Support NeoGAF

[C- Warrior]

I look at sales for EA games (thread on it just now). And it just seems that what would normally be considered a 'bomb' on one console, isn't actually all that bad when you look at the COMBINED sales from all three versions (each of the consoles).

So, when there is a decent chance that game "X" can sell 200,000 on PS2. And another 200,000 on XBox and GC combined...(and that's worst case scenario) why don't more companies make more games multi?

Understandably there is something called "oppurtunity costs," but to double sales by making a direct port--that seems to outweigh the time/money issue seems like a win/win.

Is there lower royalty rates for exclusive games?

Is porting a game REALLY THAT MUCH EXPENSIVE?

Why is Onimusha 2 and 3 for example, not on GC and Xbox.

Why is Otogi1/2 and not on GCN/PS2? They could easily (combined) match the sales of the Xbox versions.

etc. etc. etc.

Is there some huge "risk" with porting games that I'm not aware of?

 

[monchi-kun]

Ports aren't automatic, ESPECIALLY if the next Nintendo console will only feature a trackball for controls

There's also the issue of varying licensing fees across the 1st party console makers.

 

[PhatSaqs]

The only risk I could see is risk of breaking an exclusitivity deal :lol

 

[Odnetnin]

some people like hats.

 

[Hollywood]

You also lose some appeal to your console base if you go multiconsole. How come the 2K series didn't sell more on THREE, then two viable consoles than it did on Dreamcast? Viewtiful Joe 2's sales dropped considerably when the game was brought to PS2 after being formerly GC exclusive.

 

[ArcadeStickMonk]

Because you can get a better quality game by sticking to just one console.

The gen has been the absolute most disgusting era of multi-platform releases ever. If it's not obvious to you how common it is for multi console releases to suffer because of one platform acting as a lowest-common denominator or a team just being stretched to far, then you need to pay more attention.

POP WotW released with game ruining save bugs.
NFSU got stuck at 30 fps.
The framerate in BG&E.
SC2 with slowdown on the PS2.
Enter the Goddamn Matrix.

Unless the releases are staggered or the team is up to it, multi-platform releases usually end up being considerably less than they could have been.

But then, that's just a gamer's perspective.

 

[Ranger X]

Companies like the make multi console games BECAUSE they can port.
GameX is gonna sell 200 000 on PS2 ---- the game is built for it, 80 000$
GameX is gonna sell 100 000 on Xbox -- port from PS2 + features/enhancement of some sort, 50 000$
GameX is gonna sell 80 000 on GC --- port from PS2, 40 000$

Why not make a game multi-console? It seems that i have the same questions as the thread maker.
Most prolly that signing an exclusivity pays alot + considerable drop on royalty.

 

[Andy787]

Because sales are not everything. And if they were, I sure as hell wouldn't be interested in this industry. Or the music industry, or the movie industry, or any entertainment industry, for that matter.

 

[sc0la]

Ports aren't automatic, ESPECIALLY if the next Nintendo console will only feature a trackball for controls

were did you hear this shit from?

There are lots of reasons nintendo won't get ports, that just doesn't sound like one of them.

 

[kevm3]

If all of these guys made games multiplatform, there would be no point in owning anything but the most powerful console, and it would also increase competition because all the games would be essentially competiting with each other. Games like RE4 on Gamecube enjoy little competition because there are few games on the console like it, whereas if DMC3 and RE4 were released on all consoles, these games would be competing with each other directly. Gamecube has it's own userbase that will buy a game because it's on Gamecube, and you lose that if all the games are on three consoles.

Plus, I have a feeling the quality of games would go down and we'll have LESS games. The lowest common denominator will always have to be catered to and/or none of the machines would have their potential FULLY tapped. Ninja Gaiden wouldn't look nearly as good if it would have to be made for all three consoles, nor would God of War. Finally, instead of teams moving on to other games, they would have to sit around and port games and make sure they are bug free for other consoles.

 

[kevm3]

As Andy said, games aren't all about sales. If this game business turns into a 'strictly by the numbers/ I'm looking for a big, instant hit' like the movie business and to a much greater extent, the music business, has become, I'm getting the fuck out of gaming.I can't even remember the last time' I've bought a cd by a modern, mainstream artist. Hell, it's probably been since the late 90's.

 

[sammy]

Caturing to multiple platforms really waters things down --- look to the great 1st party offerings this generation, and how well they were optomized for their respective consoles.

Multiplatform sales are one thing/They're a nice rush, but if you want to be known for *quality* ---- and quality keeps a company floating longer than quick sprints of crap-sequels --- then a perfectly tuned game for one platform can never hurt...

3rd party this generation has been great ... I'd be lying if I said I missed the days that you could bet on a game's crappyness based solely on if it was on another platform or not.

 

[C- Warrior]

I understand the points made. But it seems game companies are more concerned with money now-a-days than actual game content.

And what about a game that COULD use a re-release. Take Devil May Cry 3, awesome game--but the steep level of difficulty really agitated some gamers (and some reviewers too). That could use a simple adjustment, a re-release, on multiconsoles, end up being better (easier difficulty) and bam, there you go--you've just created the greatest action game ever by changing a small aspect and you've banked probably 300,000 units of sales from the GC/Xbox version over the course of several months.

And don't tell me Capcom does it for quality. There history of making 90,000 versions of Street Fighter II is a sign they perfer money, not saying more so than quality, but at the least it's a primary concern for them.

 

[Rhindle]

You're absolutely right - multiplatform development is only marginally more expensive than a single-platform, and the cost of porting is almost always justified. Hence virtually all Western releases are multiplatform absent financial incetives (moneyhats) or technical constraints (i.e. Xbox features that can't be ported).

Japanese publishers -- who the hell knows what their decision making process is based on.

 

[Joe]

i really hope games go the way of dvd players and movies.

 

[etiolate]

Interesting question. Especially when you look at EA's sales, but I think you also have to consider the type of games EA makes. Would Squeeniz or Namco make much money porting a Japanese RPG to Xbox? Would Activision or whoever make much money porting a War based FPS to Gamecube?

And not every publisher has the resources and money to port all their games to every console.

 

[RuGalz]

Porting a game that was made strictly with one console in mind and taking adventage of being on that console is expensive and a lot of work. Depending on the game, porting to another console could be as much work as making a new game. Thus, a lot of time it's not worth the expense. On the other hand, if the game was made with porting in mind from the beginning it's not going to be that expensive but at the same time it won't squeeze every single ounce of power out of the system it first appears on. Furthermore, if a game is done for multi-console, you can bet that its sequel will likely to appear on multiple consoles as long as the earning makes sense. There's no rocket science here. It all comes down to if they think it'll make enough money to justify the trouble on publisher side.