Support NeoGAF

[AppleSmack]

I think I hate Microsoft even more just for a statement as arrogant as that. Hyping your show is one thing, stupid statements like this are something else.

 

[Master Genesis Dream]

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.

Sony bought exclusivity of Tomb Raider. Don't know about Resident Evil and the of course bought Psygnosis so Wipeout became exclusive.

I have no idea why people are being so defensive over something that's widely known. Sony moneyhatted their way into the industry. This can't even be remotely debated.

Well, I guess it can.

 

[KefkaPalazzo]

I think I hate Microsoft even more just for a statement as arrogant as that. Hyping your show is one thing, stupid statements like this are something else.

You must of hated Sony last gen then.

 

[sublimit]

You guys should be excited this is going to be a incredibly entertaining E3

Lets hope it's going to be entertaining and NOT about "the future of entertainment" (aka kinect,tv,tv,tv,sports,tv,kinect).

 

[Steroyd]

I think that may Sony knows this is coming. Perhaps they know Microsoft is about to buy out all these huge 3rd party games and they know they just can't compete with that. It would explain their huge focus on acquiring all the indie games that they can. Maybe they're just thinking they're going to have to ride out the initial wave with their own AAA titles supplemented by those indie games when it comes to 3rd party.

Come on!

The reason why the industry is in the state it's in, is because it feels like every game is aiming to become a AAA 10 million selling dudebro shooter, meanwhile AA A and B games are "not worth the risk" and are getting smothered into nothingness.

Microsoft promoting XBLA was a good way to keep the lesser games alive, although if what can be read off the internet are to be believed Microsoft will only accept the next indie game if it's going to be the next Angry Birds or Minecraft.

Sony reaching out to indies is because that's where the most inventive ideas seem to come from these days even Nintendo realizes this, and would go nicely long my dudebro games if only for a change of pace, not to make up some deficit to MS securing Fallout, Red Dead Redemption or whatever.

I mean the practice of buying exclusives away from your competitor.

Nintendo, of course had a monopoly on 3rd parties with the NES that was broken up.

It was Sony with the Playstation that really started the practice. If not just buying an exclusive, then buying the studio that produced the game. People forget that Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, and Wipeout all appeared on the Saturn. The first games anyway.

They continued to do it to the Dreamcast (with an EA assist) to push them out. Ironic that it's rumored that EA is siding with MS this round.

The Playstation brand wouldn't exist without the practice of buying up exclusives/studios. It shouldn't be frowned upon when MS uses the same tactics on Sony that Sony used to build themselves up.

There's nothing wrong with Microsoft or Sony buying up studio's... providing the studio's flourish under them as a publisher (Naughty Dog going from Crash Bandicoot --> Jak and Daxter --> Uncharted), what does piss people off is if the studio's die under them after making good games (Studio Liverpool, Rare... sort of).

And there can be instances where it's the hardware offered is what provides "free" exclusives (PS1 had the CD, N64 stuck to catridges for example) in the same vein the Xbox got "free" exclusives because it had a built in harddrive and was easier to port from PC (2 things the PS2 didn't have). Of course selling exponentially more consoles than your competitors helps to.

What does irk me, is companies spending money on... timed exclusives, or DLC that will eventually, make it to other consoles anyway personally neither affect my purchase or impress me in the slightest, Microsoft started this shitty practice with GTA IV and Sony responded in kindness with Destiny, ffs.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

People keep saying specs don't matter to the mainstream but won't 5+ years of consistently better PS4 versions get noticed eventually?

 

[sonicmj1]

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.

This isn't necessarily true. The obvious example here is Bayonetta 2. If Nintendo hadn't paid for its development, it wouldn't get released at all.

Given how much uncertainty there is in the market these days, I wouldn't be surprised if companies went for some exclusives bankrolled by platform holders in order to reduce their risk. And lower risk might make previously impossible projects possible.

 

[mrklaw]

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)

depending on the game it can be bad for the developer/publisher too.

eg if EA gave xbox Battlefield 4 exclusive, Activision can target PS4 wannabe BFers with CoD at the expense of EA.

 

[Courage]

People keep saying specs don't matter to the mainstream but won't 5+ years of consistently better PS4 versions get noticed eventually?

Not for third party titles.

 

[Karma]

They also said 5 billion transistors, and 300 thousand servers, and that they are global leaders this generation. Ever realize that they can throw out whatever numbers they want to get people to slurp it up and buy their products?

Shouldn't you and everyone else be happy that any company is willing to spend $1 Billion on making games?

How long can MS sustain the money hat business model, especially if the PS4 launches to impressive sales? At some point these third parties who were formerly multiplatform are gonna say "Fuck that, gimme some of those PS4 sales!"

I don't know ask Quantic Dream.

 

[sublimit]

Sony bought exclusivity of Tomb Raider.

Not really.

 

[AppleSmack]

You must of hated Sony last gen then.

During their launch? Oh yeah. I didn't buy a PS3 and bought a 360 instead (I'm assuming by "last gen" you mean this current one). I only got rid of my 360 in favour of PS3 once Kinect came into market. This gen the tables have swapped. Microsoft is full of itself thinking people are going to be shocked and amazed at their shit and they shouldn't be dismissing the competition so easily..

 

[Rockandrollclown]

It is quite possible MS got something in return from publishers for their DRM. All along I kind of figured that if MS did go through with this horrid DRM, they'd have to have an ace in the hole to get away with it. Otherwise if you have 2 machines 1 that allows used games and one that for all intents and purposes does not, why would anyone go for the latter. Its in the publishers' best interests to hook up the company giving them such a huge handout.

 

[lionkitten]

People keep saying specs don't matter to the mainstream but won't 5+ years of consistently better PS4 versions get noticed eventually?

We thought that the PS3 would have consistently better versions. But it certainly wasn't the case. Arguably it wasn't even the majority.

That's a big assumption at this point, given we have seen nearly zero gameplay on either console, let alone side-by-side comparisons of 3rd party games.

 

[badcrumble]

Not for third party titles.

Microsoft doesn't have the clout to stop that from happening.

 

[kitch9]

Usually, yea. But with this DRM stuff there's a lot more at stake than bragging rights for cheerleaders.



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.

Like they didn't last generation?

 

[Colonel Nasty]

People keep saying specs don't matter to the mainstream but won't 5+ years of consistently better PS4 versions get noticed eventually?

Except PS3 was more powerful last time and third parties looked the same. Xbox (original) had a few better looking third party games but ps2 still outsold it.

 

[AppleSmack]

We thought that the PS3 would have consistently better versions. But it certainly wasn't the case. Arguably it wasn't even the majority.

That's a big assumption at this point, given we have seen nearly zero gameplay on either console, let alone side-by-side comparisons of 3rd party games.

PS3 isn't objectively more powerful than the 360, was difficult to develop for and had a radically different architecture than PC. The PS4 has fixed all of those problems and developers are saying it is easier to develop for PS4 than Xbox one right now.

 

[Courage]

Microsoft doesn't have the clout to stop that from happening.

It's not even that though. They're going to develop with the lowest common denominator in mind. Even if the PS4 versions do have better textures and framerate, it's nothing the mainstream would immediately notice.

 

[Captainsweatpants]

"We are going to violate Sony" would have sounded better.

 

[nib95]

We thought that the PS3 would have consistently better versions. But it certainly wasn't the case. Arguably it wasn't even the majority.

That's a big assumption at this point, given we have seen nearly zero gameplay on either console, let alone side-by-side comparisons of 3rd party games.

Not at all the same. PS3 had a much better cpu but worse gpu and split memory architecture. 360 still had more ram, unified ram and a better gpu. This time it's different. The PS4 is easier to develop for and better performance wise in every aspect.

 

[Servbot24]

If MS has anything aside from bro shooters, "immersive cinematic experiences", and kinect-with-the-family-games, I'll take notice. Sill won't buy their console, but I'll take notice.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

We thought that the PS3 would have consistently better versions. But it certainly wasn't the case. Arguably it wasn't even the majority.

That's a big assumption at this point, given we have seen nearly zero gameplay on either console, let alone side-by-side comparisons of 3rd party games.

Wasn't that due to the difficulty that developers have had this entire gen in coding for it? With both consoles running closer set ups than ever before shouldn't we be able to see this difference?

 

[Master Genesis Dream]

So gamers suffer if a game isn't on their platform. DUH! That's the point!

Making your platform feel like it's not getting some of the hottest games out there is what a competitor is trying to do early in a console's life with its exclusive content.

If you don't have loyalty to a company or an emotional investment in the The Great Console War, you'd wait for E3 to see which console has a lineup that most appeals to you.

This "gamers suffer" mentality comes from people making up their minds which console they'll buy long before they learn about their respective lineups.

That's why you see so much "please, don't let Mirror's Edge 2 be exclusive" because those people already decided what console they're getting. Or more accurately, not getting.

Very few games I could think would cause me to say "If game X is on that platform, I'm getting that platform." Shenmue III comes to mind (I know, dream on)

You wouldn't suffer if you wait for more info to make choice. Or you can always buy multiple platforms.

 

[Karma]

Not at all the same. PS3 had a much better cpu but worse gpu and split memory architecture. 360 still had more ram, unified ram and a better gpu. This time it's different. The PS4 is easier to develop for and better performance wise in every aspect.

PS fans are admitting the PS3 is not more powerful than the 360?

 

[Cizard]

Sony bought exclusivity of Tomb Raider. Don't know about Resident Evil and the of course bought Psygnosis so Wipeout became exclusive.

I have no idea why people are being so defensive over something that's widely known. Sony moneyhatted their way into the industry. This can't even be remotely debated.

Well, I guess it can.

My point is that the sales of these games on the Saturn probably affected these decisions as much as a possible sony money hat. The Saturn was a complete failure in the west despite getting the first games in the biggest franchises from that gen. So like I said, do you have any sources that back your claims that sony paid for exclusivity for those titles and if so why were they (in the case of tomb raider) still on PC and N64 (in the case of resi2).

 

[Master Genesis Dream]

Not really.

Continue to fight the 17 year old fight, man. Go for it.

 

[Servbot24]

Except PS3 was more powerful last time and third parties looked the same. Xbox (original) had a few better looking third party games but ps2 still outsold it.

Yes but PS3 multiplats suffered because it was difficult to develop for, not because it was powerful. PS4 is easy to develop for, and has an even greater power advantage. It will almost certainly have the better multiplats.

 

[Cornbread78]

dat arrogance.

Wow, first post nails it here.....

 

[AppleSmack]

PS fans are admitting the PS3 is not more powerful than the 360?

You are acting like this wasn't something factual since the release date of the systems... These specs were out and just because some people preferred to ignore them because it didn't fit their fanboyism doesn't change that fact. Both consoles have their advantages.

 

[kingocfs]

People keep saying specs don't matter to the mainstream but won't 5+ years of consistently better PS4 versions get noticed eventually?

Software sells hardware, not the other way around

 

[Marleyman]

It is quite possible MS got something in return from publishers for their DRM. All along I kind of figured that if MS did go through with this horrid DRM, they'd have to have an ace in the hole to get away with it. Otherwise if you have 2 machines 1 that allows used games and one that for all intents and purposes does not, why would anyone go for the latter. Its in the publishers' best interests to hook up the company giving them such a huge handout.

Yep; I said that during the run up to their launch that the only way they do it and Sony doesn't is if they get timed exclusives, exclusives, DLC, etc.

 

[Nevergiveup]

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 think gamers like games not specs who ever have the best games has the best value. You can include casual into that too

 

[LiquidMetal14]

"We are going to violate Sony" would have sounded better.

You know what would be better and I quote " "

 

[OmahaG8]

By kill, I can only assume Microsoft is referring to the Cold War era policy of "mutually assured destruction" and that no one will come out of E3 alive - including Microsoft.

 

[entremet]

Competitor says competitive statements against a rival in the space and people get mad? What? This is controversial?

 

[AppleSmack]

By the way? I thought Microsoft doesn't want to compete with Sony anymore? Why are they mentioning Sony by name?

 

[Master Genesis Dream]

My point is that the sales of these games on the Saturn probably affected these decisions as much as a possible sony money hat. The Saturn was a complete failure in the west despite getting the first games in the biggest franchises from that gen. So like I said, do you have any sources that back your claims that sony paid for exclusivity for those titles and if so why were they (in the case of tomb raider) still on PC and N64 (in the case of resi2).

Nope, no proof. Sony did not buy their way into the industry at all.

 

[DC1]

PS fans are admitting the PS3 is not more powerful than the 360?

The PS3 is more powerful. You just have to be an master alchemist to pull it out.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Competitor says competitive statements against a rival in the space and people get mad? What?

I don't think anyone here is mad but I don't speak on everyone's behalf.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

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.

Well excuuuuuuse me, Princess.

 

[Ikkarus]

Shouldn't you and everyone else be happy that any company is willing to spend $1 Billion on making games?

Well that depends purely on what kind of games they intend to spend it on really.

 

[Ol No Bones]

I don't think the difference in graphics will be very large except for some first party titles maybe. The games will look so go I only expect the truly hardcore gamers to really care.

 

[Durante]

This isn't necessarily true. The obvious example here is Bayonetta 2. If Nintendo hadn't paid for its development, it wouldn't get released at all.

I'd consider co-funding development as different from buying exclusivity.

Basically:
Spending money for games to exist = good
Spending money for games not to exist (on specific platforms) = bad

I really would have thought we could all agree on this point.

 

[sublimit]

Continue to fight the 17 year old fight, man. Go for it.

I'm still waiting to show me your source that says Sony paid for Tomb Raider.

 

[Uno Venova]

Should be a hell of a day.

 

[RiPPn]

Shouldn't you and everyone else be happy that any company is willing to spend $1 Billion on making games?

Don't you find it funny Microsoft tries to throw out big numbers all the time, usually one that nobody will fact check and just eat up. I believe this is one of them, yeah they may have spent a billion, but how much really went in to game development, and how much went into trying to secure deals with cable companies, the nfl, exclusive content on fifa and cod? Those are big chunks of that billion dollar pie all gobbled up. Just because Phil Harrison says something doesn't make it true.

 

[Master Genesis Dream]

By the way? I thought Microsoft doesn't want to compete with Sony anymore? Why are they mentioning Sony by name?

Well saying you're going to "kill" them explicitly means you no longer will be competing with them.

 

[Marleyman]

That's why you see so much "please, don't let Mirror's Edge 2 be exclusive" because those people already decided what console they're getting. Or more accurately, not getting.

Oh, for sure. Look at the Mirror's Edge 2 thread for plenty of that.

 

[JHall]

If Sony would have came out and said this, GAF would be all up in arms praising Sony with Kaz gifs...