As we all know, great exclusives push hardware sales for a very obvious reason: if you can only play a game on one particular platform and you don't own it, you're gonna need it. That's it. But as we've found in this new generation, third-party multiplatform titles are the norm, and we certainly can't blame developers or publishers. It has become awfully expensive to produce a game for the current consoles and in order to insure a better return on investment, a company really needs to reach as many people as possible. Therefore, most games come to both the PS3 and Xbox 360. But does this encourage one-console ownership?

First of all, we're going to eliminate the Wii from this discussion, just because it doesn't actually have next-gen games and many titles in its library are exclusive. The Wii is in no way comparable to either the PS3 or 360 so if you want Wii software, you need a Wii. However, that being said, this can also factor into the argument as the Wii has sold about a gajillion units worldwide…doesn't this prove the aforementioned point? Now, say you either own the PS3 or 360. Just about every time a game comes out that you want to play, it's available for the machine you have at home. Hence, what's prompting you to drop the significant sum of money for the other console? Any true avid gamer will say you need both systems to get the most out of this generation – and that remains true – but exclusive titles, especially for the 360, are few and far between.

At this point, I've found it difficult to convince friends of mine to own a 360. They already have the PS3 and because most everything is multiplatform and the current state of exclusives certainly fall in favor of the PS3, my argument falters. The same can be said of convincing 360 owners to buy a PS3, although it's easier to point to the exclusive list and find a game they're definitely going to want. But the bottom line is that we're a good two and a half years into this generation, and I have a sneaking suspicion that there are many single-console owners out there because of the huge amount of multiplatform titles. In fact, if you ask people outside the industry, who really have no idea about video games, they'll often ask, "why would you have both? Aren't almost all the games on both machines?" It's hard to answer that even if you can turn to exclusives. Then again, we could always cite other options and features on the console, but software is always a top priority.

I just think that if there were more exclusive games for each system, it's perfectly logical to assume that console sales would rise. Single-console owners who love games simply wouldn't be able to resist any longer. It may be a strange way to look at things, but, well…sometimes I do that. 😉

Subscribe
Notify of
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Morals
Morals
11 years ago

Well I dont know if I have 1 or 2 gaming platforms, because I own the ps3 and one hell of a badass alienware notebook. But console wise I dont really see a point in owning both consoles this generation especially if your casual, most people(including myself) dont mind missing out on 1 or 2 great games on an other console. these to games being Gears 2, & Fable 2.

Scarecrow
Scarecrow
11 years ago

Super Nintendo VS SEGA Genesis

Playstation VS NIntendo 64

<3

Gregory Freeman
Gregory Freeman
11 years ago

i miss those days… thinks i'll set up the ol' snes

psxmax
psxmax
11 years ago

It comes down to favoritism, price, performance, and reliability. The controller also plays a big factor. I have always favored the PS3 controller over all other controllers ever made. I can't see myself playing a racing game with gun triggers, I have tried it and it's no fun. I don't hate the Xbox, but reliability is keeping back from buying one and most of their games are also on the PC.

twenty8nine
twenty8nine
11 years ago

The controller was one of the biggest factors when I chose Playstation when I returned to gaming. I was done with the wimpy Nintendo stuff and I could not deal with the assymetrical xbox controller. My hands always cramped after just a short bit of playing.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

You make a fine point, and I'd like to make another one: Multiplats are generally not as satisfying an experience. No matter what you do, something somewhere gets dragged down or the game doesn't have much content to begin with (A fighter doesn't need a full blu ray so far). While some games break this mold: (Fallout 3), others feel lacking or gimped: (GTAIV) due to certain… ahem… constraints.


Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 5/4/2009 10:43:18 PM

www
www
11 years ago

It really hurts me anytime i hear that,the latest installment of my all-time favorite franchise,GTAIV was limited due to 360.If this is really true,then i must say the rest of the GTA's going to come out this gen will also be limited due to friggin DVDs and i'd be mad PISSED!

migabyte
migabyte
11 years ago

When I bought the PS3 I bought it because it was a gaming system and a media device. I have used it a lot more than I thought I would, for everything. I am sure there are some good games on the Xbox, but most are the same, I don't see the reason to own both there are some great PS3 games that I don't own.

Esco_san
Esco_san
11 years ago

i just cant see why you need both. ps3 continues to make industry defining exclusives and wonderful IP's. 360's (imo) doesn't pull me with there exclusives, halo, left 4 dead, gears and fable are all nice games but as stated by a good friend of mine most xbox 360 games can be found on one medium or another (ex: L4D- PC, man other titles- PS2, PS3, even WII) i say if you made the price plunge for a ps3, own a ps2 or wii, and are a cpu gamer you've covered what 360 has to offer

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

Great article. This is why I think Sony really has their long term plan absolutely right. As the year passes and the PS3 line up of first party exclusives continues to mount, the truth is that the absolute majority of must have games – whether multi-platform or PS3 exclusive are going to be on PS3. Yes the 360 will have some exclusives, but the first party line up from Sony is the ace up their sleeve, all things being equal, there are very few third party exclusive games any more, the vast majority are multi-platform, so what really separates the PS3 and 360 – in terms of games – is the first party line up. It's pretty clear, and pretty universally accepted that Sony and their PS3 has by far the best first party line up of games, and that's before you factor in free online and the capability to play Blu-Ray.

Multi-platform games do re-enforce single console ownership because they remove most of the penalty of owning once console or the other. This allows a choice to be made based on the console exclusives – an easy choice these days.

twenty8nine
twenty8nine
11 years ago

You have to admit that the Blu-Ray is quite a plus. I didn't realize it until I was hooked up to an HDTV for the first time and Journey to the Center of the Earth look absolutely amazing in just 720p.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

Blu-Ray rocks, and is taking off right now, sales of players and movies have grown by something like 200% year on year over the last 12 months, which is very high growth. With cheaper players and hopefully a downward drift in movie prices this year, things should become very Blu-Ray friendly.

sunspider13
sunspider13
11 years ago

I have never thought about getting 2 systems. I have always had friends that had the other systems and if there was a game that I wanted to play on those systems then I would go over to their house.

b3mike
b3mike
11 years ago

I only own a ps3 because it has the games I want to play. Not only can it play my entire collection of ps1 and ps2 games but it's also a great media device. It plays blu rays, dvds, and cd's. It can also play just about every movie file I can throw at it. I'm not fond of playing online, but the option is there FREE if I want to use it. I don't feel the need to buy a 360 when Microsoft can't even get their hardware right and their first party studios are a joke (or lack thereof)

Cpt_Geez
Cpt_Geez
11 years ago

II own a ps3 360 and a wii so II dont have this problem. II also own a psp and a ds lite too.

www
www
11 years ago

alienware?
iphone?

Banky A
Banky A
11 years ago

I'm too tired to think about this lol
But like.. certain games sold more on PS3 because it was the series started on it.

*Kinda' off-topc* I'll put this on the forums too

Here's some deep PS3 bashing of recent times, OMG. I cried :S

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10231585-17.html

Esco_san
Esco_san
11 years ago

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10231585-17.html

this article is stupid and full of opinion, cnet should be ashamed. who says that ps3 will be outdated when microsoft and nintendo are forced to make new consoles to compete. articles like this show such fear of sony potential and should be ignored

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

Sadly Cnet allows editorial and opinion to masquerade as news and fact. They print crap like that with unfounded assertions and unbalanced arguments. Worse still is that Google by default treats it all as news and not blog, so it get's picked up by their news aggregation and everyone reads the faux news headlines and it creates an impression in some minds.

This is the perfect example of the kind of parochial claptrap that the US tech/gaming media is so very prone to in this day and age of instant publication and virtually free access to the Internet. The Eye of Moron is strong, and Cnet has long fallen to it's influence.

kreate
kreate
11 years ago

most of that article is propaganda based. meaning the writer, Don, talks about 1 broken promise made by sony, but fails to mention the 10 broken promises made by microsoft. yet he glorifies microsoft and xbox360 while bashing the ps3.

the promise wasnt really even a promise, it was just a 'plan' that got changed.

his article is more of a fanboy article than a news article. to people like Don, there's nothing sony can do to satisfy him. u just have to move on.

sorry to say this but when i saw that Don's picture on the bottom of the article, he just looks like a xbox fanboy.


Last edited by kreate on 5/5/2009 1:04:52 PM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

Let us not forget that MS is trying to stand out by buying up (big surprise) all exclusive DLC. But isn't this just sticking a bandaid on a gaping wound i.e. Lack of first party software?

So multiplats are a big issue as long as bits and pieces of great games are held hostage. And I don't like that much, in fact I don't think it helps any one company in the long run. Farks up the whole industry and feeds fanboyism.

b3mike
b3mike
11 years ago

But what about halo? We have halo! Chips an dips man, let's have a tag team mega super duper multiplayer halo party! What about gears of war? But you can cut stuff with a chainsaw man! Don't forget live! It's not free but you get cool ads like the one's that come up on your computer!

(rolls eyes)
*xbot fanboy*

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@b3mike

OK, but what have integrated circuits (chips) and dual in-line package switches (dips) have to do with halo?

</retro geek humor mode>

Banky A
Banky A
11 years ago

Heh =D

Turbey
Turbey
11 years ago

I have both consoles! And I buy multiplat games to PS3 and exlusives to the Xbox360…now it`s just collecting dust in my closet:P I`m always afraid that when I play a game on the 360, it could just turn on any second!

migabyte
migabyte
11 years ago

You know what really bothers me about these fan war things is when people just say ridiculous things (maybe that is why I always like reading the editorials and forums too, I like making myself angry for some reason). One thing that really makes me mad is when I see Jap. sales, then someone posts about how Japanese people only play Jap products. This is so funny to me. Ipod is bigger than Jesus over there. I've been to Japan several times, and people love American stuff, just not the Xbox. Also all of the consoles are made in China anyways. Just a rant, but for some reason it bothers me when American people say that, because America is more like that than anywhere (not everyone mind you, a lot more in the south). Hypocrisy always makes me angry. I hope I don't offend any Americans, I am not prejudice towards Americans in general. I have family and a lot of friends that American. Just the American idiots. They are a different brand of idiot.

kreate
kreate
11 years ago

i did see a xbox360 come out in some japanese animation.

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
11 years ago

It deffiantly effects slaes, think about it. many of our PS exclusives have gone over to the 360 this gen,DMC,FF even Tekken. In all honesty there hasnt been many exclusives that have really impressed me to name some, MGS4, Blood Curse Siren, Resistance and Uncharted… thast about it. yes they're good but they're hardly worth buying a console for (Maybe MGS4 is the only case). of course saying that i cant really think of any 360 titles that are really unique, Halo and Gears are pretty simular

migabyte
migabyte
11 years ago

Ya, there isn't much difference between the two…if you own a PS3 there isn't much reason to buy a 360…or visa versa….they are both good consoles…but the PS3 is better.

InfiniteNine
InfiniteNine
11 years ago

You forget Valkyria Chronicles.

Alienange
Alienange
11 years ago

To those who own both systems, just admit it… you bought the 360 first. I don't see too many people buying a PS3 then thinking "let me go get a 360 also, for those two great exclusives."

www
www
11 years ago

Well i did that….bought ps3 first n bought 360 later,just to try out halo,gears and to help me judge better and remain unbiased is all.

I realized owning a single console makes you NATURALLY biased no matter what….lol.So having both i stay neutral and point out merits & demerits of both.

Alienange
Alienange
11 years ago

Interesting. I'm sure there's a lot who are "naturally biased" as you say, but not owning a 360 has not made me hate it. My bro has one and it looks like loads of fun. I don't need to spend 300 bux just to say I'm not biased.

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
11 years ago

InfiniteNine, That was on purpose 😉

I really didnt like it, but then i dislike Strategy games.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
11 years ago

@Alienange
I guess I'll be one of them.
Just got my PS3 first, & am going get a 360 later on too.

Just saying, cause because I want the 360 for my collection

PSNclaw18
PSNclaw18
11 years ago

I own all three consoles. Keeping with Ben's thought, I'll leave the Wii out of this comment. For me, I will always buy a multiplayer multi-plat game on the ps3. The simple reason, FREE online play!!

Now if a game is single player only, I would consider buying it for the 360, but only if there is true evidence that the game "looks" better. And don't give me multi-plat games look the same on either console. There was a stark difference in "looks" of Assassin's Creed on the 360 > ps3.

rell
rell
11 years ago

I had both systems but gave my 360 away because nothing was appealing to me anymore. I love my ps3 its my baby, Im waiting for imfamous,cross edge and batman da.


Last edited by rell on 5/5/2009 7:35:33 AM

Dr_Frodo
Dr_Frodo
11 years ago

it's a good point to raise, however, your leaving out the biggest gaming platform, the PC.

If a multi platform games comes out, and it's on the PC too, over 90% of the time that is THE version to purchase. There are exceptions to this (GTA4 for example).

The controls will have a factor, not just the hardware. Keyboard & mouse is excellent for some games, yet makes some unplayable. A controller is a must have for any system really with the best one I have used (including the retro pads) is the DualShock3 by a long shot. I just don't like the analog placement of the 360 controller, the huge battery pack and the odd feel of the shoulder buttons.

There are factors such as hardware inside the box and whatnot, but it's up to devs to fully take advantage of that. Although benefits like HDDs, optical disk type (this is a HUGE seller of consoles), network fees, free content, other features (usually released in console updates) will all help a buyer choose a preferred console, with multi platform games usually being bought for that.

DLC tends to sway a decision by a tiny amount, it's usually there and brought up in petty fanboy arguments, regardless if the fanboy has the DLC or even the game it's for.

Alienange
Alienange
11 years ago

"over 90% of the time that is THE version to purchase"

Where did you get that stat?

"There are exceptions to this (GTA4 for example)."

That's a big example… Sorry, but PC gaming is overrated and overpriced. I gave up on buying $200 grapics cards every year and a half just keep up with games that a PS2 did just as well for 8 years.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
11 years ago

I'm not sure what year you're living in, but in no way are 90% of multiplatform titles superior on the PC. In fact, 90% AREN'T. This isn't 1998. Nobody is about to say a PC is better for any action game. Nobody is going to say the PC is better for any genre, save maybe RTS and even that's starting to wane.

I don't include PC because I don't consider it a viable gaming platform, anymore. Everything about it has been stale for a decade and most gamers today aren't looking at a game like God of War III or MGS4 saying, "gee, I wish I could play that on PC."

MadKatBebop
MadKatBebop
11 years ago

"Nobody is about to say a PC is better for any action game. Nobody is going to say the PC is better for any genre, save maybe RTS and even that's starting to wane.

I don't include PC because I don't consider it a viable gaming platform, anymore."

Words hurt Ben.


Last edited by MadKatBebop on 5/5/2009 10:50:41 AM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@MadKatBebop

So does the truth….. 😉

Ben's right though. PC gaming has been on the wane for years now. Piracy has been responsible for a lot of that, as has the very high cost of staying current in PC gaming. A few years ago you had people buying SLI setups where each video card cost in excess of $300, and the motherboard was another $200. The cost of entry into the 'gaming rig' fraternity was well over $1000. Sure less powerful systems could 'play' the games, but to hit the high framerates with all the bells and whistles you were really going to have to spend a miniumum of $1000 on basic hardware, and that's at the outset. But to stay current in PC gaming is an open ended financial commitment.

At least on a game console the hardware is a closed platform, so the commitment is the initial purchase, and after that it's just buy games and enjoy them.

migabyte
migabyte
11 years ago

PC gaming just doesn't appeal to me. Sitting in front of my computer playing games just has never been fun (I spend enough time in front of my computer). I have nothing to say about how good the games are, I would just never invest any time into it. I certainly would never buy a fancy graphics card. It's like maybe the PC version is a little better, or maybe the Xbox version is, but I just don't care about subtle differences. I think that's silly.

Dr_Frodo
Dr_Frodo
11 years ago

PC gaming is not a viable platform?
You have to be Joshing me, right?

First: Yes, I stand to my made up statistic that most PC multiplats are of better quality, problems arise when people fart around with their systems then blame developers, crying for them o release a patch. Usually the folk who will install any crap onto a system or will insist that they know what 'tweaks' do.

Second: The price of PC games itself is minimal compared to console games, with addition to open source alternatives, MASSES upon masses of mods, user-generated content and so forth, the kind of thing that consoles call DLC.

Third: The assumption about 'uber required specs' is just daft, you can knock together a home PC with specs well beyond those of a current console for the same price as one. (the cheaper two especially)

Forth: Certain genres are simply bastardised on consoles, whether you like it or not, it DID happen to shooters, it is happening to RTS, as you said (albeit slowly). Evidence? UT3 had to be slowed down by ~20% on consoles, the CoD series was huge on the PC, as soon as it was made in consoles in mind, it ruined the series. You may think it improved it, but if the original players left due to the downgrade they thought they had, then how is that better?

Piracy is hurting PC gaming, but it hurt consoles of past, especially over here in the UK. It was ridiculously common for kids to swap lists of games between them of what they could get copies of (by lists it was more of a catalogue), it happens less now because of on-line bans and pricey optical disks.

Of the games I have for my PC available for the consoles also, I would not dream of having the console versions.Example:
Half-life series, UT series, Civilisation series, C&C series, Jedi outcast series, Bioshock, Fallout series.

True, there are killer games for the consoles such as Killzone 2 & LBP, both of which would go fantastically well on a PC, maybe even better. Though console gamers would probably love some of the PC exclusives too.

People who say they dislike/aren't interested in console gaming probably said that same thing about alcohol until they tried it. 😉

(*awaits the I don't drink brigade* :p)

chaosrunner
chaosrunner
11 years ago

'First: Yes, I stand to my made up statistic that most PC multiplats are of better quality'

If it's made up, then you don't really have anything to stand on. Making up numbers to attempt to support an opinion with 'fact' tends to invalidate the arguement. If you don't have actual facts to back it up, just say, "in my opinion, most PC versions are better" and leave out the false data.

If you have facts to back up what you're saying, great. But if it's just an opinion that you're stating, then there's no need to validate it with numbers. Don't make up numbers that sound impressive in an attempt to feel validated. I can respect an opinion, even if I disagree with it. But making up statistics is just lying.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@ Dr Frodo. You said "The price of PC games itself is minimal compared to console games"

That's just plain wrong. The cost of a PS3 is $399, and it includes everything you need to game so long as you have a TV.

The average cost of a decent gaming rig is between $800 and $1000 depending on how much you want to throw at the GPU.

Games cost $59 on that PS3 and $49 on that PC. Over the course of 5 years I might buy 20 games. However over the course of 5 years Iwill have to upgrade my PC at least once, figure in $200 for new GPU and another $200 for CPU/mobo/RAM upgrades. Over 5 years I could spend $399 + 20x$59 = $1579 on my PS3 habit and $800 + 20x$49 + $400 = $2180 on the PC habit.

The only way that PC gaming habit is cheaper is if you don't pay for your games. That's theft, and not a viable option. If no one pays for their games, no one will develop them. Therefore PC gaming is not viable.

PC gaming is demonstrably expensive when the average cost of a gaming video card sits in the $150-$250 range. Sure you can cobble together an el-cheapo system that plays games at lower resolutions with fewer bells and whistles, but as yet the PS3 exists as an 8 code system running at 3.2GHz, there is nothing from Intel or AMD to touch that. Even the 360 with it's tri-core at 3GHz is nothing to sneeze at.

That cheapo system might run PC games, but unlike the consoles it will not be optimized for gaming, and PC games will not run at their best on it. So it's a pretty invalid comparison to make, it's like saying that you can scrape together a car from pieces obtained at a scrap merchants and claiming it's as good as a new BMW on a dealer forecourt. Clearly it's not, even though both cars may actually work, and the one you've built from pieces might be a solid car, it's not going to compare to the brand new one, is it?

chaosrunner
chaosrunner
11 years ago

This is a bit tangential to the topic, but in the teaser on the splash page, you mention the 'death of the third-party exclusive.' Is that really accurate?

While the third-party exclusive is no longer the major factor that it was in the days of the NES/Genesis 'wars,' it certainly isn't dead. Square-Enix's bizarre (in my opinion) switch to heavy 360 support is one example. How many 360 exclusive titles have they published now? I mean, even assuming that Last Remenant ever makes it to the PS3, there's still the latest Star Ocean. And what about FF Versus XIII? Outside of SE, one of my favorite PS3 games to date is a third-party exclusive: Valkyria Chronicles (which I'm so pleased to see is getting a major sales boost from the DLC).

I think it's safe to say that third-party exclusives are not the major motivator that they were in previous generations of consoles, but calling them dead is a little on the sensationalist side.

pavlovic
pavlovic
11 years ago

Of course multiplats affect consoles sales. I used to have the PS3 and the 360, until last month that I sold my 360.

The reasons: lack of great exclusives ahead, the controller and the XBL fee. For me I have more to get on my PS3 than in the 360.

And I'm not about to rebuy the 360 anytime soon. I don't see any exclusive game that appeals to my gaming taste

Anonymous
Anonymous
11 years ago

I just don't see how a multi-platform game affects sales. At this point, it's negligible. I don't see why anybody would buy an Xbox 360 at this point anyway. What are they going to announce next month that's going to blow me away? All that's left is the ranting of people with buyer's remorse.

MadKatBebop
MadKatBebop
11 years ago

I doubt multi-platform games effect sales but if your anything like me it would. to me games like COD and Far Cry are always better on the PC their graphics and gameplay is better and games like Halo are better for the Xbox 360 because of the controller and games like Uncharted are best for the PS3(I like the PS3 controller but not really for fps its better for 3rd person games)and I don't whats better for the Wii.