Are Multiplatform games good or bad for the industry?

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Outside of EA, it appears no one has been really really successful with multiplatform games. A lot of this falls back on lack of creativity and poor products, but even great games that are multiplatform are being rejected and ignored by gamers. I ask you all, why do you think this is happening?

I think there are a few different reasons, the main reason is poor products influencing perception of good products. For example say Enter The Matrix is released multiplatform, everyone rushes to buy it and the game sucks, now gamers are wary of any more multiplatform games published by that company. However, say next month the company publishes a game called Metal Arms, the game is really good, however the public already burned once by the publisher, ignore it. I think this is a negative by-product of conglermation and huge publishers. People have a hard time distinguishing or understanding the difference between the publisher and the developer, why wouldn't they, all you see on the box for example is a giant EA or Ubisoft logo, the actual developers logo is on the back somewhere. Years ago, and especially on the PC where I use to game, you knew primarily who the developer was and secondly who the publisher was. Everyone followed the developer and would rush out and buy any product from a certain developer, say Blizzard, or Bioware, or Monolith, or papyrus, nobody even knew half the time who the publisher was(if it was not in fact the developer also). And nobody cared. I think publishers would be wiser to promote their developers, and not themselves, their job is just to distribute and advertise the product, the fact people are confused about who made the product should turn on a light to big publishers, put your logo on the back or on the inside, and promote the developer, you get paid more if the games sells big right.

The other fact, I believe is people know, no matter what the system, a game will be better if it is built from the ground up for that one system. In the beginning of this generation of console wars that fact wasn't evident. But as multiplatform title after title, paled in comparison to GT3, Halo, DOA3, Metroid, it became obvious that because of time, unique architectures, and plain lack of diligence and care, multiplatform games suck. Gamers figured it out, and stopped supporting them for the most part. I think most companies, maybe aside from EA, would be more profitable to make exclusive games. Now, Ubisoft, for example made a lot of money on Splinter Cell, by releasing on XBOX and PS2. However a game such a Metal Arms, or ProRaceDriver, actually suffered because of multiplatform support. I think a shooter such a Metal Arms would have been a hit on XBOX, especially if it had LIVE support which would have been feasible if they had only supported XBOX. As it is, the game was just completely overlooked by XBOX shooter fans.

Pro-Race Driver didn't even support hdtv, no live support, and had awful graphics, how could that game compete on XBOX? Now the developer has improved everything and is focusing only on XBOX/PC with Live Support. But is it too late? Consumers may say, "oh that is just ProRace Driver2, the first one was awful.." Dr.Muto was a really good youth oriented game, that went multiplatform and bombed, maybe if they had've went exclusive with say Gamecube, the title would have gotten the individual attention of that market. I'm sure there are some examples for PS2 also. Its a tricky question, because like I said, Splinter Cell, Spiderman, and a few other games have suceeded across platforms, but the vast majority fail. How about Prince of Persia for example?

One of the reasons why I think a game like Splinter Cell suceeded was because the developer didn't code to the lowest denominator, and in fact, developed the XBOX version and then went back and did the PS2 months later. I think both PS2 and XBOX fans appreciate this kind of attention. XBOX fans know the game will developed to the highest standards, yet even PS2 fans know the developer will try and maintain as much of that as possible and the port will be a good game. However, if Ubisoft had a mandate to develop the game simultaneously on XBOX and PS2, maybe they wouldn't have pushed as far as they did, maybe they would have cut corners, and SC would have suffered the same fate as other crappy multiplats.

The bottomline is this business model, of supporting all platforms, is not working for the majority. As the Midways, Acclaims, and Activisions are now finding out, you can't just turn out crap games and think because its on all 3 systems "we will get the numbers." No you won't, and even if you have a great product you still won't. Consumers are tuned to the words exclusive, when I hear XBOX exclusive, I automatically research the game, it already has my interest. When I hear multiplatform, I don't even care and immediately the title is going to have to fight for my interest. I know I'm wrong, but I've been burned too many times in the past. And after all, worse case for the consumer waiting is they will have to pay less when they finally do decide, months after a game is released, to buy it.

[no.1gamer]

The problem is that time and time again multiplatform games aren't as good as exclusive games. Richard Hobbes wrote a HUGE elaborate post a while back of why games suffer when they are multiplatform.

I don't think multiplatform games are necissarily "bad" for the entire industry. But they usually just aren't as good as exclusive games. This is less noticable when console specific features and gameplay is incorperated into the multiplatform title.

[Bob-the-Fish]

Usually games don't sell well because they just suck. Being multi-platform doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. Look at Armed and Dangerous, an Xbox exclusive that didn't make headlines with it's sales. I applaud Ubisoft's recent descision to hold back the PS2 and GC versions of SC: PT so they can optimize them though. You may be onto something there.

But don't use game sales form the last few months as an example. The reason games like Metal Arms, BG&E and even PoP did worse then expected was because there was just to much market saturation. Since I'm in a movie mood today, compare it to releasing a movie against the year's studio big guns on Memorial Day weekend. There just aren't enough movie goer dollars to go around so somebody gets left out. Or the Oscars yesterday.

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

That's a good point Bob, everyone trying to get the XMAS dollars, has also been brought up before. I certainly think that is part of it, but not the whole story. And yeah, I do think bad games affect the sales of good games(multiplats), but don't tell me bad games don't sell. I can think of so many bad games that sold well, Enter The Matrix, State of Emergency, Blood Omen, on and on.

[Bob-the-Fish]

That's a good point Bob, everyone trying to get the XMAS dollars, has also been brought up before. I certainly think that is part of it, but not the whole story. And yeah, I do think bad games affect the sales of good games(multiplats), but don't tell me bad games don't sell. I can think of so many bad games that sold well, Enter The Matrix, State of Emergency, Blood Omen, on and on.

I'll go "on record" saying I'm personally of the opinion that EtM was not the worst game ever made. The hover craft levels and some of the driving stuff blew chunks and the graphics lacked polish, but the ideas and some of the elements were pretty cool. Full motion capture and live action movie quality cut scenes, the vareity of hand to hand combat moves, and focus mode all made for some pretty nice gaming moments. The fact that they story wasn't a cliche rehash of the movies and had something else to offer was nice too. I had a lot of fun playing though the game this summer with a couple of friends and the company may have had something to do with it.

Like you said, the season doesn't tell the whole story. I don't think multiplat games are all bad though, just the ones that would be bad even if they were exclusives. Like Blood Omen...

[T.Tashi]

I'll go "on record" saying I'm personally of the opinion that EtM was not the worst game ever made. The hover craft levels and some of the driving stuff blew chunks and the graphics lacked polish, but the ideas and some of the elements were pretty cool. Full motion capture and live action movie quality cut scenes, the vareity of hand to hand combat moves, and focus mode all made for some pretty nice gaming moments. The fact that they story wasn't a cliche rehash of the movies and had something else to offer was nice too. I had a lot of fun playing though the game this summer with a couple of friends and the company may have had something to do with it.

Like you said, the season doesn't tell the whole story. I don't think multiplat games are all bad though, just the ones that would be bad even if they were exclusives. Like Blood Omen...
EtM was worth it just to see Jada and Monica kiss. :D
I agree with you though... they coulda left piloting the ship out all together and I didn't care for the driving. I liked the fighting and shooting though, and I know some Linux so the hacking was fun for me, but being a Matrix fan, I was quite shocked at the double whammy of the 3rd movie AND the game coming in subpar.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

It's a hard call for me. As a gamer, I do like having the option of what system I want to get the multiplatform game for. Most multiplatform games usually drop in price quicker than a system exclusive game, which is good or the gamer who wants the game but doesn't think it's worth that much. Also, going multiplatform usually helps a developer/publisher make money, so they can keep churning out games. On the other hand, there's always problems with certain multiplat games for each system. For the PS2, there's usually a chance the game may have a framerate problem - if it was developed from the ground up, it wouldn't have that problem. For the Xbox, the game usually isn't as polished as it could be, and almost never takes advantage of the system's features - if it was developed for Xbox, it wouldn't be an issue. Even Gamecube multiplat games have soem problems, such as grainy FMV or bad button configurations---again, if it was built for Gamecube, there wouldn't be these problems.

Overall, depending on the genre of the game, it would be best if some of these publishers make their games more exclusive to one system. They could actually put out a better product, plus they can the games geared toward certain gamers who will buy it, instead of throwing this and that title on all systems and expect sales......that's what happened with Beyond Good and Evil (would have been a great Gamecube Exclusive title)..

[Daman_He_Hate_Me]

Well, about EtM, I guess the game was attractive to some. I love the Matrix, especially the first two, I thought the last was above average, but not great. Kinda like a bad Prince CD is still better than 90% of anything else out there. So I was all for the game. But I rented it and from the very beginning, I put it right up there with the Bruce Lee's of the world. I just thought the game was horrid, and I played it quite a bit for two days, but I just got to a point where I just felt continuing through the 5 days wasn't even worth it. I guess i'm hard on games, I bought Counter Strike and played one mission and returned it. I'm renting Secret Weapons over Normandy, i've played 3 missions and won't play anymore, even Jedi Academy, and I loved Jedi Knight, but they didn't change a damn thing about the game. Thank heavens for Blockbuster.

Anyway, the game(EtM) sold like hotcakes, so maybe it was just me. If the game had of been during the first year of the XBOX, maybe i'd say it was 75%. But it is way to deep into the life cycle of XBOX to be turning out products like that. I just can't go from a Splinter Cell or Rainbow6 to EtM. This is a case of bottom up multiplatform programming, instead of top-down. But its EA, they always use PS2 as the base, and do very little when they bring it to XBOX.

["The Game"Evolution]

Well, about EtM, I guess the game was attractive to some. I love the Matrix, especially the first two, I thought the last was above average, but not great. Kinda like a bad Prince CD is still better than 90% of anything else out there. So I was all for the game. But I rented it and from the very beginning, I put it right up there with the Bruce Lee's of the world. I just thought the game was horrid, and I played it quite a bit for two days, but I just got to a point where I just felt continuing through the 5 days wasn't even worth it. I guess i'm hard on games, I bought Counter Strike and played one mission and returned it. I'm renting Secret Weapons over Normandy, i've played 3 missions and won't play anymore, even Jedi Academy, and I loved Jedi Knight, but they didn't change a damn thing about the game. Thank heavens for Blockbuster.

Anyway, the game(EtM) sold like hotcakes, so maybe it was just me. If the game had of been during the first year of the XBOX, maybe i'd say it was 75%. But it is way to deep into the life cycle of XBOX to be turning out products like that. I just can't go from a Splinter Cell or Rainbow6 to EtM. This is a case of bottom up multiplatform programming, instead of top-down. But its EA, they always use PS2 as the base, and do very little when they bring it to XBOX.

Multiplatform titles are indeed good for the videogame industry.This gives room for each company(MS,Sony,and Nintendo) to add something special to their individual versions of games.What really hurts multiplatform games is time.Bringing out a big time title for all 3 consoles at the same time is where things get hairy.Sometimes the quality can suffer trying to rush it out in order to have it on the shelf along with the other versions.

But just like with certain games sometimes the PS2 may get something early and other versions may not come to the other two until much,much later.And vice versa.I prefer it to be that way.Take your time making your version of a title.That way you can add things that other versions doesnt have or beef up the graphics.

Now if the videogame industry all of a sudden decided to say"No more exclusives for any other consoles,any game can be bought and developed for any console." then you would have an uproar on your hands.

Think about it.Imagine if any game could come from any console? If Halo could be on the PS2? Or if Final Fantasy was on the Xbox? Or the Devil May Cry was on the GC? My point here is that multiplatform games indeed are a huge part of the videogame industry.If a game is crappy from the word go it will remain to be crap even if you split it three ways.

But sometimes a great port can come from any console.Its all about the quality time spent developing it.Same goes for multiplatform titles.Bringing multiplatform titles out at the same time isnt always a good thing.