By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Why Are Sony Letting Microsoft Bully Them Out Of Familiar Franchises?

Squilliam on 13 February 2010
themanwithnoname said:
Squilliam said:
Huh? I don't see any need for SE to share marketing with Sony on FFXIII as the impetus is on Microsoft to let their userbase know the game is actually coming out on the Xbox 360. Of the people who care, they all know its already coming out on the PS3 so they just need to know when to buy the game.

The same kinda applies to GTA IV as well. But the thing is, the DLC was a payment for a loan and a likely profitable one for Microsoft as well because it reinforced the strength of digital delivery on their platform.

The same applies for MGS: Rising as with GTA IV and FFXIII...


Of course, Square Enix really wouldn't care if they were advertising for the PS3 or the 360, but since they have a bundle with Microsoft, it makes sense to advertise the 360 version like crazy, which is what they're doing.

That does not explain why Sony just sat on their hands, let the game go multiplat, and let Microsoft walk away with an exclusive bundle and advertising in NA and Europe. This is the equivalent of Gears going to PS3, and the PS3 getting a bundle and exclusive advertising. Microsoft wouldn't ever let that happen, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to bother Sony much at all.

They don't need to really let the PS3 userbase know that FFXIII exists, but on the Xbox 360 they do. This is the reason for the advertising deals. Sony has little to gain from telling people something they already know. Thats why it doesn't bother them because to them its not important. A lot of people already bought PS3s for FFXIII even before it was announced. Whereas the Xbox 360 has a large audience of otherwise WRPG style gamers which SE is keen to tap into.



Tease.

Around the Network
dsister44 on 13 February 2010
Sephiroth357 said:
dsister44 said:
Sephiroth357 said:
dsister44 said:
It should be bannable to post random blog crap. >.>

On topic: didn't Sony pay for the Batman exclusive DLC?

What exclusive DLC isn't paid for?

The first line of the article says that they don't pay for exclusives 

No, actually it doesn't say that.

 

If Microsoft pays for DLC...

 

EDIT: Besides look at the title. Are?

Ok... the second line >.>

"I know Sony won’t pay for exclusives and I think that’s admirable."



sega4life on 13 February 2010
BMaker11 said:
sega4life said:
Kantor said:
sega4life said:

 

"I know Sony won’t pay for exclusives and I think that’s admirable."  cough*GTA3 on PS2*cough

So it's "admirable" that they don't do it now?


ftr: they still do it....

GTA3 was PS2 exclusive for a year because the PS2 had quintuple the userbase of the Xbox and sold more software, not because Sony paid for it.

Not to say that Sony never pays for exclusives, that's just not a good example.

 

Sony payed for exclusive rights to GTA, it was not a user base thing.

Proof?

"2001's Grand Theft Auto III brought the series into 3D. It became the PlayStation 2's biggest system seller in both the U.S. and Europe; Sony, realising that the game was a sure-fire success, paid Rockstar to keep it a PS2 exclusive for some time."

You guys seriously didn't know about this?

Maybe this is the why so many arguments start when people say 'MS payed for .... ....'

Just shows Sony started it.



PS4 Preordered - 06/11/2013 @09:30am

XBox One Preordered - 06/19/2013 @07:57pm

"I don't trust #XboxOne & #Kinect 2.0, it's always connected" as you tweet from your smartphone - irony 0_o

themanwithnoname on 13 February 2010
Squilliam said:
themanwithnoname said:
Squilliam said:
Huh? I don't see any need for SE to share marketing with Sony on FFXIII as the impetus is on Microsoft to let their userbase know the game is actually coming out on the Xbox 360. Of the people who care, they all know its already coming out on the PS3 so they just need to know when to buy the game.

The same kinda applies to GTA IV as well. But the thing is, the DLC was a payment for a loan and a likely profitable one for Microsoft as well because it reinforced the strength of digital delivery on their platform.

The same applies for MGS: Rising as with GTA IV and FFXIII...


Of course, Square Enix really wouldn't care if they were advertising for the PS3 or the 360, but since they have a bundle with Microsoft, it makes sense to advertise the 360 version like crazy, which is what they're doing.

That does not explain why Sony just sat on their hands, let the game go multiplat, and let Microsoft walk away with an exclusive bundle and advertising in NA and Europe. This is the equivalent of Gears going to PS3, and the PS3 getting a bundle and exclusive advertising. Microsoft wouldn't ever let that happen, but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to bother Sony much at all.

They don't need to really let the PS3 userbase know that FFXIII exists, but on the Xbox 360 they do. This is the reason for the advertising deals. Sony has little to gain from telling people something they already know. Thats why it doesn't bother them because to them its not important. A lot of people already bought PS3s for FFXIII even before it was announced. Whereas the Xbox 360 has a large audience of otherwise WRPG style gamers which SE is keen to tap into.

I could not disagree more. The casual gamer who only plays games like Final Fantasy, will see the commercial and the bundle and follow it accordingly. This would be different if there'd been multiple Final Fantasys released in the past few years, but there haven't been. Why would someone pay $300 for a PS3 and another $60 for the game, when they can get a 360 with two controllers, twice the harddrive space, and the game for just $50 more? If FFXIII had a bundle and the exclusive adverts on its side, you could be seeing a bundle as successful as the 360's MW2 one from last November. Microsoft didn't have to do one for Modern Warfare 2 either, everyone knew it was coming out on the 360, but look how successful that bundle was. 

The game could've been a real system seller for the PS3 outside of Japan as well, but now it will be so more for the 360 because of the bundle.



themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.

CommonMan on 13 February 2010

Is this a for real question? I really have to ask, are these Multi-billion dollar corporations or six-year olds we're talking about? Big bad Microsoft is pickin' on poor widdle Sony. . . awww. . . gimme a frickin' break.



No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful.

Around the Network
Squilliam on 13 February 2010
themanwithnoname said:
Squilliam said:

They don't need to really let the PS3 userbase know that FFXIII exists, but on the Xbox 360 they do. This is the reason for the advertising deals. Sony has little to gain from telling people something they already know. Thats why it doesn't bother them because to them its not important. A lot of people already bought PS3s for FFXIII even before it was announced. Whereas the Xbox 360 has a large audience of otherwise WRPG style gamers which SE is keen to tap into.

I could not disagree more. The casual gamer who only plays games like Final Fantasy, will see the commercial and the bundle and follow it accordingly. This would be different if there'd been multiple Final Fantasys released in the past few years, but there haven't been. Why would someone pay $300 for a PS3 and another $60 for the game, when they can get a 360 with two controllers, twice the harddrive space, and the game for just $50 more? If FFXIII had a bundle and the exclusive adverts on its side, you could be seeing a bundle as successful as the 360's MW2 one from last November. Microsoft didn't have to do one for Modern Warfare 2 either, everyone knew it was coming out on the 360, but look how successful that bundle was. 

The game could've been a real system seller for the PS3 outside of Japan as well, but now it will be so more for the 360 because of the bundle.

Since when would Final Fantasy be casual? Last time I checked for the most part its the same audience whom bought the game for Final Fantasy VII minus a few who got bored with it, plus a few less of new people introduced later. If ~50% of the Japanese audience for the PS3 bought the game then how can that be a casual game? Most casuals would be incredibly bored with it. You have to actually like the series really to get into it.



Tease.

ohshutyourmouth on 13 February 2010

"i think its b/c sony are focusing on creating new and bigger franchises then to worry bout these old ones "

They should be doing both!



d21lewis on 13 February 2010

This is just my opinion and I've done zero research on the matter:

I think that Nintendo does whatever it wants to do.
I think Sony does what it thinks we want them to do.
I think Microsoft does all kinds of research and does what they need to do.

So while Sony and Nintendo take some risks (Sony does with technology and Nintendo does with creativity) Microsoft plays it very safely. They go for the tried and true. As a result, they don't really make any mistakes. Getting successful franchises on their console is all part of the formula.



Sephiroth357 on 13 February 2010
dsister44 said:
Sephiroth357 said:
dsister44 said:
Sephiroth357 said:
dsister44 said:
It should be bannable to post random blog crap. >.>

On topic: didn't Sony pay for the Batman exclusive DLC?

What exclusive DLC isn't paid for?

The first line of the article says that they don't pay for exclusives 

No, actually it doesn't say that.

 

If Microsoft pays for DLC...

 

EDIT: Besides look at the title. Are?

Ok... the second line >.>

"I know Sony won’t pay for exclusives and I think that’s admirable."

He's not saying Sony hasn't done it, he's saying they won't, which will be proven false in due time.




dsister44 on 13 February 2010
Sephiroth357 said:
dsister44 said:
Sephiroth357 said:

No, actually it doesn't say that.

 

If Microsoft pays for DLC...

 

EDIT: Besides look at the title. Are?

Ok... the second line >.>

"I know Sony won’t pay for exclusives and I think that’s admirable."

He's not saying Sony hasn't done it, he's saying they won't, which will be proven false in due time.

And I am saying they did it last year for the Batman DLC.