| kain_kusanagi said: I am consistent on this point. 3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive. Especially today when they run on multiplatform engines. |
1) You are discussing this again? I wrote the answer to this some days ago for you:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215122
This part:
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.
When I wrote that, you didn't reply to these points. You started to question what was my benefit in having FFvs13 as exclusive. Remember? You also mentioned this:
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.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5215073
It seems you point out that developers should releases games for multiple platforms because it is more beneficial for them BUT they should also consider the benefits of getting into a good contract, I quote you again: But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.
I put Gears out here to make a comparison between Square and Epic Games. If you see that Epic Games can benefit from a contract by Micro, you can't rule out the possibility that Square will benefit from a good contract by Sony. You cancelled your argument that "3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive" when you wrote "But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again."
2) 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.
In a perfect world where Sony is not in financial troubles and where Sony, Micro and Nintendo consoles can coexist without danger of going out of business for their respective fans and where the success of one rival company may not mean the possibility of failure for the other, I wouldn't need to be happy when good things come to the PS field that the rest of the consoles don't have.
This is just me establishing the priorities in my gaming and sadly enough the happiness of other gamers with their expectations and desires do not necessarily make my gaming experience any better or allows it to continue as it stands today.
3) 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.
What exactly does it mean to "deserves it's place just like 1st party games", what does that mean to you? That is no way clear. I will wait for your response to know what you really mean with that but in the meantime I will cite you once again:
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.
You clearly establish in here that you wouldn't "wish" for those games to go multi. This is what I pointed out previously, your backing to your own notion that games should be available to more gamers is limited by a personal notion of yours of games being attached to consoles for being 1st/2nd party. I think this is why ils411 unnecessarily called you hypocrite. I believe you are simply expressing conflicting ideas or contradicting yourself.
I would like you to elaborate why you wish for 2nd party games to be attached to their consoles contracted companies, is it because you feel said console owners and only them should have access to those games, or is it because you have this special notion that the company has some special right to those franchises? Whatever may be the reason, you are over imposing that reason over the benefit of gamers in general, which is what you seem to root for but contradict at the same time.
4) 1st and 2nd party games have a purpose. So long as the contract stands they have a reason to be exclusive.
I am doing a great effort in putting your ideas together but it is hard as you go back and forth between them. Are you really aware that a second party game is a game contracted by a company from a free developer/third party developer?
Why do these developers get into contracts of exclusivity with companies if not because they see benefit in them? You then say as well:
3rd party independent companies like Square Enix, Activision, EA, Capcom, Konami, etc. have no reason to make exclusive games.
Why don't they have reasons to get into exclusivity contracts? Is it because you think only little, free developers have benefits in making exclusivity contracts with companies while relatively big companies don't? I am trying to make sense out of this. But Epic Games' Gears sells as much or even better than games from those companies, Gears is no small franchise. But what did you say about Epic Games and Micro's Gears exclusivity? This:
But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.
So it seems that "independent companies" do have "reason to make exclusive games", if the money is right, according to you.
5) 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.
This is what I am talking about when I say your ideas conflict with one another. This you wrote agrees with this you wrote:
But Epic would also be stupid not to take MS's money and MS would be stupid not to pay for Gears again.
But contradicts this:
3rd party independent companies like Square Enix, Activision, EA, Capcom, Konami, etc. have no reason to make exclusive games.
I can't understand how you try to reason why you wish Gears to remain exclusive while not wanting FFvs13 to become PS exclusive:
If it's paid for to be a 2nd party exclusive it deserves it's place just like 1st party games.
If Sony pays Vs13 into exclusivity why don't you believe "it deserves it's place just like 1st party games"? Maybe because you think the games didn't start in Playstation? That is impossible because you wrote 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.
Source: your previous post
This is a contradiction, it is impossible to tell where you really stand. This also contradicts your reply to ils411:
Final Fantasy is ANYTHING like Gears of War. One is a 3rd party series with no exclusivity contract that has been on more systems than I want to count and the other is a 2nd party exclusive with a contract between a console manufacturer and a developer.
In the end it comes down to a game from an independent company paid to be exclusive, there is no difference.
6) 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:
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.
I can identify the things you point out from this post your provided. It shows that you can criticize things from your preferred (?) company and praise things from other companies. I can do the same thing for you. I can point out games I am interested in from Micro and Nintendo. I can point out screw ups from Sony. That doesn't make me any less from being a hardcore Sony fan, does it? Not trying to dismiss your argument and imply you may still be writing things in favor of Micro, just telling that things can get very grey and are not necessarily black and white, even with hardcore fans like me.
Still, this post you linked conflicts with things you have written in this thread. What things? the things above mentioned in this post.
7) I am consistent on this point. 3rd party games have no business being platform exclusive. Especially today when they run on multiplatform engines.
Multiplatform engines like the Unreal Engine?
I feel you need to put some ideas in order. They conflict with each other. If you believe you are not contradicting yourself, please reply taking this formatting into consideration and please make an effort in reconciling the quotes from you that I have put against each other in this post, before advancing any further with the discussion.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1
