Reasonable said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Reasonable said:
Lot of humour of the unintentional sort in this thread. I'll take the article with a pinch of salt, but assuming for a moment it's true it only confirms what has been fairly apparent for a while:
1) MS paid to ensure it got jRPG support and to use a 'restriction of availability' ploy to slow PS3 adoption in Japan. Fair business ploy, although personally I don't myself feel this tactic is fair to the consumer
2) the developer merrily took the money and concocted their own plan - we'll actually use this to cover 360 and PS3, cutting costs. We'll be down a little initially when first sales are 360 only but make it back when the title lands on PS3. Again, fair enough, although again personally I think they were a little cheeky with this
3) Sony, seeing MS approach and knowing they probably couldn't combat it directly, put in place a policy to ensure that when timed exclusives did land on PS3, the developer had to add new content. Their stick is that the developer (in this case) is now caught with a game that's not sold enough on 360 only, and needs a PS3 release - they also have the clear fact the developer initially contracted with MS for timed rights. The result, the developer adds the new content.
So in the end you've got MS suiting themselves trying to deny access to certain titles to people who want to use a different console, the developer trying to play the two companies (MS and Sony) to their advantage and getting caught somewhat with a bunch of unhappy 360 folk and Sony's new content policy, and Sony getting a game later than they'd like but with new content that they hope will attract enough gamers.
From a consumer standpoint it stinks really, with 360 owners essentially buying titles that will have additional content added at a later stage and PS3 owners getting a richer version 12 months later.
Personally I think games should be exclusive or not. None of this timed nonsense. If Namco want to take funding from MS then at least give them a true exclusive. If they didn't think sales would be enough on 360 they should have gracefully refused the timed offer and simply released the exact same game on 360/PS3 on the same day.
What I find most amazing is people seeing either Sony, MS or Namco as the guilty party vs the other two depending upon their individual console bias. All three have, in different ways, conducted business in a manner that essentially penalizes the customer.
|
This is true Reasonable, but Microsoft was the only company that truly had nothing to lose, because they had to bring more variety to the 360 and try to win over Japan in Sony's time of neglect. They held fast and are now Sony gets to enjoying easy console sales, whilst ignoring the Japanese audience for god knows how long (which is one of the reasons the consoles sold slowly in the first place).
|
Couple of points, and remember I'm still taking these comments with a pinch of sale in terms of whether this is an isolated case of something more widespread and probably related to titles like SO:4, etc. But again, assuming for the moment the comments refer to a more widespread practice:
1) I don't think Sony was particularly ignoring the Japanese audience, it simply wasn't willing to get into a bidding war. MS apparently tried hard (using cash and additional support incentives) to deny Sony access to certain titles. Sony couldn't make a title like ToV available to PS3 owners if MS tied it up with a 12 month exclusivity, could they?
2) MS approach I believe stands a chance of backfiring in Japan. Essentially, the approach outlined here translates to me as MS effectively hiring companies who were willing to become like temporary 2nd party developers - i.e. focus on us and give only us a game for 12 months. The reason I could see this backfiring in Japan is that it was unlikely 360 would gain enough traction from this to then withstand the backlash as titles started to appear one after the other on PS3 with extra content. I suspect in Japan many gamers are coming to the conclusion it's better to wait for the PS3 version.
So I don't see MS as 'holding fast'. I don't think they should have been induldging in signing up timed exclusives at all. ToV should either have been fully exclusive to 360 or should have launched on both consoles at the same time.
Sony, I don't see in any way as the 'guilty' party here. They are faced with a competitor using cash incentives and simply demand that if a title comes late to PS3 is has to have some new content. I believe MS themselves have a similar policy.
In the end MS tried hard, I'd argue too hard using too aggresive a Western approach, to break into Japan. In the end they probably made some short term gains in console sales and somewhat inconveniencing Sony, but I get the feeling that in the longer term this approach is going to have made more of a bad impression in Japan vs a good one.
I know hindsight is cheap, but rather than timed exclusives if I was MS I would only have chased full exclusives and looked to fund new IP specific for my console in the region. I know MS did fund new IP as well as secure timed exclusives, and I actually salute that, I think that's a true 'putting your money where your mouth is' approach.
But trying to buy off developers to delay release on another console to force consumers towards their console - it's fair in business, but it's not an approach I condone or look fondly upon.
On another note - I saw SO:4 is now supposed to be launching on PS3, I wonder whether that will have new content or whether SE will get a pass from Sony so long as FFXIII remains exclusive in Japan? Now that's some potential Sony orientated machinations you might want to ponder if you do want to look for Sony as 'the bad guy' - which is what you seem to want to do.
|
