Just curious, how are we supposed to think of the game or it's creators as visionary when the author's work changes depending on which platform you run on?

So buying this excellent game on release for xbox360 means that I wasn't getting the author's vision? I know "director's cuts" and such are big money, but at least they typically wait a few years before gouging consumers again.

So I'm supposed to buy Bioshock again for PS3 to experience what the author really meant? Or is this not about authorship and just another sad excuse for profit at the cost of artistic integrity?

Sure is funny our industry... imagine a book writer writing a specific chapter only for hardback copies... or a movie that has a subplot only in AMC theatres... creative professionals and consumers would cry foul...

But in our industry, it's common. I understand why this happens ($), but I think it sets a bad president; one that is commoditizing creativity, and I think we all know where such attitudes lead... hello crappy TV-quality games!

Game makers say "more creative control! less cookie-cutter games!" then give in to deals that result in "exclusive content".

It's not like games have a big reserve of artistic integrity, and with Bioshock, the game had a chance to garner some, but for all that is awesome and progressive about Bioshock... this latest attempt at money grabbing sets it back in equal measure.

You can say it's out of the creative team's control, it's the publisher doing this... but then who signed that deal to begin with?

It is sad and complicated.

In one hand you want to reach the wider audience possible (I feel really cheap developing a game that only the X-audience will play)

But in the other hand how many studios can do multi platform projects (if rumors are to be believed then even Rockstar struggle with it)

So the solution is to do them one after another. But then you have the press pressure of be label it as a "six months late title without extra content" (maybe someone could say that you have to make up for the wait)

As developers the enhanced port is nice because it would give us the opportunity to polish or add things that we wanted to include but we didn't have time (Who can say no to a few extra months?)

But this opens the problem of what to do with the people that bought it first. Maybe the content should be given free as a patch.

Is there any other way? Yes, the "Capcom-way": Resident Evil 4 and Okami for Wii were ports for PS2 versions without extra content and if I remember well RE4 sell very well (just forget about the fact that the PS2 version is an enhanced port of a GameCube title)

I think it all comes down to not screw the buyer: if you are going to make an enhanced port on another system then give the extra content free for the early buyers, or just make them exact ports which even if the hardcore press say against so, is perfectly reasonable.

new features and content could mean any number of things also. I wouldn't be surprised if by new features and content they meant a new weapon, and possibly a music jukebox or cinema player. It also very well could link in with home's achievement system to unlock new Big Daddy inspired dressers and floor mats.

I would'nt beat them with a stick too quickly.

Who said anything about anyone's "Vision" or a "Director's Cut"? They're just going to add some nuggets of whatever in the vague hope of enticing people with more money and consoles than sense to buy it again - no big deal. I doubt anyone who doesn't play the PS3 version will be missing out. Also:

> I understand why this happens ($), but I think
> it sets a bad _precedent_;

FYP

Like I said... "I understand why this happens ($)" but the point I'm trying to raise and is apparently greek to you lot is that artistic integrity goes out the window when you revision your work (or allow it to be revisioned) for a specific vendor or platform.

And yes, instead of addressing my contribution directly, please correct my lone spelling mistake... that's why I contribute here... so I can be corrected by psuedo-linguistic pedants.