Microsoft Doesn't Want Sony's Sloppy Seconds

[Redout9122]

Actually I like this policy and hope that Sony and Nintendo take it too. It is kinda bogus that some games get special content and features on some consoles and other don't and that practice has to stop. No matter what your console, you should have have the same sort of content for a third party game.

Pah.

That's what laptop manufacturers said about proprietary charger heads too I bet.

It's not 'being fair to the players', it's dicking around. Stop glorifying it.

 

[OldGus]

Let me put it simply, MS. More than half of your customers do not have a PS3 or Wii. Many of them have at least one friend who does. Said friend will expose them to (at the time) exclusive titles that they will like. Releasing afterwards, especially with Xbox exclusive content just to make other console owners feel inadequate with their copies... not a bad thing.

 

[Yopaz]

So that means Ratchet and Clank will never come to 360?

Fine with me Microsoft. I'll keep my PS3 nice and safe just so I can play the best 3rd person, funny, over the top, super fun, platformers ever made.
Yes that may seem like fanboyism but if you two won't play nice I'll just have to separate my consoles into opposite rooms! I think next firmware update for the Xbox will eject dirt out of the disc drive at the player if they mention Playstation games in the same room.

Actually I wouldn't say that's fanboyism. The Xbox is clearly lacking platformers unless you count Xbox Live Arcade.

 

[drosalion]

Wont change anything, like what happened with Mortal Kombat or any other big franchise that gamers will actually want - Microsoft wont care caus it will make them more money than excluding it.

 

[Nurb]

It pretty much guarantees that no system will get an early release though. Any company that misses out on one console's market is going to take a big hit, so this will ensure they don't play favorites

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Microsoft.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Jeez, why is everyone being such pricks?
Gamestop taking premiums out of new games. Sony releasing another overpriced and (sure to be) undersupported machine to the suckers. Every publisher is looking for a way to screw over consumers who buy used. Now MS is denying their own consumers games like they were denying them a working console for the first few years the 360 existed.

These idiots make me wonder why I even bother playing games anymore.

The recent events that are screwing us over more often are because of one thing every business strives for: Money and it's sadly what drives them from their second purpose: Design of a product that gives the customer value for their money.

I am totally against getting screwed out of my wallet because i like to save money and not blow tons of cash for a product that can easily be fair priced and also see the true value of a product for it's worth and effort but these days the game industry has just gotten lazy and is obviously running out of fresh innovative ideas so they resort to simple measures such as:

1)Copy+paste a game adding little difference to save on the developement process and in turn save money.

2) Bring back an old idea from the past and slightly refine the idea and make it out to be revolutionary.

3) Put together game merchandise that is cost effective and jack up the price of the merchandise.

4) Limit the ownership of some games or cut them short in an attempt to force you to want more.

5) Deliberately hack certain segments of games to pieces to sell them as supposed "DLC" even under claims that the idea came after the game was released.

6) Create supposed "free to play" games but hack out most of the "free" and instead charge the customer in order to get the full enjoyment of the game.

7) Last but not least the idea to charge more money from you even though the game is an obvious wreck.

Those points listed above (and if iv'e missed out any please do add more to the table) are what i tend to see more these days when it comes to games and i feel everyday that some of my favorite companies just don't care anymore and just want to take the easy route and not take it slow when making a game instead of resorting to shoving a new game on the shelves every year.

I want to care and take pride in any game company i purchase from but i can't exactly do that when i feel let down knowing at the end of the day the company doesn't care what it makes as long as it get's your money.

 

[Phisi]

I wonder if this would count as anti-competition practices... hmmmm
That said, I'm a socialist and own a PS3 (as well as a PC)and would prefer it if games on all platforms had the same features.

And what was that about he PS3 being overpriced? It is more powerful then the XBOX 360 and can also play Blu-rays and is cheaper then all (at time of purchase for me) Blu-ray players. But anyways I game mostly on my laptop

 

[Roserari]

Do I really need to say anything other than FINAL FANTASY or METAL GEAR SOLID? Seriously ... Idiots.

 

[deathtopenguins]

Huh, there's probably a better policy for dealing with cross console games. But this seems ok(ish). It puts the burden on the developers to decide before making the game, whether or not to release on both consoles. Rather them deciding halfway, staggering the release, and making a potentially buggy or trimmed down version for the Xbox. It's one of the reasons that staggered console ports for PC are often pathetic. Ubisoft I'm looking at you >:|

The big problem is obviously that some games never make it and the consumer with only one console gets irritated and the console maker + game developer gets less money. I guess they're hoping to change the way developers release games for the better, by enforcing a strict policy.

Still annoying though.

 

[Josh123914]

How can MS get any games from Sony when the PS3 has no games?

In all seriousness though I find this simply stupid, I HATE how games being made have more content for some consoles than others (IE PS3s ME2... in fact it mostly happens with PS3 *cough*LA Noire *cough*) and I cannot stand this war for the better system (system side all PS3 has over Xbox is the blue ray. Xbox has the better motion activity, kinect. Can we stop this now?) imo xbox is more fun simply due to exclusives and the controller, but that doesn't mean I don't play the PS3 when I have the option to. They need to cool it with this thing and release games for xbox and stop trying to out due Sony when they both are equally beating Nintendo and its 49 out of 50 games being gimmicky and casual.

probably the reason why the PS3 gets more on-disc stuff is because of Blu-ray, ME2 was on 2 discs for the 360 but only 1 for PS3 so there's that done with and also the whole 'extra content' PS3 gamers got for Mass Effect 2 was compensation for getting the game a year later than everyone else and missing out on the original mass Effect (hell, if I bought it at retail today for the 360 and bought All additional bonus DLC the PS3 gamers got I'd still have saved money) /rant.

 

[Treblaine]

Doesn't bother me, there isn't a single Sony exclusive I'm interested in playing.

Really? Not a single one?

Not even Uncharted? Infamous? Resistance or Killzone? God of War? 3D Dot Game heroes?

You do like games... right? I hope you aren't just saying you aren't interested in the sense of "Interested, but not interested enough to invest in another system" kind of interested.

Killzone, no, its another bland boring shooter title.

I played the First God of War, the others look like basically the exact same game, button mash, timed boss events.

There are other games that play exactly like Infamous, so its like I've already played it.

Resistance, another shooter.

Uncharted maybe, however honestly I never bothered to look that much into it and what it has to offer, since I don't own a PS3.

I dunno what 3D Dot Game Heros is, but if its some "3D" title, I'll pass...since I can't see in 3D (1 working eyeball).

Mostly yeah, not interested enough to invest in another system kinda interested. The ONLY exclusive thats ever even sorta really interested me was MGS4, and I've gone this long without it, I'll survive somehow.

no it's not that kinds of 3D, it's the GOOD type of 3D as in how Mario 64 was a 3D game while Super Mario Bros 3 was a 2D game. It's a 3D world though with no lenticular bullshit. It's actually a charming homage classic classic Zelda games (the top-down 2D type). Check it out, if that sort of thing interests you... just don't dismiss it by the name.

If you liked Gears of War I really recommend Uncharted, it does the same kind of thing but in a much more dynamic way with I think much better pacing, it's got such great set pieces and likeable characters. But you do have somewhat of a self made circular-exclusion:
-you don't own a PS3 so why would you bother looking into whether Uncharted (or other games) were good.
-if you don't know of any good games for PS3 (because you haven't looked) then why even consider getting a PS3.?
-No PS3, so no games interest.
-no games interest, so no PS3.

There really isn't any game like Infamous out there on the market, it's quite superficial the comparison with Prototype that just happened to be released in the same time. They are very different kinds of games. But I can't tell you this, you have to actually look into this yourself because you will never see what you don't want to look at.

But I'm no PS3 evangelist, if I'm going to encourage you to get any system it'll be a decent gaming PC. It's just the PS3 is the best of the bunch when it comes to consoles.

 

[Treblaine]

Yeah, the community took the words right out of my mouth. Childish. They are robbing their consumers of games (and through that robbing themselves of money) in exchange for benefits that are shaky at best and nonexistant at worst.

I'd even say getting games later is good, since when a game is released later on another console it tends to get all sort of nifty extras.

Doesn't bother me, there isn't a single Sony exclusive I'm interested in playing.

Really? Not a single one?

Not even Uncharted? Infamous? Resistance or Killzone? God of War? 3D Dot Game heroes?

You do like games... right? I hope you aren't just saying you aren't interested in the sense of "Interested, but not interested enough to invest in another system" kind of interested.

While it does bother me that MS is doing that, it's because I might lose out on some exclusive that comes down the line. I too have no interest on any current Sony exclusive, not even Male Tomb Raider, Electric Parkour Attack, Gray Future Shooter XX or Gray Future Shooter XXI.

3D Dot Game Heroes looks hilarious and I'm happy enough that it exists.

To be perfectly honest I did kind of get interested on Motorstorm for a while, but FUEL cured that from me.

So you're not interested in "Gray Future Shooter XX", are you dissing 'Killzone' or 'Gears of War' with that characterisation? Is "Gray Future Shooter XXI" supposed to be Halo Reach?

How do you dismiss the Resistance games?

I don't know why you would dismiss "Electric Parkour Attack" you describe it in a pretty fun way. And it is a fun game.

Male tomb Raider? You clearly haven't played Uncharted, it plays a lot more like Gears of War only with a lot more verticality and more dynamic close combat. Just LOOK at the games, they are amazing.

Hmm, happy that a game exists but don't want to actually play it. What an odd stance for a "gamer" to take, it's much less a "gamer" and more an admirer.

PS: Fuel is a fraction of what Motorstorm is. This isn't about "curing" you interest in games, this is about going after what you WANT and not letting platform loyalty get in the way. I was always a Playstation man but is still got a 360 to play Halo 3-ODST-Reach and Gears 2.

 

[farq1414]

I have come to a conclusion that Sony is bad with its customers, Microsoft are dicks to there's and Nintendo are Customer's Bitches. Well that my opinion. Its a shame that Xbox gamers don't get a chance to play Sony's games.

I do! I own both machines lol.

If I were microsoft I'd chuck money at developers to make the titles better when they hit 360, this announcement sounds like their going down the nintendo route and self distructing.

God help me I like my ps3 but I dread a sony dominated marketplace.

so you hated the last gen when the PS2 owned the marketplace

 

[ph0b0s123]

So now we know why the 360 version of Witcher 2 has been delayed / isn't going to happen....

"must have at least feature and content parity"

I bet it is only vs other consoles as PC versions of multiformat games generally have more features, higher res, 3d ect. Also things like 64 player multiplayer maps vs 24 for BF3, I would have thought would have fallen in this category....

 

[Venats]

So you're saying that an extra $250 is a weak argument? The fact that you had to invest a couple hundred dollars MORE into the Xbox 360 for what the PS3 gave you for free is irrelevant? I think that's rather absurd logic.

It's like buying a car and saying, "I'm not going to care about fuel economy!" when in reality, buying a fuel efficient car can pay for another car in savings over time.

What I'm saying is that you didn't have to invest that 250$ (I did fine with only ever having to buy two things for either of my XBOXs and PS3: DVI connector cable (I don't have a TV) and hard drives, all in all amounting to about 80$ for each system. I also bought an extra controller for each, so another 30~40$ (I didn't buy one for each xbox, that would be silly)) and if we go by that sort of pricing argument, we would have to probably point at the Wii as being crazy expensive and evil for how it operates to take your money (far worse than XBOX or PS3): original controllers cost 40$, you then (several years later) more or less had to buy a Motion+ at another 30$. Thats 70$ for one controller! You're going to NEED nun-chucks, and each of those are 30$. Say you have four controllers (since the system is largely designed for multiplayer), thats a pretty steep 300$ just for controllers. Now do you want to play a fighting game? Time to buy a classic controller, or four. That's another hefty chunk of money. Gonna need batteries for every one of those controllers too...

The argument is fine in and of itself but its not actually a forced buy on anything and if we were to argue on those lines you'd have a Wii that has an 800+$ price tag too. You only ever really needed to buy a hard drive, connectors, and possibly one extra controller for any of the systems. For the XBOX and PS3 that was about 120$ on top of market price. At best you tacked on another 50$ for Live if you needed it (and I didn't for the longest time, now I have two years worth of it for around 60$). Suffice it to say, I spent more on keeping the Wii up-to-date and running than on either of the bigger consoles; the difference between the later two in price coming down to mostly their market prices. The PS3 was about 50~100$ more expensive and still remains as such.

Also, I'm not sure if the car argument works in this case.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Uhm, are you stuck in 2006 or something? PS3 gets plenty of support these days.

You're right and that makes them even bigger morons.
The ps3 is actually a really well made piece of hardware and it's unfortunate that it's been sandbagged so badly that they may as well have made it cheaper. It would be a great console if they would just give it half decent support. As it stands, I feel like I have a really nice sports car that wont pop out of first. I tried to be optimistic about it, I really did, but now the only good thing I can think about it is "hey, at least it didn't burst into flames."
Of course the alternative was the 360 which is of course crappy hardware (so bad that for a long while, half of them were spontaneously combusting) that actually gets good support.

This is why I'm not even going to bother getting a console when the next gen rolls around, I'll sink that money into my desktop and at this point probably get more bang for my buck... and the PC really does do everything.

You seem to have a pretty outdated view of the PS3. I don't know how you could say it's not getting any support, when Sony's studios are putting out a lot of great games and have been for at least two years now. PSN may not be as good as Live but overall the PS3 is a pretty solid console to have now, and it's just dropped its price even further. In what way would you like more support than it's getting?

But that?s exactly my point, the games are good and they should?ve made a gaming console that could?ve sold for $250 at launch and it would be about as useful as it is now. Sure it wouldn?t do any of the extra crap it can?t do now anyway because the firmware is complete crap. There are some great games but they don?t exactly cram those BR discs full of content like they said they would and they don?t look/perform any better than on any other platform...oftentimes worse. In fact the only thing Sony has really demanded from third parties are those useless trophies.
But the support I?m referring to isn?t even third party support. I?m talking about first party support for the machine itself and all the functions it could have. It doesn?t do everything; it doesn?t do anything but play movies and games and it?s overpowered and overpriced for that.
It seems that any added functionality will now require the Plus subscription. The rest of us just get updates that foil the latest hack methods.
And I?m not the only pessimistic one. I only have a couple of ps3 owning close friends left. Not many of my friends picked one up to begin with but most of those who did, sold them by now or never replaced their broken ps3s. So as little as I think of the ps3, most of the people I know think even less of it.
So sure, it hasn?t been the complete melting disaster that the 360 was or the shovelware magnet the wii was but the fact that it is probably the best console option for this generation has made me wonder why I should bother being a console owner.

 

[McMullen]

It all sounds a bit childish really, but Lewis argues the policy has a positive effect on the industry. "We just want what our consumers want from us," he said. "We want to be where they want us to be.

It amazes me how out of touch these execs are with their audience. I have just one thing to say to this asshole: Grand Theft Auto San Andreas coming out on xbox was great, and it didn't fucking matter that it came out a year or so later than on the PS2.

What I want from Microsoft is good games. I don't give a damn if they happen to have been released earlier on a platform I don't have.

 

[Treblaine]

So you're saying that an extra $250 is a weak argument? The fact that you had to invest a couple hundred dollars MORE into the Xbox 360 for what the PS3 gave you for free is irrelevant? I think that's rather absurd logic.

It's like buying a car and saying, "I'm not going to care about fuel economy!" when in reality, buying a fuel efficient car can pay for another car in savings over time.

What I'm saying is that you didn't have to invest that 250$

But the main selling point of these modern gaming platforms IS the online gaming capability.

COD games of recent have had utterly atrocious single-player modes but it doesn't matter, because the main feature is the online capability. Gears of War isn't actually that great a game UNLESS you consider the co-op campaign which really is one of the best out there. Halo as well is as famous for online as the campaign.

360 without the ability to play online multiplayer is hugely compromised and that isn't the only feature you miss out if you don't fork over the $60 every year:
-No Netflix access
-No Hulu Plus access (only the beta was PSN+ exclusive)
-No Social media like facebook/twitter/last.fm
-No youtube (PS3 has always this through free browser access)

All these highly advertised and lauded features are behind a mandatory paywall that makes the console much more expensive than the initial price.

The mere existence of gold membership has held back services ENTIRELY from being on PS3 like the superb BBC iPlayer service, that is on PS3 but not on 360 as Microsoft could only have such a service behind the XBL Gold paywall that went agaisnt BBC's royal charter of access and profit rules. No Top Gear on 360 then.

So while it is true that you are not forced to invest all those hundreds of dollars... if you don't then You cannot compare PS3 and box 460 as equals.

You are trying to 'have your cake and eat it' (that is the pleasure of eating a cake yet act like you still have a cake to sell).

-You compare the features of PS3 and 360 WITH the expensive Gold Membership...
-THEN, you compare the price WITHOUT the gold membership fee!

We're not dumb, we do notice such an obvious bait and switch. The car analogy is not needed, this is simple enough:

If you are going to compare consoles on features and capabilities, then when it comes to price comparisons then YOU MUST ALSO include the extra cost of accessing those features.

(PS: EVERYONE has to pay for internet/electricity/cables, paying for XBL Gold doesn't deduct from those costs, it is an extra costs that adds up to hundreds of Dollars which you cannot ignore.)

 

[MrGFunk]

Didn't stop them when both Nintendo and Sony passed on Kinect technology