 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Xbox / General Xbox Topics / September 2008Sony: Exclusivity a thing of the past
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-probably-a-thin g-of-the-past I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-probably-a-thin g-of-the-past > > I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I mean, if you think about this, it doesn't make a lot of sense. If all games were released on all platforms, what would be the point in buying one console over another? At that point, I would figure price would be the biggest issue - and since the PS3 is more expensive, it's going to lose. Then again, I guess if you're thinking "I make this thing that can do stuff and, oh yeah, it can also play games" then this statement makes sense. In fact, this is practically Sony's stance on the PS3 right now - it's not a game console that plays blu-rays - it's a blu-ray player that can play games. A subtle, but very important distinction. On the other hand, if you're going to make all games for all platforms, why not take the next step and just turn the game console into an open platform, like the PC? Then you would have many different manufactuers producing "Console(tm)" for "Console(tm) games" as opposed to now where you have different and incompatible platforms from each manufacturer. So does this mean that the PS4's library will be nothing of "me too!" ports? Why would anyone buy a PS4 for games then?  SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If all games were released on all platforms, what would be the point in > buying one console over another? Well, the most obvious reason would be if one console performed a lot better than the other (I'm talking theoretically and not the reality we're living in right now). > At that point, I would figure price > would be the biggest issue - and since the PS3 is more expensive, it's > going to lose. Well, if you're going to use real life as the scenario, then you have to consider that while unlikely it *is* possible that cross-platform games a year or two down the line will perform noticeably better on the Playstation 3. > Then again, I guess if you're thinking "I make this thing that can do > stuff and, oh yeah, it can also play games" then this statement makes sense. > In fact, this is practically Sony's stance on the PS3 right now - it's not a > game console that plays blu-rays - it's a blu-ray player that can play > games. A subtle, but very important distinction. True... > On the other hand, if you're going to make all games for all platforms, > why not take the next step and just turn the game console into an open > platform, like the PC? Then you would have many different manufactuers > producing "Console(tm)" for "Console(tm) games" as opposed to now where > you have different and incompatible platforms from each manufacturer. In that case you might as well kill console gaming and just do everything on PCs. > So does this mean that the PS4's library will be nothing of "me too!" > ports? Why would anyone buy a PS4 for games then? >> If all games were released on all platforms, what would be the point in >> buying one console over another? > > Well, the most obvious reason would be if one console performed a lot > better than the other (I'm talking theoretically and not the reality > we're living in right now). That may have been true in previous generations, even as recently as PS2 vs. Xbox, but going forward, I really don't think we're going to be seeing such a huge difference between Sony and Microsoft's platforms. Nintendo may continue to run a generation behind, but even they will eventually be doing games with 1080p. >> At that point, I would figure price >> would be the biggest issue - and since the PS3 is more expensive, it's [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> So does this mean that the PS4's library will be nothing of "me too!" >> ports? ?Why would anyone buy a PS4 for games then? SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > >> If all games were released on all platforms, what would be the point in > >> buying one console over another? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > may continue to run a generation behind, but even they will eventually be > doing games with 1080p. It's true in this generation. The Playstation 3 is definitely a more powerful machine overall (although the design of the graphics architecture forces it to sacrifice much of that advantage just to get to parity with the Xbox 360 on graphics). If Sony sticks with this architecture, you can be sure that even if the next console has an updated processor the developers will be able to turn out games that take advantage of the Cell a lot faster. It's pointless to speculate, though, since there will never be parity in the software libraries. There are always going to be games that are exclusive on one platform not because of a bribe but because of the economics of making a game - not all studios are going to be financially able to create 2 or 3 versions of a game. > >> At that point, I would figure price > >> would be the biggest issue - and since the PS3 is more expensive, it's [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> That may have been true in previous generations, even as recently as PS2 >> vs. Xbox, but going forward, I really don't think we're going to be seeing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the next console has an updated processor the developers will be able > to turn out games that take advantage of the Cell a lot faster. Powerful hardware is only part of the overall situation though. Powerful hardware means nothing if you aren't compelled to develop for it. Right now, it seems to me that most PS3 ports are being done with minimal effort - just as many of the Xbox ports were last generation. The reason then - and now - is that it doesn't make sense to spend time on a secondary project like a port. Just knock it out fast, and get onto the next big game. While it could be argued that hastily done ports for the PS3 still look really good is a tribute to the powerful hardware in the PS3, the fact still remains that developers aren't taking full advantage of the hardware. Hastily done ports are one reason, but I also think bad tools/support is another. Sony has never been known for its developers' tools. One of the biggest complaints about the PS2 was the poor tools. But when faced with sufficient economic incentives (big sales numbers) the developers just buckled down and built their own tools. This took more time and effort, but if you're looking at building a big game for the console, you can afford the investment. While that sort of investment would be fine for a big exclusive game like Metal Gear Solid, for a console with no exclusives, why would you bother? If I were faced with shipping a game on multiple consoles, I'd pick the one with the best pre-made tools and manufacturer support, then just cross-compile to the other consoles before shipping it. This would also lead me to choose the lowest common denominator between the consoles as well - another reason why Sony's idea is just downright goofy. It would result in an expensive, high-end console that would get games that would never, ever look any better than its nearest competitor. And since it has no exclusive library whatsoever, why would you ever buy such a console? The only way Sony's "no exclusives console" would ever work would be if it was CHEAP - as in "Wii cheap" - as well as sporting really good tools, libraries and support from Sony. The goal would be to make a the console as attractive to developers as possible, while keeping the price really low in an effort to make up for the fact you won't be getting any exclusive games. There could be a market for such a console. A lot of people just want something to play Madden or GTA on, and don't care which one they buy. In this case, lower cost hardware could be just the thing to tip them towards Sony. Ha-ha-ha! Who are we kidding here? "Sony" and "low cost"? Yeah, right! If the PS3 is any indication, the PS4 will arrive with 16, 16-core Cell processors, and a bare bones compiler that requires you to have a PhD in theorhetical computational programming to even begin to understand. The unit itself will be so expensive, we'll be told not only to save our lunch money, but to steal our spouse's and unborn childrens' lunch money as well. Oh yes, the PS4 will look great - "MAAAAAHvelous" you might say...and will be a total flop as its non-exclusive game library made exclusively of ports/multi-platform titles sporting graphics which will be, at best, just SLIGHTLY better than the other guy's console. Yeah, that's a recipe for success if I ever heard one. > It's pointless to speculate, though, since there will never be parity > in the software libraries. There are always going to be games that are [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > >> That may have been true in previous generations, even as recently as PS2 > >> vs. Xbox, but going forward, I really don't think we're going to be seeing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > secondary project like a port. Just knock it out fast, and get onto the > next big game. If the architecture remains relatively the same for the next Playstation console, there's a much better chance that the Playstation version will be the lead version and the Xbox version will be the port as a standard operating procedure. A developer is always going to lead with the more powerful system first assuming they have a grasp of it. Right now, some developers are getting more comfortable but most are nowhere near being able to truly take advantage of Sony's architecture - they're working hard just to get to the point where they can do what they so easily do on the Xbox 360. That won't be the case a few years down the line, though. This is, of course, assuming that Sony doesn't scrap the Cell and decide to go with a brand new architecture for the next generation. > While it could be argued that hastily done ports for the PS3 still look > really good is a tribute to the powerful hardware in the PS3, the fact [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > one with the best pre-made tools and manufacturer support, then just > cross-compile to the other consoles before shipping it. If you were a capable developer who had a whole generation to figure out a more powerful architecture, you would lead with that one on any new projects going forward. > This would also lead me to choose the lowest common denominator between > the consoles as well - another reason why Sony's idea is just downright goofy. Everything you're saying is true for most developers for the way things are right now. That won't be the case 2, 3 or 4 years down the line. > It would > result in an expensive, high-end console that would get games that would > never, ever look any better than its nearest competitor. And since it has > no exclusive library whatsoever, why would you ever buy such a console? Nobody would buy a console that is significantly more expensive and has no exclusives to its name if all the games looked exactly the same or marginally better as the competitor. However, that won't be the case for the next generation unless Sony decides to abandon its current architecture and come out with something that required developers to start over again. The most likely scenario is that the next Playstation has a similar architecture but with more powerful components. Assuming that said components are also more powerful than the Xbox 480's to the degree where there would be a significant improvement in performance, detail, etc., developers would be stupid NOT to use that as the lead platform and there will be plenty of gamers willing to pay extra for the better game experience. > The only way Sony's "no exclusives console" would ever work would be if it > was CHEAP - as in "Wii cheap" - as well as sporting really good tools, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > >> That may have been true in previous generations, even as recently as PS2 > >> vs. Xbox, but going forward, I really don't think we're going to be seeing [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Yeah, that's a recipe for success if I ever heard one. Your conclusion is sound only using the wrong assumptions you made throughout the argument. Once you look at it from the perspective of developers who will have used the next 4 years to get really good at working with the architecture and the consumers awaiting the fulfillment of the Cell prophecy, you see how this actually could succeed (although nothing's ever guaranteed). > > It's pointless to speculate, though, since there will never be parity > > in the software libraries. There are always going to be games that are [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > So does this mean that the PS4's library will be nothing of "me too!" > > ports? Why would anyone buy a PS4 for games then? I disagree with your post > > > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I disagree with your post That's all fine and good but a one-line message that doesn't explain itself is hardly useful or relevant. >>>>> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... >>>>> I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > That's all fine and good but a one-line message that doesn't explain > itself is hardly useful or relevant. I disagree. SignatureNiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo] I feel asleep! "If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he f.ck up on you?" On Aug 27, 4:30 pm, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > >>>>> I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I disagree. Who cares? > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > > I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. Sony has been saying this for the entire generation. I don't know how much I agree with this idea but Microsoft is certainly going to continue throwing shitloads of money at companies to stick with them. > Sony has been saying this for the entire generation. I don't know how > much I agree with this idea but Microsoft is certainly going to > continue throwing shitloads of money at companies to stick with them. Well, which would you rather buy? A console with nothing but ports, or a console with the same ports AND exclusive games? I don't get it. Exclusives sell consoles. People aren't going to buy a console just because it plays Madden. If that was the only game you were interested in, and the game looks the same on both platforms, your decision is going to either come down to the price of the consoles, the controller, or something equally minor. That doesn't sound like a sound business plan to me. SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > > Sony has been saying this for the entire generation. I don't know how > > much I agree with this idea but Microsoft is certainly going to > > continue throwing shitloads of money at companies to stick with them. > > Well, which would you rather buy? A console with nothing but ports, or a > console with the same ports AND exclusive games? Like I said in my other follow-up, you're not going to find any systems that won't have any exclusives. Just because Sony states that it isn't going to pursue deals for exclusivity doesn't mean that some studios won't simply develop only for their platform. Studios under EA, Ubisoft, etc. may be able to cover the costs of developing a multi-platform game but many of the smaller studios could have to choose between investing their budget in expanding the game or having versions for more than one platform. > I don't get it. Exclusives sell consoles. People aren't going to buy a > console just because it plays Madden. If that was the only game you were > interested in, and the game looks the same on both platforms, your > decision is going to either come down to the price of the consoles, the > controller, or something equally minor. That doesn't sound like a sound > business plan to me. Don't forget that the console manufacturers themselves each have studios that work for them that obviously aren't making games for the competition. Even if no third party chose to make any Playstation 3 exclusives, the first and second party developers are still there to fill out the library. Sony's going to have franchises like Gran Turismo, God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, etc. for a very long time. > Like I said in my other follow-up, you're not going to find any > systems that won't have any exclusives. Just because Sony states that > it isn't going to pursue deals for exclusivity doesn't mean that some > studios won't simply develop only for their platform. Not pursuing exclusivity pretty much means no exclusives. > Studios under EA, Ubisoft, etc. may be able to cover the costs of > developing a multi-platform game but many of the smaller studios could > have to choose between investing their budget in expanding the game or > having versions for more than one platform. I don't know about that either. How hard is it to do a game as a limited exclusive so you get some revenue from it, and in the meantime cross compile the game to another console, tweak it a bit, and ship it? Just make it work, don't make it pretty, just ship it. Then again, if a console just isn't selling at all, even such a bare bones endeavor would likely be a waste of money. > Don't forget that the console manufacturers themselves each have > studios that work for them that obviously aren't making games for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sony's going to have franchises like Gran Turismo, God of War, Ratchet > and Clank, Jak and Daxter, etc. for a very long time. Well, I guess it works for Nintendo... Then again, can any of Sony's first party games really stand up to, say, Mario? I may like Ratchet & Clank, but I don't think it's worth buying a whole console for... SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > > Like I said in my other follow-up, you're not going to find any > > systems that won't have any exclusives. Just because Sony states that > > it isn't going to pursue deals for exclusivity doesn't mean that some > > studios won't simply develop only for their platform. > > Not pursuing exclusivity pretty much means no exclusives. Not pursuing exclusivity means not offering monetary incentives to developers to only develop for their platform. Are you really going to claim that Sony's in-house studios will develop for the other platforms or that just because Sony isn't going to try to convince Konami to keep the next MGS on their platform that Naughty Dog will suddenly make Xbox 480 versions of their franchises? > > Studios under EA, Ubisoft, etc. may be able to cover the costs of > > developing a multi-platform game but many of the smaller studios could [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > compile the game to another console, tweak it a bit, and ship it? Just > make it work, don't make it pretty, just ship it. It's called a budget. Many smaller companies don't have a budget to make a really good game *and* make multiple versions for each console. Hell, there are big publishers that won't bother having teams make multiple versions for each console if they don't think it's financially worth their while. Porting a game to another console involves a LOT more than doing a "cross compile." If I want to make an OS X version of my Windows Vista application, it's going to take a lot more than just tossing the code into some Mac compiler to get it working... and those two platforms are a lot more similar than the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3. > Then again, if a console just isn't selling at all, even such a bare bones > endeavor would likely be a waste of money. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Mario? I may like Ratchet & Clank, but I don't think it's worth buying a > whole console for... Unless you haven't been paying attention to the anti-Nintendo freaks in these newsgroups, you realize there are plenty of people who would say the same thing about Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. There are plenty of people who would buy a PS3 just for GT5. Throw in God of War, Ratchet, Jak, Uncharted, and all the other first- and second-party titles... > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much I agree with this idea but Microsoft is certainly going to > continue throwing shitloads of money at companies to stick with them. Sony is only saying that because they know this generation that they don't have MS's money to BUY exclusives nor the install base to FORCE developers to give them exclusives (something they took for granted in the PS2 era). It's a convenient cop-out for them. On Aug 27, 7:57 am, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote: > > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > developers to give them exclusives (something they took for granted in > the PS2 era). It's a convenient cop-out for them. They said it before this generation so that doesn't even make sense from a fanboy stand point. They said it while the PS2 was still dominating everyone. On Aug 27, 9:57 am, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote: > > >http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > developers to give them exclusives (something they took for granted in > the PS2 era). It's a convenient cop-out for them. Sony didn't pay for exclusives before and they still won't in the future. It only sounds weird now because it doesn't make sense for a console that desperately needs exclusives to say they won't make any real efforts for them (and that they're not doing so hot financially so they don't have the money to throw at third parties even if they wanted to). > On Aug 27, 9:57 am, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > so they don't have the money to throw at third parties even if they > wanted to). Didn't they initially have an exclusivity deal on the GTA franchise until it inexplicably got nixed for some reason? SignatureNiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo] I feel asleep! "If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he f.ck up on you?" On Aug 28, 8:58 pm, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > On Aug 27, 9:57 am, elro...@pop.uky.edu wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Didn't they initially have an exclusivity deal on the GTA franchise > until it inexplicably got nixed for some reason? Sony never needed to pay for exclusives in the past because it made sense for a lot of studios to invest all their effort into just a PS2 version - the install base was overwhelmingly in their favor. GTA IV's format neutral existence came about because Microsoft threw a boatload of money at Rockstar. The previous generation GTA games went to the Xbox eventually because it made perfect sense - the games have always been available to the PC community and development for that platform and the Xbox platform wasn't all that different. Easy money. > On Aug 28, 8:58 pm, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > community and development for that platform and the Xbox platform > wasn't all that different. Easy money. http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=2866884 SignatureNiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo] I feel asleep! "If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he f.ck up on you?" On Sep 4, 1:18 pm, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 8:58 pm, NiGHTS <nightsintodreamsYOHOL...@blueyonder.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?si... Considering Grand Theft Auto 3 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City debuted on the Xbox platform as a special double pack about a year and a half after this press release, I highly doubt this "exclusivity deal" actually involved a cash transaction. If there was a signed contract and money involved, there's no way Take Two could have broken this deal and there's no way that Sony would ever have let Microsoft get its hands on those games (as well as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas). I wasn't able to find any information on Google about this deal except for at that link you posted, which makes me even more skeptical. > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > > I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. Question: why do you care if a game is exclusive to Microsoft as long as it comes out for the 360? What benefit does it provide you, as long as you get the game? Do you have any logical reason for it, or is it more of your sad, vicarious life through a corporation that cares not for you? Answer the question. On Aug 26, 4:24 pm, Jonah Falcon <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote: > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > > I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. Question: why do you care if a game is exclusive to Microsoft as long as it comes out for the 360? What benefit does it provide you, as long as you get the game? Do you have any logical reason for it, or is it more of your sad, vicarious life through a corporation that cares not for you? Answer the question. ***************************************************** Don't hold your breath. > On Aug 26, 4:24 pm, Jonah Falcon <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Don't hold your breath. I tried but had to give up after about a minute. >> On Aug 26, 4:24 pm, Jonah Falcon <jonahny...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I tried but had to give up after about a minute. Not quite this generations Guybrush Threepwood then... SignatureNiGHTS/Nightcrawler [mWo] I feel asleep! "If Gods so fuckin' perfect why'd he f.ck up on you?" > http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-publisher-exclusivity-prob... > > I'm glad Microsoft doesn't feel that way. Well, for the most part it is true though. At least on the third- party front it is true. Third party usually drives sales now, and they go multi-platform. Of course, when you have the more expensive console, and the titles look nearly identical between the more and less expensive title, then you are no in great shape if you don' have exclusives. - Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.