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

Forums - Sony - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

Xoj on 30 January 2010
Kasz216 said:
BMaker11 said:
Fumanchu said:
I must have imagined Sony buying the publishing rights and timed-exclusivity period for Ghostbusters.

Sony kinda owns that franchise.......

Though they did pay for timed exclusivity.

Which is part of the ridiculiousness of Sony.

The divisions seem like rival siblings who hate each other.  They never want to work together.

I mean... why is Ghostbusters even on 360 or Wii to begin with?

i doubt they payed for it, they got a deal since you know they own the who franchinse.



Around the Network
jesus kung fu magic on 30 January 2010
Icyedge said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
geddesmond2 said:
Ajescent said:
Sony? Ghostbusters? That never happened, nope...never.
Though then again, once in a while is more acceptable than a dime a dozen...yay or nay?

The Ghostbusters franchise is owned by Sony. They didn't have to let it go multiplat by licensing it out but they did and its nothing like what microsoft has been doing. But hey if Microsoft want to keep throwing money at 3rd party developers instead of building there own first and second party studios then thats there stupid moves.

The truth of the matter is Sony has no right to call out Microsoft on a strategy that Sony did at every opprotunity in the ps1/2 days........its like someone telling you not to drink when you have multiple videos of them getting hammered in the past and sometimes drink to this day.....its hypocrisy at its finest.

But Sony now, is not Sony 5 years ago. Its also not the same Sony that well have in 5 years. Employees change, time change and companies evolve. Its not hypocrisy as long as they dont do it now. Im not being hypocrit if I suggest to someone to stop smoking even if I was smoking 5 years ago. The fact is that today, I dont smoke, and ive learned that its really bad habit. Sincerely I dont know if they do it or not, but if they do, then yes the company as a whole is being hypocrit. But you cannot base your judgment on a practice they were doing 5 years ago if they dont do it anymore.

Its something they did to become successful , its something that made sony what it is today and to rip on companies who are trying to do the same thing you did to be successful is not only hypocritical but also spiteful.



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

Twistedpixel on 30 January 2010
jesus kung fu magic said:
Twistedpixel said:
jesus kung fu magic said:

The truth of the matter is Sony has no right to call out Microsoft on a strategy that Sony did at every opprotunity in the ps1/2 days........its like someone telling you not to drink when you have multiple videos of them getting hammered in the past and sometimes drink to this day.....its hypocrisy at its finest.

If Microsft acted the way Sony did during the PS1/PS2 days in the OS or Office software market they would be slapped with multiple billion dollar fines so fast it'd make their heads spin. Its definately pot/kettle territory and I generally say they are as bad as each other.

Im not ripping on this strategy nor do I think its a bad thing.....my problem is that sony is talking about this strategy as if they are too good for it when they recently did this time and time again the last gen and the one before that.

There are many ways to money hat without writing a cheque. They have royalty agreements, support, engine/tools etc. Giving anything to a developer in exchange for favours is technically a money hat agreement. Their Phyre engine for example is simply given away as a money hat vehicle.

The problem with Sony publishing games and owning the I.P. is that they have a bad tendency to make the I.P. die. So whilst they own a lot of stuff, you'll never see anything come of it. Its both a pro and a con here, sure Microsoft doesn't own the I.P but good series don't die as much on their watch and they can evolve for different platforms.

In a healthy industry I.P. has to be flexible in terms of which platforms it can be published on. There are probably a lot of great PS2 series which will never see a current gen release because Sony owns that I.P.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Fumanchu on 30 January 2010
Xoj said:
Kasz216 said:
BMaker11 said:
Fumanchu said:
I must have imagined Sony buying the publishing rights and timed-exclusivity period for Ghostbusters.

Sony kinda owns that franchise.......

Though they did pay for timed exclusivity.

Which is part of the ridiculiousness of Sony.

The divisions seem like rival siblings who hate each other.  They never want to work together.

I mean... why is Ghostbusters even on 360 or Wii to begin with?

i doubt they payed for it, they got a deal since you know they own the who franchinse.

Right a random 'deal' that occurred after the game had been finished on other platforms.  If such a deal were to exist because of license rights doesn't it make sense for it to be there from the beginning? Why would the developers create the game in tandem on all platforms and then just let it sit there, without Sony paying for such a deal?



Bastables on 30 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
Twistedpixel said:
jesus kung fu magic said:

The truth of the matter is Sony has no right to call out Microsoft on a strategy that Sony did at every opprotunity in the ps1/2 days........its like someone telling you not to drink when you have multiple videos of them getting hammered in the past and sometimes drink to this day.....its hypocrisy at its finest.

If Microsft acted the way Sony did during the PS1/PS2 days in the OS or Office software market they would be slapped with multiple billion dollar fines so fast it'd make their heads spin. Its definately pot/kettle territory and I generally say they are as bad as each other.

Im not ripping on this strategy nor do I think its a bad thing.....my problem is that sony is talking about this strategy as if they are too good for it when they recently did this time and time again the last gen and the one before that.

There are many ways to money hat without writing a cheque. They have royalty agreements, support, engine/tools etc. Giving anything to a developer in exchange for favours is technically a money hat agreement. Their Phyre engine for example is simply given away as a money hat vehicle.

The problem with Sony publishing games and owning the I.P. is that they have a bad tendency to make the I.P. die. So whilst they own a lot of stuff, you'll never see anything come of it. Its both a pro and a con here, sure Microsoft doesn't own the I.P but good series don't die as much on their watch and they can evolve for different platforms.

In a healthy industry I.P. has to be flexible in terms of which platforms it can be published on. There are probably a lot of great PS2 series which will never see a current gen release because Sony owns that I.P.

Wait so microsoft killing myth, Age of empires, combat flight sim and Mechwarrior never happend. . .  That's four "good" series run into the ground and 3 game producers killed after Microsoft brought them out. Evolve on diffrent platforms my arse. 



 

Around the Network
Twistedpixel on 30 January 2010
Bastables said:
Twistedpixel said:

There are many ways to money hat without writing a cheque. They have royalty agreements, support, engine/tools etc. Giving anything to a developer in exchange for favours is technically a money hat agreement. Their Phyre engine for example is simply given away as a money hat vehicle.

The problem with Sony publishing games and owning the I.P. is that they have a bad tendency to make the I.P. die. So whilst they own a lot of stuff, you'll never see anything come of it. Its both a pro and a con here, sure Microsoft doesn't own the I.P but good series don't die as much on their watch and they can evolve for different platforms.

In a healthy industry I.P. has to be flexible in terms of which platforms it can be published on. There are probably a lot of great PS2 series which will never see a current gen release because Sony owns that I.P.

Wait so microsoft killing myth, Age of empires, combat flight sim and Mechwarrior never happend. . .  That's four "good" series run into the ground and 3 game producers killed after Microsoft brought them out. Evolve on diffrent platforms my arse. 

Huh? You haven't refuted anything, your ass. I said don't die as much. Look at the number of I.P Sony controls vs the number which are currently being used.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Bastables on 30 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:
Bastables said:
Twistedpixel said:

There are many ways to money hat without writing a cheque. They have royalty agreements, support, engine/tools etc. Giving anything to a developer in exchange for favours is technically a money hat agreement. Their Phyre engine for example is simply given away as a money hat vehicle.

The problem with Sony publishing games and owning the I.P. is that they have a bad tendency to make the I.P. die. So whilst they own a lot of stuff, you'll never see anything come of it. Its both a pro and a con here, sure Microsoft doesn't own the I.P but good series don't die as much on their watch and they can evolve for different platforms.

In a healthy industry I.P. has to be flexible in terms of which platforms it can be published on. There are probably a lot of great PS2 series which will never see a current gen release because Sony owns that I.P.

Wait so microsoft killing myth, Age of empires, combat flight sim and Mechwarrior never happend. . .  That's four "good" series run into the ground and 3 game producers killed after Microsoft brought them out. Evolve on diffrent platforms my arse. 

Huh? You haven't refuted anything, your ass. I said don't die as much. Look at the number of I.P Sony controls vs the number which are currently being used.

Don't die as much? dead IP's are dead IP's. Microsoft has actully closed down studios. Sony mearly has their studios make new franchises with each generation for instance the progeression from Crash/PS1, Jak's PS2 and now unchartedPS3.

Zipper Socom then MAG. Microsoft mearly killed a number of their internal studios as opposed to funding them and having them work on new games. 



 

Twistedpixel on 30 January 2010
Bastables said:
Twistedpixel said:

Huh? You haven't refuted anything, your ass. I said don't die as much. Look at the number of I.P Sony controls vs the number which are currently being used.

Don't die as much? dead IP's are dead IP's. Microsoft has actully closed down studios. Sony mearly has their studios make new franchises with each generation for instance the progeression from Crash/PS1, Jak's PS2 and now unchartedPS3.

Zipper Socom then MAG. Microsoft mearly killed a number of their internal studios as opposed to funding them and having them work on new games. 

I don't care that they have closed down studios, laid off people or masturbated secretly in your closet onto your stuffed teddy. I wasn't talking about 1st party studios, I was talking about 2nd/3rd party I.P which Sony owns and has no intention of using which was made by 2nd/3rd party developers. It was to contrast the difference between free I.P. controlled by the maker and I.P. which goes to die as soon as Sony loses interest.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Masakari on 31 January 2010

A lot of companies and franchises that rose up during the PS2 days were still independent, Sony didn't open a lot of studios, they bought them after a few years of relationship - Naughty Dog was bought at the start of the PS2 era, Sony Bend used to be a company called Eidetic, they bought Zipper in 2006, they bought Guerrilla Games after KZ1, etc. It's a popular view that MS "can't create, so they buy everything", well, Sony does the same.

Also, a large part of their successes this gen have been 2nd parties, Sony doesn't own Insomniac, Sucker Punch, ThatGameCompany, Ready At Dawn, etc. Either through dev incentives, publishing, or outright buying exclusivity, these are all companies that have little reason to develop exclusively, yet they do, and you can bet it's not from the kindness of their hearts. it's a popular view that MS "gives incentives, strikes deals, and pays devs", well, Sony does the same.

MS have a different aproach, and I think they have massively wasted the talent they have had before (Ensemble, FASA, Heavy Gun, the flight sim guys), but they have also "helped" megahits bigger than what Sony has (in terms of sales).

Sony and MS are two sides of the same coin. People need to get off this "poetic" idea they have of these corporations, specially Sony (for what they did in bringing games to mainstream), it's just business, and neither one is "more evil" than the other.



Xoj on 31 January 2010
Masakari said:

A lot of companies and franchises that rose up during the PS2 days were still independent, Sony didn't open a lot of studios, they bought them after a few years of relationship - Naughty Dog was bought at the start of the PS2 era, Sony Bend used to be a company called Eidetic, they bought Zipper in 2006, they bought Guerrilla Games after KZ1, etc. It's a popular view that MS "can't create, so they buy everything", well, Sony does the same.

Also, a large part of their successes this gen have been 2nd parties, Sony doesn't own Insomniac, Sucker Punch, ThatGameCompany, Ready At Dawn, etc. Either through dev incentives, publishing, or outright buying exclusivity, these are all companies that have little reason to develop exclusively, yet they do, and you can bet it's not from the kindness of their hearts. it's a popular view that MS "gives incentives, strikes deals, and pays devs", well, Sony does the same.

MS have a different aproach, and I think they have massively wasted the talent they have had before (Ensemble, FASA, Heavy Gun, the flight sim guys), but they have also "helped" megahits bigger than what Sony has (in terms of sales).

Sony and MS are two sides of the same coin. People need to get off this "poetic" idea they have of these corporations, specially Sony (for what they did in bringing games to mainstream), it's just business, and neither one is "more evil" than the other.

not really, sony all teams work under a single wing.

even worldwide they is communaction between the studios even first and second parties.

sony supports quite alot talented developers, they made LBP huge.

sony works with the studio if the game it's a a success they buy it, but they have input in the game alot of it.

 

microsoft just pay for the timed exclusivity, they have not input in the game besides marketing.