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

Forums - Gaming - Sony: Microsoft “writes cheques” for games thanks to first-party line-up insecurity

DiplomaticImmunity on 15 April 2009

i do agree their first party is SHIT compared to wii and ps3

i mean 1 year is gears
then the other halo

and back-and-forth
they have other exclusives but those 2 are the main
when fanboys argue

not flaming JUST BEING TRUTHFUL



You should be beaten, burned to ashes then someone should throw your ashes from a plane

Around the Network
saimcheeda on 15 April 2009

Righto to the two posts above!



Being a cricket fan is much simpler and more fun
Jereel Hunter on 15 April 2009
JamesCizuz said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
Well they would know. If anyone has written more checks for games it was Sony during the PS1 era.

What titles did they pay for?  I'm not too familiar with Sony's shenanigans during that generation.

 

People don't understand the difference. People could spin it an say sony bought LBP because they funded it. But it's not the same. Media Molecule went to Sony, showed the idea, sony loved it and offered funding. They do they all the time, Sony will fund stuff if it's a good idea and company needs it. They don't actively go out looking to buy stuff like microsoft does. If microsoft can't get it they pay for it.

They did, though. They did plenty of that when they were the newest players breaking into the market. And today that's MS.

 



*~Onna76~* on 15 April 2009

Normally I can't stand Koller's quotes, but for once I totally agree with him.



PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Supporter of PlayStation and Nintendo

Kasz216 on 15 April 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
saimcheeda said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
Well they would know. If anyone has written more checks for games it was Sony during the PS1 era.

What titles did they pay for?  I'm not too familiar with Sony's shenanigans during that generation.

 

 i think final fantasy Vii is one....

I thought they got that one because the cost of spreading FF7 on an equivalent number of cartridges was obscene.

Nope.  That's why it wasn't on the N64.  Yet Sony got publishing rights, and excluisve rights to Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy Tactics and two other games i can't remember the names of right now for putting FF7 in the front of a 100 million dollar advertising campaign in the US... and a similar budget for Europe.

Afterall when FF7 was announced Saturn was outselling the PS1 in Japan.



Around the Network
JamesCizuz on 15 April 2009
DiplomaticImmunity said:
i do agree their first party is SHIT compared to wii and ps3

i mean 1 year is gears
then the other halo

and back-and-forth
they have other exclusives but those 2 are the main
when fanboys argue

not flaming JUST BEING TRUTHFUL

Gears is not first party. First party means microsoft would OWN the company that makes it. Even if they owned the IP, the games made by epic would still be third party, unless they made newer ones. Likewise there is also second party, which means a company funds the game. AKA sony funding LBP.

 

It's hard to decide wether halo is a first party title. On the surface it seems it, since at the time bungie was owned by microsoft. Though bungie also funded the game entirely and also broke off from microsoft. Though either way, halo is the only first party game other then fable 2 I can think of.

 



saimcheeda on 15 April 2009
JamesCizuz said:
DiplomaticImmunity said:
i do agree their first party is SHIT compared to wii and ps3

i mean 1 year is gears
then the other halo

and back-and-forth
they have other exclusives but those 2 are the main
when fanboys argue

not flaming JUST BEING TRUTHFUL

Gears is not first party. First party means microsoft would OWN the company that makes it. Even if they owned the IP, the games made by epic would still be third party, unless they made newer ones. Likewise there is also second party, which means a company funds the game. AKA sony funding LBP.

 

It's hard to decide wether halo is a first party title. On the surface it seems it, since at the time bungie was owned by microsoft. Though bungie also funded the game entirely and also broke off from microsoft. Though either way, halo is the only first party game other then fable 2 I can think of.

 

 

 actually ms has the ip so halo is first party...



Being a cricket fan is much simpler and more fun
JamesCizuz on 15 April 2009
saimcheeda said:
JamesCizuz said:
DiplomaticImmunity said:
i do agree their first party is SHIT compared to wii and ps3

i mean 1 year is gears
then the other halo

and back-and-forth
they have other exclusives but those 2 are the main
when fanboys argue

not flaming JUST BEING TRUTHFUL

Gears is not first party. First party means microsoft would OWN the company that makes it. Even if they owned the IP, the games made by epic would still be third party, unless they made newer ones. Likewise there is also second party, which means a company funds the game. AKA sony funding LBP.

 

It's hard to decide wether halo is a first party title. On the surface it seems it, since at the time bungie was owned by microsoft. Though bungie also funded the game entirely and also broke off from microsoft. Though either way, halo is the only first party game other then fable 2 I can think of.

 

 

 actually ms has the ip so halo is first party...

Actually no.

 

Owning the IP means nothing. It is who it is produced by.

 

A third party publisher, AKA it's own company can produce it, and although microsoft decides what happens with it(AKA staying exclusive) that would only still make it third party. If Microsoft got a third party to make it, and funded it, then it's second party. If microsoft got one of there own companies they own to make it, then it's first party(No matter if they own the IP or not).

 

 

 



Kasz216 on 15 April 2009

Would and IP owned by a 1st part and published by a third party be a second party game?

I mean Mario Party is considered second party and that's made and published by Hudson.



JamesCizuz on 15 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
Would and IP owned by a 1st part and published by a third party be a second party game?

I mean Mario Party is considered second party and that's made and published by Hudson.

 

It's considered second party because it is funded by another company. Nintendo funds hudson to make the game.