Sony Calls Out Microsoft Over First-Party Development

[xLANKYx]

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.

not just exsclusives, theve bought up afew developers over the years. its something that they all do so its abit silly for them to have a go at microsoft for it.

Buying a studio is completely different to buying exclusivity for DLC.

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?


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.

Ok. Imagine two major pharmaceuticals companies. Company A actively see's a disease, gets a team of scientists together, gives them a clear outline of what they want a medicine to do, funds them fully, and at the end of this, they come up with a new medicine to fight a disease.

Ok, now, company B does not do anything at all to help the doctors fight the disease, but when a team has independently made a medicine to fight a new disease, it pays them so that the most effective form of treatment only works with their equipment.

One company has produced medicine for a disease, introducing it to people who otherwise would have been unable to have it. The other took medicine that would have gone to everyone and instead lessened the people it could go to.

If company A had not acted, people would have gotten sick and died. If company B had not acted, more people would have gotten healthy and lived.

WHAT??? thats a terrible analogy (if thats the right word), allthough i dont claim to be great at them myself

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).

What Sony does makes gaming better. What Microsoft does makes it worse. That is what I was pointing out. Paying people for content is what you do in this business - it is how this business ever actually moves. Paying people to cancel other peoples content (exactly what Microsoft did, and exactly what Sony is saying they shouldn't do) is simply a prick move. That is what I have been saying over and over and over and over, and what you seem to be very gleeful in avoiding and pretending Microsoftwere acting in the best way.


Oh, and: if Sony hadn't hired Team Ico, no-one would have.

theres no rules stateing that MICROSOFT or SONY cant pay ROCKSTAR loads of money to cancel the others content, yes its not nice for the party that loses out but (sadly) thats allways been the case. there is no line in the sand that says once codeing for a platform gets started or gets to a certain level it shudnt be cancelled.

at no point did i read where SONY specificly attacked Microsoft for paying for the cancelation of the PS3 GTA DLC, everything i read was sony attacking microsoft for the simple act of righting checks, they gave the GTA DLC as an example of what Micrososft spent there money on, again there was no mention of how it was wrong of MS to cancel there gta DLC. even if they did i still cant agree with Sony since what MS did was normal business practice (sad but true) and Sony cud easily have been the one to pay for the DLC exclusivity & i dont beleive the reason Sony didnt beat MS to the punch was down to morals on Sonys part.

i never defending Microsoft & said they were acting in the best way, i pointed out thats how the business works & how both Microsoft & Sony flash the cash. it doesnt matter to me if it was microsoft or sony they are as bad as each other asfar as im concerned.

 

[mechabrae]

Its not a theory, this is what actually went down.

Sources. You know how this goes.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/16/gta-iv-episodes-confirmed-xbox-360-exclusives

Urrrm, you do know that that source actually proves exactly nothing, don't you?

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.

 

[TheTygerfire]

Microsoft is forced to pay out considerable sums of money to developers to keep certain products exclusive to the Xbox 360, John Koller of Sony Computer Entertainment America said, because the company has doubts about its own ability to deliver compelling first-party software.

To Sony: And your point is?.....

 

[mechabrae]

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.

What about God of War, or Gran Turismo, or Wipeout or Singstar?

Don't get me wrong, Sony have made some awesome games and the Pub fund is a great idea - although part of me wonders how much of it is about supporting indie developers and how much it is about combatting Xbox Live Arcade - but we're talking about massive corporations here. I'm amazed that Sony hasn't done the same thing.

 

[Doug]

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.

 

[xLANKYx]

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.

 

[mechabrae]

Very long post filled with stuff about Sega of all people. I mean, Sega? How are they relevent in a discussion about Microsoft and Sony?

Immoral? How is it immoral? Seriously people, paying for DLC exclusivity is about as immoral, and as much of a 'dick move', as paying for exclusivity on a third party title. In fact, there's barely any difference at all.

It's like the Pub Fund that Sony has set up. It's not based on altruism, what it is is Sony writing cheques because they're not as confident in their downloadable games as Microsoft is. They won't offer funding to everyone who comes to them with an idea, they'll fund a game because they think they will see a return on it, because Sony is a business.

Just to be clear on this, I don't have a problem with platform holders paying for exclusive DLC, whether it be the 'evil empire' of Microsoft, or the equally 'evil empire' of Sony. We're not talking about a plucky little Robin Hood figure taking on a cruel and oppressive tyrant here, we're talking about two massive multinational corporations.

 

[mechabrae]

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.

What about God of War, or Gran Turismo, or Wipeout or Singstar?

Don't get me wrong, Sony have made some awesome games and the Pub fund is a great idea - although part of me wonders how much of it is about supporting indie developers and how much it is about combatting Xbox Live Arcade - but we're talking about massive corporations here. I'm amazed that Sony hasn't done the same thing.

God of War - Fuck right off. That thing innovated more between 1 and 2 than Half Life did, and on more significant levels.

Gran Turismo - increasing the realism is a major aspect, and the active changes it makes along perfecting handling are monumental. And if anything, Polyphony are known for taking way too long between games.

Wipeout - once again, you're condemning the entire genre.

Singstar - no more than Rock Band, far less than Guitar Hero. A hell of a lot of people want a Singstar tailored to Queen.

Wow, they really got their hooks into you, didn't they? Despite the fact that you have started swearing at me, I shall answer with nought but sweetness and light.

Not once, and I have gone back and checked, did I comment on the quality of the sequels that Sony makes, so your objection is a tad off the mark. The point that I was making is that Sony are not above producing sequels to first party games. They might be great games, but they are stillsequels.

Although you're way off the mark with the Singstar/Rock Band/Guitar Hero comment. There are 25 Singstar titles, versus 16 Guitar Hero games and two Rock Band games, with a third on the way.

 

[mechabrae]

Very long post filled with stuff about Sega of all people. I mean, Sega? How are they relevent in a discussion about Microsoft and Sony?

Immoral? How is it immoral? Seriously people, paying for DLC exclusivity is about as immoral, and as much of a 'dick move', as paying for exclusivity on a third party title. In fact, there's barely any difference at all.

It's like the Pub Fund that Sony has set up. It's not based on altruism, what it is is Sony writing cheques because they're not as confident in their downloadable games as Microsoft is. They won't offer funding to everyone who comes to them with an idea, they'll fund a game because they think they will see a return on it, because Sony is a business.

Notice how the idea is only available to independent developers? If what you were saying was true, that basic distinction wouldn't be there, as why would they not try to get major as well as minor stuff?

And once again, one is making content, one is getting rid of it.

Maybe because saying that you're supporting indie developers is a great PR boost? I'm not saying that funding small developers isn't a good thing, and I whole-heartedly support it, but I'm not going to pretend that Sony are doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Besides, to a big developer, the Pub Fund must look pretty unappealing. They don't need Sony's money, they don't need Sony's 'expertise' and they certainly don't need to be tied into a single console, unless of course, Sony made it worth their while.

 

[Jumplion]

Jumplion my anme is spelled O-N-M-I,m it's 4 letters it doesn't take a collage degree

Hey, I was playing Genre Wars and there's a unit type called an "Omni" it was a mistake ;P