Sony Calls Out Microsoft Over First-Party Development
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
No. You just refuse to see it any way other than the Sony positive way.Indigo_Dingo said:
Try this on for size: content like Lost and the Damned costs money to make. Microsoft pays Rockstar to develop the content for their console. Now, if Microsoft hadn't SUBSIDIZED that development, maybe they wouldn't have developed the DLC at all. Then what? Do you expect Microsoft to be okay with Rockstar using their money to make money for Sony?
I know you think everything is "Sony are evil, Sony are whinging, they're just jealous cause they didn't do something like that, the Ps3 has no good games", but Microsoft is equally interchangeable in that quote. It's a cognitive bias and you should be able to recognize it. If you can't, you're not just a fanboy... you're an ignorant fanboy.
I've attempted to play Resistance online and it didn't work..same with K2.nova18 said:
I've played SOCOM on my PSP and gotten online and into the game faster.
Bear in mind this is the same CAT5-e cable that when I plug into my 360 and power on the 360..my profile automatically signs into Xbox Live and I can start playing say...COD4 or GOW2 right away..
Wow, pretty interesting (and petty) comments from Sony... Mostly because they single handedly created the writing the check for console exclusivity... Lara Croft and Tomb Raider anyone?
Honestly, I do find Sony's PS3 first party lineup more appealing (at least for this year; and yes I own and love both systems) but I think they should have just stayed quite about this...
They look like a little brother being punished by his big brother... Whining for help from anyone who passes close while big brothers sits astride them and gives them the pink belly they deserve for all the past torments they have caused.
Honestly, I do find Sony's PS3 first party lineup more appealing (at least for this year; and yes I own and love both systems) but I think they should have just stayed quite about this...
They look like a little brother being punished by his big brother... Whining for help from anyone who passes close while big brothers sits astride them and gives them the pink belly they deserve for all the past torments they have caused.
SONY are haveing a go at Microsoft for getting there check book out & paying for exclusivity of DLC but yet its perfectly ok for SONY (MICROSOFT do this too ofcourse) to get there check book out to pay for games to be exclusive (as oposed to game DLC) & to buy whole developers (again ensureing exclusivity).......... how does that work?Indigo_Dingo said:
most people will see the this as...... the pot calling the kettle black. SONY & MICROSOFT cant have a go at each other for secureing exclusives, regardless of what, since they both do it. they both have been happy to splash the cash (and lose money) over the years to optain there goals so neither can complain about the other splashing the cash, it dosnt matter what they splash the cash on.
PS: SONY dont just mention DLC ".... like they did with The lost and the damned and other titles...." to just quote abit, they are haveing a go at microsoft for cashing the checks fullstop and thats why you allso have EPIC talking about GEARS exclusivity.
I have to agree with Indigo_Dingo on this one. I truely believe that exclusive DLC is bad business, not only for the followers of the opposite system the DLC is for, but also for the gaming business in the long run.
Sure, I would like to have the option of playing the Lost and Damned on my PS3 or the Fallout 3 episodes as well, however, I am most definately not going to buy an XBox and another copy of the game simply to play the DLC, especially when I don't like the platform as a whole. Why would anyone? (On a side note, I'll simply stop supporting Bethesda on a console side completely. Fallout 3 is one game I should have bought on the PC in the first place).
Games that are multiplatform, should be multiplatform through and through, from support to DLC. If you prefer one company over the other, then make a game for that platform alone.
Would you buy a game that is available on both systems at launch if you didn't know where the DLC was going to fall?
Sure, I would like to have the option of playing the Lost and Damned on my PS3 or the Fallout 3 episodes as well, however, I am most definately not going to buy an XBox and another copy of the game simply to play the DLC, especially when I don't like the platform as a whole. Why would anyone? (On a side note, I'll simply stop supporting Bethesda on a console side completely. Fallout 3 is one game I should have bought on the PC in the first place).
Games that are multiplatform, should be multiplatform through and through, from support to DLC. If you prefer one company over the other, then make a game for that platform alone.
Would you buy a game that is available on both systems at launch if you didn't know where the DLC was going to fall?
WHAT??? thats a terrible analogy (if thats the right word), allthough i dont claim to be great at them myselfIndigo_Dingo said:
to put it simply youve got company A making content for campanys B & C then comapny B decides it wants the content all to itself so pays campany A loads of money to secure exclusive content. whats wrong with that?
again its just Microsoft useing its money (like sony has done over the years) to secure exclusivity, sony have attack microsoft for flashing its check book & thats it!, which is silly of them since theve flashed the check book themselfs.
im not trying to say its good, becose its bad for sony fans of GTA but Microsoft havent dont anything wrong legally or morally & sony cud have easily decided to pip microsoft to the GTA DLC..... sadly thats how this buiness works nowadays (and has worked for afair few years now).
just becose GTA4 is multiformat doesnt mean that DLC for it must be aswell, the DLC is still up for grabs to the highest bidder if Rockstar wants it to be. this is bad for those that lose out but sadly thats how it works.
PS: this isnt about the rights or wrong of GTA's DLC but how Sony has had a go at Microsoft for getting its check book out (and EPIC talking about its relationship with microsoft).
When I read the title, I imagined Pheonix Wright doing his objection! and bashing a worried and confused Microsoft who eventually breaks into tears. Good times...
Right, here we go. This is my view of why Microsoft's approach is a load of shit.
I really, really like Gears of War. The first game was flawed, let's not pretend it wasn't, but I would have bought Gears 2 new for £60 the moment it hit the shelves... if it was on PS3.
I simply cannot stand the 360. It comes across in every way as an inferior console, built by a company famous for being unreliable dipshits, and its competition are Nintendo (which is Japanese for "Fun") and Sony (which is Japanese for "Quality"). Microsoft (which is American for "This Program Has Performed An Illegal Operation And Will Be Shut Down") as a brand leaves me running for cover.
However, whilst I wouldn't spit on the 360 where it on fire, that doesn't mean I have a problem with most of the developers who make games for it. Ultimately, I think I have gone beyond the point where the definition of an Awesome Game is how many n00bs you can pwn online. As much as I love a bit of shallow mayhem every now and then, I like my games to take me somewhere.
Portal is epic because of its innovative gameplay and brilliant script. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a massive undertaking of storytelling. Noby Noby Boy is like being on an acid trip, only without the bit where you get arrested for licking a policeman to see if he tastes like snozzleberries. However, I could not see this sort of thing being spawned on the 360 with Microsoft at the helm.
Microsoft is a business. So is Sony, of course, but Mircosoft remind you they're a business constantly. I don't like dealing with businesses. I play tabletop wargames for a hobby, and much of my time is spent in various gaming stores, painting or playing, and getting to know the locals. I probably spend £20 a month or so on average, but I feel wanted. I feel like I'm around like-minded people who just happen to have an assortment of items to sell. I don't believe I've ever felt that way about Gamestation, or HMV.
Microsoft always does whatever it can to make money. The problem is that a lot of the really brilliant stuff that comes out of Gaming is either A) not profitable, or B) a risk. Microsoft doesn't take risks; risks cost money, and might not bring money back. Risks are BAD! Halo 4, 5, 6, 7 and Halo Wars 2 & 3, followed by making Gears of War and Fable into Quintologies, are nice and safe. Boring as Fuck for gamers, but Safe.
As has been said, Psychonauts died in no small part to Microsoft shitting on the game. How many other epic games have and will die because Microsoft is too busy funding yet-another Halo Clone?
At least the PS3 is willing to take a few risks. Noby Noby Boy is hardly the Game of the Century, but it's so bloody weird you'd buy it just to see it. Every time I see Sackboy posing as the PS3's poster child, I get a warm glow inside... because when the Next Big Thing in gaming comes, it sure as hell won't be on the 360; safe makes money, but risky games, when they succeed, are the ones we all remember.
I really, really like Gears of War. The first game was flawed, let's not pretend it wasn't, but I would have bought Gears 2 new for £60 the moment it hit the shelves... if it was on PS3.
I simply cannot stand the 360. It comes across in every way as an inferior console, built by a company famous for being unreliable dipshits, and its competition are Nintendo (which is Japanese for "Fun") and Sony (which is Japanese for "Quality"). Microsoft (which is American for "This Program Has Performed An Illegal Operation And Will Be Shut Down") as a brand leaves me running for cover.
However, whilst I wouldn't spit on the 360 where it on fire, that doesn't mean I have a problem with most of the developers who make games for it. Ultimately, I think I have gone beyond the point where the definition of an Awesome Game is how many n00bs you can pwn online. As much as I love a bit of shallow mayhem every now and then, I like my games to take me somewhere.
Portal is epic because of its innovative gameplay and brilliant script. Metal Gear Solid 4 is a massive undertaking of storytelling. Noby Noby Boy is like being on an acid trip, only without the bit where you get arrested for licking a policeman to see if he tastes like snozzleberries. However, I could not see this sort of thing being spawned on the 360 with Microsoft at the helm.
Microsoft is a business. So is Sony, of course, but Mircosoft remind you they're a business constantly. I don't like dealing with businesses. I play tabletop wargames for a hobby, and much of my time is spent in various gaming stores, painting or playing, and getting to know the locals. I probably spend £20 a month or so on average, but I feel wanted. I feel like I'm around like-minded people who just happen to have an assortment of items to sell. I don't believe I've ever felt that way about Gamestation, or HMV.
Microsoft always does whatever it can to make money. The problem is that a lot of the really brilliant stuff that comes out of Gaming is either A) not profitable, or B) a risk. Microsoft doesn't take risks; risks cost money, and might not bring money back. Risks are BAD! Halo 4, 5, 6, 7 and Halo Wars 2 & 3, followed by making Gears of War and Fable into Quintologies, are nice and safe. Boring as Fuck for gamers, but Safe.
As has been said, Psychonauts died in no small part to Microsoft shitting on the game. How many other epic games have and will die because Microsoft is too busy funding yet-another Halo Clone?
At least the PS3 is willing to take a few risks. Noby Noby Boy is hardly the Game of the Century, but it's so bloody weird you'd buy it just to see it. Every time I see Sackboy posing as the PS3's poster child, I get a warm glow inside... because when the Next Big Thing in gaming comes, it sure as hell won't be on the 360; safe makes money, but risky games, when they succeed, are the ones we all remember.