In an interview with IGN Greg Coomer of Valve Software stated
"You won't see an exclusive killer app for SteamOS from us. We're not going to be doing that kind of thing (...) Or to drive customers there artificially, because if it can run in both places, we don't like to create those artificial barriers to accessing content. We believe that, in maybe five years from now, folks will find it a quite antiquated notion that you should assume that when you change devices or platforms, that you lose all of your other games and friends. We're hoping to unify, to get Steam to be as platform- and context-agnostic as possible. You shouldn't have to shed that every generation, or even slightly shed it."
In regards to third-party games Anna Sweet of Valve Software added:
"Whenever we talk to third-party partners, we encourage them to put their games in as many places as possible, including not on our platforms, because we think that customers are everywhere, and they want to put their games wherever customers are. That would go against our whole philosophy, to launch something that's exclusive to SteamOS or Steam machines."
Coomer also added that "It would be pretty silly" if a third party developer wanted to limit their game to one platform. However if a small, independant studio who only has enough resources to make their game compatible with one platform, they may decide to make it exclusively on SteamOS "but that's a very different thing."
Truer words were never spoken, Coomer. Platforms should sell the games, not the other way around and a developer should be able to reach as big an audience on as many different platforms as they can. Hopefully forced exclusives will be phased out of the industry in the coming years.
Posted 05-11-2013, 20:03
Yeah, I understand. I mean, I get the idea of first party titles, like Halo for Microsoft and KILLZONE with Sony. But, people like Konami, and keeping Metal Gear on one platform. They have more than enough clout behind them to create multiple versions of a game, tailored to the individual platforms. And, surely, any extra cost would be more than offset by the sales they'd make.
I get it with the small teams, that are just looking for the most cost effective way to have their game produced. Espe3cially new studios that don't know if they're going to be successful or not. And I can understand how they'd take that guaranteed however many thousands of dollars up front to stay on one console. But a company like Konami...you'd need to pay them in the tens of millions to make it cost effective surely
Posted 05-11-2013, 18:46
Well, killer apps have been a traditional way to push new platform adoption by consumers. Valve acts similarly, but Steam is their platform, not the hardware or OS it runs on.
Posted 05-11-2013, 15:36
Sounds like a no-brainer really. I have never been able to wrap my head around third party exclusivity. it just makes no sense to me. Why limit your audience like that? I mean, unless you're a tiny little indie studio that has no money at all, why do it?