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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sucker Punch explain their exclusivity

Godot on 11 June 2009

Well, most if not all their games are published by Sony so that answer the question about exclusivity. Everything else they say is merely spin.i



How many cups of darkness have I drank over the years? Even I don't know...

 

Around the Network
Crazymann on 11 June 2009
whatever said:
Kynes said:
Ok, please, explain this to me.


According to Fleming, while going cross-platform puts a game in front of more potential eyeballs, "it also introduces a whole bunch of problems and compromises and difficulty that doesn't make making games a lot more fun. In fact, I think it subtracts from that."

Sucker punch + PS3 -> Great!

"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform."

Valve + X360 -> Lazy devs!

I just don't get the difference (apart of console preference of the forumers)

Are you for real?

Where did Sucker Punch anywhere say anything negative about the 360.  They just stated that working on more than one platform will make things more difficult in general.

Meanwhile Valve has continually trashed the PS3 with statments like "it's too difficult" or that Sony's made an "obscure architectural decision".

So where Sucker Punch is saying that it is simply there choice to make exclusives and there is no fault with M$ or Nintendo, Valve continually blames Sony.

See the difference now!

I think we can all agree that Newell is tactless with his anti-PS3 comments.  Apart from that, however, the statements are the same - only more eloquently worded in one case.  One cannot applaud Sucker Punch and demonize Valve for doing the SAME thing for what amounts to the same reason* without being a hypocrite.  Or a total fanboy - which ends up being the same in a startling amount of cases.

By implying that Valves anti PS3 stance invalidates the overall message, you are commiting a logical fallacy know as a non sequiter.

For the record, I think that if a multiplat can be made without artisitic compromise it should - if the company feels it is in their OVERALL best interest.

*  Reason = specialization = better game, more fun to program, less compromise.



Ajescent on 11 June 2009

Sucker Punch are being lazy but unlike Valve, they don't moan about the other consoles, they are just happy where they are.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Kynes on 11 June 2009

So the problem with Valve is lazyness, or moaning about the PS3? If Sucker Punch would have dismissed the 360, or the wii, saying "You can only do this game in the PS3", people would have reacted the same way?



leo-j on 11 June 2009

I thought sucker punch was a first party studio of sony's.. mhm



 

mM
Around the Network
Phrancheyez on 11 June 2009
ssj12 said:
Hephaestos said:
right... then why make the game for PS3?
exclusive 360 has a bigger audience and the same freedom of creativity.
exclusive Wii has a bigger userbase, less reliance on graphics investments and more control possibilities...

Because working with Sony is actually enjoyable. Even on the PR side I much prefer Sony's PR reps then Microsoft or Nintendo's.

Also..who lied to you?  Same freedom of creativity?  You can only be 6.4 gigs of creative on the 360 (or w/e it is).  You can be 50 gigs of creative on the PS3 without paying Sony more to include 5 extra discs.



Ssliasil on 11 June 2009
Kynes said:

So the problem with Valve is lazyness, or moaning about the PS3? If Sucker Punch would have dismissed the 360, or the wii, saying "You can only do this game in the PS3", people would have reacted the same way?


Sucker Pnch already said Certain aspects of InFamous were only possible on the PS3.



...uhh...ill just put my favorite quote of all time here.

"Welcome to Pain, the second of three...You have dealt the first...now deal with me!!"

Kynes on 11 June 2009
Ssliasil said:
Kynes said:

So the problem with Valve is lazyness, or moaning about the PS3? If Sucker Punch would have dismissed the 360, or the wii, saying "You can only do this game in the PS3", people would have reacted the same way?


Sucker Pnch already said Certain aspects of InFamous were only possible on the PS3.

That's why I said it. And the reactions were softer than the ones we get with Valve. Now that we have InFamous in the stores, do people really think this is correct, that the game can only be done on PS3? Is it so advanced in one concrete aspect that X360 couldn't handle it? Valve only said that it doesn't have financial reasons to them, giving harsh motives, but they didn't said that it couldn't be done.



Dgc1808 on 11 June 2009

It's probably also safer to stick with SONY than to try multiplat.... If it's not broken, don't fix it....



4 ≈ One

.jayderyu on 11 June 2009

If your not happy with your your doing you end up not doing as good a job. Clearly the game is second to the platform. In this case it makes sense that they develop exclusively for the PS3. I offer them the best of luck and hope they don't make a flop. Because that will probably be the end of them.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.