Jazz2K said:
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. |
Yes sony was dominating so much in PS2 era and had so little concern for the disc error that they made a really reliable console in PS3, check. And saying if the other didn't we wouldn't is wishfull thinking, having nothing to defend that they would is also wishfull thinking so they both anulate, so we just have "they done it first" because that is factual.
On the exclusive buying, never saw any user making that claim showing any evidence of it being paid. We do know that several partners of Nintendo decided to go for PS1 because they had more power and had a disc (when competing with SNES and Genesis at the time) and kept away from Nintendo because of bad relationship nintendo had during the years they dominated and also because of disc. Paid exclusive against Saturn I never saw any proof, one reason why they didn't gone there could be because PS1 released before and already had a good number of system sold and also most games were exclusives at that time because of porting difficulties? Just a limited number of games were both on SNES and Genesis in the previous gen.
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."
