By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 30 October 2013
Edit Thread
Puppyroach said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Osc89 said:


This kind of practise affects everyone actually. MS spent the money not to create a game but to prevent Sony from having it. If they hadn't, both XB1 and PS4 owners would have this game, and MS could spend the money on creating their own game. It doesn't bother you that you could have had 2 games instead of 1?

And this goes for every company. It is bad whoever does it.


Truth. This is the only way MS can stay ahead and they know it. Their late game policy shows how badly they will ignore devs if they don't get their way either.

Wouldn´t it be considered even "worse" in your book if the company instead BUYS a whole studio just to keep their games for themselves? Naughty Dog comes to mind :). That is a surefire way to keep the games from gamers that chose another system.

Or is it more important that us gamers get exclusive games on our preferred console, no matter how they are acquired? I cannot for the world see the difference between bying a studio and buying one of it´s franschises.

Sony only works with companies they've had longstanding relationships with an represent the core values of what they want in their brand. Naughty Dog (and in particular Mark Cerny) as well as Sony wanted to create pixar-like games. They wanted to bring to life the movies we've been watching since toy story, hence Crash Bandicoot and Spyro and once more Knack. Sony never bought Naughty Dog to keep them away from anyone...they were never interested in Microsoft (hell they were partners with Sony a generation before MS came) nor Nintendo. Nintendo had Rare. The best relationship Microsoft has had is probably Remedy? Thats not saying much either.

It's not about preferential treatment. If you know your history, they both had the same vision early in Sonys dominant lifespan. This is why they have Naughty Dog. Naughty Dog has been with Sony as long as the Playstation brand has been going. Can Microsoft say this about any second party? Naughty Dog's creativity has been an extension of what it means to have a "Sony quality" product. Before this generation very few were singing their praises and most of us were too young to care about who they were when Crash first hit the Playstation. Crash outside of Naughty Dog and Playstation creative control has been a downward spiral which is sad to see. Activision should just sell the damn franchise to Sony.

Question I ask myself sometimes is why MS would buy Rare only to force them to make Kinect games and then have Double Helix make one of their most prized games? Don't get me wrong it looks like it will have some fluid combat, but this his how you know they've somehow contributed to the death of one of the greatest companies in gaming history. Vultures generally wait until their prey is dead before the strip the body. Is there really a difference?