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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS and Sony First Party Exclusive Games Comparison

The_God_of_War on 14 May 2009

^Siren was also released on Blue-Ray in Europe as well as Japan. So it belongs on the list.



  

Around the Network
cleaner475 on 14 May 2009

Sony have to Support both the PSP and PS3 whereas Microsoft only has to support a single console - Sony requires a large amount of studios whereas Microsoft doesn't need as many. Sony also has a larger Third party support base than Microsoft too - It shows that Mega titles very rarely turn into a large increase hardware sales



<a href="http://eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/cleaner475/"><img src="http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/cleaner475.png" border="0" /></a>

makingmusic476 on 14 May 2009
EaglesEye379 said:
Personally I dont see what difference these technicalities on first/second party makes. Both of these CORPORATIONS were essential in bringing these games into our hands exclusively to each console. And MS is still building up their internal game studios (they only just built an Xbox HQ), Sony has had a much longer history and had a monopoly last generation in this market, so by default they would own more IP and have more 'internal' studios. And no one can say MS is failing so far in this strategy to bring arguably the best and best-selling games on the 360.

And I keep on saying, if people would look at the development team roster of Gears of War and Mass Effect, a significant portion was financed by Microsoft. None of the above games would exist without MS or Sony respectively so thats what matters.

 

were essential in bringing these games into our hands exclusively to each console

Then why not include games like Boishock.

The point is to compare 1st/2nd party titles. Not every and any exclusive.



twesterm on 14 May 2009

You should add a sales per week field in there so you can get a really good comparison on sales.



 

EaglesEye379 on 14 May 2009
makingmusic476 said:
EaglesEye379 said:
Personally I dont see what difference these technicalities on first/second party makes. Both of these CORPORATIONS were essential in bringing these games into our hands exclusively to each console. And MS is still building up their internal game studios (they only just built an Xbox HQ), Sony has had a much longer history and had a monopoly last generation in this market, so by default they would own more IP and have more 'internal' studios. And no one can say MS is failing so far in this strategy to bring arguably the best and best-selling games on the 360.

And I keep on saying, if people would look at the development team roster of Gears of War and Mass Effect, a significant portion was financed by Microsoft. None of the above games would exist without MS or Sony respectively so thats what matters.

 

were essential in bringing these games into our hands exclusively to each console

Then why not include games like Boishock.

The point is to compare 1st/2nd party titles. Not every and any exclusive.

Dude, BioShock was published by 2K Games and fully developed by 2K Boston/Australia. It should be never be on that list ever. The point is to compare published (hence manufactured, marketed, distributed and partially developed) by Sony / MS. The only difference here is ownership of IP and the total amount financed/developed by each company - which is my point, this technicality doesnt make a difference to me at all and Im not sure why this makes a difference to the actual games that make it to the consoles. 

 



Around the Network
NeoRatt on 14 May 2009

Wow...

I guess I should have phrased it first party "published" exclusive games...

Anyhow, I disagree with separating the games based on whether MS or Sony own the company. This is simply a choice of business models. MS has chosen to build 1st party exclusives through contracts to studios whereas Sony has chosen to own the companies that produce the exclusives.

The reason lies in the way North America does business vs. Japanese companies. In North America is a common best business practice to contract out. In Japan most companies hire people directly. Neither should be penalized for their business models.



Bullet100000 on 14 May 2009
Skeeuk said:
nice list but published by, should not make it into a 1st party studio release.

 

Exactly.



*Al Bundy's My Hero*

 

*Al Bundy For President*

Waiting On GT7!!!

 PSN ID: Acidfacekiller

Dgc1808 on 14 May 2009

Gears and ME 1st party???

News to me.

Nice comparison though



4 ≈ One

Zizzla_Rachet on 14 May 2009
Carl2291 said:
Interesting stuff.

Goes to show that both consoles have a mixture of games.

MS need some first party Sport games!

NO

 



 



Lord N on 14 May 2009
NeoRatt said:
Wow...

I guess I should have phrased it first party "published" exclusive games...

Anyhow, I disagree with separating the games based on whether MS or Sony own the company. This is simply a choice of business models. MS has chosen to build 1st party exclusives through contracts to studios whereas Sony has chosen to own the companies that produce the exclusives.

The reason lies in the way North America does business vs. Japanese companies. In North America is a common best business practice to contract out. In Japan most companies hire people directly. Neither should be penalized for their business models.

 

That still doesn't make the games first party. You're just twisting the definition. If they don't own the IP, then it's not first party.

 

That being said, Gears, Too Human, and Project Sylpheed are not first party.



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3