Why were European companies so keen on porting their game to

>>4109326
>maximum sale opportunity by having your game available to everyone
Gee I wonder why.

>>4109326
Because why wouldn't they? Exclusive releases only profit hardware makers

In the case of Ubisoft, it's in their name. "Ubiquitous software".

Multiplatform releases are their global strategy.

>>4109326
Because all the art, models/sprites, music, and engine are already done. There's just far less work required. So games with any brand recognition make it extremely worth while to sell again because most of the dev process is just making sure the game runs.

>>4109326
Are you serious?

Look at it in the most simple way with 1 customer per console.

>Make game exclusively for Console A
>Sell one copy

>Make game available for Console A,B,C, and D
>Sell 4 copies

It's that simple. If your game is available to everyone regardless of console then you are going to sell more copies. It's basic logic.

>>4109326
Exclusivity is a jewish concept.

it's far easier to port IP than create new IP. hence the the leaking diarrhea of sequels we wade through these days, vidya and movies alike.

>>4109389
You are absolutely right. And for the most part that means that games can only get as complicated as the lowest common denominator, both in a technical sense and a design sense. The best programs for retro machines are written for a target machine's architecture and capabilities, and nothing else.
Modern media sucks.

Somehow Rayman looks good on most of the systems it was ported to, but I couldn't care less about the game because it seems like it has be rereleased a million times. yawn

Console exclusivity was a rarity. Stuff usually cross over to N64 because of the hardware difference, but If a third-party game wasn't out on both Saturn and PSX, it was probably after the Saturn was dead in the water.
Also there were a fuckton more European games back then.

Because they did the same with computers. Europe is more diverse than USA or Japan so developers accounted for that.

>>4109326
Because multi-platforming gives more money and is a good thing for companies and consumers.
Rayman is still an excellent game. It deserved all the ports so more people get to play it.

>>4109354
>multiplatform is their strategy
Yet they almost never release games for MacOS or Linux.

This isn't exclusive to European developers. Earthworm Jim for instance was on almost everything at the time.

>>4109420
>The best programs for retro machines are written for a target machine's architecture and capabilities,
How does that work for Windows machines?

>>4109550
It's notorious in the game industry that games for PC are really terribly programmed

PC developers can get away with it cause they can just say "buy a better PC"

>>4109564
And that's why it beat the Amiga where everything was held back by the 500.

>>4109550
Since the nuances of computer hardware is hidden behind OS abstraction layers, targeting I/O, window system, and graphics libraries becomes the interface programmers develop against. Different OSs have different flavor libraries. Microsoft played dirty and did business tricks to get Windows and Direct X promoted the way they were, but open-source solutions have existed for ages, like *nix, X11, OpenGL, etc.

If you are talking about the actual computer hardware itself, like IBM PC architecture or something, then it starts to feel like a console again, just a very powerful one were many of the features have converged.

>>4109583
Vulkan and openGL deserve more publicity.

>>4109326
>Why were European companies so keen on making money
Crazy amirite!!!

>>4109354
>>4109326
>the you're old enough to remember that ubisoft was always shitty

>>4112619
>ubisoft was always shitty
The game in OP's pic proves you wrong

>>4109541
Strange not to port to GNU+Linux, but there's no point in porting to OSX, or whatever Apple calls it. Anyone who buys an Apple computer probably won't be doing much more than Facebook and reddit.

>>4113495
People who buy apple computers are busy working and being successful function adults.

>>4113602
You'd better be successful if you're going to drop $1000 on a paperweight.

>>4113626
This

>>4113626
>paperweight.
Please tell me what a mac can't do that a PC can

>>4113715
What does a Mac even do? That's a better question. For $1000 it must be real special.

>>4113724
Like I thought, literally 0 arguments for what the PC can do that the mac can't.

>Hurrr it's expensive therefore bad!
Typical poorfag.

>>4113739
A Mac can usually access the internet, I think. Beyond that I can't think of anything it actually does.

A Mac can literally turn you into a gay nu-male hipster, PCucks can't.

>>4112619
They were good until they discovered that milking Assasin's Creed and open world games was very profitable.

>>4113602
>People who buy apple computers are busy being unemployed web designer pajamaboys
FTFY