Sony forcing game devs to add content?

[Trivun]

That's a good business strategy from Sony, but surely it's not fair on the developer or the consumer? Sony are basically using unfair business practises and completely undermining the entire industry to try and push their platform. As a 360 gamer I find it totally unfair and wrong that Sony should be allowed to do this. No wonder some companies like Valve refuse to produce games for the PS3, if that's the sort of thing Sony are up to. Anyway, isn't that illegal? Surely it breaks some law on industry competition...

I'll ask this as nicely as possible. Are you fucking retarded? unfair business practices? how's it unfair to tell developers they have to do certain things before they can publish on your console? how's it undermining the industry to secure exclusive content for your system? how could it possibly be illegal to make devs sign contracts? you're a fucking fanboy retard. (mods I feel the last line was totally justified because of bullshit spewed by this individual.) and as for valve, they don't publish to the PS3 because the source engine was written for x86 architecture PCs not cell architecture Processors and thus doesn't play nice at all with the PS3 so they said fuck it. which is totally fine cause it's not like valve games sell 360s they sell PCs (woo go PC)

Okay, I'll say this as nicely as possible. Were you born an ignorant idiot or did you simply develop that later?

Apologies for that, but I just think you were being plain rude there. Fine, you don't like my opinion. Fair enough. You could have been a bit more courteous about it. I personally feel it's unfair that Sony should be allowed to force devs to change or add content or else no PS3 port. Reasons being, it's unfair to Xbox 360 owners that they're paying the same price for less content and gaming experience simply because they use a different platform. It's unfair to PS3 owners because some companies who don't like that rule won't release on PS3, so those users lose out. It's unfair on devs to be forced to add content to an already finished product, unless they intend to release it anyway as DLC. If you don't like that then fine, but there's no need to swear or rant and rave that my opinion is different from yours and therefore I must be in the wrong. Which is why I reported your little outburst.

In addition, for the record, I'm not an Xbox 360 fanboy. Given the choice I would get a PS3 as well, but as a student with next to no income I can't afford it. I do however have a PS2 as well, so tell me now that I'm a 360 fanboy.

To top it all off, Valve do still make games for the Xbox 360, though I'm guessing that isn't what you meant. While it's true that they sell more games on PC than Xbox 360, they do still have a large and commited 360 fanbase. I simply used them as an example anyway, I am fully aware that they refuse to port to PS3 simply because programming is too difficult on the PS3 compared to the 360. Judging by your last line I'm guessing you're a PC fanboy? If not then alright, but if so then you have no right to complain that I'm an (apparent) 360 fanboy.

 

[Megacherv]

It's better than Microsoft's strategy with UT3, where they had to take stuff out of it.

 

[KarumaK]

SNIP*

All, of what you said is speculation. You have absolutely no idea what the fanbase would do, if the game was promised as multi-plat from the beginning. In fact, with regards to Tales of Vesperia, I'm quite certain many Japanese gamers never would've bought a 360, had they known the game would come out for PS3 eventually. That's the point though, all MS is buying is the publisher from announcing 'For 360/PS3'...that's it. In order to hype up the 360 hardware. Problem is, those same fans are coming to realize what's going on, and will start to make adjustments in their purchasing decisions.

As for me, it doesn't matter whether a game is a year old, or 3. As long as it's good, and I haven't played it before, I'll give it a go. Take the GTA DLC for example. That will obviously come to PC eventually (as one of the Games for Windows games, it'd be in MS' best interests to allow a port to PC eventually). Point is, I couldn't care less for the DLC, while it's on 360. My PC destroys it completely. But...I'm not rushing out to buy a 360 just to play those two bits of DLC...no thanks.

Sony, is merely making it painful for Square-Enix. Something I think they should do as much as possible. S-E has really done very little for Sony this gen, and honestly, Sony has a fanbase that's starting to really pick up in size due to the slim launch, and obviously S-E see's dollar signs. Well, they gotta make it up to Sony first. And I agree with it. 100%.

Actually I gotta say there's no way Microsoft would have sold as many 360s without the Vesperia/Star Ocean exclusive thing going. The Japanese are not fond of the 360, at all. But they love RPGs so say it's exclusive and BAM! Now of course they're thinking, 'I bought this thing for nothing? There's a better version on the way on the console I already had?... FUCK!'

 

[bad rider]

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

Sounds like the moral to this story is, hard work actually pays off. Cutting corners and taking the easy route, will get you screwed. Honestly...most parents teach their kids this lesson at an early age. Hopefully, this developer won't make the same mistakes in the future.

So your saying they should have not taken thew extra funding to make the game. So there would be no game/jobs because they didn't have the money to fund it. Yep, the filthy corner cutting bastards sure got what was coming.

Actually, what I'm saying is it's pretty obvious that since the developers are coming crawling back to Sony now that their IP has bombed on the 360, or not sold enough to really warrant having made the game in the first place. It seems like the idea of taking the easy route, wasn't that smart after all. Whereas, they could've gone multi-plat, delayed the PS3 version until it was complete, and have 2 major fanbases to tap into for revenue. Without having to put more work into a finished IP. Do I need to explain it further, or was that still to technical for you?

"Do I need to explain it further, or was that still to technical for you?" I'd continue this, but if we are going to go down the childish insult route then don't worry about it.

 

[bad rider]

SNIP*
That's not what happened. The 360 was easier? Of course it's easier it's a 360, one of it's main features is it's easy to develop for, it was cheaper because Microsoft gives devs funding in exchange for being an exclusive. Devs have budgets and free cash means a larger one.

Sony said they had to do more work, because they're not morons. A game over a year old is worthless unless something is changed along the way. So they were told to add in new content because otherwise there was no value for Sony in letting it port.

Year old games do have value. That makes no sense why would they bother spending cash changing the codeing and employing people to make it compatible with the ps3, just so they can make no money selling the game on another console?

Year old games do not have value, at least not full value. Their old news people played them, replayed them, and learned their stories. As Sony only gets an advantage on new games sold they have no incentive to allow a port unless it brings something new. Why would a consumer pay $60 for a new version of the same game when they can get it half price used on another console?

Additionally Sony is trying to get the serious fans back who bought the Microsoft version, by making their's better. They want the people who own a PS3 to feel like the wait was justified. And they're also fully aware that the port would never have been considered if the 360 version had sold better, of course that would be speculation on my part.

Fair enough. I guess given the circumstances to justify full price it would make sense.

 

[IamQ]

It makes sense, I mean, Microsoft gets the game for themselves for one year, and sony gets exclusive content. How is that NOT fair?

 

[bad rider]

Okay, the developer said he went for the 360 exclusive as it was cheaper and easier to develop for. In other words, they couldn't afford to develop for the PS3. Then Sony turns around and insists they do more work as they cxouldn't afford to develop for them initially.

Sounds like the moral to this story is, hard work actually pays off. Cutting corners and taking the easy route, will get you screwed. Honestly...most parents teach their kids this lesson at an early age. Hopefully, this developer won't make the same mistakes in the future.

So your saying they should have not taken thew extra funding to make the game. So there would be no game/jobs because they didn't have the money to fund it. Yep, the filthy corner cutting bastards sure got what was coming.

Actually, what I'm saying is it's pretty obvious that since the developers are coming crawling back to Sony now that their IP has bombed on the 360, or not sold enough to really warrant having made the game in the first place. It seems like the idea of taking the easy route, wasn't that smart after all. Whereas, they could've gone multi-plat, delayed the PS3 version until it was complete, and have 2 major fanbases to tap into for revenue. Without having to put more work into a finished IP. Do I need to explain it further, or was that still to technical for you?

"Do I need to explain it further, or was that still to technical for you?" I'd continue this, but if we are going to go down the childish insult route then don't worry about it.

Oh believe me, I'm in no way worried. Funny how you'll go ahead and arbitrarily miss the entire point, in my first post. Continue in a glib manner while putting words in my mouth, in your response, and once I point out how thick-headed you're being, it's 'oh well, don't worry about it if it's going to resort to childish insults'. Next time, use your brain.

I refer to my earlier point. If I miss the point of your earlier post correct me, for I misread it. I'm sorry I didn't understand your earlier point, but even now all you are doing is trying to provoke me into some kind of playground "you are gay" "no you are gay" type arguement.

 

[coolsteel]

So the developer wants to do a straight port of an already unsuccessful game and Sony told them that isn't going to fly unless you change something........ ok? This practice is fine, it prevents the system from becoming a dumping ground for old as dirt games with nothing new added and forces developers not to just phone it in.

 

[bad rider]

I refer to my earlier point. If I miss the point of your earlier post correct me, for I misread it. I'm sorry I didn't understand your earlier point, but even now all you are doing is trying to provoke me into some kind of playground "you are gay" "no you are gay" type arguement.

I don't really care what your sexual orientation is. What I do care about isn't that you missed my point, because...I certainly did correct you, and up until the last line of my post did it become provocative. Which is quite similar to your response. Had you been interested in my point, or, moreso, not understood and then asked. That'd be different. Instead, you put words into my mouth, attempted to make me look like the bad guy, and assume you knew what I was talking about. Wrong on all counts.

I genuinely misread your post, posted a relavent response. Then you wrote a response with a very provocative tone to it. If I wasn't interested in your point I wouldn't have bothered replying. I wish to disagree with you in that my response was provocative, I put a sarcastic tone on that because I thought your point was silly. Let's be honest If your arguement was that, it would have been rather silly to have put so it would have equated to the level of your arguement. Then I got a no you totally missed the point response (which is fine if I miss the boat, because that way we can progress this beyond what I thought was a silly point to have posted)which meant I really didn't want to play a childish insult game. So putting that mess behind us lets take your point behind us and move forward? So....

"Actually, what I'm saying is that since the developers are coming crawling back to Sony now that their IP has bombed on the 360, or not sold enough to really warrant having made the game in the first place. It seems like the idea of taking the easy route, wasn't that smart after all. Whereas, they could've gone multi-plat, delayed the PS3 version until it was complete, and have 2 major fanbases to tap into for revenue. Without having to put more work into a finished IP."

Yes but surely if the game had of been developed originally on the Sony system they would not have had the funs to make the game aswell as they did. Therefore a project which bombed on one system would have been (for sake of arguement) 1/2 complete on both of them, so it would have been in the same place as it is now. However having been made on the 360 and having recouped some cash, Sony are now capitalising on microsofts earlier investment. Which is like watching someone else build up a product then getting a better product at less cost to themselves. Which leads me to believe Sony are acting like a bunch of arseholes, if somewhat savvy arseholes.

 

[GonzoGamer]

1st-
Of course. Why would sony want an exact port if the original flopped?

2nd- It's funny to see how indignant some of these xbots are? I hope they are the same dbags that troll forums to rub exclusive dlc in people's faces. They're probably just sad MS didn't think of it sooner.

I'm normally not a fan of schadenfreude but when it's directed at people that are fans, it's priceless.

It's worth missing out on what, a couple of valve games? They're best on the pc anyway.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Ah so a bit of a Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander type of thing. Tis perfectly fair considering what Microsoft has done before. I don't have to like it because I don't plan to get a PS3 but I can respect the fairness of their actions.

 

[dekkarax]

It's a good business decision. I find it comparable to console price cuts, on one hand, those who buy later get more value for money; on the other, those who bought earlier have it for longer.

 

[Zorpheus]

... I don't see why this is a dick move at all. Sony is perfectly entitled to determine what gets released on their console. And I don't blame Sony at all for wanting extra content put into the game to make up for it being late or whatever, and in the end, it ultimately helps sales on the dev's end, because, you know, IT ENTICES PEOPLE TO BUY THAT VERSION. If they don't like it, nothing says they're entitled to having their game be released for the console as a half-assed port. In the end, it's perfect business sense.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

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.

I'm so pleased I'm not one of those, Can you hear my sighs of relief.

 

[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.

First of all, I'm not bad at math, I live in Canada. We have higher taxes to pay for our wonderful health care system. I just upgraded to an Elite that came with Halo 3 and the Wireless adaptor and it came to nearly $400, and was the only Elite bundle available. I'll be able to re-coup some of that with trade ins and selling my old system, but you're both missing my original point, which was:

I, as a console gamer... had to decide where I was going to invest my money. I looked at the PS3, and realistically only saw a handful of games I would want to play on it. I looked at the 360, and saw a lot more titles that interested me. The decision was easy. I didn't have to consider that 360 games come out on PC as well because I don't game on PC unless it's something like Diablo. I also didn't have to consider Blu-Ray because I have one already.

It came down to games, which is how anyone should decide what system to buy. I have played both PS3 and 360, including the best offerings for each system, and I simply prefer 360. The remainder of my point was that I don't have another $400 to go and spend on a PS3 just to play Fat Princess and Heavy Rain. So, I will miss out on those titles, but I'm ok with that, Mass Effect 2 will go a long way to comfort me .

Holy shit. I mean this response entirely unsarcastically: Your response was awesome.

I agree entirely. What you just told me sounds fine. You have entirely reasonable choices for why you did things. I also assumed you lived in the US, which was my mistake . I often forget other countries have internet access I guess.

That was basically what I was looking for. Straight forward, informative, and without any bias (I think...maybe it is because I'm finally off work and just feel cheery, looked good to me though).

Anywho on to the next adventure.

 

[Moosebite]

own both systems and problem solved. BOOM!!! I'm like a white version of Obama!!! Solving all sorts of problems and what not.

 

[ekkaman]

That's a good business strategy from Sony, but surely it's not fair on the developer or the consumer? Sony are basically using unfair business practises and completely undermining the entire industry to try and push their platform. As a 360 gamer I find it totally unfair and wrong that Sony should be allowed to do this. No wonder some companies like Valve refuse to produce games for the PS3, if that's the sort of thing Sony are up to. Anyway, isn't that illegal? Surely it breaks some law on industry competition...

I'll ask this as nicely as possible. Are you fucking retarded? unfair business practices? how's it unfair to tell developers they have to do certain things before they can publish on your console? how's it undermining the industry to secure exclusive content for your system? how could it possibly be illegal to make devs sign contracts? you're a fucking fanboy retard. (mods I feel the last line was totally justified because of bullshit spewed by this individual.) and as for valve, they don't publish to the PS3 because the source engine was written for x86 architecture PCs not cell architecture Processors and thus doesn't play nice at all with the PS3 so they said fuck it. which is totally fine cause it's not like valve games sell 360s they sell PCs (woo go PC)

Hail to the king baby.
Anytime anywhere you bring your noob stick and console ill bring my pc go for the win by dropping my two tonne case on your crappie little plastic console crap.