AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity! |
That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.
|
That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.
|
MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.
|
That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?
|
If Epic has no contract with MS to continue making Gears for Xbox than they would be stupid not to release future Gears games on as many platforms as possible. But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.
If a console maker is willing to pay upfront for exclusivity a dev should really consider it because that's guaranteed money. But a 100% independent dev should always release on as many platforms as possible because it's no longer an big investment to do so and it guarantees a greater rate of return than releasing on a single platform. It also builds a bigger fanbase because it reaches more people who will want more if it well received.
|
Fair enough. Gears of Wars is in a position where sells in the PS3 could prove more benefitial than a contract from Microsoft, depending on the zeros of said contracts. It will all depend of what Micro is willing to pay and what Epic games expectations are for Gears of War as a franchise.
You seem to rule out the possibility Sony could pay for Versus XIII to strengthen the PS4 Japan launch. As well as how Square could be seeing the same benefits in a contract, similar to when you say "Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money", Square would also be stupid not to take Sony's money if this is the situation. As a consequence you kain cannot rule out circumstance where Square could be seeing benefits of releasing Versus as a Sony exclusive, judging by your reasoning.
Lyrikalstylez said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
You can drop the name, but don't drop the fucking exclusivity! |
That makes no sense. 3rd party exclusivity makes no sense.
|
That is why you believe it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears of War on different platforms.
|
MS paid for Gears of War just like Sony paid for Journey, Flower and Flow. I have nothing against what we refer to as 2nd party games. What I don't like are straight up 3rd party exclusives. It used to be that PS2 was all a game developer needed to support because it was THE gaming system in everyone's houses. Those days are over and multiplatform engines have made developing a game for everything very easy. There is no reason to make FF vs XIII, or FF XV or whatever they call it, an exclusive. The engine is multiplatform and porting is cheap and easy. There is absolutely no reason to make an exclusive when the game can make money on other platforms. When a console manufacturer buys exclusivity it's no different than flat out buying a developer. When that happens the game becomes very much like a 1st party game even if the developer is independent. But when a 100% independent developer and a 100% independent publisher release an exclusive game I just don't understand it at all. It's a pet peeve of mine. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 have the same capabilities and each hold close to the same market share. Everything Square Enix makes should release on everything that can run the game. The same goes for EA, Activision and all the rest.
|
That's cool and all, talking about what you have nothing against and all, talking about contractual games that make them second party. But once Epic Games ends their contract with Microsoft and given the fact that Epic Games owns the Gears IP, with your reasoning, you are saying it will make more sense for Epic Games to release Gears in multiple platforms. Or do you believe there are reasons for keeping games from third party developers as exclusives?
|
looks like you'll be one of those people that'll have a mental breakdown when this goes multi, I cant wait lol
Oh and I think Gears of War will go Multi next Gen
|
Not to the point of a meltdown, I just want it exclusive.
|
