http://kotaku.com/gaming/kotakutalku/peter-moore-on-mgs4-for-xbox-rumors-278424.php

A very sensible Peter Moore explaining that it's Konami's move to bring MGS4 to the 360...basically stating nothing about the game there...

More interesting is his addressing of Sony, who bashed Microsoft for "buying out exclusives" and such.  As he stated...it's business.  You help them out, and they help you in return.  You pay for their advertising and other costs, they give you a good game linked to your console, giving you money back.  It's simple business, and it's ridiculous to cry out "bribery."

I totaly agree with him this time.

Besides the huge "You know, things break" debacle, almost everything Peter Moore says, I like. He's straightforward without being inappropriate or rude. Hard to do when you're a businessman in his position.

I want Sony to beat MS in this little war of theirs but I do have to agree with Moore when he says buying exclussives in not bribery.

I don't necessarily hate the guy but he is a spinner but that's what PR is. Also the helping out and being helped thing is pretty much what buying an exclusive is.

MS gives 3rd parties incentives to release their game on the 360 because they do the advertising for it thus taking away a lot of the costs involved with releasing a game, in addition to that they probably 'help out' with a lot of other stuff (like paying the 50 million to fund Rockstar's download content).

I've been saying all the time, Sony needs to advertise third party games on the PS3 because the advertising is being done for the Sony 1st party stuff and not the 3rd party.

They should copy MS on this.

You can't dominate a market without 3rd parties, as we know, but the fact is, Sony isn't realizing how difficult it is for 3rd parties to be profitable.

As I've said before, in my really large post "Biggest Blunder of Next Gen", the hardware companies have a responsibility to provide the game developers a good mode of transportation (the hardware), to help them create their work of art. However, because of the insane costs of major-next gen games, costs are very high, with very low returns (as compared to last gen).

10 years ago, there only needed to be a few incentives, as games sold well in 1995. The main issue was the ease of development, and if the 1st party was friendly, and wanted to take steps to make good hardware for the developers, as it meant lower development costs, and more freedom. Because of the easy-cheesy PS1's archatecture, cheap price (for the mass market), and CD drive, devs could make a good 3d game cheaper than on the Saturn, and easier since they didn't have to worry about frame buffers, or more expensive cartridges like the N64.

So what happened? They jumped the N-boat and S-boat (its not like Sega didn't get butchered that gen either), and went with a platform that made games cheap, and really didn't hamper devs from working on other systems.

Now, the issue is that even if those things are there (friendlyness, ease of archatecture, ect), the fact is, it still costs more because of archatecture. At this point, devs need more financial incentives. Because of this, MS realizes what Sony doesn't. You either pay the loss of cash the devs have to make for a really big game, or it goes multi-port, and you lose cash, as the licensing fees are going to the other hardware makers.

Ultimately, I feel that in order for 3rd party exclusives to ever become a reality again, the hardware makers need to either subsidize them (like what MS has), create new ones (like Nintendo/Sony have), or offer them a better, more profitable platform to work from. Nintendo is doing it via lower hardware specs, and MS/Sony are kind of left in the middle of nothing.

However, MS/Sony could easily do a few things:

1. Produce/License more middleware applications (like both MS/Sony are doing), to allow devs to have a better universal library of information to build a game quicker (and cost less).

2. Give devs a better platform to release games on. MS has done this via the very, very, very lucrative DLC platform. Did Shivering Isles cost 1/2 of Oblivion's budget to make? No, it might of cost 5% of that. Despite that, it still sold for $30 a pop. Because of this, developers get a better platform in the way of very profitable expansion packs. This is similar to the fast food chain's way of profits, make very little off the initial sale of the main product (a hamburger), but make a 1000% markup on the Soda and french fries.

3. Give them a better platform to make money for more prolonged periods of time via more and better distribution methods.. I thought about this: how do movie studios make so many big budget movies ($100m+) so regularly? It's a fact that a studio has to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a movie that might bomb. However, the 2nd tier of profits are in DVDs. DVDs like Finding Nemo easily sell 20m copies over thier lifetime, and at an average profit of $5/disk, that's alot of extra, profitable money. Not only this, the distribution methods for the DVDs allows for more time on the market. A movie might stay in theaters for a few weeks, but a DVD lasts a lifetime. Terminator 2 made $200m at the box office, but cost alot. Why was it so succuessful? You can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a T2 DVD for a few bucks.

Gaming only recently has developed a method of keeping a game out that long. I feel that #3 is the most under-developed method of this via downloadable classics, and older games. Only until recently could you get a copy of Super Mario Brothers on SNES via illegal ROMs. But now you can buy them on VC, and Nintendo is making an absolute killing. Why is this such a lucrative, good method of getting sales? It's a permanant way to retail and sell your product. Mario is never, ever going off VC. And because of that, it'll keep selling until the Mario name is dead.

IMO, I see a world in the future where I can download Halo 1 or Halo 2 off XBLM, or find KOTOR on the setup. This allows soooooo much incentive, as a developer can keep getting tens of thousands of dollars off an old game, by selling it for $5 to interested parties that never got the chance to play the old game. The most critical part is, again, it's PERMANANT.

Until those 3 things happen, the only way to get an exclusive is to pay for it. MS is smart because they care about exclusive games, as I would tend to think exclusive games are better games, as the devs are able to utilize the system (whatever system), better.

^^ youre on a run today mrstick, ceep the good stuf coming

You know, the way that Sony acted with their "bribery" calls was kind of ridiculous. It's as if they forgot about the first, most important objective of any company in the world. And that is to make money. If you stay within the boundries of the law, then whatever works to get the cash flowing goes, in this case relieving 3rd party devs from advertising their products. Besides, i'm more than positive that Sony would have done the very same thing, if it only had the money to do it. Kind of like african Kali's morality(Polish proverb here, don't you even dare to accuse me of racism), it's fine if we do it but not fine if someone else is doing it.

african Kali's morality

can u explain to me what is this "Kali" ?

I get the point about ur proverb but where does it come from ?

Well, it's a metaphore that comes from an adventure book of an 19nth century Polish writer. In this book two european children due to an amazing set of coincidences have found themselves all alone in central Africa. Then they meet Kali, an african boy. This Kali would go on to do things that he says were good for him, bad for others. He would think that this is good. Yet should things be the other way around then those actions would be bad. Savy?