DLC Exclusivity

Now I understand that every console has their exclusives, in reality its what makes certain people purchase certain consoles. Sony has Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and more, while Microsoft has Halo, Gears of War, and Fable, and Nintendo has everything Mario, Zelda, and Kirby. Now while in all honesty their games are great, does exclusivity really matter? As the months and years pass more and more franchises that were exclusives move to multi platform, we usually see exponential increases in sales. Take for instance Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Dead Rising, and Metal Gear have gone multi platform. This being great for all parties whom either own only one system, prefer one of their systems to the other, or the game creators whom will make more money either way. But the one thing I'm still curious about is exclusive DLC. If you're game is a multiplatform game, why wouldn't you relese as much DLC as much as possible. In all fairness, sometimes it makes sense for exclusive DLC, but only in a very few cases. Call of Duty is the biggest offender to the case, and their DLC release schedule makes no sense to me. What's the point? Because Microsoft wanted its month of exclusivity, Activision allowed it? Why wouldn't you want to make as much money as possible?

How I think about it: You release a product for DLC in Month 1 for console 1. Say in around 30+ days the other system/s will get it. So they get it. Now its Month 2 and both systems have it. you hold off for another 2 months to release DLC pack 2. So now its Month 4. One month exclusive for DLC 2. So again, 30+ days later the other system/s receive it. Now its month 5. Month 6 rolls around and a whopping 2 packs are out for all systems. And to boot, in 3 months a new game iteration of your game is coming out. Now in that 6 month time instead of releasing 2 packs at varied times, you could have possibly released 3-6 expansion packs once a month for the past 6 months multiplying your income exponentially.

So why does a system get exclusives? In all honesty it still blows my mind. But in the case for a recently announced DLC for a game that isn't even out yet is what blows my mind even more. Lets look at a specific release. Capcom released Dead Rising 2 Case: Zero & Case: West a prologue and mini sequel, introducing the main character and some of the ingenious weapon creation system, and introduced past lead man Frank West to the co-op frag. Some consider it a demo, some consider it a stand alone. Either way, it costs $5 to download. You know what, thats cool. Being that I own both systems it didn't bother me. But now the announcement of Case: Zero is only going on XBL is what really ticked me. I prefer my games on the PS3, as the majority I my friends are on that system. But lets now look at this dilemma. Case: Zero sold 300,000+ plus downloads, at $5 a pop. And it is still available to purchase and play. The beauty of it is the leveling up and PP rolls into DR2. So because players prefer or only own a Playstation they're out of luck? So now instead of doubling the 300,000, to projected over 600,000+ downloads, and then releasing Case: West as a double DLC as well bringing it to a projected 1.2 million+ downloads at $5 a download, you make it system exclusive? Am I the only one that sees an issue with this? Are you that obsessed with the money, that you would rather risk sales and a whole other system fan base waiting on the release? A lot of people, including myself, tend to buy games based on demos and reviews. This is all hypothetical. I just figured if you would let people try the game on both systems, and allow for continued play long after the release on both systems, you gain more fans, more money, and more reasons for sequels.