I can almost guarantee you where about half of that was going towards.  That stupid gaming mixed with TV gimmick they were working on.  The one that never really saw the light of day.  Did that money then get reinvested into other games when that failed?  Looking at their 1st party output, probably not.  Or they are just using it for their future Halo, GeOW, and Forza games.

Because developing on the PS1 was much cheaper than the N64.  Nintendo also wanted full control of making the carts, so they could choose how many copies of your game were produced.  Sony gave devs/publishers more freedom on their console.  And it proved itself by selling MUCH more than the N64.  This was also the gen after the SNES/Genesis one where many devs/publishers left Nintendo, or published on both consoles, because they hated Nintendo's restrictions and general attitude towards 3rd parties.

The PS2 was the follow up to the most successful console of the time, and it sold even better.  Many companies, especially smaller one, were fine only publishing on the PS2 because it meant less time and money spent on development, but they still had many more customers to sell to than the Gamecube/Dreamcast/Xbox.

Timed exclusive means the other platform doesn't get it for a period of time example a year.  If Microsoft could afford to keep more of these titles off ps4 permanently they would.  But ps4 is dominating the market share and so it's too expensive in most cases. 

I base my point on objebtive resoning, not going on by what anyone else says. While to me sony crushed it cuz it had more games that interested me and will be on no other platform, I pushed that aside.

My way of thinking.

They showed more AAA games, wich will have broader apeal.   Even if thuse games dint interest me at all, I could objectibly say, a game like days gone will pick more gamers interest than state of decay. Spider man, god of war and all the others, just for being AAA will have a biger impact, than lets say ori and luckys tale.

They showed exclusives, wich will pull gamers to their ecosystem. It dsent matter if I like them or not, or if you like what MS showed. SOny just had more to show, and already deliverd more this year. That will pull consumers cuz there is no other place to play theese games, and even though big multyplats might be better, or ms has timed eclusives, I ill still be able to play them on a ps4 so its more important.

Basicly thinking, did that conference made me think I needed/wanted and xbox? no. what about sonys? for me yes. and I used the above to guess how the others might think. 

So he means that they annoucne a game expmple in E3 and the same year comes out? Good for them if has the same games like halo forza gears that we know how it looks like.

Sony 2015 Horizon zero down, comes out early 2017 a new game that was build the hype in 2015, 2016 E3
2016 God of war first gameplay on complete new era, 2017 more of this new gameplay comes out early 2018
Days gone 2016 first gameplay of a complete new gameplay 2017 second gameplay 2018 release date
Spiderman 2016 first trailer 2017 second gameplay 2018 release date
The resort is those games get milions of views and build the hype throuth the roof

The last of us 2 it was early development but Naughty dog has share it on psx for the fans. same with death strading
Where exaclty is  the 3 years Phil lier? If you have complete new games you dont want to bulid a 2 years hype so eveyone dont forget it



He attack once again to Sony because he is desperd first say we dont have time exclusives now we dont show games that is on development . what a about scalebound the you force the developers to make it 4 co op. the first gameplay trailer we see singler player and the other year you make it 4 co op ?

At least Sony has cover those releases with tons of exclusives games before those blockbusters comes out. They are in stage that give exclusives game all the year not only the holidays

So get your sigh off for the good of gaming. We dont need a lier like you. Bungie left of because you forse it to make Halo for ever, Remedy has left you because you force them to make movie tv tv game, Halo has lose the power becuase is the same game, even Mario going open wolrd and Rpg

You're wrong. It's a common misconception that third party devs only released games on PS2 because it was so sucessful. It was more true with the PS1, but there were moneyhats back then too. See Tomb Raider II. The first game was on Saturn. The franchise didn't leave the PS1 until 2000. On the PS2, GTA III was clearly bought. ALL of Square's PS2 games were bought as well, which is why FF Chrystal Chronicles was a spinoff (and made by a shell company), and why none of their 6th gen games besides the aforementioned left the PS2. There are other examples too, like SoulCalibur II selling well on all three consoles, and SCIII only appearing on the PS2. MGS2 released on the Xbox, 3 didn't.

Sony is no stranger to this.

If the IP doesn't offer much value or doesn't get more games released it doesn't help much.

Which MP were superior on X1S than on PS4 or PS4Pro?

http://imgur.com/zl10SZ0 yeah sure, about the same level of support Sony and MS gives to their consoles on the ending years.

But your 2 phrases contradicts one another, he was either presurring his boss or he was doing what was told.

Yeah sure... much worse to not play a small portion of the game for 1 year than to not play anything on the game for 1 year.

Shu Yoshida said that basically from every 10 games about 4 pay for debts of the other 6 and only 2 will really heap profits... and I like this instance of trying riskier projects protected by assured success,

But your 2 phrases contradicts one another, he was either presurring his boss or he was doing what was told.

I don't think you really read what I was saying.

I said he was potentially using the press coverage to put pressure on his boss.
You said you think it would be stupid to publically pressure your boss.
I said, he wasn't doing so publically, but using the media questions themselves to apply pressure.

It doesn't really matter. It's just a guess because I notice things like when people randomly, non-sequitorially mention things that weren't part of the discussion. But there is no contradiction, and it was not to publically put him on the spot. Both the things you said were incorrect.

Like, he's not even saying that Satya supports the library. The way he said it, like it was a future event happening, and that satya would say, "we need to support", as if it's something he hasn't said yet. It really looks like he's putting words in satya's mouth that he thinks satya should say.

That's just my opinion.

Well if you don't see how what he said is publicaly exposing the company and a way to pressure for actions contradicts what you said after that he had some support from Satella to do it ok. I doesn't really matter.

Haahhaa we've just signed on for more exclusives.

Why isn't the sentence, we have our first party studios working on exclusives that wont be ready for 2-3 years?

again, you simply have a reading problem. I'm ok with that. It really doesnt matter