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

Forums - Gaming - Microsoft Is Trying to Keep PUBG Off PS4 for Longer

Oneeee-Chan!!! on 04 October 2017

Consumer friendly .



Around the Network
walsufnir on 04 October 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:

I think it's a thing that originates at the beginning of the generation: Sony won. They were and are consistently cheap, get their marketing deals right and their exclusive contents right. They chose to do Destiny marketing and that game really was a blockbuster. They even were successful with watch_dogs, funny as it is. The Star Wars marketing also was a big win in the end.

I said it before: Look which games are sold at most. It's the third party games mostly. The crowd out there doesn't care about forum wars or list wars, they buy the "big" games which are advertised to hell. Sony has the champions league deal for ages and thus is associated to Fifa, one of the biggest games to be on consoles.

It's good to have games like Journey or Puppeteer or even Bloodborne and Bloodborne was a success but how is the attach rate of Bloodborne? This site lists it at no. 40...

Sony has more brand appeal in the world than Microsoft by default. They built up a high level name. Blu Ray is what theyve been invested in and now Microsoft is following. Third parties sell the most, but there are dry months to the year and Sony and Nintendo were wise to relocate theier games to correspond with those months opposed to the old fourth quarter when exclusives could survive. In Sonys case its worked. Microsoft hasnt had much to offer and without third party help they honestly dont have much in the tank for the rest of the gen. Sony covers the bases that they need to so that when they make deals outside of themselves they have all of their bases covered. Microsoft can make a great console with great online...but thats it. How they get their games does not show off how great they are as a developer. They acquired Halo and they acquired Gears. These are their two pillar franchises and both devs have nothing to do with them anymore. Think about it.

Many things come into play. Downplaying MS to a good console and online is true only nowadays. Remember the Halo 3 days? Sony only had GT back then, missing a mascot for many, many years. Halo was what actually sold consoles but yes, it's MS' fault they don't have a juggernaut this gen like Halo or Gears - well, they still have them but people moved on to different games, mainly 3rd party games. I even think Nintendo and Sony will be the last two pillars (at least I hope) to stand against the pay2win, pay2earn, service-type of games because it destroys how I grew up as a kid with a Master System - buy once, play forever. Games designed to be "finished", with a certain appeal. Not only to sell the game and making the most money of what people would like to spend money for.

But we will see if both keep the service crap out of their games.

Either way, I quit so I also won't participate anymore in this thread. But many people are just looking at many things way too simple, in my opinion.



S.T.A.G.E. on 04 October 2017
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Sony has more brand appeal in the world than Microsoft by default. They built up a high level name. Blu Ray is what theyve been invested in and now Microsoft is following. Third parties sell the most, but there are dry months to the year and Sony and Nintendo were wise to relocate theier games to correspond with those months opposed to the old fourth quarter when exclusives could survive. In Sonys case its worked. Microsoft hasnt had much to offer and without third party help they honestly dont have much in the tank for the rest of the gen. Sony covers the bases that they need to so that when they make deals outside of themselves they have all of their bases covered. Microsoft can make a great console with great online...but thats it. How they get their games does not show off how great they are as a developer. They acquired Halo and they acquired Gears. These are their two pillar franchises and both devs have nothing to do with them anymore. Think about it.

Many things come into play. Downplaying MS to a good console and online is true only nowadays. Remember the Halo 3 days? Sony only had GT back then, missing a mascot for many, many years. Halo was what actually sold consoles but yes, it's MS' fault they don't have a juggernaut this gen like Halo or Gears - well, they still have them but people moved on to different games, mainly 3rd party games. I even think Nintendo and Sony will be the last two pillars (at least I hope) to stand against the pay2win, pay2earn, service-type of games because it destroys how I grew up as a kid with a Master System - buy once, play forever. Games designed to be "finished", with a certain appeal. Not only to sell the game and making the most money of what people would like to spend money for.

But we will see if both keep the service crap out of their games.

Either way, I quit so I also won't participate anymore in this thread. But many people are just looking at many things way too simple, in my opinion.

Microsoft did the opposite of Nintendo. They created a culture built around third party whereas Nintendo built a culture around exclusives. Phil Spencer even admitted to this about Sony and Nintendo. Exclusives sell better on their platforms. What Sony and Nintendo need to learn from Microsoft is how to sell accessories. Microsoft excels at hardware, online and accessories. Ive never seen a company make so much profit for nine months strictly off of pushing controllers. Just goes to show that the market is hungrier for choices (regardless of how distracting they are). Microsoft learned a lot from apple. You create a lifestyle produt and people will treat it as such.

Sony is not even giving Microsoft an inch with services like GWG. 

Sorry to hear that you dont want to continue. I will end here then.



VGPolyglot on 04 October 2017
flashfire926 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Has that ever been confirmed?

Think about it. Monster hunter is very popular in Japan. The 3DS has 20m+ units sold there. The PS4 has around 5m units there. Switch has sold 1.5m in just 6 months.  Why would Capcom in their right mind have monster hunter on PS4 rather than 3DS and switch? Because Sony gave them money. Infact, capcom is halfway in sony's pocket. Capcom itself doesn't have funds itself to make huge games, and the budget presentation of MvCi is proof of that. Street fighter 5 has much better presentation put into it. Why? Because Sony itself funded the game. Also, what about Okami HD? There is no excuse for that not being on switch. It would easily be the bestselling version if it existed. What about no localization for mhXX for outside Japan? Sony is the one pulling Capcom's strings in the backstage, it's just not visible to us.

I'll still wait for confirmation.



S.T.A.G.E. on 04 October 2017
zero129 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Exclusives keep mindshare consistent. Its the main reason why the Xbox sales have been dropping all year. Theres nothing to keep the mindshare up. Highly antificpated exclusives keep sales consistent over an extended period of time. 

At launch didnt MS have more exclusives?. seems more like MS fucked up by releasing a weaker console for a higher price plus the PR fuck up about used games before hand.

Pretty much Sony done everything right, the Right marketing, the Right price and they gave the right impression of 4 the players.

Microsoft had third party carrying them. Their launch was pretty much even with Sony, but Sonys first and third party pulled away with the exclusive count as the years go by. At this point they arent even in the same league. Nintendo has even beaten Microsoft for most exclusives within the span of two years. Nintendo definitely beat both of them for best first year in general with exclusives.



Around the Network
Fei-Hung on 04 October 2017
zero129 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Microsoft had third party carrying them. Their launch was pretty much even with Sony, but Sonys first and third party pulled away with the exclusive count as the years go by. At this point they arent even in the same league. Nintendo has even beaten Microsoft for most exclusives within the span of two years. Nintendo definitely beat both of them for best first year in general with exclusives.

No Sony blow MS out of the water right out of the gate way before they got more better exclusives. What AAA exclusives did the PS4 have in its first 3 months?.

All they had was killzone and Knack I think. Can't remember if ISS launched within the three months or after. 



GOWTLOZ on 04 October 2017
walsufnir said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Sega Saturn and 3DO never took off. PS1 was selling decently and was actually a viable alternative to Nintendo.

64dd add on came out only in Japan, in 1999, two years after FF VII released. Most games wouldn't have fit even on two N64 cartridges that could fit on just one PS1 disc. Also CD had way better audio output which was important in games like Metal Gear Solid. And after a while as Sony pulled ahead there was no need to consider developing for the N64 anyways. Business one o one.

Sony got in the industry for not holding back technology and developers like what Nintendo was doing.

Sony went deep pockets with PS1. They even bought Tomb Raider to not appear on other consoles back then. And they did it this gen with exclusive content for Destiny, "helped with developing SF5" and hurt VR as a whole when they bought timed exclusivity for BATMAN VR and RE7VR.

Sony didn't prevent most games from coming to other platforms. Tekken, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid were on PS1 by the choice of their publishers. Same with Crash and Gran Turismo. As for Tomb Raider, you have any source?

SF5 wouldn't have been half as good without Sony's funding, they didn't fund MVCI and look how that game turned out.  Should I talk about MS doing the same with Dead Rising 3 and 4 hence preventing these games to come on PS4? Even if funding a game is considered a crime, MS did it first.

Then we have last generation. Do you not know about GTA EFLC timed exclusivity to Xbox? I'm sure you do. This cycle was perpetrated by MS and you know it damn well.

walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Sony has more brand appeal in the world than Microsoft by default. They built up a high level name. Blu Ray is what theyve been invested in and now Microsoft is following. Third parties sell the most, but there are dry months to the year and Sony and Nintendo were wise to relocate theier games to correspond with those months opposed to the old fourth quarter when exclusives could survive. In Sonys case its worked. Microsoft hasnt had much to offer and without third party help they honestly dont have much in the tank for the rest of the gen. Sony covers the bases that they need to so that when they make deals outside of themselves they have all of their bases covered. Microsoft can make a great console with great online...but thats it. How they get their games does not show off how great they are as a developer. They acquired Halo and they acquired Gears. These are their two pillar franchises and both devs have nothing to do with them anymore. Think about it.

Many things come into play. Downplaying MS to a good console and online is true only nowadays. Remember the Halo 3 days? Sony only had GT back then, missing a mascot for many, many years. Halo was what actually sold consoles but yes, it's MS' fault they don't have a juggernaut this gen like Halo or Gears - well, they still have them but people moved on to different games, mainly 3rd party games. I even think Nintendo and Sony will be the last two pillars (at least I hope) to stand against the pay2win, pay2earn, service-type of games because it destroys how I grew up as a kid with a Master System - buy once, play forever. Games designed to be "finished", with a certain appeal. Not only to sell the game and making the most money of what people would like to spend money for.

But we will see if both keep the service crap out of their games.

Either way, I quit so I also won't participate anymore in this thread. But many people are just looking at many things way too simple, in my opinion.

Sony always had a mascot. Crash on PS1, Ratchet and Jak in the early years of PS2 and Kratos in the later years of PS2 and early years of PS3.



flashfire926 on 04 October 2017
GOWTLOZ said:
zero129 said:

Took the words right from my mouth. I love the double standards of the users on this site when it comes to things like this.

I like how you guys come up and are sure of these conspiracy theories surrounding Sony, even though MH W is coming to PC and Xbox One as well. So Sony would spend millions just to keep it off one platform, or would it make more sense to spend a bit more and make it exclusive altogether.

Also why would they spend money on collections of old games and remasters of very niche titrles? More like Cpacom wasn't expecting Switch to be a success. Stop with your tin foils folks.

They left Xbox One and PC versions out there because they won't affect PS4 mh world sales one bit. In other words,they didn't need to spend the extra money to get it off this platforms, they just needed to get it off Nintendo. It's pretty fucking obvious if you Actually see it instead of ignoring it. Capcom is in sony's pocket, there is no denying that.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

flashfire926 on 04 October 2017
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:

I think it's a thing that originates at the beginning of the generation: Sony won. They were and are consistently cheap, get their marketing deals right and their exclusive contents right. They chose to do Destiny marketing and that game really was a blockbuster. They even were successful with watch_dogs, funny as it is. The Star Wars marketing also was a big win in the end.

I said it before: Look which games are sold at most. It's the third party games mostly. The crowd out there doesn't care about forum wars or list wars, they buy the "big" games which are advertised to hell. Sony has the champions league deal for ages and thus is associated to Fifa, one of the biggest games to be on consoles.

It's good to have games like Journey or Puppeteer or even Bloodborne and Bloodborne was a success but how is the attach rate of Bloodborne? This site lists it at no. 40...

Sony has more brand appeal in the world than Microsoft by default. They built up a high level name. Blu Ray is what theyve been invested in and now Microsoft is following. Third parties sell the most, but there are dry months to the year and Sony and Nintendo were wise to relocate theier games to correspond with those months opposed to the old fourth quarter when exclusives could survive. In Sonys case its worked. Microsoft hasnt had much to offer and without third party help they honestly dont have much in the tank for the rest of the gen. Sony covers the bases that they need to so that when they make deals outside of themselves they have all of their bases covered. Microsoft can make a great console with great online...but thats it. How they get their games does not show off how great they are as a developer. They acquired Halo and they acquired Gears. These are their two pillar franchises and both devs have nothing to do with them anymore. Think about it.

 

P.S. 

 

Microsoft did a lot of anti consumer crap at the beginning of this gen.

1st strike: Force bundling the Kinect agianst the will of the consumer.

2nd strike: Possibly imposing drm that would block used game sales.

3rd strike: Their launch price was $500 vs a more powerful console which sold for less. 

Plus Sony makes more games and won back a lot of gamers last gen when Microsoft couldnt run with the ball because their exclusives are lacking and because of that it couldnt keep their mindshare consistent.

. How's bundling Kinect an anti-consumer move? They were committed to it first, but then no one cared about it so they dropped it. Simple as that. Stop overdramatizing things. The third one was them overpricing the console. They just played it all wrong. Only the second one is anti-consumer. Also last gen Microsoft did run the ball. They were the most consistent in selling, not dropping off in sales as quickly as the Wii, or not having a catastrophic start like PS3. They sold fine even during the 2010-2013 years. Stop making up crap ffs.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

PEEPer0nni on 04 October 2017
flashfire926 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

I like how you guys come up and are sure of these conspiracy theories surrounding Sony, even though MH W is coming to PC and Xbox One as well. So Sony would spend millions just to keep it off one platform, or would it make more sense to spend a bit more and make it exclusive altogether.

Also why would they spend money on collections of old games and remasters of very niche titrles? More like Cpacom wasn't expecting Switch to be a success. Stop with your tin foils folks.

They left Xbox One and PC versions out there because they won't affect PS4 mh world sales one bit. In other words,they didn't need to spend the extra money to get it off this platforms, they just needed to get it off Nintendo. It's pretty fucking obvious if you Actually see it instead of ignoring it. Capcom is in sony's pocket, there is no denying that.

For me the obvious is that Capcom wanted to make a next-gen MH game and (I know this might shock you) Nintendo doesn't care about hardware power but ''unique and innovative gaming experience'' (as Reggie said himself) so they were left out.