By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
youarebadatgames on 16 February 2010
Edit Thread
kaneada said:
r505Matt said:
kaneada said:
r505Matt said:
kaneada said:
kowenicki said:
Another over reaction..

This happens with lots of games... sometimes Sony or MS will pick a game and run their own ad for it. There is nothing stopping Sony from doing the same, they did it with Assassins Creed I and II

This has nothing to do with SE

That's the point though, SE should have everything to do with what ads get aired and for what system that advertisement airs. By allowing Sony or M$ to buy rights to advertising you create an ethical dillemma that gives a potential unfair advantage to company buying the rights. SE should be financing and advertising without the financial backing of SONY or M$ unless the game is exclusive.

Who said they bought rights? Is that confirmed or are you just guessing?

Maybe MS/Sony don't pay anything, but say "We're going to advertise your game for you" and the publisher says "Hell yeah!". Though it's probably more complex than that.

Based on the lack of PS3 logo in the commercial, I think I can make that assumption and be accurate in my accusation. I doubt very seriously that M$ just offered to do this out of the goodness of their heart...there's a bottom line and someone got paid.

Not if MS designed the advertisement themselves, which is quite likely. No one ever said that SE made this advertisement. Especially since it's more an ad for the FFXIII Xbox 360 bundle than it is for FFXIII alone.

Then they are still in some form buying rights to display IP that does not belong to them, even if it is on their system. SE made a deal with them, even if it was for shared risk on the advertising that granted M$ rights to exclusively develop their own trailer. Given that this is with a third party, while its technically legal it is unethical. My point remains.

So since I have enough circumstancial evidence to present that possiblity and raise someone's eyebrows I'm placing the burden of proof on you. Prove me wrong.

There's nothing to prove because your assertion is based entirely on circumstancial evidence.  You do not have the contract, nor do you have credible inside knowledge.  The burden of proof is on you because you are making unsubstantiated claims.

Furthermore, there is nothing unethical about these business arrangements.  If they were not do everything legally available to maximize profits/marketshare, they would be in breach of their corporate duty to their shareholders.  This is entertainment, there is no harmful damage or liability to the consumer.

This is no different than the whining about moneyhatting as if it were a bad thing.  Well tough shit, it happens - go QQ some more about it.  No doubt MS gives incentives to entice developers to develop on their platform, whether it be advertising, lowered costs for development tools, better dev support and better tools.  They're a software company first and foremost.