littlewig said:
The idea is that publishers want to create games for the leading platforms first and then port them to the most similar platforms to reach a broader audience. Sony first, then Microsoft (since that's a one two shot: X-BOX & PC) and then *maybe* Nintendo. GCN was easy to make games for developers *but* publishers go where the money is. Not saying money couldn't be made on GCN, just that 'cos of some of the choices Nintendo made (purple lunchbox, limited online, limited memory in some ways, lower disc capacity, etc) publishers instantly made GCN last priority. Nintendo got downgraded, shitty and late ports of most games and alot of times didn't get any ports at all. This was a major factor in why the ports never sold so well and thusly less support over time for Nintendo.
Going into next generation we see Microsoft trying to be the lead platform by coming out first, matching Sony in some areas (memory) and leveraging the PC as an open invitation. For instance, a game made on X-BOX can be ported to PC & later PS3...this is ideal for multiplatform publishers. Sony is going for a different approach by trying to make it harder for games to be ported from PS3 due to it's overall power, CELL structure (7 co-processors, multi-threading nightmare) and of course the larger capacity BR disc format. This could backfire, but it'll most likely mean PS3 specific games like MGS4 will stay exclussive.
Nintendo's approach isn't to make ports harder, but (if the talk of 128MB or less of memory are true) to pretty much make them plain impossible. Ports don't hardly sell on Nintendo platforms anyways right...and the ports that did make it were late and shoddy and really didn't help Nintendo's mindshare did they? Nor did they make much money for 3RD parties either! Plus Revolution is to be an "alternatve" system and/or a "complimentary" system to the others right? So why should it have the same games? Even if Nintendo losses all those ports, they gain more exclussive Revolution specific content. Games made for the new interface will be hard to port to other systems that don't have such an interface as well. This will likely mean less overall 3RD party support, but the games that will come will be unique to the platform and made for it more exclussivly 'cos game makers are pretty much forced to be creative rather than relying on pretty graphics or quick/easy ports.
Nintendo has to lead the way though and make Revolution a viable/profitable platform by giving it system selling games that are going to create a userbase that outside publishers can't ignore. The Revolution is much like the NES in that it's giving Nintendo a new starting ground...and the introduction of the NES was the only period in where Nintendo actually attracted support thanks to them taking risks rather than getting support 'cos they were the current market leader (NES to SNES, SNES to N64, GB to GBA to NDS). In the first year of the NES's life Nintendo had launched the NES sports line, SMBros., SMBros. 2, Legend Of Zelda, Adventures Of Link, Balloon Fight, Wrecking Crew, Metroid, Mach Rider, Excitebike, Punch Out!...some of these games were just fun filler content, but the rest defined the system and the company (and possibly the whole of gaming) and gave the NES a userbase that, again, outside game makers could not ignore! This is what Nintendo needs to do with Revolution so that 3RD parties will follow.
Exclussives > Ports
