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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

EdStation3 on 31 January 2010
loves2splooge said:
EdStation3 said:
Seece said:
Hypocrit, it's exactly the same, except Sony give the money before hand rather than after.


Hypocrites?  Microsoft does it insanely.  The best innovation since they enter video games was how to bribe and take from other companies.  Look at all the Playstation associated franchises they took.  GTA, DMC, Tekken.  They can't survive without bribing the competition.  They just entered the industry to say "Oh no, you can't make extra DLC for anyone else besides us"  Console war should be about companies and how they compete to make the best games and machines.  Not about just showing up out of nowhere with a big of money and saying "Put it on our console too and on top of that give us extra content"  That's B.S. in my opinion.  Microsoft showed up out of nowhere and paid off Rare to break their association with Nintendo and switch sides. 

You do know that Sony paid off Rockstar for GTA timed exclusivity on the PS2 right? They were doing this before MS was even in the console gaming business with major IPs. How can MS be pioneers? lol. Also Grand Theft Auto 1 got their start on the PC, not the Playstation. I suppose Square are "traitors" for going from Nintendo to Playstation with Final Fantasy too right?

The way I see it, people who criticize Microsoft for doing the same sort of things Sony did in the past are either irrationally anti-Microsoft or they are Playstation and/or Nintendo fanboys or they got RRoD and feel like they have to rage against MS for that. (oh and japanophiles are another prominent anti-MS group. How did I forget about that? Railing against Microsoft because they wouldn't be caught dead buying an American console. It would hurt their e-cred with their snobby japanophile friends on the internets) It's completely irrational to criticize Microsoft for doing the same sort of things that Sony freakin pioneered in the gaming business.

Sony bribed Square for Final Fantasy?  Or Final Fantasy moved over because the N64 cartridges offered way too little room for all the video clips they wanted to include.  Has Sony or Nintendo every approached each other companies and said "Hey here is x amount of dollars, turn your back and come with us"??  Like MS did with Rare?  The way I see it Nintendo and Sony make most of their own stuff, MS just shows up and pays people off and takes it.  Microsoft has almost nothing first party.  They wait till a company, (let's say Capcom) makes a IP specifically for the PS2 (DMC) and then show up and bribe them off.  Or Rare, built a library of new games working closely with Nintendo.  MS just shows up and bribes tbem.  The way I see it, there are only two consoles COMPETING, Wii and PS3.  The third one isn't competing, just bribing the 2nd and 3rd party.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Masakari on 31 January 2010

What the hell are you talking about? MS bought Rare FROM Nintendo, who needed the cash at the time. Furthermore, nobody knows if MS paid Capcom or not.

See, that's what I mentioned in an earlier page, Sony fans just want all games to themselves. DMC, Tekken, FF, etc have no reason to be exclusive anymore since the PS3 isn't the juggernaut the PS2 was, this time it has serious competition. Why would half the big devs/publishers in the world not publish on a platform with a higher userbase and easier to develop for, and stick to some idiotic brand loyalty? They want to make money, it's just business. "MS bribing everyone" really is a stupid myth that needs to die.



880user088 on 31 January 2010

Three words : Final Fantasy XIV.



Fei-Hung on 31 January 2010

I think I have an analogy to make this all simpler to understand:

Sony this gen: Finds a woman, loves her, takes care of her, looks after her so Sony can get some loving back form her. The child they make belongs to Sony due to the forming of trust and a relationship.

MS this gen: Throws money at her so she can give something in return (but she will take money from anyone). Child is born, 1st they thought MS is the father, but later on in its life, it could be anyone since she has fed her pie to everyone.

It is not so much about hypocrisy. It is more about how MS and Sony go about their business and therefore how differently people characterize them.



dolemit3 on 31 January 2010

If Sony could afford the same amount of moneyhatting they would certainly go for it, considering that the PS3 software is not selling on the same level as it used to be on the PS2.



Currently playing on PS3: God of War III

Currently playing on Xbox360: Final Fantasy XIII

Currently playing on NDS: Chrono Trigger

Around the Network
Garnett on 31 January 2010
makingmusic476 said:

Seece-

Yes, Sony is paying for these exclusives, but in the end there are more (or at least better) games to play as a result. Through Microsoft's actions with Bioshock, Tales, etc., we don't get anymore games than we would've had otherwise.

One adds to the mix. The other simply detracts from the mix for a certain group of people for a select amount of time. You can make a case for grey areas like Heavy Rain, but for the most part the two strategies have markedly different end results.

I Agree with MM, MS did the same with the GTA DLC.

 

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Icyedge on 01 February 2010
dolemit3 said:
If Sony could afford the same amount of moneyhatting they would certainly go for it, considering that the PS3 software is not selling on the same level as it used to be on the PS2.

Im not 100% sure but I think that Sony invest more money annually in video games than microsoft. So they can money hat as much if they really want to. Its just a choice where you use your money, do you prefer owning studios and financing development or purchasing license? Once again though, im not 100% sure, I dont have the complete investment of both companies in the video games industry.



Tallgeese101 on 01 February 2010

Completely agree with OP.
All the money that MS spent on exclusivity on GTA4 and Fallout 3 DLC would have been better spent on providing a game to compete with the big Sony games.

As a result 2009 was a relativity barren year for 360 in comparison. Luckily I think MS have seen the light (or a least no amount of money can persuade a dev from ignoring the millions of PS3 users) and that mistake will not be repeated.



oldschoolfool on 01 February 2010

The ps3 is doing better than a couple yrs ago,exclusive wise.



jarrod on 01 February 2010
Lurker said:
Microsoft relies on it way too much. Shows the inadequacy of their first party. Sony has done it in the past too, but it was only for key games like the GTA series on PS2.

lol.  Sony did it ALL the time the past 2 gens.  GTA series, FF series, DQ series, Tomb Raider series, DMC series, Tekken series, Onimusha series, Ace Combat series, Soul Reaver 2, VF4, SC3, etc, etc.

I think the real issue now is that because they don't have an overwhelming userbase lead, it's getting harder and harder to get 3rd parties to commit to exclusives.  On PS2 buying exclusivity was probably pretty cheap, since that's where 70% of your audience already was anyway (though it backfired sometimes, like with Soulcalibur 3).  Now though, they'd have to convince a 3rd party to look at 45% of the HD base, and only 25% of the overall console base.... sounds like a more expensive proposition from their end.