gregor7777
Banned
claviertekky said:
That's mostly for infrastructural reasons, and the rates are regulated by the government.
Not a good example.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Sony's Tretton: 'Disappointed' In Multiplatform FFXIII Through MS' 'Currying Favor'
- Thread starter h0l211
- Start date
That's mostly for infrastructural reasons, and the rates are regulated by the government.
Not a good example.
Microsoft is finally doing what they said they setout to do when they entered this market. Disrupt Sony to prevent them from getting a Dominance in Multimedia Hub systems. Microsoft in the Grand scheme doesnt care if it finishes 2nd place to Nintendo if they are keeping sony down.
Now if Nintendo decides to go the Multimedia Hub more heavily next gen Microsoft will become more hostile for sure towards Nintendo.
Now if Nintendo decides to go the Multimedia Hub more heavily next gen Microsoft will become more hostile for sure towards Nintendo.
Houston3000
Member
I would be disappointed to
They'll live though, I for one am still getting the game on PS3. Unless there is some major megaton addition to the 360 version I don't really understand why any multiplatform gamer wouldn't (except maybe someone who really really cares about how far apart their analog sticks are for their roleplaying games or don't give a damn about their directional pad :lol )
They'll live though, I for one am still getting the game on PS3. Unless there is some major megaton addition to the 360 version I don't really understand why any multiplatform gamer wouldn't (except maybe someone who really really cares about how far apart their analog sticks are for their roleplaying games or don't give a damn about their directional pad :lol )
gregor7777
Banned
laserbeam said:
Well, making a profit is pretty high on the list I'm sure, but that's not an issue any longer.
Totally agree with him, Square-Enix are money whore and M$ give them what they want... It's probably why SO4, Infinite Undiscovery, Last Remnant and FFXIII are now exclusvie to the 360(SO4 and Infinite ...)/time-exclusivity(Last Remnant) or getting release on the XBOX (Like FFXIII)...
I don't think it's a big deal. In Japan, even if it were to launch there it wouldn't do a thing. And for the rest of the markets, the 360's primary games are shooters and action. 360 owners, the few that actually like rpgs, will get to enjoy it but it's not going to move millions of consoles or anything.
Dark Octave said:Alright water boy. Mr. avaya. I'll bring back this thread in 6 years and we'll see.
Google is just going to town on MSFT at the moment. Apple is so far over the hill and away from them in portable music devices and soon to be in high end mobiles.
Microsoft has a pretty rubbish record outside of the Windows and Office monopoly.
gregor7777
Banned
avaya said:
Yeah...their server products division is sort of a big deal.
plagiarize
Banned
they aren't only consistently profitable because they have to be. that's a bizarre thing to say. they have to be profitable in their games division for the reason you stated, but that doesn't magically turn into profits. you have to be able to run your business well too, which they've shown they do a damn fine job of.avaya said:
jakonovski
Member
DrXym said:
I've always wondered what a desperate contortionist looks like. Now I know.
tigeroreilly
Member
what is wrong with you people wanting a one console future? dumbest idea ever.
Competition is the reason Killzone 2 got such a ridiculous budget... its the reason MS redesigned the 360 dashboard and signed deals with netflix... its the reason for all these price cuts... A single console future would have none of the above.
Competition is the reason Killzone 2 got such a ridiculous budget... its the reason MS redesigned the 360 dashboard and signed deals with netflix... its the reason for all these price cuts... A single console future would have none of the above.
Dark Octave
Banned
You think it's going to happen overnight? MS just got into the portable music scene with the Zune. The original Xbox did nothing compared to the PS2. I'm just saying, give it time, MS will dominate eventually. And I'm not saying this pumping my fists and cheering either. Just stating the obvious.avaya said:
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
Its funny, Sony is crying now, but didnt they use the same "tactics" against Sega back in the day?
Now they are "bubububub:ing" about that this, that this is not fair etc?
Now they are "bubububub:ing" about that this, that this is not fair etc?
Paracelsus
Member
hukasmokincaterpillar said:
Simultaneous release on PS3 and 360 in the West, that's what he's saying.
Developer in Training
Banned
Is SquareEnix on the verge of destruction?pswii60 said:
gregor7777
Banned
avaya said:
What I meant was that Microsoft does have divisions outside the consumer world.
You said they were all rubbish outside a choice couple, which just isn't true.
hell, even the gaming division is profitable. It is for 2 of the 3 companies in the big picture.
Dark Octave
Banned
Also the reason we get upgrades every five years. If it wasn't for competition we would be like the movie player market (VHS, DVD) or Nintendo.tigeroreilly said:
plagiarize said:
The business is 100 years old. You don't survive for that length of time, contrary to whatever was happening in the world, without having some smart folks making decisions. You can't depend on being a one-trick pony or getting it right one time. So yeah, simplifying why Nintendo is where it is doesn't make sense.
When Microsoft has been around 100 years, then maybe I'll consider them a threat to a company this seasoned.
h3ro said:
I don't know why people have such trouble understanding what a one console future would actually entail. The above post is much closer to the truth.
A "one console future" does not mean one of the big three wins, and the other two disappear.
It means a future in which we see a standardisation of hardware and software. Nothing more.
It means dozens of consoles on the shelves as the hardware is licensed amongst the various companies who currently make consumer electronics. That means no forced backwards compatibility, and no RROD. Don't want a box that'll overheat? Skip Microsoft's offering and buy a Samsung system. It will play the same games. Costs fly down, and you pick a box with whatever features and level of durability you're prepared to pay for.
Software becomes cheaper, because every game comes out for every box. There's no longer any need to port games, so the consumer base is much larger and dev costs are reduced. There's more competition, so quality assurance should improve; and we should see a growth amongst small, independent developers who offer less mainstream experiences.
The potential downside of this twist on the industry is a lack of the really aggressive competition that we're supposed to be seeing from the big three at present. But while this competition has seen the HD consoles drop in price fairly quickly, it didn't increase the quality of first party titles for Sony (Lair and Heavenly Sword were sub-par, however much you may have enjoyed them), it didn't force MS to grant 360 gamers free online play; and it hasn't resulted in higher quality hardware (RROD; Wii).
As consumers, there's a small chance we'll lose free online in a standardised gaming future, but we're guaranteed a greater diversity of games on more reliable systems with tertiary features tailored to our preferences; and we'll be paying a hell of a lot less for the privilege.
tigeroreilly
Member
what is wrong with you people clamoring for a one console future? Horrible idea
Competition is the reason that Killzone 2 was given the ridiculous budget it was given, its the reason that MS redesigned the dashboard and signed a deal with netflix, its the reason for price cuts, its the reason for pushing the hardware to new heights... without competition we would all be playing on console with 256mb ram, an intel celeron, and no online connectivity
Competition is the reason that Killzone 2 was given the ridiculous budget it was given, its the reason that MS redesigned the dashboard and signed a deal with netflix, its the reason for price cuts, its the reason for pushing the hardware to new heights... without competition we would all be playing on console with 256mb ram, an intel celeron, and no online connectivity
riskVSreward
Member
laserbeam said:
Nice post here.
Nintendo isn't really setting out to achieve the same goals as Sony/Microsoft. I think fanboys have a hard time putting this in to words and it's why we have distinctions like "HD consoles." Nintendo is out to dominate the video game market by pioneering new tech and making it more approachable to everyone. The other two have mentioned time and time again how they want to control the whole living room. Xbox & Playstation are just one of these companies' platforms set out to achieve this.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
There's no difference between a one console future and just owning only a 360 or PS3. They are the same damn thing.tigeroreilly said:
MikeE21286
Member
Hellraizer said:
the only problem with this lies with the next gen.....where as Sony is putting money into 1st party stuff, ms is building upon third party stuff heavily (most of which are multiplat). So I think next-gen you'll see the exclusives mount up for sony and their 1st party initiative. Just speculation on my part.
I don't even think Nintendo is out to dominate anyone. They have a stake in being successful of course. The problem with Microsoft and Sony is they're out to dominate the living room so their paths are unpredictable. Who could have imagined this generation turning out the day it did.
cartoon_soldier
Member
TTP said:
Enough Sales to make Sony's position change dramatically from PS2 to PS3.
You are forgetting, those 3rd parties are enjoying more sales success on the 360.
gregor7777 said:
I just said they had a rubbish (a bit harsh) record when they start doing things that can not leverage their Windows monopoly. Windows is also dominant in the corporate world.
This is precisely the reason the shareholders wanted dividends. They wanted money paid to them rather than management waste it on projects that didn't generate great returns.
For the amount Sony and Microsoft have invested in games the return they have gotten is appaling. Even with PS2 Sony made very little considering the size of the investment (3000oku yen on Nagasaki alone).
Maybe Stringer is realising that and Sony is trying to treat the division more like Nintendo.
Anyway sorry for the derail, just wanted to point out that Microsoft is not a company that always wins. They have a sphere of influence where their record is great but outside of it they are just another company.
I mean look at Apple. That company was a joke in the 90's. Look at them now. Definitely have an overpriced share price but their transformation is amazing. I'd never bet against companies the size of Sony and Microsoft staying down for long. Same for companies who are specialised in an industry, like Nintendo.
Neither of those I like.MikeE21286
Member
cartoon_soldier said:
but like Tretton, and many others have said, the 3rd party exclusive is dying....it will probably be dead by next-gen.
"no check is big enough....."
Sony will get those same third party games also
TheKingsCrown
Banned
It is a giant clusterfuck. Clearly the industry is in for 5-10 years of ridiculous transition.Deku said:
mambadragon
Banned
We should be disappointed when any company spends money to either assure exclusivity (especially when they give money to devs like Bioware and Insomniac who don't need the money to make AAA games) or pay to make a game cross platform, cause this could be used to fund a new game.
jacf29 said:
By the time this generation is over, Nintendo is going to be a massive behemoth of mindshare and market. The fact that they're retaining their relatively small, more flexible size only means they'll be able to adapt more quickly to any changes in the industry or their environment.
In other words? Good luck, Microsoft, 'cause I don't think you have a chance in hell.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Paznos said:
Or just have a 2-3 minute mid-game install...
tigeroreilly
Member
Aske said:
Under your scenario, what happens if Sony has a great idea to add a feature to their hardware? How do they ever implement it? They cant because samsung models don't have that feature and software would be incapable of being run on both systems... so that technological progress has to be tabled until the next round of consoles and even then, whose to say that Nintendo doesnt say, "hey we are happy with the current inferior hardware cuz its cheaper, we dont want to adopt your great chip Mr. Sony". Now you're in a situation where we are using inferior hardware due to philosophical differences.
Its similar to what happened with Sony and Nintendo with the PS1. Nintendo said, screw discs we like cartridges, Sony said, fine we will make a console. That scenario would simply repeat itself. Either you get stuck with a crappy compromise, or somebody breaks the mold and innovates on their own.
tigeroreilly
Member
Son of Godzilla said:
i repeat, owning a ps3 and 360 means u get huge budget 1st party titles like Killzone 2. Killzone 2, which just happens to be a perfect example for this argument, would not exist in its current state in a single console future. No publisher would spend that kind of money unless they had more at stake than just sales.
riskVSreward
Member
Aske said:
Good stuff honestly, but I don't think it would last. I can imagine that a standard "video game disc" would eventually cause distress with loyalists and many developers. Soon thereafter, some rogue home brew hardware would show up and get an investment large enough to challenge the standard. Kinda like Windows/Mac in the 80s.
AranhaHunter
Banned
Sony is right in focusing on internal development, they spent (and lost) a lot of money last generation buying exclusives or timed exclusives for the PS2. Nintendo has proven over 2 generations that you can survive on 1st party SW alone, so Sony should focus on that, they should buy a couple of talented 1st party like Sucker Punch, Level 5 and Media Molecule (Ted Price already said that Insomniac wants to stay independent).
FFXIII going multi platform was moreso because of Sony than MS. Sony created an environment of low software sales and high development cost with the PS3.
FFXIII is being created not to satisfy Sony monkeys, its being created to make money. Clearly Square didn't think the FFXIII investment was worth it on PS3 alone.
FFXIII is being created not to satisfy Sony monkeys, its being created to make money. Clearly Square didn't think the FFXIII investment was worth it on PS3 alone.
cartoon_soldier
Member
MikeE21286 said:
The post I quoted mentioned that
1st party initiative, 1st party is exclusive games anyway.
AND, exclusives mounting up for Sony? From where? 3rd Parties?