Insomniac gone multiplatform

[Keyofx]

^^ That's a reality check.

Maybe. But there are better ways to get your thoughts across than vomiting all over your keyboard.

 

And I do agree. MS fails with new IP. They have nothing new/long term.

[KnackChap]

so looks like this game is being made by the RnC team. acc to Ted, its a game being done by their burbank studio who are also working on resistance 3. this leaves their NC studio who are also working on a new IP

[jDaMn]

Great, first Bungie and now this

 

Exclusives are one of the worst things consumers have to put up with, in any industry.

[abhi90]

Great, first Bungie and now this

 

Exclusives are one of the worst things consumers have to put up with, in any industry.

well technically from the companies POV if all the games were on both consoles why would anyone get both of them.

 

They are sort of incentives, but ya exclusives are bad,

good if you want to tease people from the other camp though

 

[Bulovski]

Non-exclusives get higher sales since both camps end up buying it.

[abhi90]

Non-exclusives get higher sales since both camps end up buying it.

correct but extra dough is usually supplemented by the company that is promoting an exclusive.

 

But in there's no exclusive both sides get to experience the good-ness.

[jDaMn]

well technically from the companies POV if all the games were on both consoles why would anyone get both of them.

You said it yourself.

 

Although I guess it'd be different depending on where the companies are in terms of hardware sales - the leader might not feel the need for exclusives to the same extent as the company with the smaller hardware base.

 

But it's weird to see people get so worked up over exclusives.

 

Considering that there is an 'exclusive' game everyone wants:

1. If the consumer gets the exclusive their only 'gain' (as compared to non-exclusives) is from the loss to other consumers, i.e. they don't get any direct benefit.

2. If they don't get the exclusive, then it's a direct loss.

[Karooo]

Exclusives are one of the worst things consumers have to put up with, in any industry.

 

Not really, it's great if devs concentrate on one console and optimize the game for it, ensures good quality, especially because 360 and PS3 have totally different architectures.

 

eg : in Bayonetta, so many full res transparancy effects were used on the X360 version, which is just not possible for the PS3 to do, unless the make the game again from scratch, simply unportable or take Killzone 2 with its massive 2gb levels and highly advanced engine which was brilliantly optimized for the PS3.

 

So there are benefits of exclusives if it's done right

[Bulovski]

I dream of a world where people can play cross platform MP.

[jDaMn]

Not really, it's great if devs concentrate on one console and optimize the game for it, ensures good quality, especially because 360 and PS3 have totally different architectures.

AFAIK the support Sony gave some developers in turn helped other developers get more out of the PS3. So yes, that is there.

 

But overall, I still believe it's a loss - most of the game experience could be retained even if it was not exclusive. But with exclusives, people are missing out on entire games.

 

The worst bit is that hardware sales are then not dependent purely on the quality (and reliability ) of the hardware but also on which games can run off it.

 

Stuff like OnLive can't get here fast enough.

[dullu]

The problem with multiplats is not the "experience" (well, sometimes it is)....it's the sites like LOT and other forums which simply take a microscope and start pointing out the differences....As far as my POV is concerned; i am fine as long as a game runs ok on any one of the consoles(has no framerate dips and very very poor graphics).... I own both consoles but i don't have time to sit with a microscope and point out every other detail between 2 versions of a game....

 

Exclusives do one thing very well. They are an "incentive" for the consumer who owns the platform, since he has spent his money on it. And in-turn, they become a reason to own the platform as well. Also, it tends to showcase how much can the hardware be pushed if specifically focused on (which can raise a pretty ambiguous question on the quality of the hardware)

[Nemo]

 

 

/Argument

[jDaMn]

/Argument

Why did you put those two little points on that line between those two other lines?

[Nemo]

i did not, was too lazy to edit/erase them form the source pic :/

[HundredProofSam]

Ya, it is the Burbank studio, which probably means they've been working on this game alongside R&C A Crack in Time, coz ACIT was made by a much smaller team, and much of the team was diverted to a different project, which we now know is this.

 

 

 

peace

[Right]

And I do agree. MS fails with new IP. They have nothing new/long term.

Probably, they know the business better than others. Whats the point of working with a dev who is on a sinking ship, financially? And to stay profitable it is not possible to fund each and every IP and the companies behind it.

Take Alan Wake, 5 yrs of production time, millions of dollars spent, probably a huge financial backing by MS, and the game is just doing OK in sales. Remedy may or may not be around for long time.

GT5 is another example, where they might lose a lot of money. It may become a technical showcase for the platform thats it.

Or other way to see this is that when the devs work with Sony/MS they become more complacent, a constant whipping by EA/Activision seems keeping them in check better.

[dullu]

GT5 is another example, where they might lose a lot of money. It may become a technical showcase for the platform thats it.

 

 

I guess we would know once the game hits.......It has its legion of fans...

[Buzz]

GT5p sold so much, GT5 is gonna sell more for sure.

[Karooo]

GT5 is another example, where they might lose a lot of money. It may become a technical showcase for the platform thats it.

Or other way to see this is that when the devs work with Sony/MS they become more complacent, a constant whipping by EA/Activision seems keeping them in check better.

 

GT5 will launch with a profit, since the prologue sold 6 million incl the 2 million downloads, they made $150-$200 million from it.

 

Mostly Sony/MS just want to recover the cost of production from first party games, they don't care about sales, because the main objective of those games is to lure the people to their console. Now for third party, good sales are important to encourage more investment for the console. Look at PC gaming not a single AAA budget game in the last year, that's what happens.

[Right]

^ Yeah it did well. 2 mils WW in first 6 months, 6 mils WW lifetime, not sure how much was through bundles sales.

Edit: Ok, it may cover the cost, but can Sony/MS afford to do it every time? Probably Sony can, but MS, don't think so.