I think timed exclusive stuff for indies is a lot different than larger AAA games. For the former, these studios are often not able to develop for more than maybe 2 platforms simultaneously, and PC is always going to be one of them. So then they're either going to go with the larger player base (Switch or PS, depending on what type of game it is) or whoever gives them money. That money gives them some more stability, guarantees at least some amount of recouped costs, and makes it easier to port the games in the future from a budget standpoint. For a platform like Xbox, the only way to guarantee they'll actually get the games is often going to be doing these timed exclusivity deals.
Publishers like Square Enix can easily afford to develop for several platforms at once - they just choose to take the guaranteed check from Sony, and make the bet that it will offset the lack of sales on other platforms. It worked out fine for Remake, seems like it might be working out less great for Rebirth (but we obviously don't know how much Sony gave them for the exclusivity).
The difference in timed-exclusivity approach is driven primarily by strategy + market-share realities. PS is more console driven, thus securing "tent-pole" 3rd party exclusives is their preferred method to entice hardware sales for long-term storefront cuts; you see it even with their indie partnership titles like Stray, Tchia, Kena etc. Xbox is more ecosystem/GP driven, thus securing a wider array of indies/AA titles to satiate the needs of the GP user spectrum and crucially, retention, is their preferred strategy - in the context of marketshare offset costs - whether engaged via the console, PC, or cloud.
User-base is also much too simplistic of a metric to gauge potential success/sales. If all things were equal, sure, but as we've seen from the PS indies discourse ~2-years ago, discoverability, genre, market penetration, regional differences, marketing, awareness etc., all impact the success of these titles. Otherwise it would always hold true that all indies would sell better on PS than on Xbox, which wasn't/isn't the case.
Point being, they are strategically informed decisions; retroactively justifying, or not, which makes more sense from an overall POV (platform, users, studio/IP holder, market itself etc.) is an uncontrolled comparison in a scientific sense, as each platform holder exists within their own context, the context of the overall market and their place within it, along with what their goals are via implementation of any specific "tactic". Sure, we can analytically infer qualitative impacts in specific instances for specific stakeholders, but an all encompassing comparator is almost nonsensical in such a dynamic industry that is ever-evolving given all the players are in such different contexts.
jovemnerd.com.br
