jcp234 said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Crazymann said:
forevercloud3000 said:
You know people, sometimes there ARE better incentives then deniro to do something. MGS4 was exclusive to PS3 for the Idea of utilizing the PS3's power alone. Kojima KEPT it exclusive for this reason and for good will alone.
Now I know we have seen quite a few times now exclusivity become engulfed by the mighty dollar and in turn go MP. Yet MGS4 has proven a possibility for the alternative for 3rd parties.
And exclusive games get more media buzz anyway. |
I totally agree with you, however, that goes both ways too. I think a lot of this constant talk of money has to do with backlash from the fact that every time MS gains an exclusive or a port, there are 10000 threads on here about how "Sony was betrayed" and"MS and their evil money hats." As if that is the only reason games come to the 360.
Also, as was mentioned, Rockstar agreed to an exclusive after Sony lost GTA4 exclusivity. At the time, it was said that this was a concession.
|
the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Just because there is no hard physical paperwork that is viewable to the public on MS paying these companies for at least most of it's exclusives doesn't mean they are not. Sony could possibly be doing it too by this very same rule. Only thing is Sony has come out to the public and denied ever doing so(at the time being at least), and blatently accused MS of doing so. I don't think large companies are into name calling, unless that is exactly what they are(from their point of view). MS is moneyhatting developers, that is the truth.
We can talk about how there is no physical proof(but really, what physical proof would exist for such a thing?) of it but at the end of the day you KNOW they are secretly doing it. They are Microsoft after all, it's the same way they have aquired everything else they have,with sheer numbers of dollar bills...
PS: And I am not trying to say whether Moneyhatting is wrong or right. Its just that Sony for a very long time had a moral belief against such practices and refused to do the same. In turn, MS kept swiping games from under them. Sony could have easily done the same as them. Yet think of it this way, do you really want to be in a bidding war with MS? My geuss is your answer is NO. So Sony's only way of securing a exclusive is left to making it themselves, or convincing 3rd parties that exclusivity holds some other benefit for them.
|
This is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a long time.
There are many instances of Sony making obnoxious and even misleading statements.
Prior to the Playstations 3's release, Sony was foolishly overconfident in the PS3's potential considering its price.
Lets not forget the rootkit fiasco?
The proprietaty technology Sony forces into its products (Hello UMD)?
Stating the PS2 would have Toy Story like graphics? Along with many other false capabilities of the PS2?
Dual Shock is last generation?
Now Sony is supposed to be some morally upstanding company because its in third place?
Sony as a company and all companies have made questionable ethical decisions at some point or another.
If this generation has taught us anything, it's that these companies will say just about anything to discredit the competition.
Just because Sony states Microsoft is moneyhatting, does not make it true. But I can see why a fanboy would want to believe that (Sony has
never been honest or ethical as a company).
Regardless of how high and mighty Sony proclaims to be, I am sure they have provided monetary incentive for exclusives at some point or another.
There is no way an incentive was not provided by Sony in some way to put an exclusive on the PS3, it's has the smallest market share and highest price on the market. And Agent is a new 3rd party IP. As far as I know, 3rd party new exclusive IPs have not performed that well on the PS3.
I'm sorry, but illogical bias motivated posts really are annoying.
|
