• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

MS marketing director: "We are going to kill Sony at E3!"

I don't understand why he would say such a thing. All the pundits agree - Microsoft isn't competing with Sony, they're competing with Apple and Google.*


*for best results, say this in your head with a thick, sarcastic voice
 
To be honest, it probably didn't take much back in the day to get a 3rd party exclusive because the PlayStation was pretty much the only console in town. Nintendo zagged off with Nintendo 64 and decided to stick with cartridges (which pissed 3rd parties off). Sega completely botched the release of the Saturn which pissed off retailers and 3rd parties. And by the time the Dreamcast was rolling around most had already lost faith in Sega. PS2 got a lot of 3rd party exclusives by default with little to no money needed in exchange.

Not really accurate. Every major 3rd party was making games for the Saturn. Sony straight out bought exclusives away and studios as a whole. By the 3rd year of the Saturn, most of the major 3rd party series were exclusive to Playstation. That's what happened. That had nothing to do with botching the launch because the 3rd party games were still there.

Sony's first party teams were comprised of studios they bought. They didn't develop those teams, the gutted and raided studios. Psygnosis, Blue Sky, and on and on.

3rd parties were still making games for the Dreamcast. The ones that Sony didn't buy off, Capcom chief amongst them. The deathblow for the DC was EA not putting their sports titles on there.

This is all ancient history. But the point is Sony bought and spent their way into the industry in a much more brutal way than MS has ever done.
 
I would laugh and be excited if they do bring it at E3 (removing DRM and giving out straight answers).

It'll be good for gaming and for us in general.
 
If MS still has DRM and Sony doesn't and they both announce the same price point.. MS ain't killing squat. I don't care how awesome their games are. They'll just look less shitty than they do right now.

Like going from a 0 out of 10 to a 4 out of 10. Pretty big improvement, but still lame as fuck in the grand scheme of things.

I think if they're the same price, to the core gamer the PS4 will be far more attractive. 50%+ performance advantage for no extra cost. That's incredibly good value for money.

Going in to this I was expecting the PS4 to cost $50-$100 more.
 
No no no.

Buying exclusive and/or time released content is fare game!
It's the developer that takes the risk on this. In short: Does the money hat cover any potential lost of income?
People are making an argument from a consumer/gamer perspective, not from the companies' perspective.

And from that perspective, buying the exclusivity of third party titles offers no advantages at all. (Unlike funding the development of exclusive titles which would otherwise not have been made)
 
GAF continues to amuse.

Pages and pages of "Oh they are being Sony from last gen."

Followed by how much you currently love Sony.

And zero commentary about the obvious logical disconnect between the two.

Sure... because attitudes and expectations don't change. Sony today is much more humbled than when they launched the PS3. It's good to be knocked down a few pegs when you reach that level of arrogance.... a level which Microsoft seems to have reached after the past generations successes.
 
It could have been the best game ever it wouldn't have changed much...

not true; since I have all the consoles; on any SP focused games; I always bought/played with the better version; and assume that there many like me this gen.

If the 360 port had been on par; then the sales results US/EU would have been much different. I am not saying 360 version would have outsold the PS3, but it would have been different.
 
How did the timed exclusive add value to the 360 customer? It didn't. They got the timed exclusive software on the day they were always going to get it. All that money was spent on making a PS3 customer having to wait to play the same game.

It's bullshit from a consumer perspective, and it should very much be frowned upon.

I never said that it added value to the 360 customer. I just stated that the practice is fair game. I don't like it!, but its fair game.

At some point the developer is going to make the call on whether it make sense to lay in the same bed with a particular console.

I agree that it's BS from a consumer perspective, but.. isn't that the developers fault?

Again, I don't like it. I might even be sad, but I will not frown on it.
 
I think if they're the same price, to the core gamer the PS4 will be far more attractive. 50%+ performance advantage for no extra cost. That's incredibly good value for money.

Going in to this I was expecting the PS4 to cost $50-$100 more.

Depends. Microsoft might want to throw an extra $100.00 on the price tag and market it as "kinect included".

Would you put it past them?
 
minigun-o.gif

But the goal of that scene was specifically NOT to kill anyone.
 
I would laugh and be excited if they do bring it at E3 (removing DRM and giving out straight answers).

It'll be good for gaming and for us in general.
They literally cannot remove DRM for the Bone. Games must be installed, but the discs do not have to be in the drive to run. Because of that choice, they have no choice but to use DRM.
 
Nice hopefully they don't mean timed exclusives, oh who am I kidding, I'll wait for the superior version of Titan and Mirrors Edge 2 on PS4 or PC.
 
They are going to show some big exclusives at e3, very likely Respawn's Titan, ME2 and Ryse plus one more, possibly from their old library that hasn't been shown yet. This plus some exclusive DLC deals they've secured for big third party franchises.

The fear is that they are making this huge initial investment in games to lull you into their walled-garden. Once you are locked in and paying that Live sub for TV features and online multiplayer, MS probably ain't gonna keep investing as much in core titles as they are laughing all the way to the bank, leeching your bank account every month with that sub.
 
I expect Microsoft has opened the war chest to buy up as much exclusive dlc, games etc it can because they need all they can to try and overwhelm the negativity.

Yep, and I am sure that will be enough to pull the wool over many eyes as well. As for me? That dog won't hunt.
 
People are making an argument from a consumer/gamer perspective, not from the companies' perspective.

And from that perspective, buying the exclusivity of third party titles offers no advantages at all. (Unlike funding the development of exclusive titles)

I disagree. If you get a timed exclusives early in a console's lifespan, you make your console the place to be to play the best games.

The 360 having Oblivion, Mass Effect and Bioshock as timed exclusive was massive in giving the 360 the aura of being the console to play the coolest games. Yes, some gamers will claim they'll wait until it's available on their platform of choice but that's irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of gamers will have already bought the console the games are timed-exclusive too. They won't wait.

Now later in a console's life, exclusives are much less important. The console is established and its audience simply want great games to play. They don't care if that game is 1st, 2nd or 3rd party. They don't care if it's exclusive or not. (console warriors still care though).

Early in a console's life = exclusives are important
Later in a console's life = exclusives not as importatn.
 
"Dat Arrogance", most say, but it's the same way GAF talks all the time. X kills Y, A blows B out of the water, C is a D-killer, etc. MS marketing is just trying to speak your language.
 
I think if they're the same price, to the core gamer the PS4 will be far more attractive. 50%+ performance advantage for no extra cost. That's incredibly good value for money.

Going in to this I was expecting the PS4 to cost $50-$100 more.

I know people don't buy for specs, but Sony should quote '50% more' at every opportunity. And announce some more great games.
 
Eh, they're just trying agitate PS fans and drive their own into a frenzy.

Then job well done because holy shit! I haven't had time to read the whole thread but the first 10 pages are gold. Dance for your corporations, I love to see such passion. Well, off to work. All of these games don't just pay for themselves!
 
Where are the original Craig Davidson words?

I mean, IGN Spain is Marca Player renamed, and that means a lot of made up shit just to stir up fanboys.

I searched google and everything ends linking this thread or the ign spain website.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a person to say stupid words like this, but I find everything very suspicious when something like this has as its only source a spanish videogame website.
 
I disagree. If you get a timed exclusives early in a console's lifespan, you make your console the place to be to play the best games.

The 360 having Oblivion, Mass Effect and Bioshock as timed exclusive was massive in giving the 360 the aura of being the console to play the coolest games. Yes, some gamers will claim they'll wait until it's available on their platform of choice but that's irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of gamers will have already bought the console the games are timed-exclusive too. They won't wait.

Now later in a console's life, exclusives are much less important. The console is established and its audience simply want great games to play. They don't care if that game is 1st, 2nd or 3rd party. They don't care if it's exclusive or not. (console warriors still care though).

Early in a console's life = exclusives are important
Later in a console's life = exclusives not as importatn.
You're still not getting my point. Of course it is positive for a platform to get exclusives!

My point is that as a gamer, a platform holder buying third party exclusivity is basically money spent which doesn't give me any advantage: if I own the platform, I get the game, but I would have gotten it anyway without the expenditure -- if I don't own the platform I'm put at a disadvantage. This is unlike money spent on development of first-party titles, where I potentially get a game out of it that would not have otherwise existed.
 
I disagree. If you get a timed exclusives early in a console's lifespan, you make your console the place to be to play the best games.

The 360 having Oblivion, Mass Effect and Bioshock as timed exclusive was massive in giving the 360 the aura of being the console to play the coolest games. Yes, some gamers will claim they'll wait until it's available on their platform of choice but that's irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of gamers will have already bought the console the games are timed-exclusive too. They won't wait.

Now later in a console's life, exclusives are much less important. The console is established and its audience simply want great games to play. They don't care if that game is 1st, 2nd or 3rd party. They don't care if it's exclusive or not. (console warriors still care though).

Early in a console's life = exclusives are important
Later in a console's life = exclusives not as importatn
.

Pretty much.
 
Not really accurate. Every major 3rd party was making games for the Saturn. Sony straight out bought exclusives away and studios as a whole. By the 3rd year of the Saturn, most of the major 3rd party series were exclusive to Playstation. That's what happened. That had nothing to do with botching the launch because the 3rd party games were still there.

Sony's first party teams were comprised of studios they bought. They didn't develop those teams, the gutted and raided studios. Psygnosis, Blue Sky, and on and on.

3rd parties were still making games for the Dreamcast. The ones that Sony didn't buy off, Capcom chief amongst them. The deathblow for the DC was EA not putting their sports titles on there.

This is all ancient history. But the point is Sony bought and spent their way into the industry in a much more brutal way than MS has ever done.

Doesn't that kinda prove his point? By the end of the third year the Saturn was also failing to sell well anywhere except japan. Do you have any sources to back up your claims that games like Resident Evil and Tomb Raider got ps1 only sequels because of a sony money hat rather than the sales of the previous games on Saturn? And even if it was a sony money hat, like Interfectum said, it probably wouldn't have taken much. That's like if Sony and/or Micriosoft money hatted EA to not release games on Wii U, wouldn't take much to compensate for those lost sales.
 
GAF continues to amuse.

Pages and pages of "Oh they are being Sony from last gen."

Followed by how much you currently love Sony.

And zero commentary about the obvious logical disconnect between the two.

Maybe because Sony came out and basically apologized for their arrogance and blunders by changing their entire strategy. They have also made a damn good effort making great first party games especially in recent years not forgetting about them like Microsoft. They didn't follow Microsoft by putting up paywalls all over the system like most predicted they would, but instead they made a service that actually has value.
 
You guys should be excited this is going to be a incredibly entertaining E3

I am excited. I haven't been this excited for an E3 in a long time. I called off work and am going to order take out and watch all I can. I haven't done this is a long time. Seems as though both Sony and MS will try and knock it out of the park...I love new console time. :)
 
Timed or not exclusives are exclusives. How is someone winning by paying full price for a port years later on a machine that costs more and it wasn't designed for? I guess because I can play a lot of PS2s library else where it's no longer one of the best systems ever.
 
I know people don't buy for specs, but Sony should quote '50% more' at every opportunity. And announce some more great games.

Agreed, or just go for the jugular and show COD/Fifa running and/or looking better on the PS4 over the XO. Unless of course Microsoft have a say in that sort of thing.
 
Whoever wins, we...win? I think?
Usually, yea. But with this DRM stuff there's a lot more at stake than bragging rights for cheerleaders.

Agreed, or just go for the jugular and show COD/Fifa running and/or looking better on the PS4 over the XO. Unless of course Microsoft have a say in that sort of thing.

I don't think MS has a say in it, but I also don't think 3rd parties are going to even try to max out these consoles at launch, let alone actually put extra effort into the PS4 version even if it's "flick of a switch" easy.
 
Top Bottom