So that means they have written multiple checks for those games.
Wow, that's really a buttload of checks written for exclusives.
Which someone around here said is a sign of desperation.
Lie.
I said writing checks to 3rd parties for exclusive games is desperate, which Sony has never been proven by anybody on EvAv or elsewhere to have done during the PS3 era.
That, to me, is exactly why I'm not on the PS3 train.
Heavy Rain has shown not once ounce a gameplay in it's 4 or so years of existance and already people are like "must buy game!"
What?
I'm one of those crazy gamers who actually wants to see the game aspect of a "game" before I put my money down on it. Especially when the last one was barely a game at all.
While I wonder what you not liking one 3rd party game out of this arbitrary list of nine has to do with the "PS3 train", it's hard to argue against Heavy Rain not being quite possibly the most impressive looking HD-console title ever developed.
Yeah, it's got nothing to do with potential gameplay, but for a hype list that's reason enough to gain admittance. It'd be quite funny if this became the sleeper GOTY, and especially funny for me to rub you writing it off before it's even released back in your face!
I said writing checks to 3rd parties for exclusive games is desperate, which Sony has never been proven by anybody on EvAv or elsewhere to have done during the PS3 era.
You liar.
Oh, you must have missed the point where the rest of us see no difference in what party the exclusive checks go to, but simply if you pay for exclusive content it's either desperate or not.
But please, just keep riding your Uni into the land of Sony gum drop rainbows.
And I was really refering to Peter Dille-hole, but thanks for showing your hypocritical ways .
__________________
Absolute truth hurts, absolutely!
So Sony first party and closely tied second party developers get no money from Sony, that seems like a raw deal for them .
And what does MS and/or 3rd parties have anything to do with it?
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that everyone pays for exclusive content, whether its in the form of 1st/2nd party studios, or paying for exclusive content from 3rd parties. It all is the same column, as far as I am concerned.
Studio + Money = Exclusivity
Everyone is doing it, so calling out one side or the other for it is just stupid.
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that everyone pays for exclusive content, whether its in the form of 1st/2nd party studios, or paying for exclusive content from 3rd parties. It all is the same column, as far as I am concerned.
Studio + Money = Exclusivity
Everyone is doing it, so calling out one side or the other for it is just stupid.
I agree with you 100%.
My apologies for the confusion.
__________________
Absolute truth hurts, absolutely!
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that everyone pays for exclusive content, whether its in the form of 1st/2nd party studios, or paying for exclusive content from 3rd parties. It all is the same column, as far as I am concerned.
Studio + Money = Exclusivity
Everyone is doing it, so calling out one side or the other for it is just stupid.
While this is all true to an extent, there's a world of difference from funding a 1st party development house to ensure exclusive games, and financially persuading a 3rd party who would ideally like to develop for multiple consoles to only do business with one company.
Whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment doesn't change the fact that 3rd party exclusivity via check is a desperate, arguably unethical tactic.
While this is all true to an extent, there's a world of difference from funding a 1st party development house to ensure exclusive games, and financially persuading a 3rd party who would ideally like to develop for multiple consoles to only do business with one company.
Whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment doesn't change the fact that 3rd party exclusivity via check is a desperate, arguably unethical tactic.
Come now, thats just ridiculous. If I were a third party, and had the option of being purchased by a first party or taking a check to develop exclusively for them temporarily, I would do the latter. Think of how many studios get "consolidated" (read - shut down) after being absorbed by a first party dev.
Also, "ideally" they want to make as much money as possible. If they make more money taking a check and developing for one platform, then more power to them. Its not like MS or Sony forced them to take the money, it was just a better business decision for them.
Call it desperate if you want, call it unethical (although I am unsure how paying someone for an exclusive service is unethical), but we should be able to agree that neither Microsoft nor Sony (some may disagree here, but whatever) are in anything close to a "desperate" position.
Actually, a 3rd party becoming a 1st/2nd party would be ideal IMO. Like Bungie has done with the Halo series on Xbox, and Insomniac is currently doing with Resistance/Uncharted/etc. for PS3, having a hardware provider intimately invested in the success of your work can turn an unknown development team into an overnight success.
Aside from the odd CoD4 or RE5, the majority of great games for any console come in the form of exclusive 1st-party titles. This certainly isn't a coincidence.
Which again, is what makes buying exclusive 3rd party games on a title-to-title basis seem a little desperate. If MS was satisfied with the 360 library, why would they need to buy out these 3rd parties? Despite knowing that both Sony and MS aren't exactly ready to throw in the towel as far as gaming goes, MS seems like they're almost afraid of the exclusive lineup that the PS3 considering their spending habit and need to "put a bandage" on the fact that they have relatively few future titles to look forward to.
It's like you're the five year old who still thinks 1 plus 1 equals 1.
The business decisions MS has made in gaming has the Xbox division making a profit and increasing in market share, especially in content sales, on the other hand, Sony is haemorrhaging from all orafices and lost all the advantage they had in this industry.
Simple and plain, MS finds the content their customers want and than they go and get it for them. Sony promises the world, underdelivers and than relies on blind fanbois to defend their failures.
But in the end you even contradict yourself in this thread:
If Sony is now the "go to" console for exclusives, by your definition, they are the desperate ones.
Of course, I think they are the desperate ones because they lost a billion dollars over the last year .
__________________
Absolute truth hurts, absolutely!
It's like you're the five year old who still thinks 1 plus 1 equals 1.
The business decisions MS has made in gaming has the Xbox division making a profit and increasing in market share, especially in content sales, on the other hand, Sony is haemorrhaging from all orafices and lost all the advantage they had in this industry.
Simple and plain, MS finds the content their customers want and than they go and get it for them. Sony promises the world, underdelivers and than relies on blind fanbois to defend their failures.
But in the end you even contradict yourself in this thread:
If Sony is now the "go to" console for exclusives, by your definition, they are the desperate ones.
Of course, I think they are the desperate ones because they lost a billion dollars over the last year .
How is that a contradiction? Sony has more 1st parties and more exclusives, so is seen as the "goto" console. Hence, more 3rd parties want a piece of that action and will make exclusive titles for the console that's seen as having a higher quality lineup.
Unless MS cuts them a check to for exclusivity, mind you. (read: MS desperately trying to control the market)
In all of your "comment" (for lack of a better word that won't get me warned by mods), you haven't cast doubt on a single statement I've made. It's a well-known fact that 1st-party exclusives receive higher review scores/more of gamers' dollars than 3rd party games in general.
I did.
MS made money off of their investment in Lost and the Damned, Fallout3 DLC, Gears1&2, Bioshock and most of the 3rd party games they have wrote checks for. Sony seems to be writing even more checks and is definately losing more money.
Sony's plan for the PS3 was to control the market even more than they did with the PS2. And they have failed.
And by the by, I don't have to cast any doubt on your statements, the lack of any logical consistency in everything you say does that just fine .
__________________
Absolute truth hurts, absolutely!
I said writing checks to 3rd parties for exclusive games is desperate, which Sony has never been proven by anybody on EvAv or elsewhere to have done during the PS3 era.
I did some research and you appear to be right. It hasn't been proven that sony has paid for any 3rd party exclusives. I guess those 3rd parties just decided to make their games exclusive out of the kindness in their hearts. Seems logical to me, especially since the ps3 is the hardest to develope for and has the least amount of consoles sold...
I love how everyone assumes that independent third party developers like Media Molecule, Insomanic, Sucker Punch, and Ninja Theory are Sony first parties when it's the farthest from the truth. Little Big Planet was pitched to Nintendo and Sony at the same time but Sony paid money first for the exclusive or it would have been a Wii game. The developer didn't care what system it was on, they just wanted to make the game.
Sony is paying these independent third party dev houses for exclusive games. If you look at the history of the PS3 and the exclusive games to be released for the system, very... very few are made by Sony owned or "first party" studios.
Microsoft pays third party publishers for their games and Sony pays third party developers. In the end, MS and Sony are paying developers they don't own for making exclusive games. They are paying for exclusives.
Only Nintendo truly has the best and biggest "first party" of in house developers.
.
.
