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

Forums - Sony - Mirror's Edge - PS3 Timed exclusive?

Squilliam on 23 August 2008
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
playnext3 on 23 August 2008

yeah i remarked it toomi hopr its a ps3 timed exclusive



Rainbird on 23 August 2008
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?



Squilliam on 23 August 2008
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?

Why? In order of bad: Buying studios >>>>>> Buying full exclusivity >>>>>> Timed exclusives.

 



Tease.

Rainbird on 23 August 2008
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?

Why? In order of bad: Buying studios >>>>>> Buying full exclusivity >>>>>> Timed exclusives.

 

Then you should say so, instead of adding it to anothers post, when they said they don't mind 1st/2nd party games, when buying studios just mean an increase in workforce for your 1st party studios.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 23 August 2008
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?

Why? In order of bad: Buying studios >>>>>> Buying full exclusivity >>>>>> Timed exclusives.

 

Then you should say so, instead of adding it to anothers post, when they said they don't mind 1st/2nd party games, when buying studios just mean an increase in workforce for your 1st party studios.

Is there any real difference between buying an exclusive or buying a company and therefore make every game exclusive after the fact? The latter is far worse than the former anyway because its a permament change to the eco system of the market. Of course forming a studio is different.

 



Tease.

Rainbird on 23 August 2008
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?

Why? In order of bad: Buying studios >>>>>> Buying full exclusivity >>>>>> Timed exclusives.

 

Then you should say so, instead of adding it to anothers post, when they said they don't mind 1st/2nd party games, when buying studios just mean an increase in workforce for your 1st party studios.

Is there any real difference between buying an exclusive or buying a company and therefore make every game exclusive after the fact? The latter is far worse than the former anyway because its a permament change to the eco system of the market. Of course forming a studio is different.

 

I would say it depends on the studio. If Sony or Microsoft bought Rockstar then the market would become quite a nut to crack for the other company, but Sony buying Evolution Studios didn't really make a market difference. It makes the PS3 more attractive of course (for all the people who liked Motorstorm and offroad racers, and are looking forward to Motorstorm: PR at least), but Motorstorm isn't a systemseller, like GTA is.

So while buying a studio can be bad for the consumer, it depends on how many rings in the water that deal leaves in the market, before I would say whether it is a good or a bad thing.

But on topic, I fully agree that a game like Mirror's Edge is annoying to have as a timed exclusive because it is such an anticipated title, but for once, I'm on the other side of the fence (as a PS3 owner), so it's hard for me to not want to gloat a bit about it



obieslut on 23 August 2008

a pluss for the ps3 is a minus fo rthe 360 so i really dont mind as long as the game has all its sales on the ps3 then by the time its on 360 no one cares, that way sony have won, like how 360 has with the rpg fest



Squilliam on 23 August 2008
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Rainbird said:
Squilliam said:
Reasonable said:
Even as a PS3 owner I have to say 'I hope its not'. I just loath timed exclusives (and exclusives in general unless built from ground up for one and one platform only and preferably by 1st/2nd tier party development).

Perhaps its just coming from PC background but to me third party exclusives on games that could easy be on both consoles are like a PC game that only works with Nvidia cards and not ATI... not sensible.

Let the consoles stand or fall on their own merits. Build something just for your own console if you want to show off unique capabilities and/or own the IP - but don't pay for timed exclusives. Just annoying for gamers in general.

And don't buy studios, infact sell them all off. Its terrible for gamers when studios become locked to one particular platform at the expense of not releasing games for other platforms.

I just had to add to your statement, it seemed incomplete.

 

Now, wasn't that irrelevant Squil?

Why? In order of bad: Buying studios >>>>>> Buying full exclusivity >>>>>> Timed exclusives.

 

Then you should say so, instead of adding it to anothers post, when they said they don't mind 1st/2nd party games, when buying studios just mean an increase in workforce for your 1st party studios.

Is there any real difference between buying an exclusive or buying a company and therefore make every game exclusive after the fact? The latter is far worse than the former anyway because its a permament change to the eco system of the market. Of course forming a studio is different.

 

I would say it depends on the studio. If Sony or Microsoft bought Rockstar then the market would become quite a nut to crack for the other company, but Sony buying Evolution Studios didn't really make a market difference. It makes the PS3 more attractive of course (for all the people who liked Motorstorm and offroad racers, and are looking forward to Motorstorm: PR at least), but Motorstorm isn't a systemseller, like GTA is.

So while buying a studio can be bad for the consumer, it depends on how many rings in the water that deal leaves in the market, before I would say whether it is a good or a bad thing.

But on topic, I fully agree that a game like Mirror's Edge is annoying to have as a timed exclusive because it is such an anticipated title, but for once, I'm on the other side of the fence (as a PS3 owner), so it's hard for me to not want to gloat a bit about it

If Sony or Microsoft bought Rockstar the effect would be terrible on people who liked the game who would otherwise not be able to play it, I agree. But just because a studio is smaller doesn't mean that it gives a free pass, its still something that should be abhored even more if you detest timed exclusives. You can't have it both ways and like first party aquisitions but hate timed exclusivity. Thats swallowing the proverbial Camel while making a fuss over a Gnat.

Btw, is it timed exclusive or not? I don't care really, it doesn't effect me personally.

 



Tease.

leo-j on 23 August 2008
Squilliam said:If Sony or Microsoft bought Rockstar the effect would be terrible on people who liked the game who would otherwise not be able to play it, I agree. But just because a studio is smaller doesn't mean that it gives a free pass, its still something that should be abhored even more if you detest timed exclusives. You can't have it both ways and like first party aquisitions but hate timed exclusivity. Thats swallowing the proverbial Camel while making a fuss over a Gnat.

Btw, is it timed exclusive or not? I don't care really, it doesn't effect me personally.

 

It would be a terrible affect for the gamers with the console that wont get the game, but will be a huge greater effect on sony or microsoft because console sales would explode if the next GTA were to be exclusive to one of there platforms.

I still think if GTA IV were still ps3 exclusive it would have moved much more hardware.

 



 

mM