By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness on 25 March 2010
Edit Thread
joeorc said:
Wyrdness said:
milkyjoe said:
Do Microsoft and Sony really promote third party games themselves? I was always under the impression that those commercials for third party games with 'available on 360/PS3' stuck at the end were run by the developer/publisher themselves, and Sony/MS had merely paid for the bit at the end... I mean, you can immediately tell the difference between a Sony ad for a first party exclusive and an ad for a third party game on a Sony console...

You're right they are from publishers themselves, MS/Sony pay to have their console mentioned specifically unless it's a first/second party in which case they would be the publisher. If you look at FFXIII ads they have the available on 360 bit tagged on to give people the impression that they need a 360 for FFXIII, MS pay SE for this.

promote by Collins

  1. 1) verb, to further or encourage the progress or existence of
  2. 2) verb, to raise to a higher rank, status, degree, etc
  3. 3) verb, to advance (a pupil or student) to a higher course, class, etc
  4. 4) verb, to urge the adoption of; work for
  5. 5) verb, to encourage the sale of (a product) by advertising or securing financial support
  6. 6) verb, chess to exchange (a pawn) for any piece other than a king when the pawn reaches the 8th rank

so to Help with Cost's do you think 3rd party developer's need Cash to help sell their Software?

If you want me to make a Game for your system, would you think that 3rd party's are more likely to make a game if your company is willing to help off set the cost's in promotion of the 3rd party's software?

Sony an Microsoft do that.

but

do you See Nintendo doing that as much as Sony or Microsoft does?

Now if Nintendo is less likely to put promotion Money into the 3rd party's project while both Sony and Microsoft are what do you think would happen?

 

Tbh mate you're living up in the clouds a bit here, platform creators owe devs nothing, the only reason you see the financial muscling this gen is because Sony and MS are being given a hard battle by each other and being murdered by Nintendo, Sony never did it in the previous gens because they were the De Facto leaders of the last gens so never needed to until MS started making deals to break into third parties. It's more prominant today because HD development is expensive and most devs can't afford to be exclusive like in the previous so effectively you either have to rely on your first party or make deals.

 

Nintendo doesn't tend to do this because one they only make money from gaming and can't afford to squander and two they'd prefer a first party solution to solve it as they learned in the N64 era devs can just leave you hanging. Want an example look at the reaction to FFXIII becoming multi-platform after years of Sony boasting only on PS3, Nintendo learned from the N64 era, instead of trying to coax third parties into deals they look for their own solutions, Nintendo platforms never have loads of rpgs so they buy Monolith Soft to create games like Xenoblade for them and they create a new IP and colloborate with Sakaguchi and Mist Walker (yes it is an actual Nintendo team of various members developing while MW direct) in creating an RPG aimed at being their own FF like franchise, they brought back S&P because they felt it perfectly matched the Wii controls and negotiated with Treasure who agreed.

 

They collaborate with third parties on their own first party ips to help bring new ideas and approaches to them like with Other M, in some cases if a third party has impress they do help push them like the way they're handling marketing for MH and localizing the DQ games. The reason being is Nintendo would rather be self sufficient then have to rely on others for their fate hence why they do their own thing.