First of all this is not a comparison, or which is better thread. I am mainly wondering what the rough percentage of games that are available on both platforms, and why developers would only develop for one and not try to tap into the market for both units. Is it because of hardware (conversion factor too steep), legal reasons (contracts etc.), or some other reasons I am not thinking of.
The main reason I ask is I was looking through the Made with Unity site and saw a couple games that caught my interest, but one is to be released on X Box, and one on Playstation. And I thought why not on both if they are both made with Unity?
(BTW, I did try searching here and Google but only came up with V.S. type info)
There can be a number of reasons but two of the main ones are simply (A) the game is a console exclusive intended to promote the console and may receive development or marketing assistance from the console manufacturer, and (B) the developer was unable to get a license for the other consoles.
The article below has additional information covering exclusives and how they’ve affected hardware sales in the past.
The type of game you’re developing could play into it. I can’t seem to find it now, but several months ago I ran across an interesting comparison of XBox and Playstation title sales by genre, and there are definite large differences in some categories. (I knew I should have saved that link…)
I can understand why the console makers would want exclusive games, but from the standpoint of the game developer, unless you are one of the company’s bought up by Sony or Microsoft, I would think, from a noobish viewpoint, it would be more profitable to hit up both platforms. Unless the entry into the platforms are so restrictive a small company can’t do both I suppose.
Interesting thought MV10. Maybe the developer doesn’t think the market will be good on one of the platforms.
Not that it makes a lot of difference for this conversation, but since it triggered my brain cells to wondering…
These are the two games that caught my interest.
edit: Just as clicked submit post a thought came into my head. The console companies can’t tell a game company they can only develop for one company, or can they?
Well, to be fair, there are a couple possible reasons to not have a game on each console platform. One is console exclusivity. The other is the fact that sometimes Sony or Microsoft might simply not provide a devkit or might not approve a game for their storefronts. Most developers would like to be on every platform, but consoles are not always welcoming to everybody.
larku, good point. Carrot instead of the stick approach.
ShilohGames, I think this is the main item I was hoping to derive from this conversation. I just couldn’t see why, from an exposure standpoint, a small game company would limit themselves.
Of course they can. It’s their platform, they can put whatever rules they want in place. Exclusivity deals are pretty common in media of all kinds.
While this is less of a big deal than it used to be thanks to hardware becoming more similar, each extra platform entails a whole bunch of extra work. Platforms are less important than players, so the developer has to ask “will the extra work of supporting another platform help us reach more players?” and “can we afford the extra effort of supporting extra platforms?”
Keep in mind that while Unity supports multiple console platforms supporting a game on one isn’t just a matter of hitting “build”. In addition to your game having to work on that platform* there’s a whole bunch of non-technical stuff that’s going to be a load of work. You need to apply for and get into a publishing agreement with each platform. Those agreements come with requirements you need to meet. You need to meet stringent quality standards (some people think iOS developer guidelines are strict…). After release it means additional work in support, because you need to cover more different platforms. A lot of that stuff isn’t necessarily hard, but each extra platform definitely requires a bunch of time both before and after release.
So, if your target market aligns closely with people who already have a particular console then I’d be inclined to focus rather than diversify. It’s simply a matter of risk and cost vs. reward.
And this includes all the little things players expect of a commercial game, like showing the images of the right controller buttons when the user is playing.
Its certainly one option. Exclusive content does drive console sales. And so a console manufacturer can offer better terms if someone is willing to sign an exclusive license.
Here are some other random reasons to develop on only one console
The game is developed by, or in close partnership, with the console manufacturer (Halo ect).
The engine is build specifically for one or the other console, and porting is expensive. Not every game is made with unity.
The audience aligns closely to an existing audience on one console
The extra work of maintaining the port is not worth the extra reward
Thanks for the additional input. I suppose everything is always easier said than done and sometimes what seems to make sense on the surface really doesn’t when looked at through a deeper lens. I appreciate the time taken to reply.
As my lawyer is fond of saying, “You can put anything into a contract, as long as everybody signs and you’re willing to enforce it.”
Minor thought about platform differences, because it’s one of my pet-peeves: “normal” controller button usage seems to vary between Playstation and Xbox. It’s another reason Square Enix games drive me nuts, they default to Playstation-style buttons which seems completely backwards to my Xbox-trained brain. (I did say it was minor… but if Square Enix doesn’t always provide for button reassignment or multiple maps, indies definitely may not plan for that.)