While the idea of third-party exclusive titles is nearly extinct this generation, it has become abundantly clear that games exclusive to the PlayStation 3 hold the edge in terms of overall quality and pushing the envelope; in gaining a new technical foothold in this era.
It has all happened quite recently, although early examples ( Heavenly Sword , Warhawk , Uncharted: Drake's Fortune , etc.) have given us glimpses of what developers could do if they focused entirely on the PS3's ultra-competent hardware. However, it's no easy feat to produce a blockbuster exclusive that manages to be lucrative. First of all, you're eliminating…what, about 55-60% of potential sales by cutting out the Xbox 360? Secondly, these projects often suck up a tremendous amount of cash and it can be awfully risky for the designers. Thirdly and lastly, with the competition becoming stiffer and stiffer with every passing month (or so it seems, anyway), you really have to produce something pretty damn spectacular to make a big splash. Despite all these risks, though, the likes of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots , inFamous , Killzone 2 , and the spectacular Uncharted 2: Among Thieves have been extremely successful and have proved the PS3's unrivaled – and heretofore untapped – capability.
Furthermore, it's hardly a stretch to believe future exclusives like Gran Turismo 5 , God of War III and Heavy Rain will be gigantic hits, and will likely act as more measuring sticks and benchmarks for the generation. Developers for the games I've listed here have often said they simply couldn't make such productions for other platforms (Naughty Dog has said Uncharted 2 would have to be "a very different game" on the 360). If you factor all this in, might developers, even third-party developers, look at this success and realize they can make their mark with the PS3? It's risky, yes, but look at the respect designers like Naughty Dog and Guerrilla get; look at how the critics and gamers everywhere receive their efforts. At the same time, we've seen multiple reports from developers who say the 360 has long since been maxed out, which means we've already seen just about everything that console is capable of. Gears of War 3 is a guaranteed bad-ass game, but I'll say without any reservation whatsoever that four of the five most impressive titles I've played this generation are PS3 exclusives. I doubt I'm the only one.
Obviously, exclusives seem to be great for every platform, and that's just logical. Give a developer time to focus entirely on any console, and it's more than likely the team will produce something better than if they were forced to make the game for multiple systems. But given the potential of the PS3, much of which has been clearly utilized in the past few years, it seems inevitable that more devs might want to take a shot at a PS3 exclusive. I dunno…just a train of thought followed through to what I'd like to think is a common sense conclusion.
Hopefully!
I was thinking of saying exactly that 😉
it didn't work for the Xbox and the Xbox was a complete generation above the PS2 in graphical ability unlike this gen
It's the take over
Just like when ps2 took over Dreamcast
It just took longer this time around
ps3 is the QUALITY console to own
Never again will you have to sweat your face off worrying 'bout Red Rings of Death
Getting your modded 360 PWNED by Microsoft
Or having to pay for online
Oh, and yes you'll be getting exclusive as diverse as they come.
Anyway, I've said it before, at this point I really don't care who owns a ps3 and who doesn't.
In fact it cracks me or at least makes me smile in a sarcastic way when someone actually doesn't own a ps3 since I know they're getting owned by the lack of quality the 360 has to offer at the moment. No exclusives, 200000 PFSs, horribly controller*, etc.
I actually don't "mind" the 360 controller but it isn't an "all round gaming controller" the Ps controller on the other hand is still by far the most practical.
wait so if someone does not own a ps3 they automatically own a 360?
also dont want to start a argument here but the ps3 is not as reliable as a wooden stove either, dont forget that.
the day you get all cocky waving it around saying it wont happen to me.
is the day youll end up on the phone or at the post office.
Mr Negative has entered the ring
Think that "____________" is jut a big minus sign
And instead of taking my points in generality you go ahead and try to find the small negatives/possibilities in them
1. Agree with the whole 360 controller thing. Sucks something severe. Only works well with FPS's, and even then I feel better with a PS3 controller in my hand. One friend of mine hates the asymmetrical joysticks of the 360 controller, and so do I.
2. The popularity of shooters this generation is what MS has taken advantage of. It just takes a few years for the Halo fans to grow up, grow a little more intelligent and realise the PS3 has more variety.
3. Now that the whole RRoD problem is dying down, along with the YLoD on the PS3, can we finally put that to rest? Both 120 GB PS3 slims and 360 Elites have very few problems with them, especially this year's models.
4. So long as Gears and Halo remain exclusive, and so long as arrogant and loud teenagers play 360's with their loud arrogant friends, PS3 will always have stiff competition. Wii and iPhone fills the casual crowd, 360 owns most teens, Xbots and Halo lovers, while the PS3 fills the gaps with all in between (which is a large audience leftover)
Last edited by Dancemachine55 on 11/27/2009 1:20:08 AM
@ff
No bro, the ps2 was released after the Dreamcast and overtook it. Wiki it.
I also agree with the 360 controller being bad. It is a shooter's controller only and still I think the ps3 controller is better. That is completely objective but who was born with crooked thumbs???
and your comment was positive as sunshine?
what you said is utter sh*t and to try and cover it up, you put the mr negativity twist onto it.
nice try but its not going to work.
imo realistically speaking the controllers are virtually the same. I might even go as far to say the 360 controller looks cooler. But thankx to that awful D-pad on the 360 the PS3 controller wins in my book.
For what it may be worth, Scarecrow, I don't think you're a shallow little man who's "covering up" your supposed negativity. Mr. negative has his undies in a bunch.
I liked the Dreamcast, it was awesome, but the PS2 was just that much better. Also, if you look at the controller for the XBox 360 and the Dreamcast…see the similarity? Except the XBox 360 one is a bit less comfortable, and that's really not a good thing, lol. The XBox is only an FPS hoarder and it makes me hate FPS games even more than I did before, in fact, back in the N64 days, Goldeneye was great. Thanks XBox. The only XBox exclusive I like is Fable, guess it's because it's not an oversued genre? I dunno. All the other games I would have played that were XBox 360 exclusive are all coming to the PS3 or already here on the PS3 and are new nd improved. Trusy Bell was one, Tales of Vesperia, and my all time favortie XBox 360 to PS3 upgrade: Star Ocean The Last Hope International. lol. For Christ's sake, it's an international version of an XBox 360 exclusive made exclusive for the PS3! I just find it hilarious and look at the XBox 360 as a beta testing system for the better games out there. Use the XBox 360 sales to fund the complete version of their game so they get it made for the PS3 only, lol. Doesn't that sound like a beta testing machine to you?
I don't know… that means that more work is involved. and a dev like valve…….
Yea their leader likes burgers and until Sony buy him a truck load of Macs….forget it!
It's getting harder to get your name out there when hits like MW2 take the spotlight. And therein lies the risk of multiplatform development. If a game fizzles, they've got almost twice the resources invested, and almost twice the losses. But, if they put an exclusive with an acceptable level of quality, they're guaranteed some audience, even if it's not the next Call of Duty. So, naturally, there are plenty of developers looking toward ND, and wondering, can those guys help us make our games shine, too?
Yeah I was hoping FFXIII would be going this route but well there's always FFXV. And let's not forget how awesome Agent is going to be just by staying exclusive. I really hope there is a return of third party exclusives because so far there have been only a few multiplats this gen that are worth having in your collection, something just gets crappy about those games that have to cater to the lesser system.
Methinks the best sony can do to entice 3rd party devs is the offer of dev kits 4 free and a cash injection on the QT,to help with development costs,untill such time as ps3 is the majority console in homes.
Quantic dream & heavy rain is a good example of this method.
I read somewhere(can't remember) that even though kojima had said mgs4 would remain ps3 exclusive,sony gave konami the rights to the mgs movie back for free as a sweetener!
its a messy business making good games!!!!
i now return to the dark realm from whenst i came.
'aaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha'
@ world
when you said FF XV i just had a thought of how the amount of numbered guitar hero titles will most likely surpass the number of numbered FFs at the current rate of activision's milking machine
cause you figure that XV wont come out for at least a year and a half after XIV
damn….
I think that the times have changed. Games like MW2 from Activision make it very hard to see games from third party publishers going exclusive. A publisher like Activision has a primary goal of maximizing profit and revenue, not maximizing the platform or producing a title of unparalleled artistic quality.
A first (or second) party developer/publisher like Naughty Dog is in the perhaps enviable position of being effectively commissioned by a patron to produce a work, rather like the old masters of the oil painting world were commissioned to produce works. They therefore have more freedom to take risks and do not have to worry about maximizing revenue so long as they make a game that meets their target/goal whatever it is.
I think the tremendous success of a game like Uncharted 2 might encourage Sony and it's first parties to continue doing what they are doing. It is these games that are defining the generation and leading the platform in quality. Personally I would prefer to see Sony sponsoring and directing their first parties this way, in some ways it removes the commercial pressure on the developers, which must be liberating.
yeah but what about a 3rd party company that is more interested in producing a quality title (work of art) than making tons of money? I admit they are few and far between but I'd like to see more of them.
@Worlds
Sony has already shown that if a third party wishes to make an exclusive, Sony will be ready and willing to help any way they can, including getting their first party developers to share custom tools and knowledge.
Great discussion you two. Something I often think about since the debacle over MW2. IW used to be all about "he gaming experience" be it on or offline. About maximising the pleasure a gamer would get from playing their games-in short making their game the best it could possibly be with their buddget and at that time. They spoke guchingly about dedicated servers and put them into their PCversion of COD4 with console owners possibly consoling themselves with the gope that the high sales of that ganme would mean they'd get them too next time. But what happened? IW turned intop Acti's monkey butlers and inherited ALL Kotick's greed, started promoting MW2 as the GOTY before release, started hiking the price in the eU and on PC while taking away rather than adding features for gamers, stripped the dedicated servers from PC gamers and offered lies as an excuse, made a video offensive to anyone who isn' homo[phobic themselves and generally behaved like none of them were EVER gamers themselves. Why? Because it's become ALL about the bottom line and way less about the game, the experience or the art.
If IW wanted dedicared servers they could easily affrd them without denting the profits of this game-but they din't want the expense and didn't want the PC crowd making mods a s they want to make all new maps themselves as paid for DLC. They allow us all to play on P2P and limited to 9V9 with a ton of lag for profit and because what we experience as "their" gamers is no longer that important if there's a corner to be cut for a little extra margin. Sleep with the devil(Acti) and you'll starrt growing horns yourself.
Thing is this attitude is VERY commonplace this generation asp when the main aim of a multi plat dev isn't to make the best game they can but the most money WHILE ensuring the two versions achieve parity. How in the world are multiplats ever gona challenge exclusives in this enviroment? When making their game is all about avoiding the controversy of one being better than the other(meaning they kowtow to both sets of weaknesses and neither set of strengths of the two platforms)while making as much cash as possible there's no chance of making the best game they could on either PS3 or 360.
Does this mean a lot of third party devs DON'T care about the quality of their own games anymore? IDK as maybe some will use the multiplat cash to do better things in the future(like Vs from SE maybe?)but, largely, as it would make their multis look REAL bad I doubt theres a big number waiting to go a PS3 exclusive and join the ranks of the great game makers of this generation. Face it too-when Valve can get 360 heads praising them to the hilt for their version of L4D people, gamers might well have stopped caring about quality too as that is without a doubt the worst value package I've bought this gen yet they act like it's a gift from the Gods! Compared to the PC version it looks awful, runs badly, has a jumpy framerate, has less dev support, lss community support and NO mod support while we're expected to pay a LOT more for it to boot(I payed twice as much for the rubbish 360 game as I did on Steam for PC)! Again, is this the kind of circumstance that leads to evs pushing quality over immediate profit? Sadly, I doubt it when devs are being greedy and the gaming community will allow the biggest online game of the year to drag us ass backwards inot the P2P era AGAIN!
Sorry MSC your post is just too long to read.
But about the argument money vs art: I have to say it is incredibly unlikely that a company would strive – using up all their resources – to make a work of art, not giving a damn as to there revenues. Arguably I would be worried if there was such a company, because I certainly won't be investing in them.
The reason there are third party exclusives, or lack of, is because companies knew during the PS2 period knew that there are potentially 100 million + customers out there. On the other hand, with the likes of PS3 / and xbox360, there would't be that many potential customers even if they were combined!
@Ophidian
I don't think that the struggle between the profit motive and artistic quality are mutually exclusive. I am certain that the folks at Naughty Dog are very interested in revenue and profit too, that's the reason they are still in business. However as a first party studio, they may not have the same drive on profit/revenue as a third party. I'm talking about the difference between their primary objective and their secondary objective. For a first party developer they may have the luxury of putting the quality of their game first, and worrying about the money side second. But for a third party developer/publisher without the support of Sony (or MS) the money has to come first.
It's a matter of emphasis. A first party developer is sheltered by their status as a first party studio. Uncharted was a statement game, it made the statement that the PS3 could do 'this much' and more. But the sales of the game were limited – there were fewer PS3s around, and it was a new game IP. To some extent, for Sony, Uncharted : Drake's Fortune was a combination of loss leader, R&D and marketing, as well as a darned good game, and one hopes profitable in the long run thanks to continues sales as a 'greatest hit'. How many third party publishers could afford to have a game that's considered a loss leader, or party R&D? That's where the difference is to me. Sony's focus is on the platform as a whole, not just the sales of an individual game title. A third party publisher/developer will always focus on the individual sales of a game.
Arguable though, Highlander, the success of a game is dependent on the revenue it makes. I know this sounds strange, but whether a game is quality or not is, most of the time, decided on how many buy it. An example may be Valkyria, that game was quality but never had the sales and therefore wasn't classed as an 'art' within the gaming community, despite being quite incredible. Then there is MGS4 and MW2, MGS4 beats MW2 anyday, but if you ask an average gamer which has made more of a mark, they are most likely going to argue the latter.
As more people buy PS3's I think we'll see a lot more exclusives. It may take another year but I believe it will happen.
My thoughts exactly.
It's taken 2 years to even the playing field, it might take another 2 for Sony to take over and dominate once again.
Then MS will bring out Natal and claim it to be the greatest thing on earth, before it too dies after Halo fans realise the controller is better and casual gamers go "Microsoft? Pfft… they're not as cool as Nintendo or iPhone"
''although early examples (Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, etc''
—ben mgs4 aint there???????? omfg!
MGS4 was no "early example."
doubt it.
if anything it will see the end of high quality games and send us back to the dark ages of mediocrity.
reason being its so bloody dam expensive to crete a high caliber game like uncharted 2 so only first party companys can afford to do so.
decided to pick up rouge assassin yesterday, dont ask why.
and O boy has it made me appreciate how spoiled we have been this year, it is truly a game with so much Potential but is seriously lacking some effort and polish.
it screams rushed, rushed, rushed.
you can really tell they just rushed it out the door, saw the flaws but could not care less.
there just worried about making a quick buck.
thats what i hate about the industry these days, back in the day game developers were game developers because they had a passion for games.
nowadays game developers are game developers because they see it as a massive cash cow.
wow i can sit on my ass all day in a nice air con building playing testing games and get paid very well for it.
thats the new attitude and it stinks, and i fear as the industry gets bigger and bigger were going to get more and more like that.
until the industry is full of nothing besides mediocrity.
funny how people see the future as the peak of games, the more time passes the better games become.
i see it as the destruction of them.
Somebody is funding this mediocrity you speak of and it's not me. Developers will go under with that attitude. You don't get that many chances when you get it wrong.
Last edited by tes37 on 11/27/2009 12:15:03 AM
@tes
Mediocre games are bought by average people in their millions. These are the people who do not avidly read gaming sites, and do not follow every rumor. They go by the posters, charts and advice found in their local GameStop/Walmart/Target. Many of the purchases are made by parents who are even less informed (why else would Wii have so so very well?).
So mediocre games sell reasonably well because they are neither terrible, nor offensive. They are simply average.
__________ I couldn't agree more. Most developers are more interested in the amount of cash they are going to make, rather than the quality of the game they are producing. MW2 is an example of this. IW created a mediocre game with "additional features", a piss-poor incoherent storyline and somewhat polished graphics, and expected it to sell like hotcakes because it had the name "Call of Duty" on it. In my perspective, you cannot compare MW2 to MGS4, Assassin’s Creed 2, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2. The developers of all these games were out to create a piece of artwork that people would enjoy and of course, make money. The most important thing is that money is not their primary goal; aesthetics is their primary goal. As a result, they worked long and hard on their games. When you play their games, you immediately know and understand how much effort they put in them.
Last edited by Bugzbunny109 on 11/27/2009 10:19:52 AM
You're making perfect sense to me Ben. There must come a point in a developers life where he's thinking to himself that the game he wants to make is only possible on one system. Take Dragon Age. A fantastic game, really and truly. But as I play through it, I sense that old DVD gimp effect just about everywhere. Look at Borderlands. Gimped again. These devs can make fantastic games, they must realize that their game is not as good as it could have been because of the multi-platform mess going on.
damn straight, I see dvd gimpage all over the place that needn't be.
Final Fantasy XIII.
Square lost so much respect over that game, and now they're trying to make it up with Versus XIII and XIV online.
Is it just me, or has Microsoft completely held back the games industry altogether, completely stagnating it by relying on old formats, old formulas and old technology? How long can they truly milk the FPS genre?
@DanceMachine
It's not just you.
MS has acted like a brake on the entire industry.
I've been hearing a lot of Xboxers saying they plan to get a PS3 this holiday season. Cannot be good news for Bill Gates.
You can't expect Sony to get some current multi-plats to go exclusive, but it would be nice to see some of these games use the PS3 as the lead system.
Not Bill Gates. Remember, he has shares in MS, but no say in it anymore.
I forget who's in charge of the Xbox division, but it looks like they've given up on their console and shifted to Natal as their saviour from mediocrity. It'll be interesting to see how successful it will be.
And it looks like their plan to buy out everything isn't working, so long as PS3 has bluray and cheap dev kits, developers go with 360 for the money at first then use that money to create an amazing PS3 exclusive.
Seriously, I feel like this is whats happening. MS gives shiteloads of money to developers for multiplats or exclusives, then the developer uses that money to create their masterpieces for the PS3.
Anyone else seeing this trend?
@Dancemachine55
Studios such as?
steve balmer is the head of things now i think.
and if you ask me hes even worse than bill gates.
Heavy Rain, Need I say More…
actually… it's more like developers setting back to 360's shitty standard to go multiplatform, after all it's only about profit, critics can have their say
at least that's what i sense is happening in the industry
Anyone else notice the difference between FFXIII on PS3 and 360 when it was still PS3 exclusive?
Google it, check out comparison pics, and it will confirm that 360 is the true inferior console in terms of graphics and raw power.
Sadly, because of MS's and Square Enix's greed for money, the PS3 MUST get the same quality FFXIII title as 360, which means it has once again been cut down to sloppy 360 standards. Square shoulders anyone?
This is what infuriates me. The money is now the spotlight for developers, not the game's quality, and they are willing to sacrifice their games to make a quick buck. I feel as though MS has created the dark ages in video gaming:
1. MS used money over technology to get people on their side.
2. They have created the annoying teen gamer who swears profusely and calls other players hurtful names.
3. I wish I had the knowledge to build a time machine and go back to 1998 so I could silence the people who suggested Microsoft enter the console market. I don't care how successful Xbox Live is, they killed quality gaming!!!
P.S. I spend every waking moment worrying my 360 will red ring any minute as it is a 60GB Pro. No gamer should be put through that.
Last edited by Dancemachine55 on 11/27/2009 1:54:25 AM
This is depressing her as much as it's depressing us, check THIS out:
http://thegamesmen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ffxiii_changes_02.png?w=460&h=518
I've seen what your talking about. I was thinking the same thing and wanted to believe this but I just don't think it's the case. Some of those pics are obviously a change in design choice. Some of what may have been a prerendered cut scenes, my guess, and it's only a guess, is that they changed some of it to the ingame engine. Now I don't know why, maybe because what you say is true, but I believe we will be getting the better version and yet another steller Final Fantasy.
I mean we all know FFXIII could have been loads better on if it had stayed Exclusive but i think well be happy.
Last edited by Jawknee on 11/27/2009 2:30:03 AM
Scarecrow, I can't really see which one is better but it's obvious they're different.
Yea but its sad we'll never know the business deals going on behind closed doors. Whether or not Wada has been fed a fat cheque or receives death threats to keep both versions on par, we will NEVER know, its just real sad and painful. Karma is a bitch, the same way 360 games will always get pirated as a payback for charging online play, believe me if 360 is responsible for all this, they'll definitely pay.
Last edited by www on 11/27/2009 5:46:57 AM
Yea, it crows links the top pic looks like a cut scene and the bottom the ingame engine.
Anyone know of there is an oppertunity to save storage space using the ingame engine rather then prerendered cut scenes?