Seece said:
Is that aimed at me? If so no, I don't, I understand the important of exclusives, so while I agree Sony is fine to do it, I'm going back to my main point of them being hypocrit's, people can sugarcoat it all they like. |
It's not exactly hypocritical in this generation of gaming. If you'd like to go back to and recall the PS2 era or before, OK maybe. However, let's look at the number of games each SONY and MS have paid for exclusivity or timed exclusivity on this generation.. I don't have figures in front of me, but I'm willing to bet the difference is quite large in SONY's favor of not having done it. I'd suffice it to say his words were taken out of context..for anyone to believe that no company can or would ever do that is a statement of ignorance. It will happen to some degree no matter what..what he was most likely referring to was the rate at which their 'competition' is doing it. And my blind grandmother can see MS tries to buy everything they can.
Also, people keep saying 'GhostBusters?' Uhmm..no? Before Sony did what they did, no one else was going to, no? There was a reason SONY stepped in, it wasn't just to keep it exclusive. If I'm not mistaken, since they couldn't find a publisher for the game, it made perfect sense since Columbia Pictures (an auxiliary of SONY) produced the motion picture, didn't they? That's a failed argument all the way around.
Essay Pro