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

Forums - Gaming - Can Titanfall be THE GAME That Pushes Xbox One Above PS4 in America?

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 January 2014
J_Allard said:
Errr... I am aware MS has that policy. Just like Sony has a policy forcing developers to add extra content in order to be able to port a game to their platform after it has been on other platforms. Or the PSP rules they had in place forcing developers to add like 30-40% of new content before getting a port on the platform. This is where the whole hypocrisy and shifting goal posts comes into play. You are griping about MS doing/having these things, but explain them away when it comes to Sony.

"paying for content is so terrible omg! oh well when sony does it its really just dlc and timed exclusives so its fine guys."

"m$ has these terrible restrictions on games where they force content parity! oh noes! oh yeah i know sony also imposes restrictions but its totally ok man!"

You do have a playbook, and it's adorable.


Sony's policy is very fair. If you were a company and had a late port come to you because of an obstruction (competition) you would want extra content because your markets interest might have faded for that specific title. 

This is exactly the same reason why a lot of people wait for Greatest or Platinum Hits of certain games (depending on which system you own). Sony's policy is the equivalent of a Greatest hits. I don't see whats so threatening about that to you for getting a game late. Sony cannot protect themselves from Microsoft's spending. This is something you must come to expect. All you can do is take what you can get. I am sure EA was so pissed and Sony's "force" when porting the whole Mass Effect franchise to the PS3. 

Microsoft is obscructing the competition from games, but doesn't want the same treatment. This by definition is hypocrisy. It doesn't matter how you see them, it is how it is.



Around the Network
J_Allard on 07 January 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
J_Allard said:
Errr... I am aware MS has that policy. Just like Sony has a policy forcing developers to add extra content in order to be able to port a game to their platform after it has been on other platforms. Or the PSP rules they had in place forcing developers to add like 30-40% of new content before getting a port on the platform. This is where the whole hypocrisy and shifting goal posts comes into play. You are griping about MS doing/having these things, but explain them away when it comes to Sony.

"paying for content is so terrible omg! oh well when sony does it its really just dlc and timed exclusives so its fine guys."

"m$ has these terrible restrictions on games where they force content parity! oh noes! oh yeah i know sony also imposes restrictions but its totally ok man!"

You do have a playbook, and it's adorable.


Sony's policy is very fair. If you were a company and had a late port come to you because of an obstruction (competition) you would want extra content because your markets interest might have faded for that specific title. 

This is exactly the same reason why a lot of people wait for Great Hits or Platinum Hits of certain games. Sony's policy is the equivalent of a Greatest hits. I don't see whats so threatening about that to you for getting a game late. 

I see you're digging deep into the playbook for reasons to explain away why Sony's policy is different or "better", but they are both good policies for both businesses and their consumers. lol @ threatened.. as a consumer, neither of these policies hurt me. You're the one who seems upset about these policies, hence your posts about them.



S.T.A.G.E. on 07 January 2014
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
J_Allard said:
Errr... I am aware MS has that policy. Just like Sony has a policy forcing developers to add extra content in order to be able to port a game to their platform after it has been on other platforms. Or the PSP rules they had in place forcing developers to add like 30-40% of new content before getting a port on the platform. This is where the whole hypocrisy and shifting goal posts comes into play. You are griping about MS doing/having these things, but explain them away when it comes to Sony.

"paying for content is so terrible omg! oh well when sony does it its really just dlc and timed exclusives so its fine guys."

"m$ has these terrible restrictions on games where they force content parity! oh noes! oh yeah i know sony also imposes restrictions but its totally ok man!"

You do have a playbook, and it's adorable.


Sony's policy is very fair. If you were a company and had a late port come to you because of an obstruction (competition) you would want extra content because your markets interest might have faded for that specific title. 

This is exactly the same reason why a lot of people wait for Great Hits or Platinum Hits of certain games. Sony's policy is the equivalent of a Greatest hits. I don't see whats so threatening about that to you for getting a game late. 

I see you're digging deep into the playbook for reasons to explain away why Sony's policy is different or "better", but they are both good policies for both businesses and their consumers. lol @ threatened.. as a consumer, neither of these policies hurt me. You're the one who seems upset about these policies, hence your posts about them.

As I said...what would you do if your competition stopped you from getting games. Would you cut them off like Microsoft or would you do what Sony did, which is ask for the DLC content that comes with the game help in persuading late buyers on your platform to pick the title up? Just a question. This is no trick.

 

 

Which would you want if you had to wait a year to pick up a game, the normal version of the game or the game of the year version?



J_Allard on 07 January 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:

As I said...what would you do if your competition stopped you from getting games. Would you cut them off like Microsoft or would you do what Sony did, which is ask for the DLC content that comes with the game help in persuading late buyers on your platform to pick the title up? Just a question. This is no trick.

That's the thing though, you aren't Sony. You're a gamer on a message board. These policies are irrelevant for you. If you own a MS console, they are making sure you get the games when other platforms do. If you own a Sony console, they make sure if the games come later, you get some DLC for your wait. Again, a good policy for both MS/Sony and their customers. If one is "evil", the other is inherently evil. That's really all there is to it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 07 January 2014
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

As I said...what would you do if your competition stopped you from getting games. Would you cut them off like Microsoft or would you do what Sony did, which is ask for the DLC content that comes with the game help in persuading late buyers on your platform to pick the title up? Just a question. This is no trick.

That's the thing though, you aren't Sony. You're a gamer on a message board. These policies are irrelevant for you. If you own a MS console, they are making sure you get the games when other platforms do. If you own a Sony console, they make sure if the games come later, you get some DLC for your wait. Again, a good policy for both MS/Sony and their customers. If one is "evil", the other is inherently evil. That's really all there is to it.

Stop running around what I am saying. Sony's policy request is no different from recieving the equivalent of a "Greatest Hits" copy of a game. Thats not really that big of a request.



Around the Network
Angelv577 on 07 January 2014
BeElite said:
selnor1983 said:

PS3 wasnt the best selling PS. And 360 was doing alot more early on than PS4 is over Xbox One.

Halo 5 will do exceptional numbers. Halo 4 was the highest selling of the franchise when you align timelines. But I also expect on history that Xbox One will get a price cut with Halo 5. 360 did after 1 year. So it will be Halo 5 with $100 price cut. 

Xbox One is doing way better than anyone thought it would against PS4 as they both released same time. MS have alot more studios this time and more experience. I actually think Sony made a business/financial mistake with their price coniderinng how well The One is selling. Its far from over. And I think perception of what a console is will be very different from around Xmas 2015 onwards. 

PS4 is certainly not kicking Xbox Ones arse. It has currently more variety on exclusives and a higher price point. MS are in a great position. 


You are good Pr ill give you that, you avoid reality well and point to your strengths.  You run with hopes and potential rather then facts and reality.

But X is not doing better then anyone though it would.  No one expected PS4 to whoop its ass so badly that MS would lose domminance in its strongest markets.

X1 might be selling fater but its failing at the same time, its losing marlet share in Europe and even NA. it lost the 3rd party advantage 360 had and lost price point advantage.  Sony is gaing back its market share and actually profiting right of the bat, 2.5/3 games sold for every PS4.  What they did is brilliant business/financial wise, only xbox pr would deny it. 

Deny all you want, reality is

MS is losing market share 
It costs more then its competition.
Its lost 3rd party advantage it had last gen.
PS4 costs less yet is more powerfull
Sony own more devs and more franchises.

+1, this



Nsanity on 07 January 2014

Not without a price-cut and Titanfall bundle.



Machiavellian on 07 January 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

If it isn't so then why do they need the first game exclusivity of Titanfall? Zampella confirmed that microsoft closed the deal to have the first game be exclusive on Twitter to the Xbone on next gen consoles. It wont last as it never does. Its even worse to do it this gen than last gen because all the third party exclusives dry up because you're both competing rather than one console having a eight million console lead on the other. 

If Sony really expanded and slow cooked their first party to perfection as you're saying, why are they still securing exclusive content and timed exclusive games as well? That pendulum swings both ways.

You should know by now Stage will never see MS in the positive light.  Sony never make  mistakes in his eyes.  I believe MS is trying to build up their first party just like Sony and they have hired a lot of veteran talent.  It should be interesting to see how these studios games come together and I hope we see some good stuff from both companies.


Both studios will have good showings, im sure but to boast about studios when they have no history is a wasted argument. Its just a meaningless list. Its not a lie to say that Microsoft has padded out their in-house failures by using outside ventures. Killer Instinct is just that an outside venture and so is Gears of War. Double Helix is making games for Playstation as well. Just goes to show how Microsoft feels about Rare. It doesn't take very much to see Rare will stay a Kinect company for a good long while.

Thats a non issue.  MS controls the IP of the stuff they have given to other developers not part of their in-house group.  Who cares if the team is in-house or outsource as long as the end product is high quality.  As a gamer, I do not see myself caring who MS give a project to as long as the end result is a quality project.  Also as a gamer, I do not see myself caring if MS hire teams outside of thier company to produce games.  I can produce many games people throw out there as exclusive where the studio is not part of Sony but people on Sony console really do not care.

Sony and Nintendo do this all the time and its something OEM have been doing for years.  Why this is an issue I am having a hard time seeing.



sales2099 on 07 January 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
sales2099 said:

I could argue the exact same thing for most of Sonys 1st party studios, given their sales records the past gen, established or not. So what if Rare didn't make KI? Just means they are being put to use on other projects.

Only you would take MS's increased efforts and still make them out to be the crook. Stop padding your own ego.

Why so insecure?


Sony Japan/ TeamIco- Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Ape Escape, Siren, Knack and collaborative efforts on titles like Demon Souls and Patapon.

Naughty Dog (Split into two teams)- Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter, Uncharted, The Last of Us.

Sony Santamonica- God of War, Warhawk and numerous collaborative development games including the Order 1886. Sony's go to team to save failing projects. I wont even list all of their collaborations. If Sony lets this company loose making their own games full time its all over.

Polyphony. Digital- Gran Turismo

Honorable mention:

Sucker Punch- Sly Cooper & InFamous (they are not exactly there yet with the other four but this gen it looks like they are going to get a lot of public attention)

 

Top 4 of the greatest gaming companies of all time (Sucker Punch isnt there yet but they are getting there). I am listing results not companies that have little to show for their efforts. Bungie was Microsofts golden goose. They got their IP and Bungie is gone, so no more exclusive 

Yawn........all I read was Naughty Dog and Polyphany.....maybe Santa Monica. The rest are all just fluff. And 343 is more then capable then Bungie, at least when it comes down to the lore. MP can always be improved.

Either way, MS at least geared up with their studious compared to 8 years ago.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 January 2014
Machiavellian said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Machiavellian said:
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

If it isn't so then why do they need the first game exclusivity of Titanfall? Zampella confirmed that microsoft closed the deal to have the first game be exclusive on Twitter to the Xbone on next gen consoles. It wont last as it never does. Its even worse to do it this gen than last gen because all the third party exclusives dry up because you're both competing rather than one console having a eight million console lead on the other. 

If Sony really expanded and slow cooked their first party to perfection as you're saying, why are they still securing exclusive content and timed exclusive games as well? That pendulum swings both ways.

You should know by now Stage will never see MS in the positive light.  Sony never make  mistakes in his eyes.  I believe MS is trying to build up their first party just like Sony and they have hired a lot of veteran talent.  It should be interesting to see how these studios games come together and I hope we see some good stuff from both companies.


Both studios will have good showings, im sure but to boast about studios when they have no history is a wasted argument. Its just a meaningless list. Its not a lie to say that Microsoft has padded out their in-house failures by using outside ventures. Killer Instinct is just that an outside venture and so is Gears of War. Double Helix is making games for Playstation as well. Just goes to show how Microsoft feels about Rare. It doesn't take very much to see Rare will stay a Kinect company for a good long while.

Thats a non issue.  MS controls the IP of the stuff they have given to other developers not part of their in-house group.  Who cares if the team is in-house or outsource as long as the end product is high quality.  As a gamer, I do not see myself caring who MS give a project to as long as the end result is a quality project.  Also as a gamer, I do not see myself caring if MS hire teams outside of thier company to produce games.  I can produce many games people throw out there as exclusive where the studio is not part of Sony but people on Sony console really do not care.

Sony and Nintendo do this all the time and its something OEM have been doing for years.  Why this is an issue I am having a hard time seeing.


People view things differently. This is one thing you must truthfully understand. I value creative control in companies not just on an game developer level but also on an administration level. In my opinion Sony and Nintendo have are still on top where that is concerned. This is why they have much more home grown first party than Microsoft. I don't just trust companies who buy IP's and wave them like a flag. If the game is good then great i'll play it, but I wont expect the company out of the clear blue sky to just hit a home run. Just like I don't accept a list of unproven developers who are just embarking upon their first games. If the company created the game, the creative control has a higher chance of staying that way. Hopefully Microsoft hits home runs. Based on the people Microsoft has hired, I hope for great things, but I would not boast just yet.