Masakari said:
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. |
I don't think MakingMusic said anything against first party efforts by either MS or Sony, such as Fable. Many of the games you listed are a good example of the "good kind" of investment MakingMusic was describing. On the other hand, the idea that Rockstar wouldn't have made DLC for GTA IV, one of the best selling games of all time, if Microsoft hadn't given them fifty million dollars, shows how naive and inconsistent the foundations of your argument are.
You guys are arguing all over the place, and I think it's mainly because this is an issue that is full of grey areas. Every contract is different, and every game has a slightly different development process. Plus, those of us on the sidelines have very little idea of what's in those contracts, so we can only talk about general trends. It does seem pretty clear that Sony's general strategy over the past few years has been to develop new IPs and take investment risks on companies that aren't sure bets on delivering the next big game, while Microsoft has played it more safe by spending big money on a few more obvious choices.
I'm not defending Sony here -- they've suceeded through the same strategies MS is favoring now, I'm sure. But there is a real difference between the types of investments the companies are choosing to make right now, and it is reflected in the types of games coming to each system. Sony is getting a few more unusual games which are hard to categorize, like Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls, and LittleBigPlanet, while Microsoft is getting more games that are designed to be the next big blockbuster, like Gears, Splinter Cell, Crackdown, and even Alan Wake, which looks like a really interesting spin on a tried and true formula (third person shooter/survival horror).
Saying there's no difference between giving money to a company with no funding and no reputation, and giving money to a public company with several games already in the pipeline and an established reputation for excellence, is basically saying that venture capital investing and all of modern capitalism doesn't make any sense. The funny thing is, if people weren't willing to take investment risks on small companies, Microsoft itself wouldn't exist (in addition to pretty much everything else in the tech sector) and no one would be having this argument. Weird.
