patapon said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
patapon said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
patapon said:
I think there's a major difference between buying developers and buying games. When a company (Sony) buys devs or even creates them in some cases, (Team Ico) that group becomes apart of said company. They're hiring them as employees. So games like Uncharted, God of War, SotC, exist because of Sony and games like OoT, Super Mario 64, galaxies, etc. exist because of Nintendo. Those companies get the credit because they made the game. There's nothing unethical about keeping their products on their system. It's to be expected.
When Microsoft gets their checkbooks out, they're paying for a game *NOT* to come out on another system (ps3). That's very important to note. And in some instances, the gamer (me) is surprised to find out that his ps3 version of Fallout 3 was fucking money hatted. Microsoft didn't make the game and Microsoft didn't play a part in it's conception. The only thing that results from MS little transaction is me (the ps3 owner) suffering from not being able to play said game. And that sucks.
It's okay that a game like Viva Piñata doesn't come out on the ps3 because Microsoft developed that game (Rare which are employees of MS). But I have a problem when games are kept from gamers just because of bullshit. This whole thing of 3rd party exclusives is junk. It's okay that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have the games that THEY make exclusive to THEIR system, but anything else is no good.
In short, console company devs = apart of company........console companies buying 3rd party exclusives = BS
/rant |
Sony pays people to make the games for them and aren't intimately involved. Nintendo from the bottom to the top of the company are concerned the about the quality of product because they are actually a videogame company. Microsoft buying a company are one in the same when buying companies. Microsoft has had gaming studios since the 80's and 90's though. Even so, they are far from intimate like Nintendo. They leave it all up to the companies that they own. If Nintendo buys a company or hires a dev, they work closely with them so the games come out the way they want. Only two companies are applicable for being intimately involved in making games and they are Nintendo and Sega.
|
Well, I can't understand why you'd say that Nintendo and Microsoft are intimately involved while Sony is not. All 3 company's first party offerings are top notch and it seems like they're all deeply involved in their games conceptions. I mean, Sony created SotC, doesn't that prove that they care like MS and Nintendo?
|
I never said Microsoft was intimately involved. I said Microsoft has been involved in the making of videogames since the first flight simulator in the 80's. Microsoft and Sony are just power hungry corporations who buy out companies and make them work for them. Nintendo is the only company that works intimately on games. I may not like the Wii very much, but at least I can accept the truth.
|
I don't understand what makes Nintendo more concerned about quality than MS or Sony. Each company has employees that pour sweet and blood into the games. The end result is usually the best of the best on that particular console. And when I played Uncharted and Halo 3, I saw no less care than what Nintendo put into their first party offerings. I agree that at the end of the day, a company is worried about money, but I think the groups that actually make the product care equally compared to other devs.
|
Nintendo is the only true videogame company. Microsoft uses the Xbox 360 to hold down Sony and Sony uses the PS3 to streamline formats (IE: DVD and Blu Ray). They buy out companies and make invest in the imaginations of other companies. If a game is being made for Nintendo by a third party or first party that they own, they work with them on details of these games so they will turn up as quality. Sony has a good eye for picking good developers, which is why they get such quality games...thats all.
