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

Forums - Microsoft - MS paid them!!!!

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 August 2008
naznatips said:
De85 said:
Pristine20 said:
De85 said:
naznatips said:
Yes, they buy games. It's not that big a deal. Sony did it the entire PSone generation. I don't mind them doing it, but the problem is when developers sell their time they are selling it for what the financier wants, and what MS wants is nothing but the safe, popular, no-risk games. That's why the only RPGs they've paid for are generic mainstream ripoffs or games from the already popular franchises.

That's fine for the casual RPG gamer, but it hurts other RPG gamers because it means the companies that are getting paid stop making the games that take chances. For that reason, you'll never see a game like Valkyria Chronicles or Fragile on the 360, because it's too risky, and MS won't pay for stuff like that.

So it's great for 360 gamers that they are getting some RPGs, but it can be genuinely detrimental to innovation in the genre, and that's why you need platforms like the DS, Wii, and to a lesser extent the PS3 to get the RPGs that take chances, and truly evolve the genre.

My two bits.

 

Not entirely. Mistwalker was a startup, you can't tell me that's not risky. I know it was started by the creator of FF, but past succes is no guarantee for the future.

 

Sakaguchi is the creator of FF. How's that risky? Many who have played LO keep writing about how many similarities it has to FF. I heard they even had someone called Cid just that it was spelt differently. Past success partially guarantees the future because the names of developers and frachises sell as well. Why did Dragon Quest: Swords sell so many copies if not for the name of the developer and franchise?

 

I'm not ripping on LO, in fact I think it was a great game. But even though Sakaguchi was the creator of FF it was an enormous risk because of the stigma the 360 had as the "shooter box."

Also, I still don't believe that past success has any guarantee for the future. Free Radical was made up of the people who made Goldeneye and Perfect Dark over at Rare, then turned around and delivered Haze.

As for the Dragon Quest Swords Example, I guess I need to clarify my assertion, or at least be more specific. A huge franchise name can guarantee at least moderate sales, but 95% of gamers don't have a clue what developer's names are or their past histories. They just look at whatever precedes the colon in the title, in your example Dragon Quest.

 

 

I don't think you really understand what a risk is to Microsoft. They don't care about losing money on their goal. Their goal was for the Japanese RPG audience, and the way to get that was to publish clones of the already popular RPGs. The way to do that was to make a studio to make them, which is EXACTLY what Mistwalker is. The sole purpose of their existence is to clone the Square-Enix RPGs.

And yes, it's true in America 95% of gamers don't know developer names, but that's not true at all in Japan. Developers are very well known, and so is Sakaguchi. He did fail to capture the Japanese audience like MS hoped, but they took no risks in the games they paid him to make. They went down the path of least resistance, and unfortunately, the least innovation.

 

If you say that in America 95% of gamers don't know developers you're crazy. I'd say its equivalent to anywhere else in the west. Why is it that everytime someone outside of America has something bad to say about a country, it has to be America? Alot of American gamers know their developers, just like avid movie goers know their directors and actors.



Around the Network
De85 on 07 August 2008
naznatips said:
De85 said:
naznatips said:
De85 said:

@ naznatips

If they don't care about how much money they lose over at MS then nothing they do is ever a risk so your point is moot.

 

@ Pristine20

The research involved about 20 seconds on Wikipedia, but I see where you're coming from. As for your second point, what great games are you thinking of that didn't sell well due to saturation? I can only think of the Orange Box, and that because most of its content has been available for awhile already on PC.

 

You don't understand, the resource they are risking isn't money it's support and time. They need to get as much consumer support in as little time as possible. The way to do that is by publishing the most generic mainstream games you can possibly get.

 

I understand perfectly. Mistwalker was formed in 2004, and didn't release a game until 2007. It sure sounds like they're trying to push as much stuff in as little time as possible.


Oh come on it doesn't take a genius to see how long it takes developers to make their first HD console game. Even worse it was the studio's first game, and they were making two games at once. They got 2 games out in 3 years. That's pretty impressive for HD development.

 

Sakaguchi had made tons of games previuosly, plus they were using a licensed engine.  I don't buy that for a second.



Dgc1808 on 07 August 2008

Am pretty sure MS paid alot... not all but alot.... The others most likely wanted thier games to sell well in the US....



4 ≈ One

naznatips on 07 August 2008
De85 said:
naznatips said:
De85 said:

I understand perfectly. Mistwalker was formed in 2004, and didn't release a game until 2007. It sure sounds like they're trying to push as much stuff in as little time as possible.


Oh come on it doesn't take a genius to see how long it takes developers to make their first HD console game. Even worse it was the studio's first game, and they were making two games at once. They got 2 games out in 3 years. That's pretty impressive for HD development.

 

Sakaguchi had made tons of games previuosly, plus they were using a licensed engine.  I don't buy that for a second.

 

Each FF Game was at least 2 years apart, and that's ALL Sakaguchi had made.  He's making 360 games faster than he made PS and PS2 games.  I mean christ it took Epic 2 years to make Gears 2 without even improving the graphics and running the game on the exact same engine.  THat was their second game.  Mistwalker did 2 in 3 years.



colonelstubbs on 07 August 2008
S.T.A.G.E. said:
axumblade said:

The 360 probably pays a little for DLC but that's about it. The DLC draws in a lot of gamers (therefore giving a nudge for those who have both consoles to lean towards 360). I don't think they pay for games because there is no real need to. And it's an honest move for MS to go for getting the extra content. So it's not like it's horrible to pay for DLC.

Precisely!

 

Didnt the DLC for GTA4 cost $100 million alone? You call that 'little'?

And if they paid for DLC, what makes you think they havent paid for anything else?

 



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

Around the Network
De85 on 07 August 2008
naznatips said:
De85 said:
naznatips said:
De85 said:

I understand perfectly. Mistwalker was formed in 2004, and didn't release a game until 2007. It sure sounds like they're trying to push as much stuff in as little time as possible.


Oh come on it doesn't take a genius to see how long it takes developers to make their first HD console game. Even worse it was the studio's first game, and they were making two games at once. They got 2 games out in 3 years. That's pretty impressive for HD development.

 

Sakaguchi had made tons of games previuosly, plus they were using a licensed engine. I don't buy that for a second.

 

Each FF Game was at least 2 years apart, and that's ALL Sakaguchi had made. He's making 360 games faster than he made PS and PS2 games. I mean christ it took Epic 2 years to make Gears 2 without even improving the graphics and running the game on the exact same engine. THat was their second game. Mistwalker did 2 in 3 years.

 

A quick wikipedia check says otherwise. 

As for Gears, you must not have watched a single tech demo if you think they haven't made any improvements.  All those demos are from updates to the engine so it's not the exact same.   Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this so I'm done here. Reply if you like but I won't respond.

 

@colonelstubbs 

If I recall correctly it was 50 million.  Still substantial, but not quite 100.



S.T.A.G.E. on 07 August 2008
colonelstubbs said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
axumblade said:

The 360 probably pays a little for DLC but that's about it. The DLC draws in a lot of gamers (therefore giving a nudge for those who have both consoles to lean towards 360). I don't think they pay for games because there is no real need to. And it's an honest move for MS to go for getting the extra content. So it's not like it's horrible to pay for DLC.

Precisely!

 

Didnt the DLC for GTA4 cost $100 million alone? You call that 'little'?

And if they paid for DLC, what makes you think they havent paid for anything else?

 

 

Microsoft paid $50 Million for DLC (Which includes 10 hours of extra episodic content, cars, characters, weapons etc.). The deal included a 30/70 cut of profits for Microsoft if Rockstar wants to put a price on the DLC on live for gamers.



Domicinator on 07 August 2008
Undying said:

Why is "Game A" not on the PS3? Its because M$ PAID THEM!!!!

 

 

I'm seriously sick of this ridiculous theory. Games are published for the 360 because the publishers feel that they can make more money on the 360 rather than the PS3. MS does not pay every publisher to put there games on their system. The only case was with the GTA IV DLC. Now stop saying the only reason the 360 gets exclusives is because microsoft paid the publishers.

 

Yeah, the internet is full of conspiracy theorists, and this forum is not immune to it.  Whenever Microsoft does anything to insure positive growth of the 360, people whine that there was a payoff involved, that Microsoft is a monopoly that wants everyone to go out of business, waa waa waa.

What people forget is that Sony is the company to beat from the last two generations.  The PS1 and PS2 won their generations by big margins.  So now that the 360 has taken a lot of their market share away and made it a more even playing ground, the fanboys are coming out in droves.  I was personally upset when the PS 1 and 2 took control of the market because they took down some of my favorite machines of all time (Dreamcast, Gamecube, etc.).  I want choice in the market, not all Sony all the time.  In fact, I've bought several Sony products in my lifetime and most of them have ended up being sub par quality.

All I'm saying is that it's not a situation where everyone should be saying "poor Sony, boo hoo".  Sony has plenty of money and they have had plenty of time in the spotlight where they've dominated the competition.  Maybe it's somebody else's turn for awhile.  Nintendo had the same thing happen and they got through it just fine.




dib8rman on 07 August 2008

Drown him in a river, if he floats he's being payed by M$ if he sinks he's just being honest.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

sinha on 07 August 2008

I own all three consoles so I don't really care...

but I don't understand how paying for a game is seen as a negative thing.
If I only owned a Wii or PS3, I would be REALLY PISSED if Nintendo or Sony were NOT paying out money to bring me games.

 



We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick