Disclaimer: I don't believe there is any "wrong" or "right" with these Specials (or with anything really) -- essentially, only infinite speculations and possibilites. Debate and discussion are strongly encouraged in the comments for these!
Gaming has a lot of "dirty words", and one I'd like to highlight today is "exclusive", a term personally I haven't seen explored from an editorial standpoint. In this Special, I'll go into the ups and downs of exclusives, non-exclusives, why anyone cares, and why developers go one way or another.
Even the most latent of gamers is probably aware of what "exclusive" refers to, but just in case, here's an explanation: due to a variety of reasons, a developer and publisher decide together their given game is going to to be made for one platform, or multiple platforms. This can become a pretty complicated situation at times, so let's break it down.
First, there are those (fanboys, you might call them), which get pissed when their precious game is simultaneously released on another console, despite having known months in advance this would happen. Having tried to wrap my head around someone would act in such a way, I've garnered some explanations from the community over the past few months. One of the main reasons, as our GameGrep reader Koloth once exlpained, is insecurity:
"People care about exclusivity because it helps reconcile their purchase. Why did I bother to buy the 360 if I can get all the same games on the PS3 plus a blu-ray player? If there are no differences between the systems there is no reason to bother picking one over the other or if you have the money to get them all."
Brothers, sisters, come together! The solution to this is easy: let us all admit each platform has its advantages and disadvantages, and which one is best for you is going to be different than the one which is different for your friend, or that jerkwad on the Internet, because you have different preferences, needs, etc. What's so bad about that?
As many may know by now, personally I prefer playing games on the PC. Why? Well, the weaknesses of each console out this generation turn me off enough not to buy them -- I don't want a Blu-ray player so the PS3 is too expensive for me, the Xbox 360 is not stable enough for my needs and I've heard enough good and bad stories about Microsoft's customer service that I'm not willing to risk it, and the Wii, well, that's pretty cool and getting there in terms of 'mature' titles, though the graphics are lacking to some extent, which isn't a huge deal, but isn't irrelevant either.
In any case, I'm not dying to get it, and well, the PC has its own advantages which I can't get enough of. I'm not going to tout these because PC gamers will just nod their heads in agreement while console-only folk will just get irate (though I'd like to point out the PC gaming is too expensive thing is pure myth -- it can be cheaper than console gaming in the long run!). And guys, I'm not trying to slam you for your choices at all. If you're content with your Xbox 360 or PS3, then that's awesome! I've played friends' consoles and had a great time doing so -- it's just a matter of what I like most and am willing to invest my time and money in.
Our longtime reader PacoDG previously pointed out a technical reasoning as to why some digress non-exclusivity:
"When a developer is working with just one console, they can expand on all the strengths of that specific console (whether it be 360 with more memory, PS3 and their processor, Wii and its wiimotes, that is just the most basic of the three consoles strengths among so many more has that we all do not even know about).
The more consoles that a game comes out with, the less likely the game will perform when compared to the console exclusive titles. When a developer claims that they are working on one system as its 'lead platform' over another, you can pretty must rest assured that the lead platform will run smoother in almost all regards. In some cases, they end up getting all new developers and the end product suffers because of this (one of the best examples would be The Orange Box on PS3)."
This is certainly a valid point, but is by no means all-encompassing. The fault here lies solely on the developer and/or publisher of said game, tracing back to their motives for making it multiplatform in the first place. Is it purely a cash grab? Are you only putting as little effort into it as possible so it's not a total sham and enough will buy it to "maximize your profit margins", as opposed to wanting as many people to experience your game as possible? Cases like these certainly happen, though I'm not sure how often (doesn't seem to be too much, thankfully, but perhaps my estimations are off), and it is when this happens we should be pissed at the studios behind the games, though I fear it becomes distorted into "fanboy wars" more often than not, getting nobody anywhere.
Avoiding scenarios like these from a studio perspective is simple: make and publish games first, products second. If you love your game and want more people to love it too, make it multiplatform (assuming legal agreements abide, sometimes it is smarter in the long run to sign an exclusivity deal), and do a good job in optimizing it for each platform (if it takes a bit longer, most of us are probably content with waiting, assuming you throw in an extra or two) -- if you're a good enough developer, I expect this would be no problem, and the differences in performance on each platform would be negligible (seriously, have you seen these comparison articles? Who cares!).
For PC gamers specifically, exclusivity or non-exclusivity is a special issue, mainly because we frequently get shafted in one way or another. That is, said game comes out months after its initial console release (sometimes a freaking year, like Fable, and we expect, Fable II). Though if done properly and with substantial enough extras to make up for the wait, this can be fine and dandy, many times this is not the case, and that's something to complain about, sure.
Now, from a publisher's perspective, it can be understandable (console games sell better, put them out there first, make money, then bring 'em to PC), it's also short-sighted. PC gaming could use the boost to be had by bringing (good) versions of games to PC at the same time as their console counterparts -- something Ubisoft has been doing, and damn good on them -- and this would bring more profits long-term (in theory).
The other side of the issue is piracy, a reason some developers cite as no longer remaining PC-exclusive. This issue is huge in itself, so I'll just get a quick two cents out there: you'll sell better on consoles at this point, yes, but this isn't much to do with piracy, it's to do with the fact consoles are more popular with gamers today. I'm willing to bet if the popularity of PC gaming was hypothetically switched with that of console gaming this second, sales ratios would remain the same for the forseeable future. Piracy would probably increase (because it's easier on PC), but sales would remain largely the same, because, while it is oversimplifying, typically people who buy games, buy games, and those who don't, dont.
Mostly it just comes down to whether or not you're considerate (consciously or subsconsciously) -- reasonable people understand not supporting a game they love means they will see less games like it in the future. Inconsiderate people that only pirate don't love games to begin with -- they just want free entertainment. I'm not out to demonize pirates, but this seems to be the majority of them, from my experience. Of course, in harsh economic times and such, the model is bound to shift...
Our love/hate relationship with Capcom continues with this topic -- many moons ago their Product Marketing Manager Colin Ferris defended their bringing Dead Rising to the Wii, saying, well, "who cares":
"Let's get this out of the way: Will [the game] look as beautiful on the Wii as Dead Rising did on the Xbox 360? No. Will it have the same number of zombies on screen at the same time? No. Does that mean we should deny Wii gamers the joy that 360 owners had in surviving three days in a zombie-infested mall? The answer is, obviously, no.
Some claim that the only reason we brought Dead Rising to the Wii was to make money... You're right, we've been caught: We're guilty of being a business. In fact, as a gamer, you should want a brand that you love to be successful, because that increases the chance that we'll make more games. The games business is filled with titles that people love that simply did not make money: Viewtiful Joe. Okami. Zack and Wiki. Capcom as a company has decided to embrace a path that brings our entertainment to as many people as possible. This is why we are, for the most part, following a multi-platform strategy."
Ferris knows what the hell he's talking about, and I absolutely have to applaud him in giving it straight, publicly. They love games, they are a business. And while they have a long history of serving the business side a little more than their passion for games (really, there are about 40 Street Fighter games we could all do without), there's something really important to take from Ferris' words, whether you're a developer, publisher, or gamer.
The first two I've gone through, but for the gamers, here's some words to end this off with: don't hate, be happy that game you love so much is being experienced by others with preferences and needs different than yours who probably never would have otherwise, and the money they're paying for it will fund more games like it in the future -- unless of course their version is crap, in which case you should contact the publisher and tell them to stop putting out cash-grab versions on other consoles, cause that shit don't fly with you. Just an idea.
Happy trails and happy gaming.
(Phwew, that was a long one, wasn't it?)
