PEEPer0nni said:
Any proof of that? The game is just too technically advanced. |
That original rumor got way too much correct for that to be a coincidence. If that's a coincidence that a guy just made up maybe he should play the lottery while he's at it.
Coupled with the fact that we know Sony already money hats more than anyone else in the industry, it's pretty much standard operating procedure for them.
This is a shitty practice but are we pretending Sony doesn't have some deals with third parties to keep content off of other platforms?
BraLoD said:
You should check you history 101 better, pal, like, really check it. Sony wasn't even in the gaming market when those kind of deals started, and it sure wasn't the one to start the current model of doing it as well. Not as if I don't know why you purposely went that way, anyway, but still, try to be a little more obvious, it's sad. |
LOL, I've been reading about the "industry" since before the internet gaming sites were even a big thing (1992 EGM represent), so no. I've been following the "Playstation" since inception. I'm quite well versed on "Sony's history" and they have a very long one of keeping content off other platforms that continues right until this day.
So after the talk about not holding content from others.... are people still going to say this was decided before his tenure?
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."
BraLoD said:
How old you are and how long you have been following anything matters nothing when what you say is wrong. Exclusive deals existed in gaming before PlayStation was even a thing. |
I'm in my late 30s, I've been following "Playstation" since 1992 when it was announced as the SNES CD-ROM. I think even still have EGM lying around somewhere.
Refute any of my points, it's well known Sony money hatted things like Final Fantasy in the past (and uh well continues to do so looking at FFVII Remake), why do you think Nintendo and Square had to go to the ridiculous lengths of creating a shell company just to get even a Final Fantasy spin-off? Maybe you should do your research, I've more than done mine.
Sony is responsible for locking more content out from other systems for no good reason than any other company by a long shot since they've entered the business. They've done it to Sega and continue to do so to Nintendo and MS.
| Ganoncrotch said: Why spend money to create games when you can just use that money to make sure other peoples games don't appear on rival systems. Really gives us gamers more unique experiences that can only be played on XboxoneX |
Yeah... like this hasn't been going on since the late 70's. Buying exclusive games is as old as the hills.
microsoft can even have it as console exclusive for all i care but hey... that's just me.
| Soundwave said: As if Sony is not buying as much content if not more, they are the ones who started this whole business. Why did Nintendo and Square have to create a shell company just to get a Final Fantasy game on GameCube? Because Sony had an iron clad exclusivity deal to keep content off other platforms. Same with Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, etc. etc. MS had to jump through major hoops to get GTA on the original XBox as well. Sony moneyhatted to keep Madden off the Dreamcast as well. And that continues to this day with things like Monster Hunter World, Final Fantasy VII REMake exclusivity period, Street Fighter V (gimme a break with the "Capcom couldn't afford to develop it" .... SFIV sold millions and millions of copies), and even things like Final Fantasy XII remaster being kept off other platforms largely because Sony negotiates deals to keep that content away from other platforms. We saw how successful Sony is when they don't have the full backing of the third party community with the Vita, which crashed and burned. If you want to be mad at MS for this, so be it, but IMO it's a bit hypocritical if you're not also going to knock Sony for it or even more laughably try to claim that Sony is the "white knight of gaming", when they are responsible for locking out more content from other platforms since coming into the industry than anyone else by a country mile. If Sony had gotten to PUBG first, then the story we'd be fed right now would be "well Sony's just smart, they recognized the game was going to be a big hit, maybe MS should have been smarter". |
Just look back to the Tomb Raider deal Microsoft struck and the reaction to it. A lot of people online are either too young and weren't around for PSone/PS2 era Sony or just conveniently forget. Of course, it's not as if Sony doesn't have a lot of deals nowadays too, so I guess it's just conveniently forgotten.
I do like reading about the DESPERATIOOOOOOON though. lol
Soundwave said:
I'm in my late 30s, I've been following "Playstation" since 1992 when it was announced as the SNES CD-ROM. I think even still have EGM lying around somewhere. Refute any of my points, it's well known Sony money hatted things like Final Fantasy in the past (and uh well continues to do so looking at FFVII Remake), why do you think Nintendo and Square had to go to the ridiculous lengths of creating a shell company just to get even a Final Fantasy spin-off? Maybe you should do your research, I've more than done mine. Sony is responsible for locking more content out from other systems for no good reason than any other company by a long shot since they've entered the business. They've done it to Sega and continue to do so to Nintendo and MS. |
3 points.
Nintendo had rules that the company itself couldn't release any game at the competitor during NES, not only a specific game.
Sony haven't had their unit top level come out to say the practice is bad like MS have done.
Why would Sony pay unspeakable amount of money to keep the game only out of Switch?
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."
| Soundwave said: As if Sony is not buying as much content if not more, they are the ones who started this whole business. Why did Nintendo and Square have to create a shell company just to get a Final Fantasy game on GameCube? Because Sony had an iron clad exclusivity deal to keep content off other platforms. Same with Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, etc. etc. MS had to jump through major hoops to get GTA on the original XBox as well. Sony moneyhatted to keep Madden off the Dreamcast as well. And that continues to this day with things like Monster Hunter World, Final Fantasy VII REMake exclusivity period, Street Fighter V (gimme a break with the "Capcom couldn't afford to develop it" .... SFIV sold millions and millions of copies), and even things like Final Fantasy XII remaster being kept off other platforms largely because Sony negotiates deals to keep that content away from other platforms. We saw how successful Sony is when they don't have the full backing of the third party community with the Vita, which crashed and burned. If you want to be mad at MS for this, so be it, but IMO it's a bit hypocritical if you're not also going to knock Sony for it or even more laughably try to claim that Sony is the "white knight of gaming", when they are responsible for locking out more content from other platforms since coming into the industry than anyone else by a country mile. If Sony had gotten to PUBG first, then the story we'd be fed right now would be "well Sony's just smart, they recognized the game was going to be a big hit, maybe MS should have been smarter". |
This post gets it^
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.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
