Kamizar said: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/03/sony-partners-with-quantic-dream-on-exclusive-ps3-title/ Ummm, What?

 Sony didn't buy the Quantic Dream exlusive in the same way that MS has bought exclusives. Sony's publishing the Quantic Dream game. So it's essentially a second party game. Lair, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance, White Knight Story all fall into this same category. Gears of War is also a second party game, but it's for MS. GTAIV downloadable content on the other hand isn't really being published by MS. That's an exclusive that was bought out by MS for $50 million. The reason Sony doesn't buy exclusives in this manner is because it's not a sustainable strategy, or at least it's a difficult strategy to make profitable. The actual GTAIV game probably only cost about $25 million max to make considering that i've never heard of a game budget exceeding this amount. It's deals like this that keep MS from making a profit on their games division. More importantly, it's deals like this that piss off investors. With Vista's lackluster performance in the market, investors are gonna start getting more grumpy about non-profitable divisions. So to sum it all up, Jack Tretton believes buying exclusives is bad for business.

they just made a deal with quandemic games... it contradicts everything he just said..

I m pretty sure Sony has already secure some exclusivity with money like Metal Gear or FF that firts appeared on SNES (even NES) and later that come more or less exclusively on PS/PS2.
But in the same time, Sony create some new staff like GT or God of War.
And a lot of big name appear for the first time on PStation, Tekken/Crashbandicoot/RE/GTA/PES/AceCombat/DMC/Soulblade(beforeSC) etc ...

When Microsoft appear in the console video game market, they needed game.
to end the war before it begins, they decide to buy some developpers like ...
Square Enix and Namco !!!!
Hopefully, they didn't succeed.
...

Which big name game was released exclusively on Xbox ? Halo , yes
and ?
Sincerely, I dont see anyone ...

I m ok to secure game with money if u help to the developpment,
I m even ok to make multiplateform game, even if the game was first release on 1 console.

What I dont like is when a game is suppose to hit 1 console (PS3) and suddenly become multiplateform (GTA/AssassinCreed)
Even more if there is only exclusive content for the new console (Xbox360) ...

What I dont like too, is when a game is announced on 1 console (PS3) and finally is released exclusively on the other console !!!!!!!!!!
BIOSHOCK, firstly developp as AssassinCreed on PS3, switching for Xbox360 is an amazing fact.

Whatever, sony boss are strange, I have the impression their are stupid as if they dont realize they are in a very bad situation : bad sales with a 3rd loser place.
Why dont they activate a little releasing demo/preview to counter Microsoft or Nintendo ?
Or these guys are blind ?
Or these guys are crazy ?
Or these guys are waiting to use all their powder in 1 big nuclear strike ==> E3

I personally wonder how much of what he says is true and how much is dependant on the definition of buying exclusives; in other words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" (It has been almost a decade since I've made that reference)

"It's deals like this that keep MS from making a profit on their games division."

==> OMG man, microsoft is not buying GTA exclusive content to make money on GTA game sold for Xbox360 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

They are securing this exclusivty to show PS2 owners that if they want to fully play the last GTA sequel on next gen console, they just have to buy a Xbox360 !!!

50$ Million is maybe a big ammount of money for a game, but
1/ it is not a lot for big guys like M$
2/ it is not a lot to destroy their direct enemy : Sony with his PS3 that is losing another exclusivity

Of course, sony possess others game, a lot in fact, but GTA was the biggest exclusivity that Sony should had secured or at least egually share with Microsoft.
Be sure that this news has made a lot of "hype dammage" against Sony

naznatips said: Did anyone else read this and think "Nintendo 64" right away? Just curious, because it sounds exactly like the attitude that lost it for Nintendo. Sony offered TONS of benefits to Square Enix and other 3rd party developers to get them over to the PSone.

 

Yeah, I've said plenty of times that Sony reminds me of Nintendo when they were gearing up for and launching the N64. You'd think Sony would have better sense after seeing what it got Nintendo. I honestly didn't think Nintendo would ever recover, they were nearly forgotten by the mainstream and left sitting with both feet crammed in their mouths. So it's not too late for Sony, even though they're doing worse than anyone ever imagined at this point.

 But the whole we "earn" our games is a laugh to me. If by earn he means having the largest marketshare in the last two gens, then yeah, I guess so. The truth is they bought their way into the industry, though I will admit that they did plenty of things right: CD media, reaching out to a broader audience, third party relations, etc.  It just really rubs me the wrong way to hear Sony act like the top of the gaming hill is their birthright.

 

ckmlb said: rockstarjerry981 said: Tretton said that sony doesn't live off of third parties? What the hell is he smokin, because I want some. Ignoring all of the Sony first party are we? Look it up.

Seriously. People need to give Sony's first party titles respect, because they deserve it, whether you personally play their games or not. 

HappySqurriel said: I personally wonder how much of what he says is true and how much is dependant on the definition of buying exclusives; in other words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" (It has been almost a decade since I've made that reference)

Come on...don't fool yourself...

You've probably made that reference countless times this past decade hehe.  I know I have haha.

Is it just me or is this not the same type of ideology that gets you to lower the price of your system below its manufacturing cost. The idea of exclusive games is to build a user base on your system isn't it something like if I want to get that game I have to have that system same as having a lower price intially and taking a loss to grow your user base. Anyways ehhh he may of said it but guessing it was just a jab at Microsoft and that Sony fully intends to keep doing what they have sucessfully done it the past.

Xzbeat said: In a not-very-disguised jab at Microsoft, SCEA President Jack Tretton told PSM in the latest issue: "We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it..." He went on to say... "Microsoft is too dependent on the third-party community, and Nintendo is too depended on first-party. We like to feel that we got a pretty good mix."

Someone forgot to tell Jack that Sony is funding development of L.A. Noire.

If Sony doesn't plan on buying any exclusives or funding any new development for third parties then the PS3 is in for a lot of trouble.