Sony forcing game devs to add content?

[Textbook Bobcat]

Makes perfect sense.

Developers have played the hand to Sony if they need to recode a game and release it on a separate platform.

And if they need to recode anyway, it doesn't take a lot of effort to add in some animations or a "respray".

The core of the structure is there, adapting is easy compared to creation. Then it gives reason for a double purchase.

I'm sure Sony don't muscle them however, I expect it's more along the lines of "We get X royalties without exclusive content, and Y royalties if you do".

 

[Halfbreed13]

I like it personally.

Sony's all like, "What's that? Bitchbox didn't help pay for dinner? Weren't to interested in us awhile back were you? But we're feeling magnanimous today so, add in a shitload more stuff and we might allow you the privileged of porting to our console."

Sony is forgiving, if not forgetful.

I agree with this man.
What, is Sony supposed to bow down and jump for joy that some unsuccessful game has turned to them after they failed? Well, why should Sony waste their time if it already failed unless they add something.

(This would apply the same if Microsoft and Sony were switched in their positions).

 

[scotth266]

They already have all the content ready to be ported, some extra content won't hurt them. Besides, they don't say it has to be substantial.
EDIT

Not too different from Microsoft's technique, no? "We get DLC the PS3 doesn't get (or just much later)."

Exactly! GTA4 anyone? No one's screaming over Microsoft nabbing exclusive DLC for a game that's already multiplatform, but asking for something extra for a game that was only really ported for the PS3? Criminal! Also on a side not, you really sound like massive fanboy, Trivun.

The difference between DLC and the PS3 thing mentioned here is that Microsoft pays the studio that makes the game money for DLC exclusivity. In the case of the PS3, the dev gets no extra money and has to add extra content at a cost to no one but themselves.

I can't say I'm surprised at Sony for doing this, they want to push their platform after all, but this inter-console strife only harms the fans of the games: because now unless they're 100% sure that a game won't go multi-platform, they might get screwed out of awesome content later on. This goes for both sides of the fence.

 

[Korten12]

I dont see why this is bad isnt the game cross edge that was originaly ps3 exclusive going to the 360 with more content?

 

[TPiddy]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

 

[Korten12]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

you dont need accessories those are optional but for you I guess they arent.

but hey the 360 is $400 then aswell. wireless, XBL.

 

[TPiddy]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

you dont need accessories those are optional but for you I guess they arent.

but hey the 360 is $400 then aswell. wireless, XBL.

Still nitpicking I see. Yes, the XBox is just as expensive, I never said it wasn't... but let's just do the financial math according to you shall we?

PS3: $400 - Fat Princess + Heavy Rain
360: $400, monthly subscription - All the games I listed above... so over a dozen.
PC with the minimum requirements to play the 360 ports: At least $800 plus accessories.

I'm still not sure how I made an 'odd' move here.

My original point is that I am a CONSOLE gamer who chose my CONSOLE because it had MORE GAMES that I wanted to play on it and I can't justify spending more money on another CONSOLE just for a few games.

 

[Korten12]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

you dont need accessories those are optional but for you I guess they arent.

but hey the 360 is $400 then aswell. wireless, XBL.

Still nitpicking I see. Yes, the XBox is just as expensive, I never said it wasn't... but let's just do the financial math according to you shall we?

PS3: $400 - Fat Princess + Heavy Rain
360: $400, monthly subscription - All the games I listed above... so over a dozen.
PC with the minimum requirements to play the 360 ports: At least $800 plus accessories.

I'm still not sure how I made an 'odd' move here.

My original point is that I am a CONSOLE gamer who chose my CONSOLE because it had MORE GAMES that I wanted to play on it and I can't justify spending more money on another CONSOLE just for a few games.

well if you noticed, a ps3 bundle at stores is accutaly about 320 or 340 something dollars. you just added two games to make it more money. way to go...

 

[TPiddy]

well if you noticed, a ps3 bundle at stores is accutaly about 320 or 340 something dollars. you just added two games to make it more money. way to go...

Once again, way to miss the point entirely. I am saying the PS3, by itself, including tax and accessories is $400. I'm saying the only reason I'd spend that money is to play Fat Princess and Heavy Rain.

I'm saying the Xbox including tax and accessories is also $400, but I would want to play many more games on it. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT I WAS MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[theultimateend]

Weird. You just named a clutch of games that are more interesting on the PC. Except for Dead Rising which I 'think' is 360 only.

I like the 360 but overall you made an odd move. "I'm not going to spend 400 (it is 300 btw) dollars for a PS3 for two games but I will spend 300 for one game.". Going off your list of course. I imagine you have more than those.

I like the 360 but I tend to find mine is getting dusty. If the game comes out for it, ps3, and the PC I end up either getting the PS3 or PC version. Either way I'm looking at some (albeit on the PS3 likely trivial) improvement. On the PC I can mod the games which is fantastic and I can play online with people for free as opposed to paying for xbox live on the 360.

Just because YOU like them better on PC doesn't mean other people will. I am NOT a PC gamer. Just because Microsoft chooses to release a game on PC doesn't mean there's no reason for people to get an XBox. That's ridiculous to say that I got my XBox for 1 game because I could have gotten them on PC.

Also, it IS $400 when you add tax and accessories. Stop nitpicking my post. This is a console thread about console gaming. Stuff your PC arguments.

I paid 323 after tax. What state do you live in?

Also why on earth are Xbox owners such whiners? I come in and made my point and you respond with a bunch of drivel.

You defeat your own point by saying that it is my opinion which is better, because essentially you are saying "well ignore anything I say because it is equally an opinion and thus invalid."

well if you noticed, a ps3 bundle at stores is accutaly about 320 or 340 something dollars. you just added two games to make it more money. way to go...

Once again, way to miss the point entirely. I am saying the PS3, by itself, including tax and accessories is $400. I'm saying the only reason I'd spend that money is to play Fat Princess and Heavy Rain.

I'm saying the Xbox including tax and accessories is also $400, but I would want to play many more games on it. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT I WAS MAKING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

So turn off the caps lock and just say "In my opinion it is a better option. But I appreciate your rebuttles I just feel they are incorrect."

Since so far you are using some pretty bad math that kills your own point.

 

[Pendragon9]

Extra content? Considering Microsoft buys out game exclusives all the time, or timed exclusives, this is more than a fair move. That way people who buy a PS3 get their money's worth.

And people cry and baww about how they don't get the content. Well, we had to wait a year, so tough it up Susie.

Really, I hope this thread doesn't devolve into another "lol Sony dicks around again" thread. So help me, I thought all of you were past that.

 

[The Brewin]

hell I think this is great! The consumer gets extra stuff to play! If the devs dont like it, they can either go away or release it on the console in the first place instead of forcing them to wait abit...considering all the crap microsoft has done to Rare for nintendo fans, its about time us poor ps3 fans got some sun

 

[Altar]

So, what exactly is the problem with this exactly?! I mean why when Sony does this they are evil and dishonest and what not, but when like say.... well any other company, (I'm looking at you Microsoft) Does it, it's completely alright?! (I've only got a 360 just so you know) Personally I think it's a good idea get those companies that come crawling to Sony because their game didn't sell well on the other consoles to actually give something for completely ignoring the PS3...

 

[Aardvark]

Instead of switching to Sony, they should've translated and marketed to the West. There's no shortage of stupid white people who are willing to play some quirky, weird, obtuse, obviously-aimed-at-the-japanese-tween-girl-market game, so they'd recoup their costs in no time flat.

 

[Worgen]

nintendo did this with the n64

 

[HyenaThePirate]

From a business sense, Sony is being incredibly fair. It's their platform, they get to call the shots, especially if you didn't go multiplatform from the outset.

Unfortunately, Sony IS being unfair to it's FANS.
What this means is that some games will STAY exclusive to the Xbox where they might not have found a large fan base, but PS3 gamers in my experience are slightly different in their gaming choices.
I like JRPG's and SOny used to be my system of choice for that. Now as long as the PS3 gets a port with extra content, thats fine. But it leaves the potential that some games simply won't get ported at all, which means if you don't own an xbox (which I do as well so it's not as big a problem for me), then some people would be robbed of a perfectly good gaming experience. For example, Infinite Undiscovery is a fine game... it would be a shame however if PS3 players never get to play it simply because Sony made a seemingly unreasonable demand to a game developer that decided it wasn't worth the financial effort. Xbox gamers might not have flocked to it, but on the PS3 (a system with an honestly noticeable dearth of quality titles) it might have been a major seller, especially with the quizzically noticeable LACK of RPG's on a system that used to be THE system to own if you wanted to play Good cinematic JRPGs.

 

[KarumaK]

I like it personally.

Sony's all like, "What's that? Bitchbox didn't help pay for dinner? Weren't to interested in us awhile back were you? But we're feeling magnanimous today so, add in a shitload more stuff and we might allow you the privileged of porting to our console."

Sony is forgiving, if not forgetful.

Actually it's more, hey *****. You didn't have the money to come play the game so now work harder or don't bother coming back to us. Yeah, really kind company that one. :/

Lol, what?

Who's playing the game? Why do they need money to do it? And why...

What?

 

[Low Key]

They could act less like dicks - instead of a demand, why not a politely worded request that leaves no openings for refusal?

That's what mobsters do, and it seems to work out pretty well for them. Too bad Sony can't back it up with violence like mobsters. That'd be pretty badass.