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

Forums - Sony - Sony on 3rd party exclusivity

Icyedge on 30 January 2010
Seece said:
Hypocrit, it's exactly the same, except Sony give the money before hand rather than after.


Theres an enormous difference between paying before and after. One encourage development and give ressource to small companies that otherwise wouldnt have been able to produce something. While the other one only restrict where the product is releasing. One is good for big companies while the other one is also good for small developers or for new products at the same time. One is also a much better investment over the other, because when you develop a good partnership your chances are high that the 3rd party publisher stick with you afterwards.



Around the Network
Icyedge on 30 January 2010
Masakari said:
Sony does the same, it's just a different aproach. Like has been said here, Sony just prefers to fund in it's entirety projects like Heavy Rain or LBP, but you have to understand those companies could never afford to develop something like that. It's a risk, but it will still be exclusive even after years.

Microsoft, on the other hand, plays it safer by paying top developers who don't necessarily rely on that cash. The flipside is that since they don't exactly rely on that, most of those games will come out on PS3 anyway, just later, or much later.

In a way, you could say the Sony aproach is actually more limiting to everyone, since those titles will never, ever, release outside the PlayStation brand.

Either way, the thought that only MS pays for exclusivity is idiotic, Sony does the same, the difference is they publish most of it, while MS just secures X amount of time from whoever publishes it.


You get it but at the same time your missing something.  Its not limiting because the titles they fund would probably not see the light of day anyway if they wouldnt invest in it.



EdStation3 on 30 January 2010
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. 




Get your Portable ID!

themanwithnoname on 30 January 2010
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. 


So would you like to explain to me, oh I don't know, trophies and PSN then, or hell, even the motion control coming out this fall? Do you really want to play this game?



themanwithnoname's law: As an America's sales or NPD thread grows longer, the probabilty of the comment "America = World" [sarcasticly] being made approaches 1.

loves2splooge on 30 January 2010
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.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 30 January 2010
kitler53 said:
sethnintendo said:
makingmusic476 said:
Legend11 said:
Maybe the Sony exec is right. Microsoft should buy studios like Sony does and ensure the games never go onto another console. With the billions that Microsoft is making in profit they could easily do just that and then we could listen to that exec praise them.

I would like it if they did this.  It only spurs competition, and considering first party titles are often loss leaders to a degree (ie, software designed to show off technology and sell systems moreso than just sell), we could see some amazing games coming form the Microsoft camp.  Just look at what Gears has become with Microsoft's involvement.

We likely wouldn't have Killzone if it weren't for Halo, much like we wouldn't have Forza if it weren't for Gran Turismo.  Competition between the big three leads to some of the best games each gen, from Super Mario, Super Smash Bros., and the Legend of Zelda to Halo, Fable, and Forza to Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet, and God of War.

Maybe you should recheck Nintendo on this statement.   Nintendo doesn't make loss leaders they make sellers...

not really true.  oh sure, nintendo sells a ton of software with wii fit, wii sports, ect.  but they still make loss lead games.  i don't think nintendo has any expectation that sin&punishment 2 is going to sell 20M units but they still made it.  same with fire emblem.  ...and it's worth nintendo's time because even if they only break even on these games, it ensures a wide audience of gamers can enjoy their system.

Got me there.  I guess I need to not be so drunk next time I try to log onto vgchartz after work....  Nintendo does have some series that barely sell but they produce them for the fans of that series.  However, it usually isn't to show off technology just make the game of the series that there is a small following for (point - more people should play Fire Emblem).



Twistedpixel on 30 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.

Microsofts actions with Bioshock were to help the studio develop the title, and considering their trouble with development it wouldn't have been nearly as good if it were multiplat. In relation to Tales, The PS3 owners got subsidised game development. I don't see how anyone lost out with those two examples.



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

Icyedge 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?

Simple, they evaluate as a whole that it would benefit Sony more to release a multi platform title and earn royalties than to keep it a console exclusives. It has nothing to do with a division wanted to make better profit whatever the consequences for the whole company.



Alic0004 on 30 January 2010
Icyedge 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?

Simple, they evaluate as a whole that it would benefit Sony more to release a multi platform title and earn royalties than to keep it a console exclusives. It has nothing to do with a division wanted to make better profit whatever the consequences for the whole company.

 

You're just making things up, aren't you?



 

Masakari on 30 January 2010
Icyedge said:
Masakari said:
Sony does the same, it's just a different aproach. Like has been said here, Sony just prefers to fund in it's entirety projects like Heavy Rain or LBP, but you have to understand those companies could never afford to develop something like that. It's a risk, but it will still be exclusive even after years.

Microsoft, on the other hand, plays it safer by paying top developers who don't necessarily rely on that cash. The flipside is that since they don't exactly rely on that, most of those games will come out on PS3 anyway, just later, or much later.

In a way, you could say the Sony aproach is actually more limiting to everyone, since those titles will never, ever, release outside the PlayStation brand.

Either way, the thought that only MS pays for exclusivity is idiotic, Sony does the same, the difference is they publish most of it, while MS just secures X amount of time from whoever publishes it.


You get it but at the same time your missing something.  Its not limiting because the titles they fund would probably not see the light of day anyway if they wouldnt invest in it.

Oh, i know that. Like i said before, Sony takes bigger risks because they invest in more "unknown quantities", if you will. But the end result is the same, exclusive titles on X platform. And people cannot dismiss the importance of the money MS throws at some projects.

Again, like I said before, they "found" Mass Effect in the preliminary stages and funded and published that, they just didn't own the IP, they helped 2K with Bioshock, they funded the GTA4 episodes (50 million changes a lot of things, I have no doubt Rockstar would do DLC, but I do doubt it would have been 2 big 8-10 hour episodes like they ended up doing), Tales, helped fund the new Alien Breed (hence the timed exclusivity), massively funded Gears and turned it into a huge franchise, I could go on.

Heck, i'm not anti-sony or pro-ms or anything like that. I just think some of the views in this thread ignore the fact this is a business, it doesn't matter if you pay before or pay during or pay after, the end result is the same. And like i said, from a pure gamer perspective, it's the Sony titles that limit more because you really need a PS3 for that, and have no other choice. I have both consoles because of that.

As for the whole "MS are evil, they stole Tekken, DMC, GTA, etc", that's ridiculous. See, it's just typical anti-MS bs, Sony fans just want all the games for themselves. Sony used to pay Rockstar for GTA exclusivity, and as far as anyone knows, MS didn't pay a dime to Capcom and whoever publishes Tekken. Xbox 360 was out a whole year before PS3, it's easier to develop for, and has a bigger userbase, it's perfectly natural to see a lot of PS2-era franchises go multiplat, because this time they had a choice.

I don't even agree much with the policy MS uses, I would have bought Bioware instead of letting EA swoop in and get it, I would have gotten the Gears IP, not leave it in Epic's hands, I wouldn't have closed down Ensemble or FASA Studios, I would invest in more 1st party, not just Halo, the list can go on. But it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing "evil" about what MS does, it's a different aproach from Sony's, and the end result is mostly the same.