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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony vs Microsoft double standards?

Chubomik on 06 September 2014

Why even have the exclusive marketing rights in the first damn place. More advertising = more money. Activision and Bungie both probably still have loads in the bank from COD, Skylanders, and Halo respectively for the advertising to not end in a loss. And I'm still not sure about the whole "MS had exclusive rights for advertising COD, mrr mrr" argument because I still haven't found any real solid evidence for that. If there is any, please: SOURCE.



Around the Network
sergiodaly on 06 September 2014

Funny... I didn't saw nothing like what you describe. I saw people complain and people praising sony on the EA access subject, same as the destiny fragrance ad, some people thought it was wrong doing, same call it genius. Don't see double standards anywhere. If you pick sides... Yes, you may spin it to sound like that, but so can anyone on the other side. Example: "Sony was criticized for block access on psn and now ms is beeing praised on the Internet for a cheesy ad, double standards right?"

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

sergiodaly on 06 September 2014
Chubomik said:
Why even have the exclusive marketing rights in the first damn place. More advertising = more money. Activision and Bungie both probably still have loads in the bank from COD, Skylanders, and Halo respectively for the advertising to not end in a loss. And I'm still not sure about the whole "MS had exclusive rights for advertising COD, mrr mrr" argument because I still haven't found any real solid evidence for that. If there is any, please: SOURCE.

Ummm, your SOURCE is a ad Ms did, and since sony never did a ad for COD sony people don't have a source... Shame on you sony people...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

DonFerrari on 06 September 2014
Mad55 said:
DonFerrari said:
Mad55 said:

Nope you would have to be lind to think that sony gets more heat than Microsoft on this forum. 

Seems you are trying to put words in my mouth...

You said sony haven't got any backlash on their opinion agaisnt EA Access... which they got. And that thread were more hostile than the one on the ad... Never said MS or Sony get more heat. But if you consider that Sony have like 70% of the userbase and MS have 10% or less and them compare the trolling and heat each receive you will see who is more vocal.

When I say there wasn't really any backlash I mean there was some but not a sufficient amount. Also I never put words in your mouth if your going by my last post. The double standards are there and it's ridiculous , not enouh for me to make my heart heavy lol, but it's a bit annoying sometimes.


Define serious backlash... So people thinking MS was silly and childish is serious backlash but saying Sony was anti-consumer and had no right to say what is valuable to their customer is all good.

With the difference that in EAA case all MS fans and some fans criticized Sony (on an interview of one Exec), and in MS ad case all MS fans were pro MS and some Sony fans as well... Yes I see the double standard here.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 06 September 2014
Areym said:
DonFerrari said:
Areym said:

Well, what I should have said is the xbox brand is often viewed as "evil" for no real good reason and not MS as a whole, I don't really know much about their practices.


Ok, yes Xbox brand may have not done much 'EVIL'... but as some people like to put, they brought paid MP, paid DLC, DLC locked on disc, higher failure rate (all that during Xbox og or X360)... and added to that DRM (always online) with no used resell and bad PR this gen. That is quite a lot.

That's not really evil, as much as it is just bussiness. It certainly sucks that games are now never "complete" on disk but it does allow for some great DLC that adds length to the game.

The DRM and no used games policies were certainly evil, I can agree on that.

Well, on disk DLC is certainly an "evil" way of getting more money on a game don't you think? Start charging for things that were free certainly is "evil" as well, like MP.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 07 September 2014
Areym said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Areym said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Areym said:
Microsoft always seems to be viewed as the bad guy of the party. Sony, I think, has a more neutral feeling. One day they can be the heroes of the industry, next day they are a bunch of d=bags who can't run a proper online service and so on.

There is a double standard, which MS suffers more from, I can admit to that. I thought the fragrance gag was funny and EA is a bad value.

Thanks, that's the exact point I was trying to make.

It seems some people got caught up in the example though, that's my fault for not having the best of examples, but at least some people see the point I'm trying to make

I thought it was common knowledge honestly. Granted, MS have hurt their own reputation his new gen since the start but they have always fallen into the "evil" catergory, for no real good reason.

People just wanna fuss and its fun to hate on MS right now, so it's not suprise if people are just looking for any reason to put them dwn.


Theres always reasons why certain products perform better than others. You might disagree with those reasons, but that doesnt mean they are wrong especially since this gen most of them are ethical issues like DRM and marketing.

If you think people are hating on MS for fun, i'm sorry but youre wrong.

I mean, i get why they are getting hate, or i think i have a good idea. XB1 reveal and trying to pull one over us was a big part of it for this gen, but i assume it goes far before that. I meant right now its the fun thing to do or the trend, like the ALS ice bucket challenge. If you're indifferent towards the brand and you see mostly negative things about them, chances are you are gonna join on the bashing.


I understand that notion generally, but thats always been around. In this generation, the increased level of hate they are getting is proportionate to the increased number of 'mistakes' they are making. I think its more obvious this gen because there are so many more people against them, or neutrals, rather than those siding with them because of the lines they crossed.



DonFerrari on 07 September 2014

And just one point to our OP friend...

When Sony said they don't see much value on the service and people criticized them, wasn't them telling the truth? PS+ offers you 6 games a month or 72 games a year for 50 dollars... EAA were giving you 5 games for 30 a year... which have more value packed?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 September 2014
Jazz2K said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Two totally different things which do not need to be discussed.


Sony turned down EA. They did not want the deal and did not consider it a benefit to their community. Much like Titanfall it is up to Sony fans to demand both the game and the service and Sony will acquire the service from EA and the game from them as well. 

Microsoft started the whole DLC bullshit with COD, so if anyone wants to attack Sony for doing it they need to look no further than the company who started the DLC war.


I'm sorry but Sony didn't want Titanfall, maybe they thought their consumers wouldn't find value in it. It seems they were wrong though. The DLC thing was exactly that bullsh*t no matter who does it. But some people from both camps praise one while bash the other for doing the same pratice. 


If you read what I wrote properly, I said Sony didnt want Titanfall. Please...MS started the DLC war and Sony is no better, but remember who started it (otherwise it most likely wouldn't have happened. It is because of them why we live in a gaming world that now pays for online and hordes DLC and calls it competition. Sony saw the profits and followed suit. 



Jazz2K on 07 September 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Jazz2K said:


I'm sorry but Sony didn't want Titanfall, maybe they thought their consumers wouldn't find value in it. It seems they were wrong though. The DLC thing was exactly that bullsh*t no matter who does it. But some people from both camps praise one while bash the other for doing the same pratice. 


If you read what I wrote properly, I said Sony didnt want Titanfall. Please...MS started the DLC war and Sony is no better, but remember who started it (otherwise it most likely wouldn't have happened. It is because of them why we live in a gaming world that now pays for online and hordes DLC and calls it competition. Sony saw the profits and followed suit. 

Yeah you are right I didn't read properly haha my bad :P 

But because one started something (I'm not even sure MS are the ones who started this) doesn't make the followers any less guilty. Sony likes money as much as any other company. Some reasons behind their decisions imo would be that they were leaders in gen 6 so they didn't feel the need to do much (just look at how they handeled the PS2 disc read errors). Then last gen Sony as a company just bleeded money and investing a lot in internet infrastructure wasn't possible or just not as much as what MS was offering. Imo that was the reason they kept it free, not because they were "the good side of gaming". As for the DLC same thing, bleeding money = not investing in exclusive stuff other than stuff you hold rights to like first party content. If you think about it 2sec, almost every games that made popular Playstation was to be released on Xbox too so Sony did great in building a portfolio that was their very own. As for this gen we can already see the effects of being more at ease financialy. They secure deals just like MS was doing last gen. DLCs, timed exclusive, exclusive advertising and now you have to pay to play online since their online is better than what they could offer last gen.

I say all this because when people say things like "otherwise it most likely wouldn't have happened" is pure speculation and imo wishful thinking. Companies need money to breath and they all do all sorts of things to get that money. Some may be too young to know/remember but Sony at the start of 5th gen paid for timed exclusives. A lot of games didn't appear on Saturn for some time because of these practices. Battle Arena Toshinden, Destruction Derby, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil to name a few. Every companies do these kind of stupid deals. Nintendo in the 80s prevented companies from releasing games on other consoles otherwise they wouldn't let these companies release games on NES anymore. It's not like timed exclusivity started last gen. DLC is just the logical follow up and companies will do whatever they can to be the only ones to get that money. 



Chubomik on 07 September 2014

Figures that when I try to add a meaningful post to a thread, it's goes dead before people to actually read it. -_-