Assuming Sony had the money to moneyhat exclusives like MS did, I would have less respect for them if they did. They have a ton of proven internal studios producing amazing content that should more than sell the system, put that money there, not making sure Peggle 2 is on your console first. That shit is just dumb.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hey, how come Sony didn't invest in any big 3rd party exclusives?
- Thread starter DR3AM
- Start date
Shenmue son!!!! Our lord and savior, Cerny-sama is secretly working on it with Sega.
One of the rumors floating out there, yeah.
Message it to me! I won't tell anyone!
Ha.
It's honestly so dumb I'd call someone out if they thought the same.
Miles Quaritch
Member
don't tease such things. I'd break down crying happy tears if AP2 is ever announced.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
9/9 and TGS will show you some more but you only have to look at first party output to see where Sony is investing the money. PS4 has three 1st party games at launch and there are three first party games coming out for the PS3. Meanwhile MS has 1 1st party title coming for 360 and XB1 at launch.
9/9 and TGS will show you some more but you only have to look at first party output to see where Sony is investing the money. PS4 has three 1st party games at launch and there are three first party games coming out for the PS3. Meanwhile MS has 1 1st party title coming for 360 and XB1 at launch.
Have you seen Titanfall? That one game negates every argument.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yes they are if the IP is not owned by Microsoft. They are third party exclusives.
Exactly; relying on third party exclusives is dangerous long-term unless you keep stumping up the money to keep them exclusive, otherwise you see a big 'loyalty' shift as we saw with many Japanese games bedding in with the Xbox 360. Sony was heavily reliant on third parties during the PS1 era and much of the PS2 heyday, but during that generation they really invested in in-house studios which really fruit during the PS3 era with Uncharted, TLoU, LBP, Infamous, MotorStorm, Killzone, etc.
Silphonica
Banned
No I understand the concept, I just don't agree with it in it's entirety. Like I said, first and third party go hand in hand, there needs to be a balance, consumers demand both, which means more exclusives for both.
There are plenty of examples of this in gamings history.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
If anything MS being so aggressive with third party deals just highlights how weak their first party output is.
Twin Tails
Member
FTFY
You will always have some good and some bad first party games, just like you can end up having good or poor third party exclusives. Driveclub may end up being a turd. But so may Ryse or dead rising 3.
I don't see how placing the worst looking first party efforts (Knack and Driveclub) against the best looking third party exclusive (Titanfall) means that investing money in first party studio's was a bad decision.
You make Evolution sound like some kind of crap studio. Yet they made Motorstorm and it was a solid IP imo.
Gaming history was before hyper inflated budgets. Buying a game to be exclusive was a whole lot cheaper back then. And since we're coming out of a gen where PS3 and 360 sold even numbers, you're basically having to cover half the estimated revenue to make it exclusive. And that's just too much money. The only reason to do it these days outside of very limited times is if you simply don't have the in-house studios to do it.
Looking back at history to determine how a company should proceed is not the best.
Mauricio_Magus
Banned
yeah, this is so much better.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Third parties are irrelevant if they are making games for all systems. Does that make sense?
Here, you have an option.. You can either A, go to your local market and buy the ingredients for your personal chef to make your food the way you want. Or you can go to a local restaurant and trust that the chef your giving your money to can make the meal you want however the way they want.
The cheaper effective way is to invest into personal chef. Why invest money into a chef you don't own to make your meal that he does for everyone else not the way you personally want it?
Sure he may be relevant in a sense that he is another high rated chef that does make quality food but you have your own high rated chef that can do the same for cheap and at the same quality.
Also your bolded is a lie. Obviously this is a company that has made fortune starting with Crash Bandicoot.
PsihoPerihelion
Member
Ryse is second party.
Why are you throwing flack at Driveclub, it is, by quite some distance, the best looking next gen racer, while Evolution are one of the most talented studios in the industry. We are well past the point where Driveclub could be picked out as a weak point in Sony's launch line-up, quite the opposite in fact.
Likewise, Knack is another title that has come on leaps and bounds, and the more you hear about it (and it's target audience), the more you can appreciate the title.
It really says everything you need to know about MS and their policies, that every question asked about the system, is answered with "Titanfall"...... a FPS that's a timed exclusive.
And available on two other platforms on day one.
gundamkyoukai
Member
Consumer don't demand both since most of them don't care where the games come from .
EDIT to add to this paying for a new IP from 3rd party is stupid since they also make less money of the game and it can jump ship any time .
quickwhips
Member
I mean bungie is giving exclusive content and it will sell better than probably most 3rd party exclusives. MS needs 3rd party exclusives more than Sony does I think out the gate.
I haven't played Heavy Rain. But I'm not in the financial position to try out some indie game of which there is far more variable quality. I grew up playing Final Fantasy and NFS, lately only CoD and Battlefield. Indie games tend to be small, which have little replay value or essentially flash games. And yes, it made Crysis games worth playing.
SwiftDeath
Member
I much prefer Sony's method to exclusives then MS going off the history for both
Do have to admit that no X1 launch game really does anything for me that would make me buy a console so imagine others have different views on it
My problem is while killzone is never going to be anywhere else besides a playstation console titanfall is most likley going to appear on PS4 sometime later and in the mean time quite a lot of MS exclusives give me the option of playing them on PCs'
I just don't see the push to get a console at launch from someone who has a history of timed exclusives
I'll wait and see what sticks and what doesn't
Probably pick one up used for the next Halo even if that series is starting to drag on imo
Do have to admit that no X1 launch game really does anything for me that would make me buy a console so imagine others have different views on it
My problem is while killzone is never going to be anywhere else besides a playstation console titanfall is most likley going to appear on PS4 sometime later and in the mean time quite a lot of MS exclusives give me the option of playing them on PCs'
I just don't see the push to get a console at launch from someone who has a history of timed exclusives
I'll wait and see what sticks and what doesn't
Probably pick one up used for the next Halo even if that series is starting to drag on imo
Presumably because Sony are in it for the long haul and one would have to suspect that Microsoft aren't. Sony are looking to provide numerous great exclusive experiences for the next 10 years. Microsoft will do it for a few.
It happened with the Xbox, with the 360, and nothing hints towards a change in policy.
Ultimately, their policy over the 360 era leaves them with a seriously unproven first party and a lot of tarnished franchises. Forza is one of their only really strong franchises. Fable and Halo have been seriously damaged by recent outings in my mind. No studio in Microsoft's stable commands the interest that Sony Santa Monica, or Naughty Dog do. Not even close.
It happened with the Xbox, with the 360, and nothing hints towards a change in policy.
Ultimately, their policy over the 360 era leaves them with a seriously unproven first party and a lot of tarnished franchises. Forza is one of their only really strong franchises. Fable and Halo have been seriously damaged by recent outings in my mind. No studio in Microsoft's stable commands the interest that Sony Santa Monica, or Naughty Dog do. Not even close.
ReplacementPelican
Member
Because all of their first party studios stand toe-to-toe and above a lot of developers, or did everyone suddenly forget Naughty Dog's stream of 10/10s? Or has anyone seen inFamous: Second Son? Have you SEEN Second Son?
Sony has better first parties and a lot of them, they don't need to randomly choose a Capcom Licence.
I also expect to see Titanfall heading to PS4 á la Mass Effect and Bioshock.
Or is this thread some kind of joke?
Bluekaveli
Member
Lol, I am convinced he didn't play it right.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Buying third party exclusives is also only a short term solution. It happened with the 360 too however when MS could not maintain those games as third party exclusives they had to support the 360 with exclusive games form their first party and the disparity between Sony and MS's output were clear. Investing in first parties is always better because you can guarantee franchises are yours. Uncharted, TLoU and Infamous will always be Sony's. While Titanfall may not.
I'd say because they felt they didn't need to.
- Last gen almost ever MS exclusive turned out to be timed and came to Playstation anyway
- All the timed stuff didn't really seem to matter much vs price, features, etc. so I figure they didn't see MS getting early timed exclusives as a long term issue
- Last gen they focused more on 1st party and third party DLC / timed stuff for the most part and showed no sign of taking different tack this gen
KimonoNoNo
Member
Gears stayed Xbox exclusive.
I just don't get the business model behind timed exclusives. I mean it's got to be profitable, otherwise they wouldn't continue to do it, but it just seems like a lazy selling point for a console.
"Oh look, you can buy the DLC here 1 month ahead of the other consoles!"...why would the other consoles care, considering they'll still get it? Would the company paying for the timed exclusive lose sales if it wasn't timed?
For me, what separates the consoles is 1st party content; the stuff you know will never be on the other console. Outshine in that area and you'll have my money.
"Oh look, you can buy the DLC here 1 month ahead of the other consoles!"...why would the other consoles care, considering they'll still get it? Would the company paying for the timed exclusive lose sales if it wasn't timed?
For me, what separates the consoles is 1st party content; the stuff you know will never be on the other console. Outshine in that area and you'll have my money.
Post 5. GAF is slipping.
Twin Tails
Member
Yes
TheJollyCorner
Member
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
It's unclear which console you're talking about, if there was no context.
Profitability is difficult to measure. Because the goal is to create platform attractiveness to drive sales of the console which drives sales of Gold subs which drives sales of other games which all increases profitability.
Probably more profitable to have your own studios pumping out system selling games.
yep and MS paid a BUNDLE for it.
PanicFreak
Member
It wouldn't have if BioWare hadn't been purchased by EA.
I think you are looking at the game that encouraged Microsoft to invest in their first party studios.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Worth it though, great series. Especially in co op
CambriaRising
Member
It came to Pc.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
you know why ms invested in third party? there first party is 2 games. you know why sony did not invest?
Sony. It's all about Sony.
Nice avatar
Similar threads
- Poll