REBUTTAL TO: The Juggernaut
I was inspired to write this editorial after watching the 3 press conferences at E3 and especially after reading Macstorm's editorial last week about exclusive RPGs on the PS3. Here's what my gripe is about: the new market for video games revolves too strongly around exclusive gaming. To be honest, it makes me upset that there are two equally powered systems, capable of much of the same, producing the same kind of games, but at the same time, NOT the same game. Understandably, the Wii stands on a league of its own (for the moment at least, since they have motion controllers), it does not directly compete with PS3 and Xbox 360 and I can convince my wallet why I would need a Wii and one of the other two. However, rarely do I come across another individual who warrants having both a PS3 and an Xbox nowadays. It just doesn't make sense, they are way too similar and it becomes downright frustrating when the market is becoming so dependent on exclusive games.
The target demographic for videogames has greatly expanded and currently aims at 10-30 year olds for the most part. In this age range, income is limiting, if at all present. Should a gamer be unfortunate enough to own only one of the current-gen non-wii systems, they are greatly missing "exclusives" on the other. Now, one might argue that the scenario would be the same if the systems were different and that if you don’t have money, what difference does it make how different the systems are, but this is a more convincing argument to the nagging mom/dad/spouse who doesn’t wholly understand the gaming industry. Aside from the lucky few who get whatever they want, what is the argument to use when trying to convince a parent that you want an Xbox 360 and PS3, even though the games look identical? Try convincing your wife/husband that you should drop another 300-400$ plus money for games from your hard earned paycheck (normally used for food/rent/mortgage): it's quite daunting.
Consequently, the primary marketing strategy of the big 3 has become solely about exclusivity, rather than innovation. I have no problem sharing the wealth of Final Fantasy XIII, there is nothing wrong with two consoles having the same game, it doesn't make me regret getting one or the other, and I am happy. Take the poor soul of a die-hard Star Ocean fan who bought the PS3 to enjoy the eventual next iteration of Star Ocean, being none the wiser that it would become Xbox 360 exclusive. I almost flipped my boat when Metal Gear Solid: Rising was announced on the Xbox 360, basically giving the choice to owners of only one system to play either Metal Gear Solid 4 or Metal Gear Solid: Rising. What kind of crappy choice is that? And you can therefore also understand that I was relieved a couple days later when it was announced for PC and PS3.
Games by third parties should be developed on the console that can run them, if there happened to be two of these consoles, then develop for both. I honestly don't know why they wouldn't; it expands the exposure of the game and allows for more sales. If there are hardware limitations that prevent from fully expressing the ideas of the developer then this warrants an exclusive label. But to revolve marketing strategies around exclusive games, becomes a little boring. I'm not ready to dish out for an Xbox 360, even though they have some really impressive games out right now and with all the announced games at E3. I honestly hope next-gen systems will show a little more variety so we get rid of this new trend.
|
RSS feed
iTunes