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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony vs Microsoft double standards?

Intrinsic on 05 September 2014

Trying to make something outta two completely unrelated things?

That being said, I agree with sony about EA access, though not that i think its not great value, but that i don't like what it could do eventually. Its like paramount, sony, warner...etc decide that netflix is for them anymore and have people subscribing for their own exclusive services for movie content.

I also think the destiny perfume thing is interesting (borderline brilliant). Can't get why anyone will criticize MS for that.



Around the Network
Daddo Splat on 05 September 2014

Its irrelevant everyone buying the game on xbox knows it multi plat everyone buying on sony knows it mulit plat, anyone butt hurt about MS hate's them and bashes at any chance they can get.

Who cares because they one gaming superiority with the most sold consoles, as though they gained 3 inches of stature from a console.

Enjoy your games people, you didn't win a Super Bowl.



alabtrosMyster on 05 September 2014

I saw more praise for MSes fragrance move than 'outrage', honestly I think only maybe Sony/Activision may be somewhat bothered by that move as they have some exclusivity agreement in therm of publicity and cross promotion, so some lawyers are probably looking into it... me as a person I am rather amused that MS has to retort to that kind of move to spread the information about Destiny being on their console also.

Either way, I don't see how someone can put trying to find loopholes in a contract to advertise that a game is on your console in opposition to refusing to have some publisher implement a subscription service on your platform... MS has similar policies in regard to simultanous releases and platform parity on their side, they cause other problems, if anything these platform policies should be stacked against each other to try to figure out which platform holder has the better over all effect on the industry, by making business easy for developers and generating content in a way that adds diversity to the games that we can play.

Not a plaform policy against a lame publicity stunt.



Josiah on 05 September 2014
alabtrosMyster said:

I saw more praise for MSes fragrance move than 'outrage', honestly I think only maybe Sony/Activision may be somewhat bothered by that move as they have some exclusivity agreement in therm of publicity and cross promotion, so some lawyers are probably looking into it... me as a person I am rather amused that MS has to retort to that kind of move to spread the information about Destiny being on their console also.

Either way, I don't see how someone can put trying to find loopholes in a contract to advertise that a game is on your console in opposition to refusing to have some publisher implement a subscription service on your platform... MS has similar policies in regard to simultanous releases and platform parity on their side, they cause other problems, if anything these platform policies should be stacked against each other to try to figure out which platform holder has the better over all effect on the industry, by making business easy for developers and generating content in a way that adds diversity to the games that we can play.

Not a plaform policy against a lame publicity stunt.

They were forced to take it down.  The question is what's to come.



MoHasanie on 06 September 2014

Yeah that's been the case for a while. MS is always the evil one.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
MB1025 on 06 September 2014
Maciveli said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Maciveli said:
Ka-pi96 said:

No, they aren't really the same. But people seem to be angry about how Microsoft have treated Activision, so did Sony not treat EA badly as well then? Why were people happy about them doing that but angry at Microsoft?


Ms did something stupid and took shit for it like they have been doing so all this gen, nothing new there.  Sony was just blatant about their opinion, for better or for worse they did really nothing wrong.  Some just cant handle brutal honesty, well not some but most these days can't.

Sony did do wrong. They presented their opinion as the opinion of their entire fanbase, which clearly it isn't. They could have just said 'no comment' or some such no? Can a blunder in an interview like that not be called stupid as well? Is that not why a lot of people say 'no comment' in interviews?


No, its their opinion that its the best for their fanbase.  Agree or not they are entitled to it.

MS has no right to do what they did given the contracts in place ones they know damn well them selves as they signed pelnty of them.  

What exactly is this "has no right given the contracts that were in place" coming from?



vivster on 06 September 2014

We live in a world where some developers need and appreciate any help they can get to advertise their game and other developers forbid advertisement to their game.

I'm seeing a lot of indie developers right now going WTF MAN!



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Mad55 on 06 September 2014

I agree and their definitely is a Bigger Bias against Microsoft overall. Sony basically said our consumers don't get a choice no Ea Access and their wasn't really any backlash.



bonkeng on 06 September 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
BMaker11 said:

One is making a statement on a value perspective.

The other is finding a shitty loophole to a contract (the type of contract this company has practiced for years) then whining saying "we wanna advertise, but we can't"

Not. The. Same.

You mean a contract that they never signed and have probably never seen? The contract is between Activision and Sony, it's got nothing to do with Microsoft. So if this is indeed using a loophole in the contract who told them about the loophole?


Does Adidas need to sign some contract with LeBron/Nike in order for them NOT to advertise LeBron on their basketball-related items? No.

Same thing with Destiny/Activision and Sony. They signed an exclusive advertisement deal, so MS didn't have permission for the the Destiny Ad. 

Every Ad that is related to a featured Product/Person needs permission or signed contract, which MS didn't have with regards to Destiny.

Although, I find it clever and amusing the way MS presented it :)



“Ore no... Kachi da!”


Normchacho on 06 September 2014

eeehhh this is a reach. It sounds like the OP had a topic and then tried to justify it after the fact.

I'm not really upset by the MS thing, but it's still a pretty big stretch to claim a double standard here.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.