By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Fumanchu said:
I must have imagined Sony buying the publishing rights and timed-exclusivity period for Ghostbusters.

Sony kinda owns that franchise.......



Around the Network
Alic0004 on 30 January 2010

*edit*

That was amazing timing, right when I was complaining about the thread dying.



 

BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Seece said:
@ MM - Yes I'm already aware of your argument, and I'm saying it's pants. Sony are still paying for exclusives and limiting people playing them.

Sony directly funding a game =/= giving 3rd parties a check to make sure the game doesn't appear on the competition's console. 

Your spin is ridiculous. To compare Sony actually putting their own manpower behind to a game to simply paying cash....is stupid, to say the least. What? Do you want Sony to send their teams of people to help develop a unique game, only to put it on the Xbox? 

I mean, technically, by those means, they are "hypocrites", but you are really, REALLY grasping at straws. Hell....Uncharted 2 could've been developed for the 360 (maybe not be the game it is, but developed nonetheless), but it's a Sony studio that Sony pays for. They are therefore preventing other from playing their games. HYPOCRITES!!!



Kasz216 on 30 January 2010
BMaker11 said:
Fumanchu said:
I must have imagined Sony buying the publishing rights and timed-exclusivity period for Ghostbusters.

Sony kinda owns that franchise.......

Though they did pay for timed exclusivity.

Which is part of the ridiculiousness of Sony.

The divisions seem like rival siblings who hate each other.  They never want to work together.

I mean... why is Ghostbusters even on 360 or Wii to begin with?



Seece on 30 January 2010
BMaker11 said:
Seece said:
@ MM - Yes I'm already aware of your argument, and I'm saying it's pants. Sony are still paying for exclusives and limiting people playing them.

Sony directly funding a game =/= giving 3rd parties a check to make sure the game doesn't appear on the competition's console. 

Your spin is ridiculous. To compare Sony actually putting their own manpower behind to a game to simply paying cash....is stupid, to say the least. What? Do you want Sony to send their teams of people to help develop a unique game, only to put it on the Xbox? 

I mean, technically, by those means, they are "hypocrites", but you are really, REALLY grasping at straws. Hell....Uncharted 2 could've been developed for the 360 (maybe not be the game it is, but developed nonetheless), but it's a Sony studio that Sony pays for. They are therefore preventing other from playing their games. HYPOCRITES!!!

It's not the means it's the ends. Sony are paying for an exclusive just as Microsoft are, I don't care about which route they take, and no I don't want them to put them on Xbox.



 

Around the Network
BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Kasz216 said:
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

I'd say more "Bested the Dreamcast."

The PS1 had CD media.... but the Dreamcast had DVD like media that was far superior.  Stuff like Final Fantasy jumped to PS1 when DC made more sense.

Established console maker vs New one.

Better system specs vs worse system specs.

Better Media vs worse media.


Why did the big franchises go all PS?

 

Though yeah, Sony does the same stuff... this was just Sony wanting to take a shot at MS.

You realize that the PS1 came out in like 1995, right?



Alic0004 on 30 January 2010
Seece said:
BMaker11 said:
Seece said:
@ MM - Yes I'm already aware of your argument, and I'm saying it's pants. Sony are still paying for exclusives and limiting people playing them.

Sony directly funding a game =/= giving 3rd parties a check to make sure the game doesn't appear on the competition's console.

Your spin is ridiculous. To compare Sony actually putting their own manpower behind to a game to simply paying cash....is stupid, to say the least. What? Do you want Sony to send their teams of people to help develop a unique game, only to put it on the Xbox?

I mean, technically, by those means, they are "hypocrites", but you are really, REALLY grasping at straws. Hell....Uncharted 2 could've been developed for the 360 (maybe not be the game it is, but developed nonetheless), but it's a Sony studio that Sony pays for. They are therefore preventing other from playing their games. HYPOCRITES!!!

It's not the means it's the ends. Sony are paying for an exclusive just as Microsoft are, I don't care about which route they take, and no I don't want them to put them on Xbox.

 

 

You might as well say your girlfriend (or boyfriend) is a whore if they sleep with you after you buy them dinner.  You paid the money, right?

 

There is such a thing as oversimplifying to the point that you are stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring reality.

 

There is a basic difference between investing in a small company that has an idea but no way to execute it, and investing in a huge public company that already had the budget and plan of making a bunch of games, and is already famous for making great games in the past. To say otherwise is to basically ignore all of modern capitalism.

I pointed that out in my post a few back, and as you can guess it makes me feel like it was all worth while when I see it completely ignored and not responded to, so we can continue to trade one liners back and forth until everybody decides to go play a video game instead.

 

 



 

BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Seece said:
BMaker11 said:
Seece said:
@ MM - Yes I'm already aware of your argument, and I'm saying it's pants. Sony are still paying for exclusives and limiting people playing them.

Sony directly funding a game =/= giving 3rd parties a check to make sure the game doesn't appear on the competition's console. 

Your spin is ridiculous. To compare Sony actually putting their own manpower behind to a game to simply paying cash....is stupid, to say the least. What? Do you want Sony to send their teams of people to help develop a unique game, only to put it on the Xbox? 

I mean, technically, by those means, they are "hypocrites", but you are really, REALLY grasping at straws. Hell....Uncharted 2 could've been developed for the 360 (maybe not be the game it is, but developed nonetheless), but it's a Sony studio that Sony pays for. They are therefore preventing other from playing their games. HYPOCRITES!!!

It's not the means it's the ends. Sony are paying for an exclusive just as Microsoft are, I don't care about which route they take, and no I don't want them to put them on Xbox.

Sony helps make many of the games. Microsoft pays for a game that needs no help being made, and would otherwise be multiplatform (day and date) if it WEREN'T for Microsoft's money #ingeneral

End of story



BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Xoj said:
sethnintendo said:
CGI-Quality said:
sethnintendo said:
makingmusic476 said:
Legend11 said:
Maybe the Sony exec is right. Microsoft should buy studios like Sony does and ensure the games never go onto another console. With the billions that Microsoft is making in profit they could easily do just that and then we could listen to that exec praise them.

I would like it if they did this.  It only spurs competition, and considering first party titles are often loss leaders to a degree (ie, software designed to show off technology and sell systems moreso than just sell), we could see some amazing games coming form the Microsoft camp.  Just look at what Gears has become with Microsoft's involvement.

We likely wouldn't have Killzone if it weren't for Halo, much like we wouldn't have Forza if it weren't for Gran Turismo.  Competition between the big three leads to some of the best games each gen, from Super Mario, Super Smash Bros., and the Legend of Zelda to Halo, Fable, and Forza to Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, and God of War.

Maybe you should recheck Nintendo on this statement.   Nintendo doesn't make loss leaders they make sellers...

He was speaking about Sony though, who also makes sellers.

This generation or last two?  Any Sony game can't compete with Nintendo game this generation (Wii Sports Resort, NSMB Wii, Mario Kart Wii, etc....) 

in sales!.

but you know jonas brothers also sell a lot. like wii fit.

as gamer Uncharted 2 > Wii fit.

Served



BMaker11 on 30 January 2010
Alic0004 said:
Seece said:
BMaker11 said:
Seece said:
@ MM - Yes I'm already aware of your argument, and I'm saying it's pants. Sony are still paying for exclusives and limiting people playing them.

Sony directly funding a game =/= giving 3rd parties a check to make sure the game doesn't appear on the competition's console.

Your spin is ridiculous. To compare Sony actually putting their own manpower behind to a game to simply paying cash....is stupid, to say the least. What? Do you want Sony to send their teams of people to help develop a unique game, only to put it on the Xbox?

I mean, technically, by those means, they are "hypocrites", but you are really, REALLY grasping at straws. Hell....Uncharted 2 could've been developed for the 360 (maybe not be the game it is, but developed nonetheless), but it's a Sony studio that Sony pays for. They are therefore preventing other from playing their games. HYPOCRITES!!!

It's not the means it's the ends. Sony are paying for an exclusive just as Microsoft are, I don't care about which route they take, and no I don't want them to put them on Xbox.

 

 

You might as well say your girlfriend (or boyfriend) is a whore if they sleep with you after you buy them dinner.

 

There is such a thing as oversimplifying to the point that you are stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring reality.

 

There is a basic difference between investing in a small company that has an idea but no way to execute it, and investing in a huge public company that already had the budget and plan of making a bunch of games, and is already famous for making great games in the past. To say otherwise is to basically ignore all of modern capitalism.

I pointed that out in my post a few back, and as you can guess it makes me feel like it was all worth while when I see it completely ignored and not responded to, so we can continue to trade one liners back and forth until everybody decides to go play a video game instead.

 

 

Exactly (oooooh I have like 3 posts in a row. My bad lol)