By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Masakari on 30 January 2010
Edit Thread
Icyedge said:
Masakari said:
Sony does the same, it's just a different aproach. Like has been said here, Sony just prefers to fund in it's entirety projects like Heavy Rain or LBP, but you have to understand those companies could never afford to develop something like that. It's a risk, but it will still be exclusive even after years.

Microsoft, on the other hand, plays it safer by paying top developers who don't necessarily rely on that cash. The flipside is that since they don't exactly rely on that, most of those games will come out on PS3 anyway, just later, or much later.

In a way, you could say the Sony aproach is actually more limiting to everyone, since those titles will never, ever, release outside the PlayStation brand.

Either way, the thought that only MS pays for exclusivity is idiotic, Sony does the same, the difference is they publish most of it, while MS just secures X amount of time from whoever publishes it.


You get it but at the same time your missing something.  Its not limiting because the titles they fund would probably not see the light of day anyway if they wouldnt invest in it.

Oh, i know that. Like i said before, Sony takes bigger risks because they invest in more "unknown quantities", if you will. But the end result is the same, exclusive titles on X platform. And people cannot dismiss the importance of the money MS throws at some projects.

Again, like I said before, they "found" Mass Effect in the preliminary stages and funded and published that, they just didn't own the IP, they helped 2K with Bioshock, they funded the GTA4 episodes (50 million changes a lot of things, I have no doubt Rockstar would do DLC, but I do doubt it would have been 2 big 8-10 hour episodes like they ended up doing), Tales, helped fund the new Alien Breed (hence the timed exclusivity), massively funded Gears and turned it into a huge franchise, I could go on.

Heck, i'm not anti-sony or pro-ms or anything like that. I just think some of the views in this thread ignore the fact this is a business, it doesn't matter if you pay before or pay during or pay after, the end result is the same. And like i said, from a pure gamer perspective, it's the Sony titles that limit more because you really need a PS3 for that, and have no other choice. I have both consoles because of that.

As for the whole "MS are evil, they stole Tekken, DMC, GTA, etc", that's ridiculous. See, it's just typical anti-MS bs, Sony fans just want all the games for themselves. Sony used to pay Rockstar for GTA exclusivity, and as far as anyone knows, MS didn't pay a dime to Capcom and whoever publishes Tekken. Xbox 360 was out a whole year before PS3, it's easier to develop for, and has a bigger userbase, it's perfectly natural to see a lot of PS2-era franchises go multiplat, because this time they had a choice.

I don't even agree much with the policy MS uses, I would have bought Bioware instead of letting EA swoop in and get it, I would have gotten the Gears IP, not leave it in Epic's hands, I wouldn't have closed down Ensemble or FASA Studios, I would invest in more 1st party, not just Halo, the list can go on. But it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "evil" about what MS does, it's a different aproach from Sony's, and the end result is mostly the same.