I don't know, this seems to be a dubious rumour. Would only believe it when I see it.Mr.Mattress said:
If this is true... Then... Wow...
- Thread starter Mr.Mattress
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Never fix your own problems, exaggerate others problems to make yourself feel better. I can see the self help books on the shelf now. Thank you Microsoft. I am now a more learned man.
On one hand: Dubious rumor from shady source.
On the other hand: This is exactly as dumb and sleazetastic I'd expect M$ to be after the Xbone pre-emptively bombed.
So I'm gonna withhold my judgement for the time being.
On the other hand: This is exactly as dumb and sleazetastic I'd expect M$ to be after the Xbone pre-emptively bombed.
So I'm gonna withhold my judgement for the time being.
Sounds pretty standard actually, you think those exclusivity deals on 360 happened on accident?
No devs were downright threatened with bans from 360 unless some deal was made, in the same way retailers threaten them with exclusivity deals... the world of business is all but kind and fluffy.
No devs were downright threatened with bans from 360 unless some deal was made, in the same way retailers threaten them with exclusivity deals... the world of business is all but kind and fluffy.
Yet again, Microsofts only strategy seems to be "let's keep throwing money at the problem until it goes away"
Why not? This is exactly what I suspected happened with the wiiU as well.Mr.Mattress said:
Welcome to the new console wars of 2013+, where companies fight each other not at the store, but through backdoor shenanigans. Look how many devs backpedaled on the wiiU; some almost instantly after it came out (even though it's initial sales were fine). I can easily see some payoffs happening, and before you try to dismantle my theory, look at Rayman... it was DONE!!! Done but still shelved and not allowed on the wiiU. Suspicious... very suspicious. Yes they are now making it multi-platform, but that still has nothing to do with the fact the wiiU one was "put away". It's not like you can't make a game multiplatform AFTER releasing it on another console. If anything, the fact that it is now multiplatform and still was shelved for the wiiU basically confirmed someone paid ubisoft, or at the very least, made some kind of deal with them. After all, this deal only benefits the PS3 and the Xbox, not ubisoft themselves. Think about that for a bit.
"Alright people, the reveal event didn't turn out very well...we're going to have to really buckle down and put in some hard, honest work to regain consumer support and regain consumer trust"
"By reworking the system to make it more user friendly?"
"What?! Hell no! We're going to pay off developers to ensure they don't show PS4 versions of multiplatform games! Trust me, we don't need to change: They're going to buy the Xbox One just the way it is."
---
I can't find the article but at one point Microsoft reps did say that people people would buy the XBone no matter how poor the thing looks. They're right too; Fable of War: Combat Evolved has a heavy draw as does Banjo-Kazooie (though not as much of a draw as it was a decade ago). It would be kind of funny if those devs take the money and show off the Wii U and, PC versions of those multi-platform games...though Watch Dogs is the only multiplatform game I can think of that would work in this context...
"By reworking the system to make it more user friendly?"
"What?! Hell no! We're going to pay off developers to ensure they don't show PS4 versions of multiplatform games! Trust me, we don't need to change: They're going to buy the Xbox One just the way it is."
---
I can't find the article but at one point Microsoft reps did say that people people would buy the XBone no matter how poor the thing looks. They're right too; Fable of War: Combat Evolved has a heavy draw as does Banjo-Kazooie (though not as much of a draw as it was a decade ago). It would be kind of funny if those devs take the money and show off the Wii U and, PC versions of those multi-platform games...though Watch Dogs is the only multiplatform game I can think of that would work in this context...
Since when did NeoGaf forum users become credible sources? And why are people acting like it's instantly true? I'm sure they'll try to push their console but I highly doubt they'll attack Sony instead of just improving their own console, even I'm not that stupid. People who work for these corporations are the cleverest business minds around, they wouldn't be stupid enough to use this tactic. NeoGaf posters however...
Well, the buying people off thing is questionable, but the production worries are pretty sound as right now even Intel is having some production issues with commercial Haswell chips. Namely, the chips are running up to fifteen degrees hotter than the sample chips, resulting in a lot of issues with the computer manufacturers who were engineering computer systems around them. Also, even if Microsoft started trying to buy devs and publishers off, they already hit rock bottom with the horrible reveal a few weeks earlier.Tom_green_day said:
Since Microsoft has no idea what "making things up to consumers" means, I doubt E3 is going to save them very much anyway. As Yahtzee put it, the best they can hope for is a hostage situation with really good titles on their system (a joke on his part, but likely true.)
i actually dont get what the big deal is, they're paying publishers to show their multiplatform games on the xbox and not the ps4 at E3? ok fine by me to be honest.
oh c'mon dont look at me like that both sides do it, its just microsoft have more capital to spend on it and as a PC gamer im used to seeing these games demo'd on consoles
oh c'mon dont look at me like that both sides do it, its just microsoft have more capital to spend on it and as a PC gamer im used to seeing these games demo'd on consoles
Hardly new, Nintendo would apparently threaten to pull their stuff from shops if they sold competitors items in their shop. Or if the shop sold those unlicensed games. (NES era)
Sony killed Bleem by telling shops the same thing, if they sold Bleem they don't get any inventory in. (PSOne Era)
..Still a dick move.
Sony killed Bleem by telling shops the same thing, if they sold Bleem they don't get any inventory in. (PSOne Era)
..Still a dick move.
Scroll up. Now scroll down. Virtually everyone that has posted has doubted the legitimacy of this rumour. No one is being a "hipster" here other than the guy acting like he's so much wiser than everyone else because rather than express an actual opinion just mocks others for having one.Mypetmonkey said:
OT: As much as I believe MS are assholes enough to do this, I doubt they're really that dumb. As has been pointed out, it wouldn't really accomplish much, and I doubt Sony are so oblivious as too not notice their third party support are just withdrawing from their conference. But I suppose we just have to wait for further info.
Let me paraphrase that for you, in a less villifying light:
"Major company obtains exclusivity rights for promotion and product placement at major media event."
After all, they wont be paying companies to lie about whether the game is available on the PS4/PC. They'll be paying for the rights to have it be their console, the game is shown off on. Its just advertising placement. You saturate a market, make sure your name is the name people associate with certain products.
What, no! As if any business would do that, right guys? I mean, its not like it happens all the time, right? Right?
Whoops sorry, drowned myself out in 'MS does standard business practice and everyone demonizes them' sadness.
Seriously if we're all going to hate on them, at least go back to the things which made sense (Having a terrible reveal event which was vague enough on many things which allows the current batch of horror stories to run rampant, which may or may not later prove to be true)
"Major company obtains exclusivity rights for promotion and product placement at major media event."
After all, they wont be paying companies to lie about whether the game is available on the PS4/PC. They'll be paying for the rights to have it be their console, the game is shown off on. Its just advertising placement. You saturate a market, make sure your name is the name people associate with certain products.
What, no! As if any business would do that, right guys? I mean, its not like it happens all the time, right? Right?
Whoops sorry, drowned myself out in 'MS does standard business practice and everyone demonizes them' sadness.
Seriously if we're all going to hate on them, at least go back to the things which made sense (Having a terrible reveal event which was vague enough on many things which allows the current batch of horror stories to run rampant, which may or may not later prove to be true)
I think that speaks more of the practices of said business than it actually does people 'over reacting'.Compatriot Block said:
You ever seen a dog that was hit too much by it's owners? It treats every new person as a potential abuser.
We got hit in the snout too often to pretend that every new possibility for Microsoft to screw us over isn't a viable one. Really, how much are we supposed to suspend our paranoia when they gleefully trot out everything that gamers said they didn't want, which were leaked via rumors?
The reason they are getting demonized for what accounts as standard business practice is because the console in question is so heavily loathed that exclusivity on the console is basically killing options for people to play, since they don't want to buy the Xbox One.Elijin said:
"TV, TV, TV, TV, TV-TV, television, sports, TV, TV, Call of Duty, Call of Duty, TV, sports... the next watercooler!"
I typed out a message in the Microsoftians' native tongue, Micronish, to let them know how disappointed the gamer population would be in Microsoft if this turned out to be true.
I typed out a message in the Microsoftians' native tongue, Micronish, to let them know how disappointed the gamer population would be in Microsoft if this turned out to be true.