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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

joshin69 on 02 February 2010

Anyone calling Sony hypocritical are playing the fanboy. All Devs, Pubs and hardware makers in this business are complete hypocrites.



 

 assumption is the mother of all f**k ups 

Around the Network
hikaruchan on 02 February 2010
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

SONY did not publish Final Fantasy VII,VIII,IX like NINTENDO did not Publish Final Fantasy, II, III, IV, V, VI or TEKKEN, 2, 3  on the Playstation Final Fantasy has been a 3rd Party Exclusive on Playstation since Final fantasy VII developed & published by Squaresoft, TKKEN is developed and published by NAMCO if they were published by SONY they would be 2nd Party exclusives developed by a 3rd Party and published by a 1st Party SONY paid for those games to be exclusive but SONY dose not have the right to stop them being published on other systems for eg Final Fantasy VII & Final Fantasy VIII are also on PC if SONY published them then they would not be on PC.       



Japanese Pop Culture Otaku

jarrod on 02 February 2010
hikaruchan said:
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

SONY did not publish Final Fantasy VII,VIII,IX like NINTENDO did not Publish Final Fantasy, II, III, IV, V, VI or TEKKEN, 2, 3  on the Playstation Final Fantasy has been a 3rd Party Exclusive on Playstation since Final fantasy VII developed & published by Squaresoft, TKKEN is developed and published by NAMCO if they were published by SONY they would be 2nd Party exclusives developed by a 3rd Party and published by a 1st Party SONY paid for those games to be exclusive but SONY dose not have the right to stop them being published on other systems for eg Final Fantasy VII & Final Fantasy VIII are also on PC if SONY published them then they would not be on PC.       

Actually, Sony did publish FFVII and several other early Square PS1 games (FF Tactics, SaGa Frontier, Einhander, Tobal No. 1, Bushido Blade, and maybe some others) in America and Europe, until Square made a distribution with EA.  And Sony also used to publish Tekken in Europe back before Namco had their own publishing wing re-established there (through Tekken 5 iirc?).

That's nothing new or uncommon though, and many 1st parties do it.  Look at how Nintendo takes care of Professor Layton in the west, or how they're publishing MH3 in Europe.



hikaruchan on 02 February 2010
jarrod said:
hikaruchan said:
Bodhesatva said:

Sony published Final Fantasy 7, Tekken 1/2/3, and many other prominant games for third parties back in the day. I think it's unquestionable that they also did something similar for the PSP's recent surge in third party support. How else to explain an exclusive Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, and others, when the system's performance is so abysmal? And of course, we have examples like advertising assistance for recent games like AC II, and so forth.

Sony gives money to third parties all the time. Even Nintendo does, albeit to a lesser extent. I've often felt that Sony bested Nintendo in the PS1 era in large part thanks to their wallet, offering generous incentives and publishing assistance to major franchises like Final Fantasy (and DQ and Tekken and others). It often seems that Microsoft is returning the favor, as MS is an even bigger fish with even more money beating Sony at their own "we will outspend you" game. 

SONY did not publish Final Fantasy VII,VIII,IX like NINTENDO did not Publish Final Fantasy, II, III, IV, V, VI or TEKKEN, 2, 3  on the Playstation Final Fantasy has been a 3rd Party Exclusive on Playstation since Final fantasy VII developed & published by Squaresoft, TKKEN is developed and published by NAMCO if they were published by SONY they would be 2nd Party exclusives developed by a 3rd Party and published by a 1st Party SONY paid for those games to be exclusive but SONY dose not have the right to stop them being published on other systems for eg Final Fantasy VII & Final Fantasy VIII are also on PC if SONY published them then they would not be on PC.       

Actually, Sony did publish FFVII and several other early Square PS1 games (FF Tactics, SaGa Frontier, Einhander, Tobal No. 1, Bushido Blade, and maybe some others) in America and Europe, until Square made a distribution with EA.  And Sony also used to publish Tekken in Europe back before Namco had their own publishing wing re-established there (through Tekken 5 iirc?).

That's nothing new or uncommon though, and many 1st parties do it.  Look at how Nintendo takes care of Professor Layton in the west, or how they're publishing MH3 in Europe.

Sorry SONY did Publish FFVII in the US & Europe but not in Japan and FFVIII on an are sublished by Square and the PSN Versuions are Published by Square Enix that would have made them 3rd Party Exclusive in Japan and 2nd Party in the US because SONY dose not own the IPs of FFVII and FF Tactics sometimes the lines between 2nd and 3rd Party Games are very blurry look at Demons Souls in Japan SONY Publisfesit but in the US it is Atlus. 



Japanese Pop Culture Otaku

joshin69 on 03 February 2010

had a bit to drink or speed typing?



 

 assumption is the mother of all f**k ups 

Around the Network
Masakari on 03 February 2010

EdStation3 said:
Masakari said:
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.


Rare had another majoirty owner and Nintendo had a minority ownership in the company, therefore didn't have complete control.  Of course, instead of making their own 1st/2nd party studio, Microsoft to buy up someone else's sucess and paid off the majority owners of Rare for their %60 of Rare.  Nintendo having a minority control over Rare didn't really have much choice but to give up their minority in the company and Microsoft took over.  Just wish Microsoft would compete with talented production teams and their own studios and 3rd party franchises instead of taking someone else's.

Cool, didn't know that, thanks. But my statement still stands, companies buy companies everyday, anyday, any country. It's not evil or not, it's not taking someone or not, it's business. if Nintendo was smart they wouldn't have been minority owners, if what you described is true it wasn't exactly a hostile takeover. It's the same thing as Bioware and Pandemic, they sold to an investment group and probably didn't figure EA would buy them from that investment group. Is EA evil or just "took them"? No, if Bioware didn't want to be owned by EA, they would have kept independant.

As soon as you sell a portion or your entire company to someone else, you are fair game in whatever happens to you. It's just business.

Lurker said:
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.

Whatever Sony does is the right way cause their games don't go to the PC or get ported to 360 in 6 months.

"Right way" for you and for Sony. For everyone else it isn't. I have no problem with that, then again I have no problem with MS having a different approach, the reason we have different platforms is having exclusive titles on each.

Besides, in the console war, which is what matters, the PC doesn't matter, and sales show that. And i'm not even gonna get into piracy on PC, and the fact most people don't have ninja PCs to run games well.

For me a PS3/PC title or 360/PC title is console exclusive, and that's what matters in terms of business. The amount of sales 360 "loses" by having titles on PC is imo small, comparatively.

 

 

 




STEKSTAV on 03 February 2010
Masakari said:

EdStation3 said:
Masakari said:
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.


Rare had another majoirty owner and Nintendo had a minority ownership in the company, therefore didn't have complete control.  Of course, instead of making their own 1st/2nd party studio, Microsoft to buy up someone else's sucess and paid off the majority owners of Rare for their %60 of Rare.  Nintendo having a minority control over Rare didn't really have much choice but to give up their minority in the company and Microsoft took over.  Just wish Microsoft would compete with talented production teams and their own studios and 3rd party franchises instead of taking someone else's.

Cool, didn't know that, thanks. But my statement still stands, companies buy companies everyday, anyday, any country. It's not evil or not, it's not taking someone or not, it's business. if Nintendo was smart they wouldn't have been minority owners, if what you described is true it wasn't exactly a hostile takeover. It's the same thing as Bioware and Pandemic, they sold to an investment group and probably didn't figure EA would buy them from that investment group. Is EA evil or just "took them"? No, if Bioware didn't want to be owned by EA, they would have kept independant.

As soon as you sell a portion or your entire company to someone else, you are fair game in whatever happens to you. It's just business.

Lurker said:
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.

Whatever Sony does is the right way cause their games don't go to the PC or get ported to 360 in 6 months.

"Right way" for you and for Sony. For everyone else it isn't. I have no problem with that, then again I have no problem with MS having a different approach, the reason we have different platforms is having exclusive titles on each.

1.Besides, in the console war, which is what matters, the PC doesn't matter, and sales show that. And i'm not even gonna get into piracy on PC, and the fact most people don't have ninja PCs to run games well.

2.For me a PS3/PC title or 360/PC title is console exclusive, 3.and that's what matters in terms of business. 4.The amount of sales 360 "loses" by having titles on PC is imo small, comparatively.

 

 

 

1. Hahahaha
2. What else would it be?
3. In "business" that's irrelevant.
4. I disagree. All i know is that if all 360/PC games were 360 only (splinter cell, mass effect 1-2, gears 1, left 4 dead 1-2etc.. all quality games), the 360 would look more attractive to a non-360 owner.. fact. And if its more attractive, more people will purchase one, and the bigger the installbase, the bigger the sw revenue. And the bigger the software revenue would have been (since adaptors probably wont stop at just one game, 8.8 attach ratio isnt it?), the bigger the "loss". So comparatively, i think the 360 does "lose" having it on PC aswell.



gamefreak4ever on 03 February 2010

Well, I'm GTA IV DLC is no longer an exclusive and I have pre-ordered it for my playstation



http://www.vgchartz.com/sigs/output.php?userid=60726%5B/img%5D%5B/url%5D">

EdStation3 on 08 February 2010
STEKSTAV said:
Masakari said:

EdStation3 said:
Masakari said:
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.


Rare had another majoirty owner and Nintendo had a minority ownership in the company, therefore didn't have complete control.  Of course, instead of making their own 1st/2nd party studio, Microsoft to buy up someone else's sucess and paid off the majority owners of Rare for their %60 of Rare.  Nintendo having a minority control over Rare didn't really have much choice but to give up their minority in the company and Microsoft took over.  Just wish Microsoft would compete with talented production teams and their own studios and 3rd party franchises instead of taking someone else's.

Cool, didn't know that, thanks. But my statement still stands, companies buy companies everyday, anyday, any country. It's not evil or not, it's not taking someone or not, it's business. if Nintendo was smart they wouldn't have been minority owners, if what you described is true it wasn't exactly a hostile takeover. It's the same thing as Bioware and Pandemic, they sold to an investment group and probably didn't figure EA would buy them from that investment group. Is EA evil or just "took them"? No, if Bioware didn't want to be owned by EA, they would have kept independant.

As soon as you sell a portion or your entire company to someone else, you are fair game in whatever happens to you. It's just business.

Lurker said:
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.

Whatever Sony does is the right way cause their games don't go to the PC or get ported to 360 in 6 months.

"Right way" for you and for Sony. For everyone else it isn't. I have no problem with that, then again I have no problem with MS having a different approach, the reason we have different platforms is having exclusive titles on each.

1.Besides, in the console war, which is what matters, the PC doesn't matter, and sales show that. And i'm not even gonna get into piracy on PC, and the fact most people don't have ninja PCs to run games well.

2.For me a PS3/PC title or 360/PC title is console exclusive, 3.and that's what matters in terms of business. 4.The amount of sales 360 "loses" by having titles on PC is imo small, comparatively.

 

 

 

1. Hahahaha
2. What else would it be?
3. In "business" that's irrelevant.
4. I disagree. All i know is that if all 360/PC games were 360 only (splinter cell, mass effect 1-2, gears 1, left 4 dead 1-2etc.. all quality games), the 360 would look more attractive to a non-360 owner.. fact. And if its more attractive, more people will purchase one, and the bigger the installbase, the bigger the sw revenue. And the bigger the software revenue would have been (since adaptors probably wont stop at just one game, 8.8 attach ratio isnt it?), the bigger the "loss". So comparatively, i think the 360 does "lose" having it on PC aswell.


So my point still stands.  Microsoft thrives off bribing 3rd parties and taking 2nd party studios and bribing to force 3rd parties into blocking DLC for other consoles and opposed to competing by making quality 1st party games.  Console wars should be about who can deliver the best product not about who can buy the competition out.




Get your Portable ID!

Masakari on 16 February 2010

It's business, so it's just money. Money is the way the world works. Get over it.