Dynasty Warriors 9 Won't Be a PS4 Exclusive in the West

meh, it's not going to affect how i play it or my enjoyment so what does it matter

@get2sammyb unless MS paid for the port, if that's the case it didn't cost KT anything so it's a win win for them no matter how many sell

@get2sammyb Does it really matter either way? As far as I am concerned, the only 'exclusives' that I find acceptable are first party - and that includes timed too inc any DLC deal. SF4 at least offered an 'exclusive' player to each console (if I remember correctly).

The only difference really should come down to the first party software in terms of gaming in my opinion. Anyway, even if these more niche titles do sell say 1m or even 500k to Xbox owners that's still extra sales they wouldn't have had otherwise. It could also have a 'knock' on affect later on down the line. Open up more 'niche' titles coming to western audiences. Of course that's something we know Sony do very well - Mostly because they are an Oriental company. Its kind of like showing a Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movie to open up western audiences to Seven Samurai or Rashomon - Arguably the best two Japanese films ever - but maybe not going to attract a western audience as they are B&W and Subtitled. Its those breakthrough games that may not attract at great deal of attention initially but open the doors for others further down the line.

As games are more expensive to make, it also makes sense for 'niche' games to have multiple platforms to release on - a wider user base potential. If you look at the 'average' sale of 'exclusives' on the PS4, its not that high, that's before you factor in the 'niche' titles that must barely sell in the west, they may have little choice but to open up to more platforms to recoup the costs. Apart from remasters, there are only 2 exclusives to exceed 3m sales (according to VGChartz - but that doesn't often include digital but most digital games add another 20% on average)

Anyway - the TL:DR is So What, its not stoppping anyone from playing if they want and may well be better in the long run for them and other eastern based developers/studios/publishers

@get2sammyb I don't know to be honest myself. I haven't looked either. What I would be more interested in though wouldn't just be the numerical sales total of any game on a system but how that number relates as a percentage uptake. By that I mean that if PS4 sales were say 6m and XB1 sales were 4m, I know technically that Sony had the highest figures but (assuming that Sony has 2x the User base), the uptake on the XB1 was higher - if that makes sense. A higher percentage of gamers on Xbox bought that game.

From a publishers perspective, they would be happy just to see 10m sales.

PRE-ORDER CANCELED!!!! 😂

I think more and more niche games will keep coming to PC, where they seem to sell well. Xbox One, though? That's a surprise.

@JoeBlogs I totally agree. As you know, I own both a PS4 and XB1. If I could have spent £600 on one Console for all instead of buying both, I would have been far happier. I also think that gamers may well be more united too and Multi-platform releases would have a larger install base that would significantly improve Multi-player lobbies etc. Sony could still make a console - like they still make TV's, Bluray players etc but I can also see that ending up costing these companies more in the long run - less profit!

How can they charge their 'online' fees? Do you pay MS for Gold or Sony for PS+? Not that I think they should charge as we pay our 'internet service provider' for access - but I guess they could sell a 'subscription' that offers free game(s) and store discounts. Each though could have their own Digital store and that would benefit us as consumers - no 'monopoly' like there is now on consoles. You could visit MS, Sony, Steam or any 'retail' digital store to buy the games you wanted to play but that 'competition' would drive down the costs - in the same way it has with physical stores.

In the end though, I think we would see more of a 'PC' Multi-media device essentially rather than a console. You wouldn't just get Sony or MS (or even a Nintendo - unless they stick to mobile/hybrid) but also Acer, HP, LG, Samsung or some other 3rd Party electronics manufacturer making a device that does 'everything' - all the gaming and multimedia services.

@BAMozzy i dunno the competition between the companies is what keeps driving the industry forward as they keep trying to one up each other, if we had just one machine that did everything it would probably stagnate and die

i think the best way is to have separate systems but ONLY 1st party exclusives, ANY 3rd party game should be released on ALL systems, no timed exclusive bull either

@FullbringIchigo It could still have 'competition' and still drive the industry forward. The difference though could well be more software based - ie trying to outdo the competition in delivering the 'best' game. It would be more like the PC market in essence. It could go too far with every year, a new more powerful hardware releases - just like we see new CPU's and GPU's.

Sony and MS would probably compete on service based content - a different format of Gold/PS+ with each trying to outdo each other to subscribe to their service, the one that offers the best store discounts and/or free software. Maybe Sony, for example, may offer a 'bigger' discount on their digital Sony published games (can't exactly call them 'exclusive') if you buy their console and subscribe to their service and MS could do something similar but you could still buy and play Sony games regardless of the device you buy.

If you could just buy one 'device' that plays ALL games, chances are that would introduce more competition in the hardware market. Devices with more power to run the games at higher resolution, visual settings and frame rates but you wouldn't necessarily be stuck with the same performance for years and years. I know some would be unhappy if we got a new console inside 5yrs but its like the Mobile or PC market. You don't 'need' to upgrade every year or every 3yrs for example because all the games releasing and that have released would still work. It would literally mirror the PC's. If you wanted, you could upgrade to the 'latest' every 5yrs and your library would still be playable and at a better level - just like PC's.

It doesn't matter if you upgrade from an Acer gaming rig to an Alienware. Doesn't matter if you upgrade your AMD GPU to a Nvidia GPU. The games you had, still play and, often at a better performance. You wouldn't get those 'launch' exclusives that could easily run on the 'old' hardware but force you to buy new hardware just to play them. You wouldn't get the dilemma of which console to buy, which friends are going to Sony or MS for the next gen.

Sony's, like MS's first party games could be only available in their stores but only discounted to subscribers. All those 30m XB1 gamers for example, could buy Uncharted 4 or Horizon:ZD but because they haven't subscribed to Sony's PS+ service have to pay full price. That's 30m, plus all the PC market, that could give Sony's studio's a massive boost in profits/sales.

Just because 'consoles' may not be directly competing, it doesn't necessarily mean gaming will stagnate. Maybe Sony won't sell 60m in 3.5yrs of their own console range because they lose some gamers to MS, Samsung, LG etc BUT because of that competition, each will try and build a better device for gaming - none of these pitiful mobile CPU's that really hold back game development - like we have seen this generation. I know games can look incredible etc but that's also down to the fact the current consoles are very much GPU heavy instead of being 'balanced'. Having to compete with more companies that can also run the games, would also mean that Sony (for example) would need to build the 'best' console - both aesthetically and functionally.

As far as games go, Sony, MS etc would still be competing with EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc to deliver the best games but also have a much larger install base to sell to. If Uncharted 4 or Horizon:ZD were sold to Xbox and PC gamers, how many more games would they have sold? How much more Profit would they have made for Sony? Probably a lot more than the 'profit' margin on a console. Maybe Sony wouldn't have 20m+ PS+ subscribers if Online was free but maybe, just maybe they would still have a LOT if they were still able to offer free games and a discount in their store - Maybe those who are currently on Xbox/PC would subscribe to get the Sony Exclusives at a lower cost and because MS doesn't release so many, would jump to PS+ instead. That's where Sony can still compete, that and the competition from third party manufacturers and game devs too.

@BAMozzy It depends what IP you release sometimes its a waste when you release on some platforms. It is somewhat a given that Xbox is more a USA platform.

@BAMozzy If he said nothing, probably 3 people would say "slow news day right?".
So yeah it's an almost not important news.
But more games sold is better I guess. Steam may sell well, but the meat will be on PS4. Xone will sell 5 copies or less.

Sweet! Getting the PC version.