AbbathTheGrim said:
kain_kusanagi said:
AbbathTheGrim said:
|
kain_kusanagi said:
@kain:
|
Where did I write this:
I reject your notion that exclusive 3rd party games aren't as likely to be as good as 1st party games.
Doesn't the release of a 2nd party game to other consoles allows more gamers to be able to enjoy those games? Why make the exception if your desire is for more gamers to access more games? Can't you wish for Gears multiplatform as well, especially when the Gears IP is Epic's? You say you wouldn't mind but, can you actually wish for it and write it here, like you do for FFVs13?
But why do you want "I seek nothing but to see Sony as the strongest gaming console and keep securing its place in the gaming industry along with its games." It's not like you gain anything. If Sony stoped making consoles you'd just move to another console. That's what Sega fans did. They didn't lose out on great games, they just moved on to other machines. I don't understand you're need to have Sony take games away from gamers without their consoles.
Sony first party games, God of War, Uncharted, Killzone, LBP, Infamous, are among the most meaningful experiences I have in gaming. I support everything that strengthens the company that releases those games.
|
You said: "There is benefit in having FFVsXIII as exclusive." I thought yoou meant that being exclusive makes games better. But if you just mean it's good for Sony, well, that's a selfish way to look at things. I replied assuming that you meant exclusive is better than multiplatform and that's the notion I responded to.
Anyway, Like I said Gears of War was paid for by MS from the start. It is under contract by MS. If MS doesn't renew the contract then more gamers will get to play it. That would be a good thing. But until MS decided it doesn't want to pay for Gears of War I going to continue to consider it in the same company as other 1st and 2nd party exclusives. If it does go multiplatform in the future I can assure you I won't complain just like I didn't complain when Mass Effect went multiplatform or when Bioshock went multiplatform.
I am not wishing for Final Fantasy to leave Sony. I want it and all 3rd party games, not under contract, to be available to as many people as possible. To me a 2nd party game is no different than a 1st party game. It deserves to be on a single platform. But 3rd party games should always be multiplatform because they have no reason to be exclusive.
I'm glad you enjoy Sony's great games. Final Fantasy isn't one of them. Final Fantasy is a Square Enix franchise and hold no allegiance to Sony or Sony fans. Square has put Final Fantasy on almost everything. It was on Nintendo first and it has been on so many others I don't feel like listing them. FF Vs XIII has no obligation to be exclusive and unless Sony pays for it it should be multiplatform.
I really don't understand Final Fantasy fans. It's hopped around so many platforms that you couldn't just own Sony machines to play them all. What if Square Enix decided to make all future Final Fantasy games exclusive to Wii U? Would they follow it to Wii U or complain that it should be on PS4? If they were real fans they would follow it. If they only want it so Sony "wins" than they aren't really fans of Final Fantasy.
You seem to think I'm some kind of Xbot warrior. You have such a strong loyalty to Sony I think you assume that everyone else feels the same about their favorite game companies. I own and play them all. I have my favorite games like Halo, but that doesn't mean that I want only MS to succeed. I want PC, MS, Nintendo and Sony fans to get the best games. If it's 3rd party they should all get to play. If it's 2nd or 1st party than you'll just have to buy the console if you want to play it badly enough. Sony has not yet paid for FF XIII so it should be multiplatform. Wishing for it to be exclusive makes no sense to me, whatsoever.
|
I want to point out that we are discussing your opinion here. I feel like I need to put this conversation in context. Some people would simply walk away from a conversation where one is discussing another user's opinion, but I like to argue. Why do I mention this? The discussion of whether a game should stay or become exclusive considering the viability or the benefits in this for third parties was discussed before and left as it was. You brought another point that could serve as argument to whether a game should stay exclusive or not and that is: more games for more gamers, without restrictions. Here is when I continue the conversation:
1) You asked me what was the benefit for me in having VS13 as exclusive and I responded with that. You assumed something I didn't mean.
2) Yeah, it is a selfish point of view. Everyone has selfish thoughts and makes selfish decisions regularly, it isn't an issue.
3) If that is your point of view for Gears going multiplatform then I take this part as being understood.
4) I have problem with your view of "more games for more gamers". I can understand someone who believes that all games should be available for everyone regardless of their console, in spite of how improbably that possibility is. You said this:
I am not wishing for Final Fantasy to leave Sony. I want it and all 3rd party games, not under contract, to be available to as many people as possible. To me a 2nd party game is no different than a 1st party game. It deserves to be on a single platform. But 3rd party games should always be multiplatform because they have no reason to be exclusive.
What I understand from you is that you believe games should be available for more gamers, but when it comes to franchises started in an specific console then "games for more gamers" is irrelevant to you because keeping a game for the console of origin to the franchise is more important. Your notion or your backing behind the importance of "more games for more gamers" is limited, and you impose that limit with your desire to see franchises attached to their console of origin. What about people who have seen Gears and would like to play those games but don't want to buy an Xbox? I guess you would tell them: "Well, if you want to play that game, buy an Xbox.", right? Like you said here: If it's 3rd party they should all get to play. If it's 2nd or 1st party than you'll just have to buy the console if you want to play it badly enough.
Here you will see the limit of how important you believe how "more games for more gamers" is.
My position is very simple. Sony provides me with some of the most meaningful forms of gaming outside of some third party franchises and I want to protect that. Sony is a console maker and the fate of those forms of gaming are tied to the fate of the console. I will like and support every good news or things that will favor Sony's console.
5) I'm glad you enjoy Sony's great games. Final Fantasy isn't one of them. Final Fantasy is a Square Enix franchise and hold no allegiance to Sony or Sony fans. Square has put Final Fantasy on almost everything. It was on Nintendo first and it has been on so many others I don't feel like listing them. FF Vs XIII has no obligation to be exclusive and unless Sony pays for it it should be multiplatform.
I never said FF was obliged to be a Sony exclusive. I just expressed my desire. Final Fantasy is a franchise that has been managed very irregularly when it comes to exclusivity. It started in Nintendo yes, but then passed to Playstation where not only it earned relative fan acclaim for its entries, but where it developed into entries that you could not play anywhere else (except with the PC ports (VII, VIII) and multi (XI, XIV). I can play the first six Final Fantasy in the Playstation, but Nintendo fans cannot play said entries in their consoles, as Sony fans cannot play the Final Fantasy DS remakes and Crystal ones. With Final Fantasy the situation is not "what it should have been", according to you and your point of view of franchise attached to consoles, but "what it became", and when it comes to Final Fantasy it is a situation of Nintendo and Sony fans fighting over entries. But Sony fans are the ones that have access to the numbered and main games of the series while Nintendo fans don't. Does it mean Final Fantasy is Sony fans'? No, it doesn't. But you should understand the feel of attachment a Sony fan can have for the franchise.
6) You seem to think I'm some kind of Xbot warrior. You have such a strong loyalty to Sony I think you assume that everyone else feels the same about their favorite game companies. I own and play them all. I have my favorite games like Halo, but that doesn't mean that I want only MS to succeed. I want PC, MS, Nintendo and Sony fans to get the best games.
I thought it was pretty evident that I asked you to identify your stance in gaming so that I could put your perspective in context. There are Xbox, Nintendo, PC fans with positions as strong as mine in here and I wanted to see where you came from. Your assumption is out of place again.
But I am cautious person and I don't believe every single word put out here specially when the position provided within an argument may be presented in order to try and give more weight to an argument. I am sure we will run again in the forums and I am interested to see this stance you demonstrated in here will color the content of your posts.
7) If it's 2nd or 1st party than you'll just have to buy the console if you want to play it badly enough. Sony has not yet paid for FF XIII so it should be multiplatform.
Actually this is not necessarily the case. If Gears releases in PS4 I won't "have" to buy an Xbox to play that game. That is what happens when a console company doesn't own a franchise's IP, like Micro doesn't when it comes to Gears. You should have voiced this as:
If it's 2nd or 1st party then I wish you have to buy the console if you want to play it badly enough.
With Final Fantasy games it won't be a matter of what you or me desire, but what Square decides. The same goes for Epic and their Gears. All I ever did was expressed my desire, as FFvs13 exclusivity not only simplifies everything to me as a FF fan, but also pushes forward the agenda of my favorite game developer which resonates with mine.
|
Wow. You love Sony. I mean you really love Sony. You want FF vs 13 to be a Playstation exclusive and take that 3rd party game away from other platforms so that Sony is bolstered.
I on the other hand want 3rd party games to be multiplatform so everyone gets to play them, including such hardcore Sony fans as yourself. You'd be able to play a multiplatform FF Vs 13 on Playstation just as easily as an exclusive FF Vs 13. But you selfishly want it kept away from PC, Nintendo and MS. I cannot understand this.
It really doesn't matter to me if a 3rd Party IP is started on one platform first or another. If it's paid for to be a 2nd party exclusive it deserves it's place just like 1st party games. If the contract ends and it goes multiplatform that's good for everyone who missed out on the earlier games.
Yours is a one way street. You want 3rd party games to be Playstation exclusive, but I doubt you'd complain if a 2nd party series like Gears of War became multiplatform. You want more games for Playstation. I want more games for everyone. 1st party and 1nd party games are locked up tight for a reason. I'm not going to wish for Gears of War to go multiplatform any more than I would for Killzone, Halo, Fable or Uncharted to go multiplatform. 1st and 2nd party games have a purpose. So long as the contract stands they have a reason to be exclusive. 3rd party independent companies like Square Enix, Activision, EA, Capcom, Konami, etc. have no reason to make exclusive games. And it's not even a good business strategy to limit sales to just one console. It now takes both the Xbox 360 and PS3 together to match the market share that the PS2 enjoyed. To limit sales to half that is just stupid, unless one side pays for it to be 2nd party.
As for your statement about my genuine feelings about this. I have made this same opinion public on this website on numerous occasions. Below is an example from June 2011:
: "Saying Microsoft only has Halo is like saying Disney only has Mickey Mouse. Gears of War may not be 1st party, but it's exclusive and so is Shadow Complex. Epic Games is practically the Pixar to Microsoft's Disney. Forza and Fable are huge franchises that people love so they shouldn't be ignored when talking about exclusives. I'm surprised any 3rd party devs make any exclusives. It's like declining money. Any games that sells on one console will surely sell as well on another, nearly ensuring double the profit. I'm also surprised that any devs agree to be 1st party. Why would you want to work for a company when you could just contract with them and keep more profit. Look at Bungie. They learned that MS while able to fund their projects also controlled too much. By tricking Activision into paying for their development they can do pretty much anything they want and when the contract is up they leave with everything. I'm pretty tired of these console wars. It was fun back in the 16bit era when the SNES and the Genesis were two very different machines with their own pros and cons and very different libraries of games. Now the games are all pretty much the same and if you want to play the best games, ie Halo, Mario, Uncharted, etc, you have to buy everything or pick a franchise and buy it's hardware and hope the 3rd party stuff can keep you occupied in between 1st party releases. At least all three have been good about releasing AAA games nearly on a monthly basis."
Source: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/86928/do-third-party-exclusives-have-a-place-in-gaming-anymore/
You can see that in criticize both 3rd party exclusives as well as count 2nd party as legitimate exclusives. You will also notice that while I replying to the subject of MS and Halo I mention Bungie's frustration with MS and explain why I think all 3rd party companies should stay independent. I also praise the games of all three console manufacturers.
The above quote is merely the first example and easiest to find. I know I've said this same sentiment many times in the forum. If the search tool worked better I'd list them, but I think one example from a year ago is good enough. I am consistent on this point. 3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive. Especially today when they run on multiplatform engines.
