Guitar Hero II - Coming to the Xbox 360! :) Gaming Exclusivity...Good or Bad?

Chris Martin from Coldplay says he luvz it!

Chris Martin from Coldplay says he luvz it!

 I think it is great news, glad its now a  multi format title.  Downloadable content will open many options up to the player. I think however, the Wii will be ideally suited to the title, it's WiiConnect24 service could do some cool things with the genre, Soz but Wii have all gone Wii mad in the UK!

 I think it is great news, glad its now a  multi format title.  Downloadable content will open many options up to the player. I think however, the Wii will be ideally suited to the title, it's WiiConnect24 service could do some cool things with the genre, Soz but Wii have all gone Wii mad in the UK!

Unbelievable! Major Nelson was just 10mins away from my house and was partying at my favourite club here in Barcelona (Danzatoria)! It was weird watching him there. I didn´t see anything in the press or hear about this event, otherwise I would have tried to drop by. BTW the VIP room is nothing special, just a chill-out area with some couches thrown about. Still can´t understand why they wouldn´t let him in though.

Unbelievable! Major Nelson was just 10mins away from my house and was partying at my favourite club here in Barcelona (Danzatoria)! It was weird watching him there. I didn´t see anything in the press or hear about this event, otherwise I would have tried to drop by. BTW the VIP room is nothing special, just a chill-out area with some couches thrown about. Still can´t understand why they wouldn´t let him in though.

Surprisingly, I'm in favor of gaming exclusivity.  A historical retrospective would indicate its neccessary for sales and quality.  Besides, If you really want to enjoy everything gaming has to offer, you have to buy all the systems.  If you want to conserve cash, just buy the greatest hits or the top 10 titles every so often.

I know I'm one of the few people who supports the idea, but I think its good for the console developers in the long run.  Halo belongs on the xbox, god of war on the playstation, and franchise characters with Nintendo..etc.

Technically, cross platform development is good for the game developers and gamers alike, but I like the idea of finding certain titles only inherent to a specific console.  Additionally, there are slight variations in gameplay and quality amidst the different console versions of a game.  I prefer one standard.  But that's just me.

Still.  It's a worrying trend.  How long until we see more than two versions of a console?  Rumors have it Microsoft is planning to introduce a HD-DVD Xbox 360 next year with 1080p output already built in.  WTF?  Why the hell did Microsoft promote the original 360 in the first place?  It strikes me as greedy and a little cheap.

Anyway, I'm glad you'll be getting Guitar Hero II for your Xbox 360.  It makes you happy, and that makes me happy.  Is it worth the $10 - $20 more Microsoft will charge for it on the 360?  Why the 360?  Why not the original xbox?  However, as a gaming goddess, don't you still have a PS2?  I'd be surprised to learn you didn't.

Surprisingly, I'm in favor of gaming exclusivity.  A historical retrospective would indicate its neccessary for sales and quality.  Besides, If you really want to enjoy everything gaming has to offer, you have to buy all the systems.  If you want to conserve cash, just buy the greatest hits or the top 10 titles every so often.

I know I'm one of the few people who supports the idea, but I think its good for the console developers in the long run.  Halo belongs on the xbox, god of war on the playstation, and franchise characters with Nintendo..etc.

Technically, cross platform development is good for the game developers and gamers alike, but I like the idea of finding certain titles only inherent to a specific console.  Additionally, there are slight variations in gameplay and quality amidst the different console versions of a game.  I prefer one standard.  But that's just me.

Still.  It's a worrying trend.  How long until we see more than two versions of a console?  Rumors have it Microsoft is planning to introduce a HD-DVD Xbox 360 next year with 1080p output already built in.  WTF?  Why the hell did Microsoft promote the original 360 in the first place?  It strikes me as greedy and a little cheap.

Anyway, I'm glad you'll be getting Guitar Hero II for your Xbox 360.  It makes you happy, and that makes me happy.  Is it worth the $10 - $20 more Microsoft will charge for it on the 360?  Why the 360?  Why not the original xbox?  However, as a gaming goddess, don't you still have a PS2?  I'd be surprised to learn you didn't.

First of all, thank you for fixing the broken comments link.

During the 16-bit days, we saw how great Nintendo and Sega were in creating quality first-party software (and establishing the popular videogames we know and love). Those franchises were what set the two consoles apart, but was it the first-party software that kept those consoles selling, or was it the number of third-party games?

Why did Sega's hardware fail, yet they had great first party software (as did Nintendo), but just like Nintendo, did not have "great" third-party software? Was it really the fault of the hardware?

It appeared (and in some ways, still does), even with great first-party games, a console's success is mainly based on the number of titles (quality not being that big of an issue).

However, as we have seen, some third-parties have made some AWESOME, quality third-party titles over the years, giving the first-party games a run for their money in cases.

Unfortunately, some of those quality (third party) titles have been over-looked by consumers (Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, etc). So, even though some third-party developers are making quality games...maybe quality isn't the biggest issue with (most) casual gamers.

Do numbers count more than quality?

Well, with "exclusives" I think their is a higher expectation of "quality" to make numbers, so to speak. But who the hell knows if that game will sell or not, even if it's AAA.

What about the term "ONLY ON", when we look at videogame covers. Does that REALLY matter to us?

Consumers will mainly buy, based on popularity. Therefore, videogame companies can gamble on trying to secure a certain property to their console to drive numbers. However, we have seen some of these "exclusives" turn into flops and buyouts of companies going South. It's about risk. 

"Exclusivity", as we have seen for many years in the videogame industry, has certainly been crucial for a console's (and company's) success. Not the main reason, but a part of it.

PC titles that were exclusive for a while, have also been ported to the consoles (i.e. F.E.A.R, Doom, Quake, Half-Life 2, The Sims, etc). And even HALO and HALO 2 are on the PC and Mac. Sure there are other PC games that have yet to come to consoles (World of Warcraft), with ports coming to consoles, you got to wonder how long the PC will last, especially in the next-gen console era.

The PC is unique in terms of how to play the games (keyboard and mouse), but with so many console ports being released, what is really left on the PC to be "exclusive"?

Here are some of the accomplishments and failures, and other interesting facts, with third-party partnerships/exclusives on the consoles:

-Look at the success Nintendo had with the Square partnership, back in the NES and Super NES days. And now, Sony's success with Square with the past two Playstation consoles.

-Not to mention the success Nintendo also had with Rare Ltd. in the Super NES and Nintendo64 days. And now, Rare is with Microsoft, bringing to the Xbox 360 franchises that were once (or were going to be) on Nintendo consoles. And as a result, Rare's games, recently, have been getting mixed reviews.

-The success Metal Gear Solid has been on the past two Playstation consoles (even though MGS 2 and MGS: TTS were released on the Xbox and GCN).

-Capcom's success with the Resident Evil franchise (mainly) on the Playstation for a while, until the (kick-*) Resident Evil 4 appeared on the GCN.

-Nintendo creating the "Dream Team" for the Nintendo64, that included many developers, but ultimately, it failed to do what it exactly wanted to do.

-Factor 5 creating "exclusive" Star Wars games for the Nintendo64 and GCN. And now, they are creating an exclusive game on the PS3 (Lair).

-All those "exclusive" Nintendo64 third-party games that had "64" at the end of each title (Doom64, for example).

-Sega becoming a third-party and releasing their games across multiple platforms (some games, being exclusive to to a specific console).

-Nintendo buying Silicon Knights and only releasing one great game, Eternal Darkness. Now, Silicon Knights is creating Too Human for the Xbox 360.

-Konami releasing Contra (once on Nintendo's console) and other Konami franchises on PS.

-Namco releasing Tekken ONLY on Sony consoles.

-Capcom ONLY releasing Devil May Cry on Sony consoles.

-Capcom releasing Street Fighter, and other Capcom franchises on the PS and Xbox and not N64/GCN.

-BioWare/Pandemic releasing KOTR and KOTR II: Sith Lords to Xbox and then, brings Jade Empire to Xbox as an exclusive.

-"Malice" is a game from Argonaut that was supposed to be an Xbox exclusive, after much delay, finally was released on multiple consoles, with disappointing results.

-Oddworld Inhabitants released Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee "exclusively" to Xbox, after making Oddworld games for PS and other platforms. "Stranger's Wrath" is then released to Xbox (as exclusive) and fails to sell. Oddworld Inhabitants goes under.

-Tecmo releasing Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox, as well as the Dead or Alive franchise.

-"Geist" made by N-Space and published by Nintendo, fails to sell.

-Nintendo forms Retro Studios to create multiple "exclusive" genre games for Gamecube, yet produces a masterpeice, known as, Metroid Prime and then goes on to create the equally impressive, Metorid Prime 2: Echoes.

-Bethesda Softworks releasing Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Xbox and Xbox360.

-Project Gotham Racing ONLY appearing on Xbox consoles, from third-party, Bizarre Creations.

-Microsoft buys Bungie (developer of Myth, Oni, etc) and HALO becomes an (unexpected) phenomenon on the Xbox.

-Sony buys Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Guerilla games, after the success of Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet and Clank and Kill-Zone.

-Ninendo and Capcom strike a deal to bring five games "exclusively" to the GCN. Well, that certainly had some mixed results, even with the success of Resident Evil 4.

-GTA exclusive on PS2 (for a while) and now, GTA IV will be "exclusive" to the Xbox360.

-Future "Splinter Cell" games will appear on the Xbox360, after the multi-platform release of "Double Agent".

-Ubi Soft's "Assissan's Creed" (once thought to be a PS3 exclusive) is now also coming to the Xbox360.

This next statement can be argued, but...

Ironically, Microsoft's and Sony's "success" with their consoles is because of "out-side parties" (Bungies wasn't always a Micorosft first-party developer). Imagine those games, such as HALO, GTA, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, etc. not appearing on the Playstation and Xbox?

Would the PS and Xbox be as popular now, if they did not have those games?

What if Square/Nintendo didn't have a relationship back in the 16-bit days?

I could never imagine Nintendo's characters appearing on other consoles (let's not think about the CD-I Zelda games), but at one time, I would've said that same thing about Sega and look what happened to them...

God of War is an internal Sony property, so I don't think we would ever see that on other consoles (unless, Sony went third-party...again).

"Exclusivity" is important, especially now, with third-party games such as, Gears of War, Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry 4, GTA IV, etc. appearing on specific consoles. It's what makes those consoles "unique" and attract gamers to that specific console. Taking away what the competitors can't use (EA and the NFL license, for example).

Is it right? Well, it's business and I'm sure we'll never see the days of every third-party games being on every console, such as the 16-bit Super NES and Genesis, and having gamers compare which console has the "best" version of a game.

Sure, ports of games are still appearing on multiple consoles, but it's not like the 16-bit days. Things have gotten a LOT more competitive.

Nintendo still has (mostly) their first-party software to rely on, Sony and Microsoft now have first-party and third-party software to rely on. I guess it will continue to be that way...

In my opinion, I think first-party games should ONLY appear on the console that is supported by the specific company, but third-party games...if, for example, a third-party franchise was multi-platform at one point, then I think that third-party should stay multi-platform.

However, if a third-party wanted to create a new franchise/property for a specific console, then let them. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of videogame companies trying to secure a popular (third-party) franchise on one console. If possible, I want the games that were multi-platform to begin with, to stay multi-platform.

First of all, thank you for fixing the broken comments link.

During the 16-bit days, we saw how great Nintendo and Sega were in creating quality first-party software (and establishing the popular videogames we know and love). Those franchises were what set the two consoles apart, but was it the first-party software that kept those consoles selling, or was it the number of third-party games?

Why did Sega's hardware fail, yet they had great first party software (as did Nintendo), but just like Nintendo, did not have "great" third-party software? Was it really the fault of the hardware?

It appeared (and in some ways, still does), even with great first-party games, a console's success is mainly based on the number of titles (quality not being that big of an issue).

However, as we have seen, some third-parties have made some AWESOME, quality third-party titles over the years, giving the first-party games a run for their money in cases.

Unfortunately, some of those quality (third party) titles have been over-looked by consumers (Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts, etc). So, even though some third-party developers are making quality games...maybe quality isn't the biggest issue with (most) casual gamers.

Do numbers count more than quality?

Well, with "exclusives" I think their is a higher expectation of "quality" to make numbers, so to speak. But who the hell knows if that game will sell or not, even if it's AAA.

What about the term "ONLY ON", when we look at videogame covers. Does that REALLY matter to us?

Consumers will mainly buy, based on popularity. Therefore, videogame companies can gamble on trying to secure a certain property to their console to drive numbers. However, we have seen some of these "exclusives" turn into flops and buyouts of companies going South. It's about risk. 

"Exclusivity", as we have seen for many years in the videogame industry, has certainly been crucial for a console's (and company's) success. Not the main reason, but a part of it.

PC titles that were exclusive for a while, have also been ported to the consoles (i.e. F.E.A.R, Doom, Quake, Half-Life 2, The Sims, etc). And even HALO and HALO 2 are on the PC and Mac. Sure there are other PC games that have yet to come to consoles (World of Warcraft), with ports coming to consoles, you got to wonder how long the PC will last, especially in the next-gen console era.

The PC is unique in terms of how to play the games (keyboard and mouse), but with so many console ports being released, what is really left on the PC to be "exclusive"?

Here are some of the accomplishments and failures, and other interesting facts, with third-party partnerships/exclusives on the consoles:

-Look at the success Nintendo had with the Square partnership, back in the NES and Super NES days. And now, Sony's success with Square with the past two Playstation consoles.

-Not to mention the success Nintendo also had with Rare Ltd. in the Super NES and Nintendo64 days. And now, Rare is with Microsoft, bringing to the Xbox 360 franchises that were once (or were going to be) on Nintendo consoles. And as a result, Rare's games, recently, have been getting mixed reviews.

-The success Metal Gear Solid has been on the past two Playstation consoles (even though MGS 2 and MGS: TTS were released on the Xbox and GCN).

-Capcom's success with the Resident Evil franchise (mainly) on the Playstation for a while, until the (kick-*) Resident Evil 4 appeared on the GCN.

-Nintendo creating the "Dream Team" for the Nintendo64, that included many developers, but ultimately, it failed to do what it exactly wanted to do.

-Factor 5 creating "exclusive" Star Wars games for the Nintendo64 and GCN. And now, they are creating an exclusive game on the PS3 (Lair).

-All those "exclusive" Nintendo64 third-party games that had "64" at the end of each title (Doom64, for example).

-Sega becoming a third-party and releasing their games across multiple platforms (some games, being exclusive to to a specific console).

-Nintendo buying Silicon Knights and only releasing one great game, Eternal Darkness. Now, Silicon Knights is creating Too Human for the Xbox 360.

-Konami releasing Contra (once on Nintendo's console) and other Konami franchises on PS.

-Namco releasing Tekken ONLY on Sony consoles.

-Capcom ONLY releasing Devil May Cry on Sony consoles.

-Capcom releasing Street Fighter, and other Capcom franchises on the PS and Xbox and not N64/GCN.

-BioWare/Pandemic releasing KOTR and KOTR II: Sith Lords to Xbox and then, brings Jade Empire to Xbox as an exclusive.

-"Malice" is a game from Argonaut that was supposed to be an Xbox exclusive, after much delay, finally was released on multiple consoles, with disappointing results.

-Oddworld Inhabitants released Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee "exclusively" to Xbox, after making Oddworld games for PS and other platforms. "Stranger's Wrath" is then released to Xbox (as exclusive) and fails to sell. Oddworld Inhabitants goes under.

-Tecmo releasing Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox, as well as the Dead or Alive franchise.

-"Geist" made by N-Space and published by Nintendo, fails to sell.

-Nintendo forms Retro Studios to create multiple "exclusive" genre games for Gamecube, yet produces a masterpeice, known as, Metroid Prime and then goes on to create the equally impressive, Metorid Prime 2: Echoes.

-Bethesda Softworks releasing Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Xbox and Xbox360.

-Project Gotham Racing ONLY appearing on Xbox consoles, from third-party, Bizarre Creations.

-Microsoft buys Bungie (developer of Myth, Oni, etc) and HALO becomes an (unexpected) phenomenon on the Xbox.

-Sony buys Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Guerilla games, after the success of Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet and Clank and Kill-Zone.

-Ninendo and Capcom strike a deal to bring five games "exclusively" to the GCN. Well, that certainly had some mixed results, even with the success of Resident Evil 4.

-GTA exclusive on PS2 (for a while) and now, GTA IV will be "exclusive" to the Xbox360.

-Future "Splinter Cell" games will appear on the Xbox360, after the multi-platform release of "Double Agent".

-Ubi Soft's "Assissan's Creed" (once thought to be a PS3 exclusive) is now also coming to the Xbox360.

This next statement can be argued, but...

Ironically, Microsoft's and Sony's "success" with their consoles is because of "out-side parties" (Bungies wasn't always a Micorosft first-party developer). Imagine those games, such as HALO, GTA, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, etc. not appearing on the Playstation and Xbox?

Would the PS and Xbox be as popular now, if they did not have those games?

What if Square/Nintendo didn't have a relationship back in the 16-bit days?

I could never imagine Nintendo's characters appearing on other consoles (let's not think about the CD-I Zelda games), but at one time, I would've said that same thing about Sega and look what happened to them...

God of War is an internal Sony property, so I don't think we would ever see that on other consoles (unless, Sony went third-party...again).

"Exclusivity" is important, especially now, with third-party games such as, Gears of War, Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry 4, GTA IV, etc. appearing on specific consoles. It's what makes those consoles "unique" and attract gamers to that specific console. Taking away what the competitors can't use (EA and the NFL license, for example).

Is it right? Well, it's business and I'm sure we'll never see the days of every third-party games being on every console, such as the 16-bit Super NES and Genesis, and having gamers compare which console has the "best" version of a game.

Sure, ports of games are still appearing on multiple consoles, but it's not like the 16-bit days. Things have gotten a LOT more competitive.

Nintendo still has (mostly) their first-party software to rely on, Sony and Microsoft now have first-party and third-party software to rely on. I guess it will continue to be that way...

In my opinion, I think first-party games should ONLY appear on the console that is supported by the specific company, but third-party games...if, for example, a third-party franchise was multi-platform at one point, then I think that third-party should stay multi-platform.

However, if a third-party wanted to create a new franchise/property for a specific console, then let them. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of videogame companies trying to secure a popular (third-party) franchise on one console. If possible, I want the games that were multi-platform to begin with, to stay multi-platform.

Great argument and supporting facts.  While I believe some third-party titles should be available cross platform, I don't mind exclusive titles.  I feel better when there is just one standard to measure.

Great argument and supporting facts.  While I believe some third-party titles should be available cross platform, I don't mind exclusive titles.  I feel better when there is just one standard to measure.

Thanks for clerifying, Duncan,

Yes, I'm familiar with the HD-DVD add-on.  It's not what I'm referencing.  According to an issue of Xbox gamer I read a month ago or two, There were plans for a HD-DVD Xbox 360 model coming sometime next year or the year therafter.  I'm not sure how true the story is, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Thanks for clerifying, Duncan,

Yes, I'm familiar with the HD-DVD add-on.  It's not what I'm referencing.  According to an issue of Xbox gamer I read a month ago or two, There were plans for a HD-DVD Xbox 360 model coming sometime next year or the year therafter.  I'm not sure how true the story is, but I wouldn't doubt it.

BTW, I don´t know if MjN visits 10 seeing as he hasn´t taken part in any segments in a long time, but.... I´d love to hear what his thoughts on Barcelona were.

BTW, I don´t know if MjN visits 10 seeing as he hasn´t taken part in any segments in a long time, but.... I´d love to hear what his thoughts on Barcelona were.

Without exclusive titles there'd be no need for multiple platforms. I do think that third party titles should be available to everyone, while first party games should remain exclusive. Playing Mario on Xbox or Halo on Playstation just seems... unnatural. I'm just now getting to used to seeing Sonic on Nintendo.

Without exclusive titles there'd be no need for multiple platforms. I do think that third party titles should be available to everyone, while first party games should remain exclusive. Playing Mario on Xbox or Halo on Playstation just seems... unnatural. I'm just now getting to used to seeing Sonic on Nintendo.

I don't care what game is released on what console, as long as the good ones are going to be released on the PC. Isn't it odd that PC manufacturers like Dell and HP would invest in gaming PC companies (Alienware and VoodooPC respectively) with all the next-gen consoles just around the corner? Obviously, they see a future for PC-gaming. I had an opportunity to talk to a former executive at Dell recently, who told me that Dell saw Alienware and high-end gaming PCs as a niche market, and is convinced that this market will continue, despite the consoles.

I almost bought a 360 a few months ago, I even asked the staff on this here site to give me some titles of good 360 games. They were hardly convincing, so I picked up WoW instead.

I would love to see Guitar Hero on the PC, if Dance Dance Revolutions can male that leap, why not other, similar 'games'?

I don't care what game is released on what console, as long as the good ones are going to be released on the PC. Isn't it odd that PC manufacturers like Dell and HP would invest in gaming PC companies (Alienware and VoodooPC respectively) with all the next-gen consoles just around the corner? Obviously, they see a future for PC-gaming. I had an opportunity to talk to a former executive at Dell recently, who told me that Dell saw Alienware and high-end gaming PCs as a niche market, and is convinced that this market will continue, despite the consoles.

I almost bought a 360 a few months ago, I even asked the staff on this here site to give me some titles of good 360 games. They were hardly convincing, so I picked up WoW instead.

I would love to see Guitar Hero on the PC, if Dance Dance Revolutions can male that leap, why not other, similar 'games'?

There is definitely a future for PC gaming though console popularity cannot be denied. With the next generation of gaming consoles there is no longer such a big gap between what is possible on a PC and similarly on a console. And with Live Anywhere, Microsoft is trying to bridge this gap so that console and PC players can get together and game online. Plus, with Vista and DirectX 10 coming gaming on the PC is far from dead.

There is definitely a future for PC gaming though console popularity cannot be denied. With the next generation of gaming consoles there is no longer such a big gap between what is possible on a PC and similarly on a console. And with Live Anywhere, Microsoft is trying to bridge this gap so that console and PC players can get together and game online. Plus, with Vista and DirectX 10 coming gaming on the PC is far from dead.

In theory PC gaming can always be ahead of consoles, with the capability to upgrade constantly, however, what it lacks is something other than the keyboard interface, which the majority of console gamers clearly find a hurdle, of course, it can be fantastic to use for FPS, however with game types found on consoles the keyboard interface becomes an issue.

The game physhics found in say, Crysis are ahead of those found in PS3s titles, but the cost of running such games as Crysis on PC, in the way they were intended to both look and sound, sadly price out the console gamer and put them off.

What the PC needs is a a better uniformity as far as  new non keyboard interfaces go, and games that are designed specifically for such interfaces, also seamles transition, in respect to loading levels would help, and also graphic card technology will have to drop in price if the PC game industry is to ever contend with that of the consoles. LS

In theory PC gaming can always be ahead of consoles, with the capability to upgrade constantly, however, what it lacks is something other than the keyboard interface, which the majority of console gamers clearly find a hurdle, of course, it can be fantastic to use for FPS, however with game types found on consoles the keyboard interface becomes an issue.

The game physhics found in say, Crysis are ahead of those found in PS3s titles, but the cost of running such games as Crysis on PC, in the way they were intended to both look and sound, sadly price out the console gamer and put them off.

What the PC needs is a a better uniformity as far as  new non keyboard interfaces go, and games that are designed specifically for such interfaces, also seamles transition, in respect to loading levels would help, and also graphic card technology will have to drop in price if the PC game industry is to ever contend with that of the consoles. LS