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

Forums - Gaming - Sony and Microsoft are spoiling Third Parties to much.

 

Do you agree with me?

Nope. 65 28.14%
 
Yes. 134 58.01%
 
See results. 32 13.85%
 
Total:231
Barozi on 01 February 2015
Game_God said:
pokoko said:
Spoiling? What are they, delinquent kids? They're businesses, they sink or swim on their own merits. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all review code to make sure the game works on the system. They don't sit around and play it for days to make sure it has no bugs. After all, tons of games on Nintendo systems have had bugs and some were even honestly and truly broken--and I don't mean the "it has a lot of glitches" that many players on these forums think means broken.


When Sony/MS bribes & moneyhats  & pay the marketing of said 3rd parties, we can say they "spoil" them.

Back when NIntendo had the "Seal of Quality" 3rd party games were of much higher standart & has much less bugs.

No game can be 100% exempt of bugs but some are more dedicated at selling quality products than others.

" After all, tons of games on Nintendo systems have had bugs and some were even honestly and truly broken", I am yet to play these "truly broken" games you speak of... maybe you forget to end your sentence with /s

Of course they had less bugs. They were incredibly simple. Compared to even earlier games, NES and especially SNES games are buggy beyond belief.

Don't fall for the "Seal of Quality". It's just an advertisement thing.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 01 February 2015
Game_God said:
DonFerrari said:
Game_God said:


I'm well aware of the iron fist policies that Nintendo used back in the day, they were even more ruthless with retail. While I can see that some of their pratices were abusive, you can't argue that the output of quality games was great & that the consumer was more respected than nowadays, where we are treated as beta testers, lied to, micro-transaction dry milked by broken sequel games on release, on top of that we have to pay $300 extra to play these games on-line for a period of 6 years.

Nintendo was ruthless with 3rd parties so that we could enjoy great products, Sony/MS let 3rd parties do whatever & we the consumers pay for the consequences, worse they are steeping up 3rd parties mal-practices: Sony DriveClub & MS Halo: Master Chief Collection comes to mind...


Do customers need Nintendo or anyone else dictating what they can buy??? The games is out there and the customer decides what to buy.

1st of all, sorry to highjack your thread :'P
To answer yout question, ideally no! In reality it's like with drugs, food etc. if there is not someone controlling what is being sold, money/greed makes people do horrible things, there's no such thing as self regulated market, this would only work if every actors had the same power along the line, which clearly they don't.

Nintendo in their good ol' Yamauchi japanese traditional iron fisted way tried to, with positive & negative aspects to it as always. Look at the great IPs born & still remaining under Nintendo great dictatorship ;P

And all of those are regulated by government agency (because of healthy issues) not by the distributers. Comparing games to drugs is quite odd... no hijacking =]

Sony is as japanese as Nintendo and didn't tried so that was more like MS trying to monopolize the market and decide everything their partners can don.

And on the regulatory side I preffer there was none, but I understand the need of the governement to step in from time to time. This really isn't the case.



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."

ThatDanishGamer on 01 February 2015

My guess is that they only test if the playable and can be beaten. I don't think they stop a game because you fall through the level once or if FPS occasionally drops. Ubisoft, EA, Activision and other publishers have their own test teams so it is their responsibility if the game is bad or broken.
The AC problems were predictable so Ubisoft should have stalled the release of Unity.



Don't copy random editorials.

DonFerrari on 01 February 2015
Mr Puggsly said:
zippy said:
Whilst third parties are important, I do think they have too much influence in the industry.


That's probably for the best.

What's the alternative? 1st parties having all the influence thus killing competition?


Like MS or Sony would try that alone. If they done that they would lose all 3rd to the other... and if both tried there is a chance they would either go PC or associate to make a new platform.



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."

atoker on 01 February 2015

Lmao at the fact that there was/is an AC Unity bundle. It's like giving away a car with a broken engine.



http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/

Wii U + PS4 

Consoles>Mobile

Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 01 February 2015
The_Sony_Girl1 said:

I know they rely on third parties to sell consoles, but why did they approve of broken games like Assassins Creed Unity get released? Do they beta test the games before release, or do they just let games get released?


I think they just "Let games get released."  I don't know if they need something as rigid as the "Nintendo Seal" but yeah maybe something does need to change.  Sony for instance could make a big difference if they made sure every disc game worked well without a patch.



Ruler on 01 February 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
That isn't Sony or Microsofts responsibility and to be honest if they did try and do that then I'd hope the publishers would just say to them 'well fuck you too then, we'll just take our business elsewhere'.


Where is this elsewhere?



oniyide on 01 February 2015
Game_God said:
They were crying over Nintendo iron fist rules (Nintendo controlled the output of titles per year & their quality) back in the day, they left for Sony which let them do as they want, Nintendo had the "Seal of Quality" & it meant something when a game had that seal, now most games games deserve a "Seal of Crappy".
Fortunately when I see a game with Nintendo on it, I know it means quality!


you mean like Metroid Other M, Mario Kart 7 and Smash Bros?



Teeqoz on 01 February 2015

They test if the game is playable and doesn't fuck up your system. That's pretty much it.



S.T.A.G.E. on 01 February 2015
atoker said:
Lmao at the fact that there was/is an AC Unity bundle. It's like giving away a car with a broken engine.

The game isnt broken any longer. I have it and its fixed.