binary solo said:
Playing the innocent victim card eh? Seems that, with a great deal less justification, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from MS fans (and PS fans) when Bayo 2 was announced as Wii U exclusive. So it's simply untrue that people only complain when its MS. It's just that in the last 3 generations MS has done it far more than Nintendo (who didn't need to with Wii) and Sony (who couldn't afford to with PS3). So when you're the bigger moneyhatter, at any given time, then you're going to attract more negative attention. Also, it appears to me that there are still many bitter and twisted people who would see Sony die a gruesome and painful death for the way it moneyhatted Sega into oblivion (hardware-wise). So it's a bit precious of people to say MS is the victim of irrational hate for moneyhatting when in fact Sony has been and will always be the object of the most intense hate for its historical moneyhatting ways. Not that Sony has truly reformed, they just don't have the money to do it and probably won't for many years to come. But if they ever amass a several billion dollar war chest I'm confident they will start buying exclusives once again. |
Sony's most famous and the last of their notable moneyhats was the GTA trilogy, but it was only timed exclusivity until the trilogy was over. MS almost pulled that on Sony with Mass Effect, but EA bought Bioware. MS was publishing the game and expected special treatment as such. MS always run to PC devs when they don't have any games. I guess I must thank them for the Witcher 2 being on consoles.
Historically Sony is not even on Microsofts level when it comes to moneyhatting. If that were so Sony wouldn't have more IP's than their competition from generation to generation. Sony didn't have to pay devs to jump ship to them because Sony dominated the marketshare of the industry. Sega practically handed third parties to Sony and Nintendo never could see eye to eye with third parties (which is why they have the problems they do today). Learn some history. Segas fate was sealed because of Sega, but Nintendo held Sega down when it was trying to grow with its first console because it couldnt gain marketshare because of third parties. Sega had to create their own sports titles and other games to supplement the fact that Nintendo had third parties scared to expand. Sega started to gain marketshare only towards the end of its timeline between the NES and SNES era. The saturn pissed off devs because sega found out the playstation was coming out and they jumped the gun on the launch date and threw off every key third party and they all got pissed and ran to Sony (literally, all of them...thats how pissed off they were). Some came back during the Dreamcast era but Sega was just making bad decision after bad decision. A good amount of piracy, lack of third party and bad internal issues sealed Segas fate. I used to actually defend Nintendo but when I looked up the history of Nintendo and Sega I found out what really happend and Nintendo deserves their issues with third parties and Sega only served to do themselves in. Sony's competition helped in steering the market away from Sega, but Sega could've made better business decisions. They both made it relatively easy for Sony to grow within the industry. As for Microsoft, Microsoft started off slow in the industry but built the popularity of the Xbox using methods that made Sony popular. Working with third parties was the start and not fighting them.
Sony has published and made more new IP's than their competitors in recent years. Even last gen Gamespot held a tally last gen. MS cannot make games on the level of Sony they can only buy the IP's from people or moneyhat to keep games from Sony. If you think about that, i've explained 3/4's of Microsofts time in the industry. When Microsoft invested in studios in the beginning most ventures tanked including their sports venture. Think about it...the 360's launch was full of moneyhatting. They had almost every hot new IP being kept away from Sony either for a year or more. All during this time they had a parity policy which stopped content which didnt come out on the same day as their product or they had the right to deny it.
