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

Forums - Gaming - Namco Dev EXPLAINS why TOV was a Timed 360 Exclusive (SHOCK)!

alekth on 15 September 2009

Seriously, it's the company's business how they do things. It's Sony's rule to ask for extra content, this isn't just in the case of ToV.
MS apparently (from a recent Valve interview, I believe) turns out to have a policy of no more than 1 free DLC. Up to them.
Whether it's ethical or we like it?

Well I don't like that MS paid for me not being able to get this on the PS3 for a year. They could have paid for a full exclusive too.

Profiting from others' research/development/achievement is nothing new.
Supposedly IBM's work on the 360 takes a lot from the research they did for the PS3 with Sony's money. Sony and MS are now getting into the whole motion controls to get their dip in the userbase Nintendo established. No doubt plenty of other occurances, but hey, we know everyone is in it for the money.

And in this particular case it's Namco wanting that money. Both when development started and they took the funding as well as now that they won't be shifting many more 360 versions of the game so why not have a PS3 one and sell again?



Around the Network
Euphoria14 on 15 September 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Euphoria14 said:
Did MS fans cry when UT3 on 360 came with extras?

You mean the PS3 version. The PS3 version came with extras and no, because everyone was playing Halo at the time. JRPG's are in their own world and aren't competing with the likes of Halo, so this is a totally different matter at hand.

What extras? Mods? You mean the thing the 360 could have had but MS denied?

So if a 360 late port gets extras it doesn't count because it isn't a JRPG? It doesn't count because people were playing Halo?



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Carl on 15 September 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SnakeEyez said:

I wouldn't say that Sony are bad for blackmailing devs to make their version better, I look at it as Sony looking out for consumers. For someone like me, that has only a PS3 (for the moment), and wanting to buy a game like ToV, it sucks that I have to pay full price on a year old port, so the new additions makes the pill easier to swallow.

I am swallowing the pill. I was waiting for TOV and SO4 on the PS3 anyway, but I still dont find it to be fair to MS who essentially funded Sonys demands. Namco must've been scared shitless.

I dont find it fair that MS moneyhatted the game so PS3 owners couldnt play it for a year.

What were Namco supposed to be scared of, exactly?



                            

Xxain on 15 September 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Xxain said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SnakeEyez said:

I wouldn't say that Sony are bad for blackmailing devs to make their version better, I look at it as Sony looking out for consumers. For someone like me, that has only a PS3 (for the moment), and wanting to buy a game like ToV, it sucks that I have to pay full price on a year old port, so the new additions makes the pill easier to swallow.

I am swallowing the pill. I was waiting for TOV and SO4 on the PS3 anyway, but I still dont find it to be fair to MS who essentially funded Sonys demands. Namco must've been scared shitless.

*eyeroll* oh gawd........

What? I would think the same way for Sony if they actually funded a game that Nintendo essentially got with additional stuff for free.


I love the way ur trying paint a picture where NAMCO,the Company that has ripped there fans off over and over again and were attempting to do it again, are innocent and defensively and SONY, the Company that wont allow them to cash in on a quick port, is the big bad Yokai

Carl on 15 September 2009
Soriku said:
Carl2291 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SnakeEyez said:

I wouldn't say that Sony are bad for blackmailing devs to make their version better, I look at it as Sony looking out for consumers. For someone like me, that has only a PS3 (for the moment), and wanting to buy a game like ToV, it sucks that I have to pay full price on a year old port, so the new additions makes the pill easier to swallow.

I am swallowing the pill. I was waiting for TOV and SO4 on the PS3 anyway, but I still dont find it to be fair to MS who essentially funded Sonys demands. Namco must've been scared shitless.

I dont find it fair that MS moneyhatted the game so PS3 owners couldnt play it for a year.

What were Namco supposed to be scared of, exactly?

 If I were you I'd be happy I'd get the game at all...and with a TON of extras.

I dont even care about the game.

I just thought i would be as pathetic as he is being on the matter.



                            

Around the Network
nen-suer on 15 September 2009
Xxain said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Xxain said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SnakeEyez said:

I wouldn't say that Sony are bad for blackmailing devs to make their version better, I look at it as Sony looking out for consumers. For someone like me, that has only a PS3 (for the moment), and wanting to buy a game like ToV, it sucks that I have to pay full price on a year old port, so the new additions makes the pill easier to swallow.

I am swallowing the pill. I was waiting for TOV and SO4 on the PS3 anyway, but I still dont find it to be fair to MS who essentially funded Sonys demands. Namco must've been scared shitless.

*eyeroll* oh gawd........

What? I would think the same way for Sony if they actually funded a game that Nintendo essentially got with additional stuff for free.

I love the way ur trying paint a picture where NAMCO,the Company that has ripped there fans off over and over again and were attempting to do it again, are innocent and defensively and SONY, the Company that wont allow them to cash in on a quick port, is the big bad Yokai

Gotta love Xxain



Vote to Localize — SEGA and Konami Polls

Vote Today To Help Get A Konami & SEGA Game Localized.This Will Only Work If Lots Of People Vote.

Click on the Image to Head to the Voting Page (A vote for Yakuza is a vote to save gaming)

S.T.A.G.E. on 15 September 2009
Reasonable said:
Lot of humour of the unintentional sort in this thread. I'll take the article with a pinch of salt, but assuming for a moment it's true it only confirms what has been fairly apparent for a while:

1) MS paid to ensure it got jRPG support and to use a 'restriction of availability' ploy to slow PS3 adoption in Japan. Fair business ploy, although personally I don't myself feel this tactic is fair to the consumer

2) the developer merrily took the money and concocted their own plan - we'll actually use this to cover 360 and PS3, cutting costs. We'll be down a little initially when first sales are 360 only but make it back when the title lands on PS3. Again, fair enough, although again personally I think they were a little cheeky with this

3) Sony, seeing MS approach and knowing they probably couldn't combat it directly, put in place a policy to ensure that when timed exclusives did land on PS3, the developer had to add new content. Their stick is that the developer (in this case) is now caught with a game that's not sold enough on 360 only, and needs a PS3 release - they also have the clear fact the developer initially contracted with MS for timed rights. The result, the developer adds the new content.


So in the end you've got MS suiting themselves trying to deny access to certain titles to people who want to use a different console, the developer trying to play the two companies (MS and Sony) to their advantage and getting caught somewhat with a bunch of unhappy 360 folk and Sony's new content policy, and Sony getting a game later than they'd like but with new content that they hope will attract enough gamers.

From a consumer standpoint it stinks really, with 360 owners essentially buying titles that will have additional content added at a later stage and PS3 owners getting a richer version 12 months later.

Personally I think games should be exclusive or not. None of this timed nonsense. If Namco want to take funding from MS then at least give them a true exclusive. If they didn't think sales would be enough on 360 they should have gracefully refused the timed offer and simply released the exact same game on 360/PS3 on the same day.

What I find most amazing is people seeing either Sony, MS or Namco as the guilty party vs the other two depending upon their individual console bias. All three have, in different ways, conducted business in a manner that essentially penalizes the customer.

This is true Reasonable, but Microsoft was the only company that truly had nothing to lose, because they had to bring more variety to the 360 and try to win over Japan in Sony's time of neglect. They held fast and are now Sony gets to enjoying easy console sales, whilst ignoring the Japanese audience for god knows how long (which is one of the reasons the consoles sold slowly in the first place).



Carl on 15 September 2009
Soriku said:
"I dont even care about the game."

Why not?

Just never really interested me.



                            

321tttrini4everz on 15 September 2009

i ll get back to this thread later....



*



Dgc1808 on 15 September 2009

I don't think SONY did anything wrong here....

They didn't pay for the title, they didn't force the dev's to make a PS3 version, the dev's didn't have to. They chose to accept MS's incentives and release the game as a PS3 exclusive.

Why would SONY let them release the game on their system a year late with no improvements??? What's the point??? There's no reason for someone to buy it if they can probably get it else where cheaper. So SONY demands them to give us a reason to buy a PS3 version or they're not releasing the game.

I can easily say that SONY's making sure their customers are atleast getting something good after waiting longer for the game.



4 ≈ One