That seems rather cheeky of Microsoft. It's like they're saying, "It doesn't matter that we deny our customers great games for petty and childish reasons, because our console is obviously the best thing in the universe, no matter how many games we refuse to put on it."
Microsoft Doesn't Want Sony's Sloppy Seconds
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I think that is the sole reason I have never touched an Xbox. Now I'm going to continue praying to the RNG god that they will re-release the PS2 Ratchet and Clank games in HD (while not becoming fluffy) next. Why the RNG god? because I used to play WoW, and that is the only god I know of to pray to.TimeLord said:
"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available. If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."
Oh yea, because Microsoft is so good at making games and content having a simultaneously. They still got that stupid CoD DLC time exclusive thing, as well with a few other games and DLC, and now they say if Sony does that, they won't release some games? Stupid
Oh yea, because Microsoft is so good at making games and content having a simultaneously. They still got that stupid CoD DLC time exclusive thing, as well with a few other games and DLC, and now they say if Sony does that, they won't release some games? Stupid
I dunno. On the one hand, as far as PSN/XBLA titles go, I don't think Microsoft is missing anything. There are only a handful of completely PSN exclusive small scale titles that don't suck, and most of them either require Playstation Move or are IPs owned by Sony anyway. Basically, Microsoft is saying "We don't want crap like Flower or Joe Danger" and honestly, after trying those games out, I don't blame them.
On the other hand, it still seems really childish. Sure, they make it sound all reasonable and mature, but it's still just about down there with EA's constant flaming of Modern Warfare 3 on the maturity scale.
On the other hand, it still seems really childish. Sure, they make it sound all reasonable and mature, but it's still just about down there with EA's constant flaming of Modern Warfare 3 on the maturity scale.
Indeed.SendMeNoodz84 said:
Uhm, are you stuck in 2006 or something? PS3 gets plenty of support these days.GonzoGamer said:
I look through the comments, and there seems to be a general consensus that this a bad thing- or to be more precise - an idiotic thing on Microsoft's part. And I have to wholeheartedly agree. I'm not an Xbox fanboy or only loyal to Microsoft - far from it, I honestly don't care who the console is made by. I simply have a 360 because the console, and the games, are cheaper than their PS3 counterparts.
Saying all this, is anyone really surprised? I thought that it had been obvious from the get-go that both consoles would release console specific games. I congratulated Sony on getting Mass Effect 2 to the PS3 but I think that's the one exception I've ever seen to this rule. Yes, it's petty, but then it was petty when they did it on the xbox and PS2 consoles (albeit to a lesser degree, but nonetheless) and I find this to be nothing more than a stating of the status quo. Basically put: "Oh well".
Saying all this, is anyone really surprised? I thought that it had been obvious from the get-go that both consoles would release console specific games. I congratulated Sony on getting Mass Effect 2 to the PS3 but I think that's the one exception I've ever seen to this rule. Yes, it's petty, but then it was petty when they did it on the xbox and PS2 consoles (albeit to a lesser degree, but nonetheless) and I find this to be nothing more than a stating of the status quo. Basically put: "Oh well".
Well, business is business and it's working for Microsoft so it makes perfect sense to continue with it.
Even though they say it's good for everyone, it isn't. It's nothing more than being a hypocrite: "If a version is better on the PS3, we don't want it. But if it's not better on the 360, we don't want it either. It's better for the gamers." How is it better for the gamers if it hurts those who have only the money to buy one console and have picked their console based on the fact that they like Sony's exclusives more than they like Microsoft's?
M$ needs to stop their BS.
M$ needs to stop their BS.
wait i thought xbox was getting mgs4. maybe i heard wrong.
in any case, this seems like kind of a dick move. i know you can afford to wipe your ass with thousand dollar bills, but some of us can only afford one console. dont screw over gamers just because youre too proud
in any case, this seems like kind of a dick move. i know you can afford to wipe your ass with thousand dollar bills, but some of us can only afford one console. dont screw over gamers just because youre too proud
So... they'd favor licensing no content over licensing potentially "sub-par" content?
Yes, that is a legitimate way to make money...
Somewhere. Have they been consulting with the underpants gnomes? Oh, this is Microsoft, so no, they actually trained the underpants gnomes.
Yes, that is a legitimate way to make money...
Somewhere. Have they been consulting with the underpants gnomes? Oh, this is Microsoft, so no, they actually trained the underpants gnomes.
And Microsoft continues it's strategy of attempting to muscle developers. Microsoft is steadily losing market share to the PS3 (I'm a recent convert myself). While I think the access fee for XBL is so trivial as to be a non-event, I find PS3 to be a much better multimedia device, with better exclusives.
Most of console exclusive IP is tapped out. Games like Halo, GOW, and Fable are increasingly falling into the 'been done before' pile, similarly with PS3 exclusives which have concluded a few major exclusive IP's in the past few years. That means the console war will move into new territory, I think mostly revolving around console performance, supplementary utility and nostalgia factors. This is why there is an increasing number of 'classics' on the PSN, and an increased focus on the integration of social networking and streaming media.
The simple answer is this. Microsoft do not have the market power to force developers to a particular release pattern. In the long term this sort of strategy will be damaging to Microsoft customers, ergo Microsoft itself. Not to mention the negative brand impact that this sort of statement makes.
All of this being said, Microsoft is (contrary to popular opinion) not run by idiots. There will be some kind of valid empirical grounding in this sort of positioning decision, there is undoubtedly some kind of surplus to be captured here.
Most of console exclusive IP is tapped out. Games like Halo, GOW, and Fable are increasingly falling into the 'been done before' pile, similarly with PS3 exclusives which have concluded a few major exclusive IP's in the past few years. That means the console war will move into new territory, I think mostly revolving around console performance, supplementary utility and nostalgia factors. This is why there is an increasing number of 'classics' on the PSN, and an increased focus on the integration of social networking and streaming media.
The simple answer is this. Microsoft do not have the market power to force developers to a particular release pattern. In the long term this sort of strategy will be damaging to Microsoft customers, ergo Microsoft itself. Not to mention the negative brand impact that this sort of statement makes.
All of this being said, Microsoft is (contrary to popular opinion) not run by idiots. There will be some kind of valid empirical grounding in this sort of positioning decision, there is undoubtedly some kind of surplus to be captured here.
That's not always possible. And if we're talking about consoles, then you're losing quality and money. Would you rather have a shitty game released on all platforms, or a beautifully made or even average game on one or two platforms? Extra content or exclusivity is what makes the companies more money and able to keep up.Baldr said:
Based on what you're implying, the argument can be made that the Xperia Play's rendition of Minecraft should be up to par with the PC or Xbox 360 versions. And what about FortressCraft and Total Miner: Forge, those shitty Minecraft rip-offs on the 360? Those aren't on PC, or PS3. Some consoles just can't pull off certain games because of their graphics or control methods. I couldn't picture a game like Demon's Souls on PC, and I couldn't picture a game like WoW on a console.
And having the same sort of content may be tricky too. As was originally brought up, Kratos was in the PS3 version because anyone who only owned an Xbox 360 may not know who that is. Could you think of an interesting character who's on an Xbox 360 exclusive or even someone who'd fit into MK's gory 2D fighting?
