To toss out for public debate:
What would you prefer as a gamer to see from gaming companies -- the same game relased for all the consoles with only VERY minor differences, or very different games based on the same idea for each console?
It's a old debate, going back to the first systems. At Mattel, to give a example, when they decided to make games for the Atari 2600 and Colecovision as well as the Intelivision, Marketing insisted on the same game being made for the lowest system (the Atari) and then ported to other systems. The programers hated this, since they had to make the game for the 'worst' system, and it was'nt their best effort. Marketing countered that this would sell more games and not make consumers upset or angry. Only once (with Kool Aid Man) did the Programers win the battle and get different games made, with the result that Marketing was correct.
It's especily common these days, as companies port games to all three systems. It's okay if they release the same game at the same time with only minor differences, like graphical sharpness (the Madden games being good examples.) But I know I myself get pissed if a game comes out for one system only first, I buy it, and then six to nine months ANOTHER version of the game comes out for ANOTHER console that is MUCH better then the original version (Metal Gear Solid II and GTA III being examples).
What's so wrong with having different games based on the same idea made for each system to take advantage of that systems strong point? A RPG, for example, could be made for the GC to link up with the GBA and the EReader, could be played online with the XBox, or have a bonus quest for the PS2. With so many people having two or even three of all the systems, you could pick which system that you want to play the game on, or buy all of them.
But would this just make those people who only have one person ticked off that all these 'different' or 'better' games are coming out?
What's your own personal experience with this situation?