| Reasonable said: I don't like the tactic and I mean when either MS or Sony do it. As far as I'm concerned us gamers are the customer and no company should be paying money to deny us accessing to anything. If Sony and MS want to make their consoles more attractive then they should focus on exclusives as per this quote. MS have of course indulged in this more than Sony by far, but Sony's hands are lily white either - just less bloodstained. If it's not a true exclusive then it should never be held back. Personally I'd like to see this actually prevented under ground of fair trading - i.e. have it deemed unfair to pay someone to hold something back from customers availability to buy |
I disagree. Let them pay the big bucks for nothing in return (Sure Sony won the generations with PS1 and PS2 but what about now, any short term gain doesn't equal long term). You might think it is monopolistic practice to deny consumers right to purchase a game on a certain console. If that is all a company has going for itself then eventually they will meet reality. Sure Sony and Microsoft made great strides in console gaming by buying out games for their systems but what has that left them with this generation. Both Sony and Microsoft find themselves at the crossroads. The only thing I know is Nintendo has it's own studios that a far superior and doesn't give a damn if a third party game goes exclusive since they can produce just as good or better quality.
Main point is Sony and Microsoft rely on third party more heavily than Nintendo....
