Sony Bashes Microsoft's "Check Writing" Policy Again

[shadow741]

I have both consoles and I like the 360 more but its mostly because most of my friends don't have a ps3 and have xbox live. If they had a ps3 I might play it more.

 

[Narcogen]

"They have very few first-party studios at Microsoft," he says. "Bungie's next Halo is the last one, Rare rarely puts out anything, you've got Peter Molyneux with his Fable stuff... but they don't have first-party development studios inside at Redmond or anywhere for that matter. We do. So rather than putting their money behind that, they've been going to Epic or Valve or BioWare to do what they did with Mass Effect, and that's where they throw their dollars."

Okay, I'll bite. I don't get it.

What is the inherent virtue in a first party studio?

In a first party studio, you own the developers. You pay their salaries. They make games for you and only for you.

In a third party studio with a timed exclusive, you pay the developer a fee. They make a game that is, for a limited time only, for you and only for you.

Call me crazy, but this sounds to me like a win-win scenario.

It's a win for the console maker. The console maker limits its risk. It is not footing the bill for the entire cost of game development, just a portion of it. If a third party game fails to be successful, all they've lost is the exclusivity fee. If a first-party game fails, you're on the hook for the entire development cost.

It's a win for the developer. The developer limits its risk. Because exclusivity is temporary you can still get more revenue later on other platforms, and if the platform on which you agreed on exclusivity fails your titles and your company do not fail with it.

It's a win for gamers-- regardless of what platform(s) they own, more games will theoretically be available for it because the eventual possibility of ports to other platforms exists for third-party developers, whereas for first-party it does not ever exist-- there is no reason for a first party studio to develop for competing platforms.

Lastly, the speaker is wrong-- Microsoft owns the Halo IP but no longer owns Bungie, developers of Reach. Sure, MS is publishing it, but they are not developing it.

So... I don't get it. Is Sony supposed to get extra credit because it employs its developers instead of contracting for them? Does it really matter which way a console maker spends its money?

If the accusation against MS is that they are buying excellence instead of making it, isn't Sony paying MORE to foot the bill for first-party development? Isn't that the same thing?

Seems to me this is an empty expression of corporate loyalty; the speaker is proud that the best games on the PS3 are made by Sony employees instead of third party developers. Seems to me that this is a positive for the 360 ecosystem-- not a negative.

 

[Irridium]

I own both systems. Your biggest cock contest holds no bearing over me Sony and Microsoft.

I'm with this guy.

Everyone bow before our obvious superiority!

But I have a PS3,Wii and 2 xbox 360s so you must bow before me.

As do I, and add a gaming PC on top of it. I am awsome!

I own both systems. Your biggest cock contest holds no bearing over me Sony and Microsoft.

I'm with this guy.

Everyone bow before our obvious superiority!

Does that mean me too? Can I join in?

Why not! The more the merrier!

 

[Weaver]

I find it funny that a company that created illegal rootkits on it's audio CDs is somehow trying to take a moral high road stance on things.

 

[Gladion]

snip

I think their point is they don't need to buy excellence - they make it themselves and are therefore the superior company.
Whether or not this is true is up to the reader.

 

[FBPH]

I own both systems. Your biggest cock contest holds no bearing over me Sony and Microsoft.

I'm with this guy.

Everyone bow before our obvious superiority!

But I have a PS3,Wii and 2 xbox 360s so you must bow before me.

Never thought I'd ever hear of someone else having a similar set up as me. I also have a Wii, PS3 (slim), and 2 360's, oh but I also have a cheap, powerful, custom PC!
Yeah...and a 1080p 42" LCD....and a 1000W surround sound...I love my gaming life. Almost forgot, I also have a DS Light, and as one would imagine an extensive gaming collection, except for the PS3, as I just got that on Black Friday.

P.S. I believe I've one-upped you good sirs, so now...you must all bow down to me.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"Rare rarely puts out anything".
If it didn't make games rarely it wouldn't be Rare(ly), now would it?

 

[Jared]

If Microsoft have the money to grab timed exclusive DLC and the stuff like that than that's part of their business plan. Sony can't moan just because they didn't get in their first.

Yeah, sounds like Sony is just belly-aching because they didnt think of it first.

Its like kids on the playground x.x

 

[Scrythe]

I highly doubt any of the two will every "die" unless we're strictly talking about the console market. If things continue the way they are going, either Microsoft will lag behind due to hardware limitations yet linger due to popularity, or Sony will end up tripping itself for a list of reasons I'm sure I don't need to specify. My money's not going towards any betting pools any time soon, though.

Although I will admit, if both Apple and Google decided to jump into the the console market, Microsoft is fucked.

EDIT: Correction: If Apple jumped back into the console market.

 

[S.R.S.]

He's probably a general in the console war. Really it doesn't matter all too much variety is the spice of life. Just wait till PSN has premium accounts then microsoft will bash sony.

 

[Carnagath]

Oh well, I guess Sony are entitled to one outburst of "WE ARE KICKING ASS" every 4 years, just don't make it a rule, gamers don't care about that shit, they only care about having good games to play.

 

[Ninjamedic]

"Microsoft is a devilish, top hat-wearing fat cat lording over the population"

Who told Sony PR about my avatar?

The french, who else?
OT: I am against this policy microsoft has adopted but if valve steps down with the ps3 boycott, Ill forgive them.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I agree that the Blu Ray drive is Sony's biggest advantage. How many more multiple disk games like FFXIII will consumers (and mainly developers) put up with?

As a gamer who switched disks in Mass Effect 2 without even slightly caring, quite a few, I guess. The only people who'll care about that are the publishers, methinks.

What if Mass Effect 3 cost $10-20 more because it needed multiple disks? Publishers aren't going to just take the hit. Either way the cost will go to the consumer in the form of a cut down game, or higher price.

 

[Bat Vader]

So Sony won't pay great companies like Bioware to put stuff on the PS3. In all honesty that is a bit of a bad game company. Denying gamers good games because they don't want to pay for said games.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are good games. PS3 players I am sure would love the games. I own and PS3, x-box 360, and a PC.

 

[Narcogen]

snip

I think their point is they don't need to buy excellence - they make it themselves and are therefore the superior company.
Whether or not this is true is up to the reader.

They're buying it in any case-- it's only a question of who from.

I'll give them a gold star for being the better company, and then I'll go back to playing games on my 360.

The odd thing is... I have no particular reason to hate Sony, and no particular reason to feel any affinity for Microsoft. I have a 360 and not a PS3 because a greater proportion of games I'm interested in playing are either on the 360 only or on both. It was a fairly mercenary decision on my part.

Given my general ambivalence for all things Microsoft (I'm a longtime Mac user on the desktop and a BSD user on servers) and bad 360 hardware reliability (had two 360s fail so far) it wouldn't take much for Sony to get my interest, one would think. Just a few games, I'm guessing.

What good is it being the better company if you don't have better games? If you have better games, why does it matter how you got them? What's different about the money Sony pays its employees to make it themselves, and the money Microsoft pays to developers to keep the games they are making on Microsoft's platform?

Isn't it really just egomania for Sony to want to make all the best games on their own platform themselves? Isn't this actually just underscoring that the platform is more difficult and/or less interesting to 3rd parties, that the best titles are first party?

It sounds like a losing coach complaining that his opponent found players through free agency instead of drafting them all himself. So what?

 

[Break]

I agree that the Blu Ray drive is Sony's biggest advantage. How many more multiple disk games like FFXIII will consumers (and mainly developers) put up with?

As a gamer who switched disks in Mass Effect 2 without even slightly caring, quite a few, I guess. The only people who'll care about that are the publishers, methinks.

What if Mass Effect 3 cost $10-20 more because it needed multiple disks? Publishers aren't going to just take the hit. Either way the cost will go to the consumer in the form of a cut down game, or higher price.

To produce one 50GB capacity blu-ray disc, manufacturers charge less than $2.50 - and they're significantly more expensive than the discs the 360 reads. Unless Mass Effect 3 comes on forty bazillion discs, markups of $10-20 due to manufacturing are essentially impossible. Publishers would be far more likely to hike the price to offset the cost of paying the developer to produce forty bazillion discs worth of content.

Also, Lost Odyssey came on four discs with no change in price. Don't be talking nonsense, now.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Actually, I think the idea is that because Sony keeps in-house studios, they can let these studios get more accustomed to the PS3 hardware and how to maximize its' performance. A limited time contract with a third party means that once that studio is finished with the contract they move on, taking all the experience they have with programming to your specific system with them. Not to mention the hassle with providing them with the in-depth knowledge the makers of the console has but not the third party.

In comparsion, the in-house studio only works with your console and as such can really learn all the tricks with it. Their experience in developing for just one console might not show immediately, but eventually they will be the undisputed masters of that console, being able to maximize its' performance in their games and tailor the games to really push the limit of that consoles ability.

I think that's what Sony is aiming for anyway. I can't say I think they got the message across very well. Besides, who cares? I own a PS3 because it offered me a platform with several games I like and an affordable BluRay player. My friend owns a 360 because he prefers those games. It is not like we hate each other or refuse to go into each others' living rooms or anything...