad comes when the developer needs to calibrate both consoles; for example when Platinum games develop Bayonetta, originally going to be a X360 game exclusive but at the last minute change to multi-platform (PS3), the issue came when doing the transaction work in graphics (which $Eg@ just did a mess in), either they look similar to the original or not (worse). Didn't mention if the gameplay mechanics could be affected.

Just depends on various factors (as they spam us with game movies)