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

Forums - Sony Discussion - why's everyone moaning about sony's lack of third party support?

bugrimmar on 17 July 2008

so tell me, which of these microsoft 'exclusives' (that they didn't publish themselves) are you craving for exactly?

this so-called lack of third party support only rears itself when big games become multiplatform. at the very mention of FF13 going 360, all these complaints came in even if sony was still getting the game at the same time.

you don't see that when dead or alive 4 or something is going to 360 exclusively. meaning to say, your so-called "big name subjectivity" is only a term for comfort. you only want to say it so that you have some support about your claim and totally ignore it when your favorite game is still exclusive.

if what you say is true, then how come people aren't complaining about small titles, and only bring them up when its convenient?

bottom line, its not about these games anymore. its about something else. i think crashman got it very accurately.

why do people care so much about exclusivity anyway? its not like your world will end if someone owning a 360 plays the game you like also.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 17 July 2008

Well, the PS3 still has better quality third-party support than the Wii which has sold around double the amount of consoles, so I am really not complaining. That was definitely not the case for the GC, the N64, or the Saturn.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Dgc1808 on 17 July 2008
CrashMan said:
Because people like to use their console not only to play games, but as some sort of status symbol.

"See, I COULD play this game if I wanted to but you can't on your 360!"

its juvinile I know, but welcome to the internet.

 

CrashMan pretty much just spelt it out for everyone...



4 ≈ One

bugrimmar on 17 July 2008
Sky Render said:
The greatest concern with a lack of exclusivity of titles does not lie with the sorts of complaints that you usually hear. The thing that people should REALLY worry about is that multi-platform releases lead to a slew of issues for those games. The easiest to point out is the issue of development resources being split between several platforms (meaning either a bigger budget or a lower-quality offering).

As a side-effect of the budget issues, the games also tend to be low on the originality and creativity sides, because the developers have a much bigger sum to earn back from their game and thus don't want to take a risk and make the game stand out from the rest (potentially resulting in lost sales if the public doesn't take to it). Meaning that multi-platform releases tend to feel very same-y, familiar, and safe. Often playable, sometimes fun, but nothing we haven't seen before a dozen times at least.

An over-saturation of unoriginal games is not necessarily an issue for a system as long as there are a few stand-out titles that really draw people in for their uniqueness and reassure them that the platform is not heading down the path of mediocrity. But of course, if everything goes exclusive, the odds of a title fitting that bill grow smaller and smaller. When the market gets bad enough that there are no creative titles at all on the horizon, there comes a risk of a market crash due to waning interest of consumers at large who get tired of buying rehashes of the exact same games.

That, not the juvenile "my system has more games than your system" argument, is why consumers should be wary of non-exclusivity.
that's where first party games come in. no third party game is going to shape a hardware's future. people just like to overreact about things.

Sky Render on 17 July 2008

Third-party support itself is non-critical, though I'm sure people would like to believe that it is. On the software end of things, the only really important matter is having a few games that will draw users in. These games can come from any developer; as long as they satisfy a big enough demographic, they'll expand the user base. The PS2 did have a huge library, but it also had something for every demographic imaginable. This is more or less the dead opposite of the PS3 and 360, which have a serious over-focus on certain genres (most notably FPS, action, and racing), and a huge drought in almost every other genre.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

Around the Network
Sky Render on 17 July 2008

First-party titles alone are not guaranteed to save a system from mediocrity. The first-party developer has to be able to develop compelling, original products for that to work. And thus far, I have not seen anything like that from Sony for the PS3, and perhaps one from Microsoft (Viva Pinata), which they've done a very poor job of marketing. Never forget that first-party developers have only one advantage over third-party developers, that being that their parent company made the system to begin with. That does not assure quality titles will come out of their studios, as Sega was quite happy to remind us on a regular basis with their by and large forgettable first-party Genesis line-up.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

bugrimmar on 17 July 2008
Sky Render said:
Third-party support itself is non-critical, though I'm sure people would like to believe that it is. On the software end of things, the only really important matter is having a few games that will draw users in. These games can come from any developer; as long as they satisfy a big enough demographic, they'll expand the user base. The PS2 did have a huge library, but it also had something for every demographic imaginable. This is more or less the dead opposite of the PS3 and 360, which have a serious over-focus on certain genres (most notably FPS, action, and racing), and a huge drought in almost every other genre.

 

 so yeah, its not an issue about exclusivity. both the 360 and playstation 3 have issues in variety of games so arguing that the ps3's lack of other genres of games is because of third parties lack of support is nonsense.



libellule on 17 July 2008
HappySqurriel said:
bugrimmar said:

most people are suddenly saying that sony is losing third party support, which is complete nonsense. what they're losing is exclusivity. they're still getting all the games. keep that clear in your minds, people.

sony is not pulling a nintendo 64 and ignoring third party games. they're just not paying for exclusives. that's all. they're still getting all the games.

remember that: sony is still getting the third party games. its just that microsoft is also getting em now. that's the only difference.

 

One thing to consider is a lot of gamers remember what it was like to own a Playstation or PS2 from (roughly) 1996 to 2005 ...

When you go from a point in time where 90% of third party titles will be released on your system, with at least half of those being exclusive, to a point in time where (roughly) half of third party titles will be released on your system with almost all of those being multiplatform you're going to notice how much weaker the support from third parties is.


He has THE point !

Time to Work !

bugrimmar on 17 July 2008
Sky Render said:
First-party titles alone are not guaranteed to save a system from mediocrity. The first-party developer has to be able to develop compelling, original products for that to work. And thus far, I have not seen anything like that from Sony for the PS3, and perhaps one from Microsoft (Viva Pinata), which they've done a very poor job of marketing. Never forget that first-party developers have only one advantage over third-party developers, that being that their parent company made the system to begin with. That does not assure quality titles will come out of their studios, as Sega was quite happy to remind us on a regular basis with their by and large forgettable first-party Genesis line-up.

 

 and your point is?

sony is still getting the games from the third parties. what i'm saying is, why complain when you're still getting the games?

there hasn't been a single huge third party title that hasn't gone to both platforms. this is not an issue about third party games anymore then. i believe, like crashman said, its about a person's ego about the system that they own.



Sky Render on 17 July 2008

The argument does degrade down to egotism on the user end, for the most part, I agree. I was merely pointing out authentic concerns of non-exclusivity, even if most users would not actually bring those issues up. The main issue I wanted to bring up, however, is mediocrity (the bane of all commercial products). A lack of exclusives can lead to mediocrity when none of the games being made by third parties are drawing in new users, and if a system's first-party developer cannot fill the gap with authentic system-seller software, the system's sales will taper off and die faster than they would otherwise.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.