Why does PS3 Mortal Kombat get Kratos and Xbox 360 get squat?

The title is pretty self-explanatory. I think it's a legitimate question, and I also think it's unfair that PS3 gets all the bonuses the 360 doesn't get. Like, this is Batman: Arkham Asylum's DLC Joker Challenges all over again! :smallannoyed:

So does anybody know why Mortal Kombat Xbox 360 version didn't get an exclusive character like Kratos? And why PS3 always seems to be getting more stuff then Xbox 360? Is it just because PS3 is better somehow or because Microsoft is evil?

I hope this doesn't come across as whiney. I am just slightly peeved is all that I may have selected the wrong system. :smallsigh:

Also, hypothetical question. If they did put an Xbox 360 exclusive character in Mortal Kombat 9, who would you want it to be? The obvious choice is Master Chief and the guy from Gears of War, but you know who I would vote for? Conker the Squirrel. Think about it! He's a perfect fit for Mortal Kombat, since his games were controversial, adult oriented and gorey as well! :smalltongue:

Don't blame the console companies, blame the people that make Mortal Kombat.

While I may not have the latest Mortal Kombat, I have heard it through some sources that Kratos was more of a gimmick character, as he is considered one of the worst in the game.
If that's any consolation....

It took about a year for the Fallout 3 DLCs to be released for PS3, when they were available from the get-go on XBox 360. It all depends on the profits said companies can make from deals with Microsoft or Sony, I suppose.

Personally, I'm more annoyed by the fact that the 360 still doesn't have a demo for the game. Granted I'm not all that interested in it, and with MvC3 fulfilling my fighting game needs for now and the CS2 patch arriving for BlazBlue next month I'm pretty unlikely to purchase another fighting game in the near future; but I am a bit curious how this new Mortal Kombat plays, if only because MK was the one fighting game series I played much when I was younger. And honestly since the only MK character I care much about is Sub-Zero and he's in the demo, the demo would give me a good amount of what I'm interested in from the game anyway.

So yeah, slightly annoyed by the demo still being PS3 exclusive even after the game's release.

Zevox

PS gets Kratos. Xbox 360 get online play and no security info being taken.

If I heard correctly, there was some talk with Epic on some game (probably Marcus Fenix or Skorge from Gears of War), but it was apparently to late in the process. Like, Zevox, however, I'm more interested in a demo (the exclusive can come as DLC if they still want).

It isn't just the PS3 that gets all these bonuses, the Xbox gets them too.
Fallout was mentioned, and I feel obligated to say that Call of duty, a game owned by nearly half of console players, got their DLC a few months earlier on Xbox, as well as being much more bug free.

Plus, Xbox games tend to be more bug free in general, as most games are developed on it so it is easier to port to PC.

This thread contains an unexpectedly high level of irrelevant bashing. Cripes, people.

The simple answer is what Otogi said - the guys making the game tried to put together a 360 exclusive character, and it didn't happen, for whatever reason. Personally, I'm not really sure why I should care one way or the other - these sorts of "crossover" characters have been a bad idea since Soul Calibur started doing it with Star Wars.

Why are we even worried about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

these sorts of "crossover" characters have been a bad idea since Soul Calibur started doing it with Star Wars.

---

Soul Calibur started doing it before then, actually. SC2 had a different exclusive crossover character on each console (Link on the Gamecube, don't recall who for the other two, since I didn't recognize them), and Soul Calibur Legends had Lloyd Irving, main character of Tales of Symphonia.

And what exactly makes them a bad idea, may I ask?

Zevox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puppychowguy

PS gets Kratos. Xbox 360 get online play and no security info being taken.

---

HURR HURR I see what you did there :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

these sorts of "crossover" characters have been a bad idea since Soul Calibur started doing it with Star Wars.

---

You're kidding, right? Do you know how many copies of the Gamecube SC2 sold solely due to having Link?

So many, that the Gamecube sales figures of the game eclipsed the competition - despite more homes having a PS2 than a GC.

Besides, MK was arguably the first franchise to do console-exclusive characters - The N64 and Playstation/PC versions of MK Trilogy got completely different versions of Chameleon (Chameleon/Khameleon), and different boss characters.

It's a bad idea NOT because it's "popular" (Yay, as if I care how many copies they sold "just" because it had Link. And I challenge you to provide any actual data on how many copies it sold because of that - it's not like there was a "No Link" version to compare with.). But because:

A) It wastes development time on characters who are only going to get touched by a fraction of the player base
B) To minimize A, those characters are usually poorly developed and/or balanced.
C) It doesn't, in the end, really impact sales. How many people do you think decide to pick up Mortal Kombat on the PS3 because it had Kratos? I'm not talking about people who decided to pick up the PS3 version instead of the 360 version (Which is completely irrelevant for purposes of the game developers) but people who would not otherwise have bought the game at ALL and went "OMG! KRATOS! MUST BUY!" Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

It's a bad idea NOT because it's "popular" (Yay, as if I care how many copies they sold "just" because it had Link. And I challenge you to provide any actual data on how many copies it sold because of that - it's not like there was a "No Link" version to compare with.).

---

Here you go. You may rebut when ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

But because:

A) It wastes development time on characters who are only going to get touched by a fraction of the player base
B) To minimize A, those characters are usually poorly developed and/or balanced.
C) It doesn't, in the end, really impact sales.

---

A) Anything that increases sales is not "wasted development time" - particularly among players that would not have otherwise played the game (I doubt there is a particularly large overlap between Zelda fans and fighting game fans, yet SC2 both tapped into and greatly expanded that audience.)

B) SC2 was one of the best-balanced fighters of its generation.

C) [citation needed]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

(Yay, as if I care how many copies they sold "just" because it had Link. And I challenge you to provide any actual data on how many copies it sold because of that - it's not like there was a "No Link" version to compare with.).

---

I can tell you of at least one copy it sold because of that - mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

A) It wastes development time on characters who are only going to get touched by a fraction of the player base

---

You could say the same about any character in a fighting game that isn't exceptionally popular. Heck, I'd expect that a popular crossover character may well see a lot more use than less popular characters from the game itself.

Zevox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zevox

I can tell you of at least one copy it sold because of that - mine.

---

Oooookay.

Seriously though. Sorry Psyren, but there's nothing in your link that indicates that LINK was what made the difference there. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd just have called the gamecube a severely underserved market, both for fighting games and well, for good games period. :P

You can thank Link if you want, but it's scientifically impossible to prove that he was what did it.

Quote:

---

You could say the same about any character in a fighting game that isn't exceptionally popular. Heck, I'd expect that a popular crossover character may well see a lot more use than less popular characters from the game itself.

---

Unlikely, since A) They're only even available to be selected by 50% or less of the people playing the game and B) They're inevitably gimmicky, unbalanced, or bland because the developers have to divide their attention. Seriously. Who loved all those totally awesome guest characters in SC4? Anyone? Bueller? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

Seriously though. Sorry Psyren, but there's nothing in your link that indicates that LINK was what made the difference there. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd just have called the gamecube a severely underserved market, both for fighting games and well, for good games period. :P

You can thank Link if you want, but it's scientifically impossible to prove that he was what did it.

---

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But IGN certainly agrees that was a major factor, and I'm willing to bet they know just a teensy bit more about the games industry than Airk does. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

I notice you haven't actually disputed any of the points the article raised. The Gamecube version of SC2 WAS fighting an uphill battle. Their controller was asymmetrical and had less buttons than both the XBox and PS2 controllers. The Gamecube also, at SC2's release, had the smallest market share in terms of actual homes, trailing behind even the Xbox (and far, FAR behind the PS2.)

Two monumental hurdles for the GC version to overcome. And not only did it do well despite its handicap, it crushed the competition. To what, I ask, would you ascribe that performance, if not the presence of Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

Unlikely, since A) They're only even available to be selected by 50% or less of the people playing the game and B) They're inevitably gimmicky, unbalanced, or bland because the developers have to divide their attention. Seriously. Who loved all those totally awesome guest characters in SC4? Anyone? Bueller? :P

---

You seriously think that the guest characters uniquely "divide the attention" of developers in games which have 25-30+ characters already and this will make them uniquely unbalanced?

Ed Boon was confronted with a question like this and he responded that "Xbox players will like what we have planned for them." This kind of points to xbox getting exclusives as well, even if it does have to come later on.


Besides, I like my Mortal Kombat pure just like they put so much hype over. "This Mortal Kombat is going to be the best ye and ONLY contain characters from one through three."


"Announcing Kratos!" Wtf.

I was personally hoping for Marcus, Dom, Cole, or Baird. No such luck I suppose. Man, the possible fatalities with them! C'mon, Microsoft, make it happen!

It shouldn't matter, both console owners have the pleasure of playing as Noob. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

Seriously though. Sorry Psyren, but there's nothing in your link that indicates that LINK was what made the difference there. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd just have called the gamecube a severely underserved market, both for fighting games and well, for good games period. :P

You can thank Link if you want, but it's scientifically impossible to prove that he was what did it.

---

Yeah, considering it sold better on the Gamecube than on its competitors in spite of the various handicaps they listed, I'd say the explanation that sounds much more logical to me is that the massively popular character that was exclusive to that version drove a pretty good amount of the sales, rather than simply assuming that the console was an "underserved market." If that were the case, where are the other good multiplatform games where the Gamecube version outsold its competitors because of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

Unlikely, since A) They're only even available to be selected by 50% or less of the people playing the game and B) They're inevitably gimmicky, unbalanced, or bland because the developers have to divide their attention.

---

The former needn't be the case - guest characters being exclusive to a specific console's version is rather incidental to their presence in the game. Yoda and Vader were made available as DLC on the consoles that original didn't have them in SC4, for example. And the latter seems like a poor assumption. Why does the character being a guest lead you to conclude that they "divided the developers' attention" any more so than the 20+ other characters the developers already had to make? I don't see how adding one to three more to the list is suddenly that much of a problem compared to the number they were already making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

Seriously. Who loved all those totally awesome guest characters in SC4?

---

Yoda played too weird for me, but I did enjoy playing as Starkiller sometimes. Never was much good at Soul Calibur, but there you go.

Zevox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But IGN certainly agrees that was a major factor, and I'm willing to bet they know just a teensy bit more about the games industry than Airk does. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

---

You might be surprised. :P

Quote:

---

I notice you haven't actually disputed any of the points the article raised.

---

I felt the article was high on facts and low on points.

Quote:

---

The Gamecube version of SC2 WAS fighting an uphill battle. Their controller was asymmetrical and had less buttons than both the XBox and PS2 controllers.

---

No offense, but so what? Soul Calibur only uses four buttons. And the whole "asymmetrical" thing is a load of crap. All controllers are asymmetrical. They have buttons one one side, and a D-pad on the other.

Quote:

---

The Gamecube also, at SC2's release, had the smallest market share in terms of actual homes, trailing behind even the Xbox (and far, FAR behind the PS2.)

---

Yeah, but there are plenty of cases out there where certain games sell better on more "niche" systems, even without any magical special content.

Quote:

---

Two monumental hurdles for the GC version to overcome. And not only did it do well despite its handicap, it crushed the competition. To what, I ask, would you ascribe that performance, if not the presence of Link?

---

The fact that at least one of these "monumental" handicaps isn't really a handicap at all probably has something to do with it. I'd ascribe it to people who owned gamecubes actually wanting the game. Maybe Link added to the hype and maybe not, but fundamentally, there just isn't any data to draw anything other than suppositions. Most of the people who bought the game on the gamecube DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE about what they were going to buy it for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

You might be surprised. :P

---

Having read the rest of the post, I'm really not. Good day, sir.

There may be no conclusive proof that Link sold the game, but from an anecdotal point of view, everyone I've ever talked to that owns the game not only has it for the GC, but did so to play as Link.

Its the same as how I can't conclusively prove that lots of advertising made the recent Medal of Honor sell a lot, but given the reviews and quality of the game, I can certainly take an educated guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airk

No offense, but so what? Soul Calibur only uses four buttons. And the whole "asymmetrical" thing is a load of crap. All controllers are asymmetrical. They have buttons one one side, and a D-pad on the other.

---

On the other hand, the Gamecube controller is pretty much the antithesis of a fighting game controller, the buttons are all different shapes and sizes and their layout is irregular, which is fine for a Mario game where 90% of the action is all on one button, but fighting games tend to have even emphasis on all the buttons (and people who tend to use one type of attack at the expense of others tend to lose when they meet a more rounded player).

The GC pad would be especially bad for Soul Calibur because a good number of attacks use pairs that are opposed on the traditional diamond layout, which is easy enough on a PS2 or Xbox pad but you try and press B and X together on a Gamecube pad without also pressing A or moving your whole hand. (this was worked around by mapping combos to positions of the C stick, also making the Gamecube version a bit of a baby's first fighter because you didn't have to try to get combos right)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shas aia Toriia

There may be no conclusive proof that Link sold the game, but from an anecdotal point of view, everyone I've ever talked to that owns the game not only has it for the GC, but did so to play as Link.

---

None of my friends (except me, a Tekken fan, Lei Wu Long for life!) ever buy or play fighting games except for Smash Bros, but all of us owned that game on GC. Six just in our small gaming group. We all picked that game to smash heads as Link, and know plenty of others who did the same. This is known by everyone who owns a GC (a smaller but typically better connected niche community compared to PS/X-Box), and is not something productive to argue against. Similar to how they all know RE4 is one of the best games ever. Mmmmm, GC flashbacks.

To be fair, I agree with the premise of exclusive content is bad. I just think it's flat out wrong that two people purchase the same product at the same price, but one system gets more maps or one distributor gets better gear, while the quality control is more of a red herring. Of course, I also think map packs should be free (you're expected to throw out maps every few months if you're selling a supported online game experience, TF2 or CS or L4D anyone? Bonus points if the maps are available free to PC users!) and that most DLC is a joke (a 2 hour solo expansion pack or 4 maps using the same engine and graphics except a couple new models for $10-$15? NWN premium modules at least had quality and length going for them), so I'm just a general grouch when it comes to the console makers :smallbiggrin:. God, why can't companies just whip up a good mission pack for half the price of the original game like in the old days instead of releasing these crap $10 DLC's. Most games with this strategy accumulate several such DLCs, then sell the DLC pack for the price of the original game, why half or less of a game's worth of content costs the same as the original content plus the coding and building the game engine (or modifying the leased engine) is beyond me. Refer to Fallout 3, Fallout NV, Borderlands, and CoD map packs.

note - I realize that when maps or other game content is free on the PC but costs money on consoles, it is the choice of the console maker rather than the game designers and publishers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetCon

None of my friends (except me, a Tekken fan, Lei Wu Long for life!) ever buy or play fighting games except for Smash Bros, but all of us owned that game on GC. Six just in our small gaming group. We all picked that game to smash heads as Link, and know plenty of others who did the same. This is known by everyone who owns a GC (a smaller but typically better connected niche community compared to PS/X-Box), and is not something productive to argue against. Similar to how they all know RE4 is one of the best games ever. Mmmmm, GC flashbacks.

---

Exactly my point - and this happens with everybody I've talked to with the game. Without exception.

In fact, I've never even seen somebody with the game without it being on GC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shas aia Toriia

Exactly my point - and this happens with everybody I've talked to with the game. Without exception.

In fact, I've never even seen somebody with the game without it being on GC.

---

The only reason myself or any of my friends got it on another system was because we didn't own a Gamecube.

There may not be undisputable proof that Link was the sole reason the GC version outsold the others, but it is one of the most accepted reasons and it makes more sense than other thoeries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shas aia Toriia

In fact, I've never even seen somebody with the game without it being on GC.

---

Everyone I know has the Xbox version, including the copy that used to be in the canteen at work :P

I'll throw my hat into the "Didn't care about fighting games until WOAH LINK IS A GUEST IN SC2 WHAT IS THIS GAME?!" section.

Seriously, Link is an insanely popular character among Nintendo fans, and unlike a certain Italian plumber, he doesn't show up in every single game he could possibly be put into. Less Appearances + Immense Popularity = Higher sales per game.