Eternal Sonata had quite a few improvements, including extra dungeons.  Star Ocean had added language options and combat improvements.  Mass Effect 2 had DLC included for free.  Deadly Premonition had improvements across the board.

If you don't want to believe it that badly then don't. 

They're still trying to spin this?

@oniyide
Simple i buy something for 60 bucks day one with no dlc on 360... A year later on PS a guy buys day 1 for 60 bucks the same game with all DLC hell god damn yes it is a sweet addition FOR FREE to the game....

Different exemple you buy a Ferrari day 1 in USA for X dollars... A year later Antonio buys the same Ferrari day 1 in Italy with 1 year free gas (like you already consumed)for the same price.... That's no addition right ???

Indeed, as opposed to being able to actually play the first game. Gee what a bonus. I'll take having access to the original game over a motion comic intro any day. But you are correct, ME2 on PS3 released with all the main DLC included. But it was a year later and at full retail price, while ME2 on 360 was probably going for $30 or $40 at retail. I'd say it's fair enough to expect some extra content on a 1 year post release title that is being sold at new release price. But if you release the game in its original state, then release it for the average retail price it's currently going for on the original platform. What MS is saying is that it doesn't ,atter if you release the game for 1/2-2/3 the new release price, you have to do something special. I don't think Sony was ever strictly like that, if you released at a cheaper price then that was sufficient.

That's a terrible analogy. The day the game releases on the 2nd platform the retail value on the original platform has dropped. So if you expect the person who owns the second platform to pay the day 1 price of the first platform then there should be more value in the product because they are paying more than the current market price. A new Ferrari of the same model will cost the same one year later as it did the day it first rolled off the production line. The perceived value of a new game drops with time, the perceived value of a new Ferarri does not.

There is no reason, in the case of Mass Effect 2, why EA couldn't have released a GOTY version of the game for X360 and PC with all the same DLC as the PS3 version got for $60. Indeed GOTY versions of GOTY winning games are often released a year or so after launch with the main DLC thrown in for the original launch price. Just like every platform is getting for Destiny very soon. No one seems to have a beef with GOTY versions of games releasing, even thoguh the poor schmos who bought the game day 1 had to fork over extra cash to get all that DLC, which is coming to the people who were patient with the original game at the original launch price.

Ok, you have got few games. But some of them just had the whole DLCs added. Ever occured to think that it happened because the large BR drive made it possible and not because of a policy which has never been disclosed by anyone?

The X360 DVD drive killed half of the games in the 7th generation and that is exactly why MS introduced that clause. Indeed look at what it happened in the rare cases where MS had to beg to get the games developed for PS3 ported to X360, like with FF XIII. The 39.4GB of the PS3 game had to be squeezed in 3 DVDs, for a total of 18.3GB. With the cutscenes (at 1080p on PS3) an other graphical assets getting heavily compressed as it has been measured after the game launched.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ffxiii-360-less-than-half-the-size-of-ps3-game-blog-entry

The arguments in this thread.... Smh. I honestly don't know where to begin. So many incidents where goalposts are being moved!

Ive added nothing to the convo but I don't have to. You guys know when you have to make up stuff and spin things to suit am agenda, your probably losing.

hell no it won't as soon as you turn the key and drive off it already has lost a shit ton of value... Even a damn Ferrari... And no its not more than the current market price... Since there isn't a PS3 market the day before....
two different platform two different markets can't correlate price of same game over time just because it suits you... When ME2 released at $60 it had more content for the same amount of money day one on PS3 than Xb360... Can't deny just look at the box... So yeah Sony does the same in many cases than MS... Case closed...

and yeah Ferrari might have been a bad choice in brand... Use fiat punto then

You missed the entire point. A NEW Ferrari, or Fiat Punto today and a NEW Ferrari or Fiat Punto in a year's time will cost the same. It has nothing to do with the used car value. Not so with a game, a NEW game today will be 30%-50% more expensive than the same NEW game next year. And you're wrong about platform, the market still operates the same. If EA was just going to release the vanilla ME2 on PS3 for $60 no one would have bought it, because ME2 on 360 was selling for $40 or even $30. GAMERS not Sony would have given EA the middle finger and EA would have failed to expand the franchise into a new market segment. Their choice was to release ME2 on PS3 at $40, or add some content to make gamers feel like its worth their while to buy this year old game for $60. The decision was a totally market driven one, they knew that to stimulate the PS3 market they needed to incentivise buying the game in some way, price or content are the only way. Perhaps the motion comic was an extra Sony negotiated, because Bioware could have just done something really simple to get you to make some choices, just a voice over with screenshots from ME would have been enough, though perhaps MS might have blocked the use of images from ME.

You can see with several games released on PS3 after they were released on 360 that Sony did not insist on extras where the game at launch was the complete package, I think maybe the only thing Sony wanted was something that looked a tad bit better, or ran a wee bit smoother. So what they really insisted on was a high quality port, not an unreasonable request. So the only time you could say Sony insisted on extras was when extras already existed that could be packaged into the game. So there is a difference between what seems to have been Sony's approach to late ports and MS's "we want something special" approach, which seems to mean indies gotta make extra content that doesn't currently exist. I am not aware of Sony ever insisting on that, but there might be examples of which I'm not aware.

It boils down to this: When M$ was dominant, they wanted games ( I thought it was only indie/Arcade games) to release on their console on day one of first or have additional content. If not, they didn't want it released at all.

I personally can't think of any game that released later with any content. People feel this was bad.

On the other hand, we have Sony who had no such deal as far as we know. Still, people can make several games that released later with added content (and a few times like Lost Planet were the game had no bonus AND ran worse).


Which side do you fail on? Because if it was bad for M$ then, is bad for Sony now. If it was good for M$ then, it's good for PlayStation gamers now. It doesn't matter if the bonus was good, bad, or ugly. According to what we read, it only applied to what was ON THE DISC. Console exclusive Dlc wasn't taken into consideration.