Why does Sony let exclusives slip away?

Recommended Videos

Bourne Endeavor

New member
May 14, 2008
1,082
0
0
Simple, arrogance; Sony, following the overwhelming successful of the Playstation 2, believed themselves invincible and for all standing purposes, they were well within their right to believe precisely that. They released a console devoid of any worthwhile game for an astonishing three years, which from an outside marketing position is absolute bewildering and it proved to be a disatrious situation for Sony as they were continuously outsold by Microsoft and subsequently hammered by Nintendo, who had at one point been believed to go the route of Sega considering the overall failure of the Gamecube. In addition Blu-ray compatibility was not as highly coveted as Sony had believed it to be. A large amount of people were genuinely content with basic HD, which for all intended purposes, was not inferior enough to garner interest in the more expensive Blu-ray. With no games, no selling point and an ludicrous $600 price tag, people deviated from Sony, therefore to earn a profit, game companies had to appeal to Microsoft, the more successful console.

Another qualm is the price of gaming today. When you consider Final Fantasy X cost a astronomical $32.5 million, if not slightly more, to develop, games companies could no longer afford to produce exclusives without a sizable contract from either Microsoft or Sony to outset the current gen costs. Once again Sony's arrogance reared it's ugly head and they blew aside the necessity of having exclusive games, allowing Microsoft to latch on to some of the most prominent titles in existence. GTA was a blow however nothing devastated Sony in the North America market more than Final Fantasy XIII being released on the 360. That series is widely cited as a console seller and now 360 gamers can simply purchase it for their current console instead.

Sony ironically played this generation in mirror similarity to Nintendo in the early 90s. Just as Nintendo created their own worst nightmare, Sony did precisely the same. History has an amusing way of repeating itself.
 

rees263

The Lone Wanderer
Jun 4, 2009
517
0
0
Julianking93 said:
What are you talking about? Those games weren't exclusives to begin with (with the exception of LA Noir)

Besides, Microsoft is the one who lets their exclusives get away.

Everything that's available for 360 is either on PS3, PC or both and usually plays better on PC
.
Which OS are most PC users running? I don't think MS have to worry too much about the PC market affecting 360 sales, especially with that abomination know as Games for Windows (and all the other god awful DRM *cough*Ubisoft*cough*) putting lots of people off PC gaming.

I'm a PS3/Wii owner so the only exclusives I'm mising out on are the 360 ones like Halo and Gears (I can't even play the ones which are on PC because my rig is ancient), which is a shame but Sony are doing quite well to make up for it in my book. Most games are multi plats anyway, even if they get released at different times. My PS3 collection is split 21-8 for multi vs exclusives and most of my favourites are in the multi camp (Fallout, Asscreed, Batman). That's not to say the exclusives are bad, but I'm not bothered at all that 360 owners get to play these great games too.

The whole timed exclusive thing has been a bit of a kick in the crotch for some PS3 owners, but I got into the game a bit late (only had my PS3 about 14 months) so it hasn't really affected me. Bioshock and Oblivion were already out when I wanted to buy them, didn't have to wait too long for Fallout DLC (GOTY was great value too).

I will mention FF13 here since there are the rumours that it took longer or wasn't as good because they had to start producing for the 360 halfway through production. Now apparently this is totally false and I didn't think they could have handled the graphics etc any better anyway so it doesn't bother me, and I'm just glad everyone got to play it (finally). I brought it up because if this was the case for any game then I would be pissed off that it wasn't exclusive, but only because it would have affected the finished product in some way, not because Xbox owners get to play it.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Julianking93 said:
Besides, Microsoft is the one who lets their exclusives get away.

Everything that's available for 360 is either on PS3, PC or both and usually plays better on PC.
Plenty of games are on the 360 and not the PS3, and since no one owns the PC market MS doesn't have any particular incentive to block the platform. Since most gamers use Windows anyway though they might as well leave it up to the developer to choose.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
OptimalPrime said:
If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

EDIT: By premium i mean paying a yearly subscription of say $40-70 to get earlier access to PSN content. Online play should still be free.
No I wouldn't.
Let's face it, even if we did give all that extra money over to Sony, they wouldn't spend it on securing exclusives (which always tend to be incredibly overrated anyway), they would probably spend it on candy and ripping off other useless features from other consoles.

I've heard about this pay for PSN thing and I don't care what they offer, I'm out. That's one of the reasons I didn't get a 360: I already pay Time Warner for internet service. If Sony wants a cut, they can bother them.