By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dianko on 15 February 2009
Edit Thread
RVDondaPC said:
Dianko said:

I don't actually think Sony paid for Versus, but I was trying to make a counter argument that the moneyhatting argument isn't the best. I'm sure there are some arrangements in place between Sony and SE to keep it on the PS3 (just as MS is sure to have an arrangement with SE for SO4).

However, I strongly disagree with the userbase argument specifically for IU. Its been mentioned already by myself and others that game is a different case, since its development was funded by MS, and SE merely published it. That being the case, even the half million copies sold would be good for SE, since they didn't spend the millions of dollars it cost to develop. Almost like a Wii-game, since all SE had to do was pay for the packaging, distribution and advertisement (in that Wii games cost significantly less to make, so less copies need to be sold to turn a profit). Aside from that, there would be no reason for that game to be on the PS3 since MS funded it. As for Last Remnant, nobody can be sure. UE3 games have a history of problems with PS3, but the fact that the PC version was delayed as well points to some kind of deal with MS. Ultimately, I think that it was a title meant to test the western waters with a new IP, but I could just as well be full of shit.

As far as WKC, it has sold well in Japan for a PS3 title. However, you yourself mentioned that JRPGs tend to do best in Japan, so I don't think the game will end up selling as well WW as Lost Odyssey, particularly since Sony doesn't seem to want to advertise their games that much (I have yet to see a Killzone 2 ad here in the US, while LO for example was well advertised). Keep in mind that of the 3 home consoles, Lost Odyssey is the best selling JRPG of this gen worldwide.

I'm not really arguing against moneyhatting being done, but that the same reasoning given to say MS is moneyhatting can be applied to Sony, since both are in fairly similar circumstances. And I believe that both SO4 and Versus are gonna end up on both systems anyway.

 

 

Sony has said they do not pay for third party exclusives. While MS has paid for third party exclusives and has many such deals in place for third party exclusives. To say that the same argument can be made against Sony is baseless. The FF series has been on the playstation brand for a decade. The PS3 is what console many FF fans expect to play the next FF games in the series on. The PS3 has more than double the userbase in Japen which FF does a large portion of it's sales. To think that SE needs compansation from Sony to develop a game on the PS3 platform is retarded. Now if FFXIII sales more on the 360 then it does on the PS3 then for XIV it might be a different story. But I doubt it will and it will show that the PS3 is the console of choice for JRPG's. 

 

First, the FF series should be on a NINTENDO platform according to your argument, seeing how thats where it got started, and the Wii does have a massive userbase advantage. SE does need compensation, at least now, since the sales aren't matching up to their expectation. SE does not owe Sony or PS3 owners anything, it was Sonys job to make sure the userbase was there, Sony failed so as a consequence the FFXIII is coming to the 360 as well. Aside from that SE has been saying for years, even before the 360 came out, that they will be pursuing more of a multiplatform strategy where they don't put in all of their eggs in one basket in case that basket fucks up (like, say, end up 3rd place in the console race instead of the promised PS2 track).


Also, why should I believe Sony when they say they don't pay for exclusives? They may not "Pay" in the exact sense of the word, but its almost guranteed they gave some kind of concession. To say that I should believe Sony because they say so, is to tell me to believe politicians when they say they aren't crooks. When it comes to multinational corporations and politicians, my first impulse to believe whatever they say to be technically accurate, but full of shit for all intents and purposes. Sony, for example, routinely denies using carcinogenic chemicals in their factories in maquiladoras and free economic zones all over the 3rd world (in this instance, MS and Nintendo are guilty as well). So, I should believe anything a company that denies exploiting their workers by paying them $0.50/hour making TVs and PS3s while exposing them to cancer causing chemicals?