nordlead said:
you are right. In MS's case, they buy the product separate from the company. They give the company that creates the game greater creative rights and are allowed to branch out and do whatever they want with their next game. This is like an inventor who sells his product to the highest bidder who then produces and sells his invention. He also has potential to earn a bucket load of money if he invents something popular or necessary. In Sony's case, they buy the developer (and the games that go with it). The reduce the creative rights of the company and they are now forced to develop on Sony's platforms. This is like an inventor who works for a big firm. They may tell him what to work on or not, but the invention is owned by the company and they aren't obligated to pay him royalties, but he might make the company rich. I personally don't have a problem with either method, as they are two means to an end. MS's method has a 1 time effect on the consumer. Sony's has a much longer effect. However, Sony is the one claiming that buying a game is "evil" (bribing). Yet, they essentially the same thing while taking away creative rights for a larger chunk of $$$ up front. |
You can't be serious....
In what ways was something like LBP reduced in creativity? I don't see any new takes on game development when it comes to Microsoft. Whereas with Sony, we have very new and creative games. You think Microsoft would've supported the development of Heavy Rain? Doubt it.
