Mr Puggsly said:
Jordahn said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Basically Sony mostly just cares about their games. They've made it clear their focus is their IPs. They flood their console with quite a few 1st party titles that compete with sales of 3rd party.
http://kotaku.com/216256/sony-lost-ps3-exclusives-says-requisite-stupid-things
To the contrary, MS has put a focus on bringing great 3rd party exclusives to the 360 and support them. They even throw money around to get them.
|
How can anyone seriously take the link you posted as support for your statement is beyond any reason. Trenton said:
"We really feel like we're well positioned to contribute platform-defining games from a first-party standpoint, and we're not dependent on third-party community to the degree that a Microsoft would be. That being said, you would be crazy to say that you would never entertain or not welcome exclusives. It's just a question of how deep into your pockets do you have to reach to secure that? Desperation breeds deep pockets. Confidence breeds the opposite. When it makes sense, you do the deal. When it doesn't, you pass."
It means that they will take advantage of a 3rd party exclusive when they think it's worth the investment while learning to be more independent. It still doesn't mean that "developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles" just because SONY has more studios and titles that Microsoft. And just because a console maker looses a game as an exclusive doesn't mean it's not coming to that same console as a multi-platform game. This isn't the case either. The PS3 still has its share of third party exclusives for whatever reasons whether you want to deny that or not regardless of your personal preferences. And in regards to extras, games like Batman:AA, RDR, Toy Story, and the newest UFC have all have simultaneously releases on both the 360 and PS3. And all PS3 versions of those titles received PS3 exclusive content. And that's not including upcoming games like Metal of Honor, Mafia II, and Portal 2 which all will be getting PS3 exclusive content. Stop being so one-sided, man.
|
Well they dropped the ball by letting MS getting ahold of many exclusives that were generally on Sony consoles. The PS1 and PS2 didn't dominate because of their great 1st party line up. The real attraction was and still is 3rd party in my opinion.
Like I said, Sony is paying for exclusive content because they are combating the exclusive content MS gets. We can assume that's considerably cheaper than straight out buying an exclusive. Nor would it be a good idea for Sony to lose more money.
I don't understand why you are caling me one sided. I just happen to prefer the exclusives the 360 has.
|
SONY "dropped" the ball by picking up a bigger and better one in the form of their 1st and 2nd party exclusives. And I called you one sided because your statement:
"Perhaps that's part of the reason some developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles..."
... still holds very little if any water since the PS3 still has its share of 3rd party exclusives whether you prefer them or not. One could argue that some 3rd party titles become PS3 exclusives because of not wanting to compete against high sales of titles such as Halo. So we can conclude that high Halo sales are a bad thing, I'm not saying this is the case, and I doubt I ever will. But you are trying to negatively spin that SONY having more developing studios to work with is causing more harm than good by applying the belief that it forces developer to develop games on the 360 instead as an exclusive. If you want to believe that, then fine. But who knows all the reasonings why "game a" is a PS3 exclusive given the fact that SONY has more studios to work with than Microsoft. That's how you're being one sided, nothing to do with your gaming preferences. But then again, maybe your gaming preferences are so extreme to where it actually makes you one sided.
:)
