Can anyone explain to me, from the buisness aspect...

   Thats strange, for some reason I thought that componies like SONY and Microsoft make money by developers paying them to create a title on their system. Wow, I guess i have no clue. :|

   * thats in addition to sales from the console, I thought software sales went entirely to the producer

   Thats strange, for some reason I thought that componies like SONY and Microsoft make money by developers paying them to create a title on their system. Wow, I guess i have no clue. :|

   * thats in addition to sales from the console, I thought software sales went entirely to the producer

roydabomb

Just think about that that would be like me paying you, so you would let me work on your car or something like that.  sony and microsoft are usually paying over the money to get games on their syste

[QUOTE="roydabomb"]

   Thats strange, for some reason I thought that componies like SONY and Microsoft make money by developers paying them to create a title on their system. Wow, I guess i have no clue. :|

   * thats in addition to sales from the console, I thought software sales went entirely to the producer

KurupSoldr

Just think about that that would be like me paying you, so you would let me work on your car or something like that.  sony and microsoft are usually paying over the money to get games on their syste

  Its more like Walmart paying Fox to advertise on their channel, isn't it?

Well, from an economic point of view its because of profitability. Making a game for 1 console costs X amount of money and recovers X` amount of money. Porting it Costs Y amount of money and brings Y` amount of money. If Y` is going to be smaller than Y then its not profitable to port it. Or maybe X and X` are the same and Y`can be higher than Y then the game even ported brought cash back and made a profit.

For example, MGS 2 sold only around 1 million units on XBOX while the PS2 version surpassed it over 7 times. Porting a game as Kojima once said costs not only money but time. Time that they could be using for something else. That time wasted is also a resource that porting uses. If a port comes later than the original, then that time used is even bigger since the game could have depleted its fanbase when it gets released; or have decreased it below Y`.

So, why is it that Kojima and Konami keep MGS4 exclusive? Because of userbase. They know that the biggest userbase of PS3 system are waiting for it, but XBOX 360 userbase that want the game or may get it is unknown, and from previous feedback XBOX users dont like MGS. The same could be applied to FF only that FF hasnt done a field test on XBOX userbase, but its a known fact that XBOX userbase is not inot J-RPGs.  

I don't know if this holds true still, but I remember reading an article a year or two ago where Sony commented on Microsoft's practice of paying a developer for exclusivity.  Basically, they don't.  In the article, Sony said that they don't pay any companies for exclusive rights for a game, their approach is that they want to cultivate a long term business relationship with the developers and help them in any way they can.  As a developer, I would rather have a company that works with me rather than forcing me into business model that is not in line with my ideals (http://www.n4g.com/News-42702.aspx).

Well, from an economic point of view its because of profitability. Making a game for 1 console costs X amount of money and recovers X` amount of money. Porting it Costs Y amount of money and brings Y` amount of money. If Y` is going to be smaller than Y then its not profitable to port it. Or maybe X and X` are the same and Y`can be higher than Y then the game even ported brought cash back and made a profit.

For example, MGS 2 sold only around 1 million units on XBOX while the PS2 version surpassed it over 7 times. Porting a game as Kojima once said costs not only money but time. Time that they could be using for something else. That time wasted is also a resource that porting uses. If a port comes later than the original, then that time used is even bigger since the game could have depleted its fanbase when it gets released; or have decreased it below Y`.

So, why is it that Kojima and Konami keep MGS4 exclusive? Because of userbase. They know that the biggest userbase of PS3 system are waiting for it, but XBOX 360 userbase that want the game or may get it is unknown, and from previous feedback XBOX users dont like MGS. The same could be applied to FF only that FF hasnt done a field test on XBOX userbase, but its a known fact that XBOX userbase is not inot J-RPGs.

kenshinhimura16

Anyway dude pretty much covered everything.

Except royaltees which is what companies like MS and Sony charge on the sales of each game, when a game goes muliplat the royaltees go up, when a game stays on a single platform the royaltees go down and in some cases disappear. So a company needs to put that into the equation. Say you sell 7 million copies of MGS on playstation your Royaltee per each game may have only been $1, but once you multiplat those special $1 royaltee fees go up and then you have to sell more copies on both systems to make the same amount of money.

Thats why when a publisher has a game that they know for certain is gonna sell, they will stick with one platform and try to lower those royaltee fees to a bare minimum thus increasing profits.

You see it's not just the amount games you sell that counts it's how much money you can pocket from those sales if the royaltee drops to zero than it's all net and thats what publishers want for games that certain to sell.