Whats with the one console DLC?

[Logan Westbrook]

Sony recently took a pop at Microsoft over this, which in turn sparked a long debate about it in the news room. Your perception of this issue will largely depend on which console you favour. If you prefer the PS3, you're likely to see this as Microsoft paying developers to make the PS3 less attractive, while if you prefer the 360, you'll see it as Microsoft paying developers to make the 360 more attractive.

Personally, I don't really see the problem with it. The money that Microsoft pays goes, at least in part, towards developing the extra content. While I feel for PS3 owners, I don't think it's really that different from any other console exclusive.

And yes, I own a 360.

 

[Tich]

This is big business, not a charity action.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It's all about money.

 

[Same River New Water]

One point to consider is that software made for one console can't just be loaded up on the other. It has to be ported over, which (I believe) can require a significant amount of work. Of course nothing like having to make it from scratch.

 

[Altorin]

One point to consider is that software made for one console can't just be loaded up on the other. It has to be ported over, which (I believe) can require a significant amount of work. Of course nothing like having to make it from scratch.

It's a political thing, not a system thing. Microsoft has paid for extra DLC to be made for their system. Sony will have similar deals once japanese companies come around on the whole DLC thing.. they're largely still skeptical about it.

 

[DROPDEADNAKED]

Microsoft paid for the exclusivity...
Sony should have offered more or made the offer first... Sony's loss and therefore your loss aswell.
Microsoft's plan IS for you to buy a 360 and those games BTW... That's how they make money...

-Nich

www.myspace.com/TheLakesideIsForKillers

 

[Crash486]

Indeed, microsoft is paying off developers to make exclusive DLC. It's not an anti-sony thing, its a "microsoft has buttloads of money and a larger install base" thing. It's is obnoxious though. I'd love to see some of that DLC for fallout 3 make its way to the ps3 but it won't.

I would say it's a smart move by microsoft, but really I just think it's kind of slimy. Surely microsoft knows that people aren't going to buy an xbox solely for DLC. If anything, I wouldn't buy an xbox out of principle in the matter. Fortunately the world of business has no room for ethics or principles.

 

[mcgooch]

I think what he means is that Sony put the chage for their PSN service on the developer and not the consumer like MS does with Live. So technically it is free.. but they still charge for whatever they want.

It is extremely annoying also why don't we get all the games that Japanese PlayStation store gets they can download MGS!!! I want to play it again!

You can access any country store you want.. just make a new account and select the region you want.

Yeah but I don't have any Japanese money or a Japanese Prepaid card so I can't purchase anything it'd be alot easier if they just put all games on all stores.

 

[Crash486]

I would say it's a smart move by microsoft, but really I just think it's kind of slimy. Surely microsoft knows that people aren't going to buy an xbox solely for DLC.

Obviously. They're targeting those who still don't have either, or have a Wii, and saying "Our games have more stuff than PS3's games, so buy a 360". And I'm willing to bet that it is/will work, too.

See, i could see this argument if you were talking about games alone, as that's what tends to sell consoles, exclusive titles. Buying a console because you want to play god of war 3, yes. Buying a console because you can get some DLC extra maps for fallout 3? no. You'd have to be reaaaaaaally on the fence for exclusive DLC for multiplatform games to push you over.

 

[Subzerowings]

This is big business, not a charity action.

Thats the problem. When did games become more about money then about creating something fun and original? I point my finger at casual gamers because when games gained mass media acceptance (well almost I think), it got buttfucked by the mainstream crowd and now it's all about the money, just like the movie industry. And why does every one care about money anyway? You work for it, people kill for it, developers mostly suck the fun out of their games for it to make something that has been made a million times before (fps's). But what is it? Paper, paper with pictures on it, nothing more, nothing less (or a bunch of 1's and 0's, but not entertaining). We waste half of our lives for that, evolution I think not.

 

[Good morning blues]

Welcome to the business model of Microsoft: Only we should make technology and no one else.

Welcome to the business model of every business in the world. The main goal of your business: make money. The secondary goal of your business: make money. Other concerns are marginal, if they exist at all.

 

[Same River New Water]

When did games become more about money then about creating something fun and original?

1971 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Space]

Buying a console because you want to play god of war 3, yes. Buying a console because you can get some DLC extra maps for fallout 3? no. You'd have to be reaaaaaaally on the fence for exclusive DLC for multiplatform games to push you over.

It all adds up, though. Not many people will be sold on one game alone; I'm sure Killzone 2 is great but I'm not buying a PS3 just to play it. But then you start looking at other games: I really want to play Valkyria Chronicles... And maybe if you throw in not one item of DLC but a pattern of publishers only releasing DLC for one console, it becomes that much more appealing. Perhaps even more powerful than the appeal of what you can play is the frustration at what you can't: just like people fear losing money more than they appreciate making money, gamers get more annoyed by the things they can't play than they get satisfied by the things they can play. So in my case, maybe if it was the PS3 instead of the 360 that hogged all the DLC on top of Killzone, Valkyria, Uncharted and other full-title game exclusives, I might crack and buy one so I wasn't missing out.

 

[tenlong]

i got all 3 systems so i get whatever i want as long i got cash. i got fallout 3 for the 360 because of dlc . if i didn't a have a 360 i settle for the ps3 version. you just have to do a little research before you buy the game. if i gonna pay 60 plus bucks for a game i gonna to see all the pros and cons between versions before i buy it. its simple.

 

[quack35]

I personally think it's kind of funny.

 

[Knight Templar]

Sony recently took a pop at Microsoft over this, which in turn sparked a long debate about it in the news room. Your perception of this issue will largely depend on which console you favour. If you prefer the PS3, you're likely to see this as Microsoft paying developers to make the PS3 less attractive, while if you prefer the 360, you'll see it as Microsoft paying developers to make the 360 more attractive.

How much money does it take to get Devs willing to make exclusive titles?
To me it seems that Microsoft and Sony are getting more than the developers from these deals.

 

[tenlong]

I personally think it's kind of funny.

i think its kinda funny too. the bitchers send all day bitching about exclusive dlc. yet they can't be bothered to look it up before hand . how hard is to look it up on a gaming site or wikipedia. it will tell you in advance. what's so hard about that?

 

[Captain Blackout]

Welcome to the business model of Microsoft: Only we should make technology and no one else.

Welcome to the business model of every business in the world. The main goal of your business: make money. The secondary goal of your business: make money. Other concerns are marginal, if they exist at all.

That is absolutely not true. I have worked at business after business that does not follow such a model. Yes, all businesses need to make money but not every business takes it to an imperialistic no one else should make money extreme. Furthermore plenty of businesses and organizations make the money they need to focus on their real goals of any number of things. Providing for community needs, working in a specific field, working towards expression. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft was a business model first (and I particularly ruthless one at that) and a software company second. Or third. Sometimes it's fourth or fifth on the list.