Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

[WilliamWatts]

EdStation3 said:

kowenicki said:
what is different in

a) buying a studio, nailing down exclusivity to all their titles and overseeing working practices?

b) paying for "exclusivity" to a 3rd party?

BOTH involve "moneyhatting"... one involves control freakery....

a) Sony  bought studios that they've develops close working relationships over years.  Naghty Dog was independant during the PS1 era and wasn't bought until halfway through the PS2 life.  Most of their studios were aquired that way.  Microsoft just shows up to someone elses camp and says "mine!"  Buying %60 of Rare of it's original owners more or less forced Nintendo to sell their %40 share.  Microsoft is the kid at the science fair who sees your project and forces you to sell your project in order to win the science fair.  That's dirty.

 

b) Again, Microsoft shows up out of nowhere.  Look at Tekken, Devil May Cry etc.  They could start their own 3rd party IP with a 3rd party or they could take someone else's.  They took a shit load of stuff that 3rd parties had been developing with Sony and they weren't finished, they forced Nintendo to give them Rare(see above). 

Sony are a monopolistic company whose sole intentions were to drive everyone else out of the console business. They failed but that still doesn't mean we can forgive their legacy. They paid billions in todays money buying studios, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars securing exclusive publishing rights and they used aggressive price cuts to force the other companies out of business. Nintendo shows us the kind of profit a legitimate business can make in this industry. We can celebrate the fact that the PS3 is an abject financial failure because its the one thing which secures an open and fair console industry.