mrstickball said:
papflesje said:
mrstickball said:
papflesje said:
Now you're just placing words in my mouth and using it to bash.
MS and Sony are both in it for the money, that's something that everyone will acknowledge.
Sony has not been doing the MS-tactic of buying DLC or getting an agreement for this (let's admit it, money has to be given for a company usually to go DLC without making it multiplat), since we all know they are in a weak financial state. They cannot spend the money, even though they can guess that it'll bring in more money.
MS can do this because they have deeper pockets and their higher sales + higher income stream (live and such) gives them an easier chance to earn back the money.
That the fans benefit from this, is a side effect, which is something they can market and something they can say, but which holds little to no reality for them. That the fans are happy, creates an easier environment to get money out of them.
It's really pathetic and weak to turn those words into "yeah, Sony is the one who doesn't care about their fans, because they give them an half-assed experience".
First it was that MS gave the fans even more, now it's that sony isn't willing to give their fans the complete experience.
Pathetic from your side, mrstickball.
Let's turn it around: Sony cares about their fans, since they have a massive first and second party developer crew, churning out massive games each year. MS doesn't care about their fans since they scratch those developers out of their company. Foo-ey on MS. Also stupid statement, also bolony.
|
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Just argue the point for Sony. If you are getting upset at what MS is doing (which is why you've responded negatively to what MS is doing - getting exclusive DLC), then why not argue the point that MS is choosing to give their players a better experience? It's not unlikely that Sony could contract Capcom out to get their own exclusive scenarios in DLC for Resident Evil 5, but are choosing, either by intention or lack of money, not to.
Does Sony care about their fans? Their track record is pretty bad this gen. First they force them to adopt to a next-gen optical format that adds $200 to the system price, then they become so smug as to give them a horrible software lineup for the first 16 months of the console's life, then they remove critical features like Backwards Compatability from every device. That's not a lot of fanservice, is it?
Sony has better studios than MS. Problem is there have been 3 decent IPs to come out as 1st party exclusives - Resistance 1/2, Motorstorm, and LittleBigPlanet. That's really not a lot of 1st party titles to boast about...Is it? I mean, maybe if you were used to what the Sega Saturn got in the way of exclusives, you'll be fine with it, but the average gamer that adopted the PS1/2 en-mass the past 2 generations didn't enjoy it. Which is probably why few have chosen to adopt the big black whale-esque box called the Playstation 3.
|
I couldn't care less whether it were MS or Sony doing this, the point I was making still stands, namely that you call it fan service and things like that when MS does it. I said that it's weird that it's called like that when MS does it, and others call it "it's just for the money" when Sony does it (like what has happened in a lot of other threads).
The fact that they buy (or get, doesn't matter) DLC isn't my point of discussion. A company will do what it can to maximize profit. If they can offer it under the disguise of "fan service", then so be it. A good promotional stunt, and a good marketing line, but nothing more than "what can we do to get more money". So to go all saint-like and say that MS is thinking about their fans, is a bit exaggerated.
Then you turn it around on sony, knowing full well that sony cannot afford to do such moves, and probably knowing as well that when Sony does it, quite a few on this forum would yell "well, they're just trying to get more money" (a perfectly valid answer, but only when applied to both sides of the spectrum.)
So my entire point revolves around the way it is viewed (by you in this case).
And I won't even comment on the fact that you still have to make "subtle" jabs at the PS3 (with the Saturn comment and the way it apparently looks like a whale) which are totally irrelevant to the discussion and which has gotten other members banned for far less.
|
You told me that Sony's 1st party offerings are 'churning out massive games every year'. I said they've had 3 good IPs. So did the Sega Saturn, so did the Gamecube. Prove me wrong :-p
It's not a jab, it's a comparison. If you disagree that the 1st party offerings of the Saturn were dissimilar to the PS3 in quality and quanity, then feel free to debate it with me.
But here's the data I see for million sellers on the X360 and PS3 that were either 1st party (published and developed by SCE), or 2nd party (3rd party developed, 1st party published):
Xbox 360:
- Halo 3 - 9.0m
- Gears of War - 5.9m
- Gears of War 2 - 4.5m
- Forza Motorsports 2 - 4.3m (less bundles)
- Fable 2 - 2.4m
- Mass Effect - 2.3m
- Viva Pinata - 1.8m (less bundles)
- Project Gotham 4 - 1.7m
- Crackdown - 1.5m
- Project Gotham 3 - 1.5m
- Perfect Dark Zero - 1.4m
Playstation 3:
- Motorstorm - 3.8m (less bundles)
- Resistance - 3.5m (less bundles)
- GT5 Prologue - 2.8m (less bundles)
- Uncharted - 2.5m
- Ratchet & Clank: ToD - 1.5m
- Heavenly Sword - 1.4m
- Resistance 2 - 1.3m
Numbers show that MS published more 1st and 2nd party games with high amounts of popularity. Interestingly enough, the top 2 MS-published titles have sold almost as much as the entire 1st and 2nd party lineup of the Playstation 3 - leaving out the rest of the other 9 titles.
So I guess, looking at the numbers, Sony doesn't give their gamers popular games either, no?
|
