By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Masakari on 30 January 2010
Edit Thread
makingmusic476 said:
Masakari said:
Actually, if anything it's Sony that detracts from the mix, because you absolutely need to buy a PS3 to play them, you have no other option.

With a lot of MS exclusives, you can either get a PC version, or wait, like, 1 year to get it on PS3. Gamers have other options other than 360.

I have both a 360 and PS3, so it really doesn't affect me, but saying Sony is adding and MS subtracting it is a load of bs. And I see the only platform you don't have listed below your avatar is a 360, so I guess I know where that comment came from.

Without Sony, some of these games wouldn't exist at all, or at least not in near the state they do currently.  That's not detracting from anything.  Yeah, you need a ps3 to play them, but it's better than nobody getting to play them.  That's where my entire point comes from.

And I didn't say Sony only adds nor that Microsoft only subtracts from this equation.  I only pointed out the difference between what Sony and MS does as highlighted in the OP and in Seece's first post.  Both companies do their share of creating new content and inhibiting the availability of content.  Sony screwed people over by making Ghostbuters timed exclusive in Europe, and Microsoft had a heavy hand in creating one of the best new IPs of this generation, Gears of War.  Remove Sony from the equation and more people would've gotten to play Ghostbusters sooner, which is good.  Remove MS from the equation and Gears of War would not have been the technical showcase for 360 it ended up being, which is bad.

Helping to create new content for gamers to play = awesome
Inhibiting the availability of content from gamers = sucks

Two completely different strategies, one that's great and what that isn't.  Doesn't matter who does it, one sucks, and the only reason Sony doesn't do the latter as much as they used to is because they now have enough first party studios that they don't feel the need to.  Last gen they were moneyhatting left and right.

Also, attacking the poster instead of attacking the argument shows a bit about you, too.  ;)

It's still a load of bs and you know it. I had already said Sony risks more because they fund smaller, "out of the box" devs, like the Heavy Rain and LBP guys. However, they own the IP thus potentially reap bigger benefits in the long run, both aproaches are valid.

And MS benefits next to nothing for PC. They don't get royalties. Windows isn't marketed for games, Games for Windows has done nothing for sales, nor will it ever do in it's current state. Nobody is gonna say "ohh, i'm gonna buy Windows 7 because of X game", they will buy Windows because they will buy a PC, there's no competition. You can buy an Apple, but that's not a PC, and has pluses and minuses, and people who do aren't that big into "regular" gaming.

And actually, without MS we wouldn't have Gears, Mass Effect, the GTA4 DLC, and Fable, among others.

Like I said, I have a PS3 AND a 360, any exclusivity doesn't affect me, but this isn't a 360 defending post, your post is just like someone said before, sugarcoating and bs, and clearly meant to show Sony in a more positive color for no reason. They both do the same thing through different methods, and I don't consider any one method better, it's just business. Exclusives are exclusives, that's why we have different platforms. Without exclusives what would be the point? Saying Sony screwed anyone over because they paid to get Ghostbusters timed is ridiculous, that's just business, you wanted GB? Buy a PS3 or wait. Same thing with MS stuff.

Just market, just business, and saying otherwise is bs. Sony isn't doing anyone favors by "helping to create new content for gamers", they just want to make money and will do whatever it takes. Case in point: Ghostbusters.