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

Forums - Microsoft - MS paid them!!!!

slimeattack on 07 August 2008

Do you think that MS would call a press conference and say: we have bought these exclusives for $something million dollars?



Around the Network
Pristine20 on 07 August 2008

Seriously people, M$ is to gaming as Chelsea is to the English Premiership. It works like this: buy all the talent and cripple your opponents thus guaranteeing success. I'm pretty sure they would have bought Miyamoto over if he didn't have a stake in Nintendo.

The strategy doesn't guarantee 1st place as chelsea showed but it is sure to always get you pretty damn close!



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Shadowblind on 07 August 2008
Pristine20 said:
Seriously people, M$ is to gaming as Chelsea is to the English Premiership. It works like this: buy all the talent and cripple your opponents thus guaranteeing success. I'm pretty sure they would have bought Miyamoto over if he didn't have a stake in Nintendo.

The strategy doesn't guarantee 1st place as chelsea showed but it is sure to always get you pretty damn close!

 

 Sounds like what Sony did during PS1. Got them first place, that was for sure.



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

badgenome on 07 August 2008
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?

Yeah, his name is Sed. And like all the Cids, he's sort of a mechanical whiz.



horriblebastard on 07 August 2008
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Jo21 said:
oh come on if not that m$ is even ashamed of that.
they clearly stated they pay 50 millions for GTA4 exclusive DLC.

sony said they won't pay, and really right now can't pay considering they started making profit in 2008.
they take its to make games that are only possible on ps3 like mgs4, heavy rain.

Sony declared profit in 2008?...show me the link to this. They lose $400+ per system.

 

I doubt they're still losing $400+ per PS3 sold as they claim to be moving close to profitability on the PS3. They made a modest profit because of the PSP, PS2 and games. Their financial report is here if you want to read it: -

 

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/index.html

 



Around the Network
Pristine20 on 07 August 2008
badgenome 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?

Yeah, his name is Sed. And like all the Cids, he's sort of a mechanical whiz.

LOL

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 August 2008
horriblebastard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Jo21 said:
oh come on if not that m$ is even ashamed of that.
they clearly stated they pay 50 millions for GTA4 exclusive DLC.

sony said they won't pay, and really right now can't pay considering they started making profit in 2008.
they take its to make games that are only possible on ps3 like mgs4, heavy rain.

Sony declared profit in 2008?...show me the link to this. They lose $400+ per system.

 

I doubt they're still losing $400+ per PS3 sold as they claim to be moving close to profitability on the PS3. They made a modest profit because of the PSP, PS2 and games. Their financial report is here if you want to read it: -

 

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/index.html

 

Thank you. Now I shall read. :)

 



Pristine20 on 07 August 2008
Shadowblind said:
Pristine20 said:
Seriously people, M$ is to gaming as Chelsea is to the English Premiership. It works like this: buy all the talent and cripple your opponents thus guaranteeing success. I'm pretty sure they would have bought Miyamoto over if he didn't have a stake in Nintendo.

The strategy doesn't guarantee 1st place as chelsea showed but it is sure to always get you pretty damn close!

 

 Sounds like what Sony did during PS1. Got them first place, that was for sure.

 

 So I hope you concede that M$ is paying because it doesn't make much sense otherwise...forget all that coding BS. PS3 userbase is too close to the 360 to be ignored. Its not like PS2 vs xbox.

Its a good strategy really! How could a team lose with all the talent on their side?



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

De85 on 07 August 2008
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.

 



Jo21 on 07 August 2008
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.

 

haze wasn't that bad, but its just a point a shoot fps with good graphics there isn't much going aroudn to it.