As long as there has been competing companies with competing hardware, there will be the issues of exclusivity. In ages past, it was Sonic on the Sega and Mario on the Nintendo, and while Mario is still exclusive to Nintendo systems, Sonic is availble on a range of platforms.

Today, the problem of exclusivity applied even to cross-platform titles. Four examples off the top of my head are the Grand Theft Auto 4 expansions (Lost and the Damned and The Ballard of Gay Tony), Batman: Arkham Asylum's unique "Play as the Joker on the PS3 version" challenge maps, Fallout 3 and Tomb Raider: Underworld, which featured two exclusive DLC packs for the 360.

Now, living in a capitalist economy, there is absolutely nothing wrong with exclusivity. If you own a company, you are free to do whatever the hell you want if you feel it will make you the most money. If you decide to just make your game or DLC exclusive to one console, that you're business. If Microsoft approaches you and offers you a thick wad of cash to make your game or DLC 360 only, then that's also your business.

Let's run through some examples.

Grand Theft Auto 4, originally released 29 April 2008, had two episodic DLC packs released for it: The Lost and the Damned on 17 February 2009 and The Ballard of Gay Tony on 29 October 2009. Aside from also  being an example of really late DLC, both episodes were exclusive to the 360. Late last month, however, Rockstar announced on their blog that both episodes were coming to PS3 and PC in March. Strange that, since they had previously announced that there were no plans to release them onto other platforms. That's quite an about turn.

On the Tomb Raider: Underworld front, Crystal Dynamics has been upfront about the fact that they received money to develop the DLC packs exclusively for the 360. As I mentioned earlier, there is nothing wrong with this: if you as a developer feel that Microsoft's money will be greater than the sales of your content on another platform, then by all means go ahead and make it exclusive.

I'm not exactly sure how the GTA4 content works though. Microsoft came in and paid $50 million to Rockstar to make the episodes, and presumably they got some degree of exclusivity. As it looks now, the contract included a one year exclusive clause, as it's been about one year since the first DLC was released. I don't understand Microsoft's business sense here though: if they funded the development of the add-ons, and then didn't secure it as an exclusive until the end of time, what point have they achieved? Sure they have a head-start on sales, but the content is going to go to other platforms eventually, thus causing them to lose out in the long run.

If we look at Arkham Asylum; there hasn't been any reported stories of money changing hands, and while the content is minor in comparison to full blown, paid-for downloadable extra missions or episodic content, the fact remains that PS3 owners got something that 360 or PC owners didn't. Why developers would choose to do something like this is beyond me, as surely there is no benefit to minimising the audience for your product?

Fallout 3 was another game that featured exclusive 360 DLC. Developer Todd Howard said in an interview that there was no plans to release the content onto the PS3, and yet ... nine months later PS3 owners were able to partake of the excellence of all five previously exclusive DLC offerings. Again, no official word on whether money was involved in dealings with Microsoft, but at least one analyst has guessed that Microsoft bought their exclusivity.

Regardles of what happened, it seems that PS3 owners will ultimately be the ones who are better off in the exclusivity wars. If Microsoft keeps funding DLC that eventually makes its way onto rival consoles, perhaps packaged a "Game of the Year" editions for a cheaper price, then the exclusivity war is already lost. Sony reaps the benefits of consumers chomping at the bit for content while Microsoft pays for said content. GG WP.