@JimSterling

It is hard to gauge properly, for example, We'll take Splinter Cell vs MGS. Splinter cell totals about 5.3mil spread across the PS2 (2.4m) and Xbox (2.9m). MGS2 did 5.5 on the ps2 alone, and then after the later release on the xbox did not even hit 1m copies sold (I couldn't find an exact number, I just know it was under 1m in all regions).

So, while in this case Ubisoft made out like bandits, and reaped the benefits from a multi-console release, Konami received no benefits from releasing their offering on another console, in fact it was probably a losing venture.

Too many factors come into play on this to say it is the multi-console release that causes this, we have popularity of the franchise, quality of the game, install base, and popularity of the console by region that plays into how well a game does.

Porting costs money, and sometimes it doesn't always pay off. Right now I think both console sales are two low to start up a port this late in the development cycle, the costs would have a higher chance of not paying off. We see Capcom taking this position, they are unwilling to port over projects they have completed or are near completion, but they seem to be starting most, if not all, of their new projects in parallel.

The third party companies are taking a risk with not going multi-console. They seem to weigh the risk that their title may not sell well enough on a single console lower than the risk of a multi-console port not making back the investment. Why do extra work if it won't pay off? Especially if the whole thing might not pay off in the first place.

Exclusives don't bother me one way or another, I'm one of those people that end up buying most, if not all, consoles each generation. Personally tho, I'd rather not have a company cripple a game for the lowest common denominator. Whether that means leaving content out, changing gameplay or reducing graphics.