Sony Calls Out Microsoft Over First-Party Development

[mechabrae]

Say a game is released for all 3 consoles, but Nintendo pays exclusivly that it's version of the product can be played without a butt plug that sends electricle currents up your ass.

It's SMART BUISNESS BUT TO US THE FUCKING PLAYERS IT IS A DICK FUCKING MOVE.

Also.

WHO THE FUCK CARES HOW LONG AGO IT IS WHEN SOMEONE WAS A DICK, I JUST PROVED THAT ALL GOD DAMN COMPANIES, past and present, WERE DICKHEADS, THANKS FOR MISSING THE FUCKING POINT!

Ooh, caps lock! I feel all special.

Your example is ridiculous by the way, and has nothing to to with the actual issue. We're not talking about games that are incomplete or somehow worse on certain systems, we're talking about complete games that one company has paid cash money to secure extra bits for.

Wait, so you call making fully rounded, perfected experiences that continue on the games story "churning out sequels"? Why would anyone, anywhere, including all gamers, be adverse to someone making good sequels to good games?

And you do realize you were counting different names? The full release is actually 16. And most, if not all Singstars are released half priced.

You've got me on the Singstar thing, I've never really been into kareoke simulators. Whether or not you think God of War 2 or any of the Gran Turismos are great games wasn't really the point I was making though.

To scale the whole thing back down to the original issue, I really don't have a problem with Microsoft paying for extra stuff for games, much in the same way that I don't have a problem with having to buy a PS3 if I want to play LittleBigPlanet or Metal Gear Solid 4.

EDIT:

Immediate profit isn't worth someones while? You really don't understand downloadable games, do you? If you're selling Penny Arcades game, you're safe, but if you're Popcap, and you have no idea how consumers are going to react, you want instant profit just as much as an indie developer does.

I think that Popcap have a decent idea of how consumers will react, they're quite good at this sort of thing. That's pretty much how big developers get big, by making decent games that appeal to the market.

 

[mechabrae]

And once again, we're skirting the issue. The issue is not paying for third party content - though its highly inadvisable - it is paying explicitly so someone else goes without. Lost and the Damned was going to come out on botht the Ps3 and the 360, and Microsoft paid only so that the Ps3 would go without. There is no angle you can justify that from.

This says otherwise [http://www.ps2fantasy.com/news/200605/1147255500.php].

The 360 was always going to get exclusive DLC, it was announced before the game was ever released, like, two years before it was released.#

EDIT:

So it's perfectly allright to you that there is this DLC that only a certain group of players can access and no others. don't look at it from a buisness sense or a legal sense, is it doing it right by the PLAYERS.

The answer is no, it's not being done right by the players, it's being done right by the 360 players but no one else. if the game was exclusive no one would care, but when you go so far as to make sure a game with gamebreaking bugs wont get patched, then your being a right old dick. Again! it is not illegal at all, it's not bad buisness at all! it's just a dick move to players as a community.

And yes exclusives are a dick move towards gamers as a community, It's good buisness sense, it definitly is the smart thing to do, but it doesn't make it any less of a dick move.

I see what the problem is now, you have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Doug]

Spoiler: Shortish text wall

So we can agree both parties are evil corporations after cash?

Can we also agree that if we were the CEO of a corporation, we'd all do the same thing? If you say you wouldn't, you're lying. If you can eliminate your competition, you do it. Being an "evil corporation" is equivalent to good business, my friends. Let's not forget that MS' responsibility as a corporation is to make money for their shareholders, not take their foot off of Sony's throat.

This

On-topic though, I kinda get what you're saying about it being detrimental to gaming, but I think you're overstating it just a tad. Sony have released some great first party games, like ICO incidentally, but they're not above churning out sequels either.

Besides, it's hard to really get angry at Microsoft, because at the end of the day, it's a business making a business decision. Their goal is to make their console seem more appealing, and exclusive DLC is one way to do that.

Which is why they aren't being imdicted, but Sony are saying they're being pricks and should nactually contribute to gaming, versus being leeches.

And no matter what the game, 1 game is always better than -1 game. And the closest thing Sony's ever got to a sequel franchise is MLB the Show, and thats still routinely called the best sports series.

Ok, if their adding so much to gaming, why is most of it only available on the PS3? Given thats the console with the least take up? Because it seems to me that in order to contribute to this abstract concept of 'gaming', people actually have to be able to play the things.

SONY are not contributing to gameing they are contributing to there "PRODUCT" (for want of a better word) so you will buy there console & there games & makes them loads of money. SONY & MS & every other comapny do not care about gameing itself, they care about making money.

all the console makers want the market to themself (disspite claiming otherwise) not so they can bring gaming to the masses but becose the more of the market share they have the more money they make.

when they make an "inovation" or create a new IP ect it isnt to further gameing or to contribute to gameing, its so you buy there console to get this new "inovation" or to get this new IP ect, thats it.

PS: im not attacking SONY or defending MS, its the same for ALL of them.

Erm, yeah, that is what I meant

 

[Doug]

Spoiler: Shortish text wall

So we can agree both parties are evil corporations after cash?

Can we also agree that if we were the CEO of a corporation, we'd all do the same thing? If you say you wouldn't, you're lying. If you can eliminate your competition, you do it. Being an "evil corporation" is equivalent to good business, my friends. Let's not forget that MS' responsibility as a corporation is to make money for their shareholders, not take their foot off of Sony's throat.

This

On-topic though, I kinda get what you're saying about it being detrimental to gaming, but I think you're overstating it just a tad. Sony have released some great first party games, like ICO incidentally, but they're not above churning out sequels either.

Besides, it's hard to really get angry at Microsoft, because at the end of the day, it's a business making a business decision. Their goal is to make their console seem more appealing, and exclusive DLC is one way to do that.

Which is why they aren't being imdicted, but Sony are saying they're being pricks and should nactually contribute to gaming, versus being leeches.

And no matter what the game, 1 game is always better than -1 game. And the closest thing Sony's ever got to a sequel franchise is MLB the Show, and thats still routinely called the best sports series.

Ok, if their adding so much to gaming, why is most of it only available on the PS3? Given thats the console with the least take up? Because it seems to me that in order to contribute to this abstract concept of 'gaming', people actually have to be able to play the things.

SONY are not contributing to gameing they are contributing to there "PRODUCT" (for want of a better word) so you will buy there console & there games & makes them loads of money. SONY & MS & every other comapny do not care about gameing itself, they care about making money.

all the console makers want the market to themself (disspite claiming otherwise) not so they can bring gaming to the masses but becose the more of the market share they have the more money they make.

when they make an "inovation" or create a new IP ect it isnt to further gameing or to contribute to gameing, its so you buy there console to get this new "inovation" or to get this new IP ect, thats it.

PS: im not attacking SONY or defending MS, its the same for ALL of them.

Erm, yeah, that is what I meant

So according to you, every game should be released so that it will work on a rock? Or a toothbrush? Or a dirt road?

So, your saying:

Microsoft buying exclusive content: Dick move.
Sony contracting exclusive content: Not dick move?

 

[mechabrae]

Keyword is announced. Do you honestly think they weren't planning DLC before that?

Yes, they probably were, but as it was announced in 2006, it is also reasonable to assume that Microsoft paid a significant portion of the development cost for the Lost and the Damned, which was only released a couple of months ago.

If the GTA IV DLC was announced for both systems, and then all of a sudden it was 360 only, then you'd have a point, but it wasn't, was it?

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

It was a poor business move by Microsoft.

Companies these days only think of profits here and now, they do not think about the future effects. Microsoft is only perpetuating this thought process.

What does exclusive DLC do to people who have already bought consoles? It splits the fans into the haves and have-nots. On one system, the game is "better" than on the other. On one system, the game gets fixes and support, while the other languishes (Fallout 3 and Bethesda is a big example of this). So if you happen to be on the "wrong" end, you're screwed. Most people are certainly not going to go out and buy the other system, whichever it may be, and another copy of the game just to be able to play the DLC. That's asinine, and anyone who thinks like that out to have their head checked.

Thus it is only advantageous to consumers that haven't already bought a system and the game. Which does nothing in the long run because the consumers that have wanted a system, already have one. This would be trying to turn a system purchase into an "impulse item", and they are far too pricey to be doing that with. But that won't prevent business from trying to prey on people's ignorance, which is what Microsoft is doing.

Exclusive games are fine and dandy, but cross platform games where one version ends up better later? That's foolish. If you prefer a system enough to make exclusivity matter, then make the game exclusive. Either that, or do your job and make it work equally on both systems.

As I said before 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?

 

[nathan-dts]

Well I do agree with Sony; thanks to Microsoft I get no Fallout DLC and that really pisses me off.

I could have swore Bethesda chose to accept the check, but it's always the popular, easy and stupid thing to just blindly blame MS? If you bought a 360 you'd have had tons more games and the best DLC. That's your fault for making a poor decision, not MS or Bethesda. See, they are "businesses". Businesses do whatever they can to make money. As a consumer, it's our responsibility to make the smart decision. You bought the system with a poor library of games that's not getting the exclusive content that 360 is. Like a lot of ppl, you bought a PS3 probably because you owned a PS2. That's not being smart, that's being loyal.

I know 4 ppl that have a 360 and a PS3 (I own both as well) and we all agree that the PS3 is a heckuva blu ray player and that the 360 has a lot of awesome games.

Instead of everyone pissing and moaning about MS buying this market, maybe you should go buy their stock instead. May as well benefit from their dominance.

What? My PlayStation has a hell of a lot of great exclusives; the Fallout DLC is one of the 4 good downloadable things exclusive to the 360 (Castle crashers, Braid and N+ btw). I have plenty of downloadable games to occupy my time like: Fl0wer, Fl0w, Pixeljunk games, Burn Zombie burn, SSHD etc etc etc. I also have amazing exclusive games to play like MGS4, KZ2, Warhawk, LBP, Ratchet and Clank with plenty more coming soon.

So... Fanboy, please go and fuck yourself.

 

[Barky13]

Well I do agree with Sony; thanks to Microsoft I get no Fallout DLC and that really pisses me off.

I could have swore Bethesda chose to accept the check, but it's always the popular, easy and stupid thing to just blindly blame MS? If you bought a 360 you'd have had tons more games and the best DLC. That's your fault for making a poor decision, not MS or Bethesda. See, they are "businesses". Businesses do whatever they can to make money. As a consumer, it's our responsibility to make the smart decision. You bought the system with a poor library of games that's not getting the exclusive content that 360 is. Like a lot of ppl, you bought a PS3 probably because you owned a PS2. That's not being smart, that's being loyal.

I know 4 ppl that have a 360 and a PS3 (I own both as well) and we all agree that the PS3 is a heckuva blu ray player and that the 360 has a lot of awesome games.

Instead of everyone pissing and moaning about MS buying this market, maybe you should go buy their stock instead. May as well benefit from their dominance.

What? My PlayStation has a hell of a lot of great exclusives; the Fallout DLC is one of the 4 good downloadable things exclusive to the 360 (Castle crashers, Braid and N+ btw). I have plenty of downloadable games to occupy my time like: Fl0wer, Fl0w, Pixeljunk games, Burn Zombie burn, SSHD etc etc etc. I also have amazing exclusive games to play like MGS4, KZ2, Warhawk, LBP, Ratchet and Clank with plenty more coming soon.

So... Fanboy, please go and fuck yourself.

You've just basically advertised the PS3 and you're calling somebody else a fanboy.

 

[nathan-dts]

Well I do agree with Sony; thanks to Microsoft I get no Fallout DLC and that really pisses me off.

I could have swore Bethesda chose to accept the check, but it's always the popular, easy and stupid thing to just blindly blame MS? If you bought a 360 you'd have had tons more games and the best DLC. That's your fault for making a poor decision, not MS or Bethesda. See, they are "businesses". Businesses do whatever they can to make money. As a consumer, it's our responsibility to make the smart decision. You bought the system with a poor library of games that's not getting the exclusive content that 360 is. Like a lot of ppl, you bought a PS3 probably because you owned a PS2. That's not being smart, that's being loyal.

I know 4 ppl that have a 360 and a PS3 (I own both as well) and we all agree that the PS3 is a heckuva blu ray player and that the 360 has a lot of awesome games.

Instead of everyone pissing and moaning about MS buying this market, maybe you should go buy their stock instead. May as well benefit from their dominance.

What? My PlayStation has a hell of a lot of great exclusives; the Fallout DLC is one of the 4 good downloadable things exclusive to the 360 (Castle crashers, Braid and N+ btw). I have plenty of downloadable games to occupy my time like: Fl0wer, Fl0w, Pixeljunk games, Burn Zombie burn, SSHD etc etc etc. I also have amazing exclusive games to play like MGS4, KZ2, Warhawk, LBP, Ratchet and Clank with plenty more coming soon.

So... Fanboy, please go and fuck yourself.

You've just basically advertised the PS3 and you're calling somebody else a fanboy.

I was just defending the console. I didn't say anything hateful about the 360 in any way.

 

[A Raging Emo]

This will not end well. Things like this never do.

 

[AceDiamond]

So let's review

1. *Restatement of the crazy Sony chart*. So remind me how having free (and unstable) wi-fi is better than a free cabled network. Time's up. That's what I thought. Remind me why your free network with text messaging is somehow a breakthrough that is "good for gaming". Time's Up. That's what I thought. Simply put, the Sony chart had nothing to do with this argument and again was a strawman argument by a fanboy. Again. Also it doesn't take in the cost in time of how long it took for the PS3 to be even close in value to a 360 (2 and a half years)
2. If Sony was really making gaming better they would've fought to at least try to force a multiplatform DLC deal, but no, I guess the only company in existence to ever publicly declare the "Console War" over (E3 2002), doesn't wish to deal with "lesser" console makers.
3. Why are we still listening to Indigo? Yeah I said it. I fail to see any time where Indigo has never been Sony-blind to the point he'll try to make the dumbest statements. Example: claiming Valve (of all developers) ripped off Killzone with the look of The Combine. Nevermind the fact that HL2 had been in development since 1999, apparently the fact that Killzone came out two weeks before Half-Life 2 meant that Valve copied the design aesthetic.

So when the top Sony Fanboy in Charge has no clue how the industry works, why the hell should we listen to anything he says as being true? Simple answer: DON'T. Don't argue with him, don't debate with him. Becuase even when you are right (and trust me, you will be), he will never admit it and it's not worth it.

Oh and I guess I should come down on one side or another on this issue. Both companies are being kind of dickish, but only in their responses. See like I said, Sony could've pushed the developers with some form of cash incentive to go for a multiplatform DLC deal, or they could've tried talking things out with Microsoft. But, as with that legal incident regarding their force-feedback technology, they decided they'd rather do without and make snide comments to cover up their inaction. Microsoft doesn't come off much better waving their moeny about, but you know what? I get my Fallout 3 DLC, and yes, I do feel bad for the few sane PS3 owners who get screwed out of their DLC, but hey, you guys still have your online text messaging right?

right?

eh?