Sony: "we don't need to buy exclusivity"

Exactly and MS is doing this to compete. What if they roll over, admit defeat and PS5 is the only option next gen? The only reason its happening is because of MS losing in sales. If they were ahead, this wouldn't happen. what you are seeing is competition at its finest

Man you ignored Nintendo. :( Anyway see my edit above. This thread is influenced by events relating to TR. And I pointed out the difference in my edit. MS has the right to fund/publish/purchase IPs for their consoles but they should not take established IPs that fans have supported....and to a larger degree by the way....on other platforms. Though I honestly never believed the game would stay on MS only. No business is that daft.

One of the reasons I never pick up another Madden/NFL game is because it's a monopoly by EA.

well Nintendo did it with bayonetta. B2 will be the 1st game i buy when i get a wii U. Also Nintendo kinda does their own thing. I don't really see them competing with MS and Sony. MS and Sony are pretty similar but nintendo is a completely different gaming machine.

@nintendoboy16: Toss would just use Colossi-Stalker and A move to victory. What flank?

Yeah. Bayonetta 2 wouldn't have been made otherwise though. Nintendo once did compete. I imagine though if say MS quit the business...and I picked MS because their shareholders want them out so that is more viable than say Sony any time soon....not that I'm saying they will leave...it's a hypothetical....but having less competition might actually help Nintendo. Though I'd like to see SEGA back TBH....and I know....not going to happen. One can dream though....

Sony paid for Everybody's Gone to the Rapture and No Mans Sky. Two games that were originally PC exclusive that Sony paid to delay the PC versions of the game. Sony also paid for Dreamfall: Chapters a series that started on PC/Xbox and paid delay the PC version and cancel the wii u version. Look how many games at their Gamescom conference had a disclaimer of "First to console on PS4" or other nonsense like that. Do you really think all these games and exclusive content is not paid for? Stop making excuses for Sony. Enough is enough. They obviously pay for exclusives and stop treating consumers like we're idiots who don't know what's going on. They've done it for YEARS dating back to the PS1 with things like Tomb Raider 2 and Final Fantasy VII , just don't say anything if you're not going to be honest about it.

Dreamfall on Wii U was cancelled? I sworn it was only delayed....

Oh for ****'s sake. Sony is publishing Everybody's Gone to the Rapture....different scenario. Games don't get made without money. And yes...No Man's Sky is a timed exclusive. But this entire thread bears on the news of the initial announcement that TR would be exclusive to MS......had it been announced straight up as timed this wouldn't even exist. But MS tried to fool people by calling it holiday 2015 exclusive etc. Those who didn't read between the lines got irate as the bigger fan base is on PC/PS brand than MS.

bitter lems because MS first party is shit.

I can see why so many people piss over Tomb Rider. They show the footage last year as a multiplat and all of the sudden it become Xbox only. Have they not shown as a mutiplat last year, I don't think people will be that upset about it!

Hm well I honestly don't know. I mean I never really got into the series much....I just have the first game on the Saturn...but I think lifelong fans would still have been disappointed. But yeah....the announcement didn't help.

@darkangel115: well Nintendo did it with bayonetta. B2 will be the 1st game i buy when i get a wii U. Also Nintendo kinda does their own thing. I don't really see them competing with MS and Sony. MS and Sony are pretty similar but nintendo is a completely different gaming machine.

also, people say bayo 2 wouldn't get made without Nintendo. Spare me. Was anyone expecting a Homefront sequel? Just because Nintendo jumped in quick, does not mean it would have NEVER been made. I agree though. I will be get bayonetta 1&2 with my wiiu.

Nice way of twisting Sony's words into something they didn't actually say and make it sound worse.

"It was quite impressive to hear the number of PS4 exclusives, whether that's timed or not, the majority of which were smaller indie titles. Obviously one of the big stories this week was the announcement from your competitor regarding Rise Of The Tomb Raider. What's Sony's stance on securing triple-A exclusives going forward?

Well, you know, we've got a very large and very powerful network of studios on our own, all of whom are working on games that will be fully exclusive to PlayStation, and we feel that this on top of partnering with third parties where it makes sense. I think the partnership we have with Activision on Destiny is a good example of where it makes really good sense for them, it makes good sense for us and it benefits our consumers - when you complement those two things we think that gives us a pretty complete position in the market.

So do we feel the need to go out and buy outright exclusivity? Probably not. You saw last night [at Sony's press conference] that before the media briefing we showed updated videos of games that we had revealed at E3. That's because we wanted to keep the show itself full of new, fresh things. We think that gave us a good, strong, convincing portfolio of exclusive stuff and we're happy with that."

@LJS9502_basic: Oh for ****'s sake. Sony is publishing Everybody's Gone to the Rapture....different scenario. Games don't get made without money. And yes...No Man's Sky is a timed exclusive. But this entire thread bears on the news of the initial announcement that TR would be exclusive to MS......had it been announced straight up as timed this wouldn't even exist. But MS tried to fool people by calling it holiday 2015 exclusive etc. Those who didn't read between the lines got irate as the bigger fan base is on PC/PS brand than MS.

ok, you answered about rapture. But in the ms conference they said it is exclusive to Xbox at holiday 2015. You're expecting a company to not choose words that benefit their product. Nothing in the announcement said AFTER launch it is exclusive. The marketing department just did the BS job they are paid for, and all do. You said in another post, that a ps4 controller at a game demo in an EA booth before console launch could mislead fools. So, stating something is exclusive AT LAUNCH can mislead fools as well. If you read so carefully between the lines for one, why not the other?

Thank you for remembering my posts. It warms my heart to have such a devoted fan. Eh....I don't really know why you are arguing with me. I said the backlash was because of the way MS announced the exclusivity and the devs pretty much made it seem exclusive as well. I really don't care if MS pays to have a timed exclusive. I don't care if Sony does. In the end I think it's a waste of money because very very few games can sell a console on their own anyhow...or at least a significant amount....there might be a couple people that can't do without a game.....but overall with the cost....I think most people are more reasonable...or I'd like to think that anyway.

Sony: "We need to comment on every little thing microsoft does."

Sony said it so Cows will lap it up even though it is a flat out lie.

MSoft says this and there would be comments about how they wont invest in software.

It's quotes like these that make me remember how Sony acted just prior to the PS3 launch.

they shouldn't get too cocky....its a LONGGG gen.

gotta keep letting the fans think they don't do the exact same things as microsoft. most fanboys think devs lineup to develop for sony for free

MS can buy pretty much whatever exclusive they want... Sony can't, so yeah it's a comment i would expect to come from a overly confident Sony in the position they're in at the moment

Wow, that's a pretty stark contrast to the OP.

No wonder he didn't quote it. Gotta paint the slant and color SW opinions. Pretty lazy thread to be honest.

LOL in my time here in SW I find the truth never matters....just brand.

People should read the interview first before they jump on Sony lol

Yeah, why buy game exclusivity when you can just buy a developer outright....

Right?

A lot of Sony's internal studios are made up from developers they bought when they launched the original Playstation. So they need to get off their high horse.

@LJS9502_basic: Thank you for remembering my posts. It warms my heart to have such a devoted fan. Eh....I don't really know why you are arguing with me. I said the backlash was because of the way MS announced the exclusivity and the devs pretty much made it seem exclusive as well. I really don't care if MS pays to have a timed exclusive. I don't care if Sony does. In the end I think it's a waste of money because very very few games can sell a console on their own anyhow...or at least a significant amount....there might be a couple people that can't do without a game.....but overall with the cost....I think most people are more reasonable...or I'd like to think that anyway

why wouldn't I? You among a few others are the posters who usually make me contemplate. Fan? If you want me to be emotionally invested, by all means believe so, because that's not emotional at all.

in the end, I think this spells the difference between forums and the business world. We define 'exclusive" as this; they do not. And are not held to doing so. Is it right, or good? I am nobody's Judge. I still say they have both been guilty, and I still buy what I make use of

Well sure Sony has bought timed exclusives and DLC. I have no problem with any of the console makers doing that. The only thing I think is wrong is taking an AAA title that has been sold on multiple consoles and buying it. And that was the impression the initial announcement created. Hell sites reported it as MS exclusive period....as did the comments the devs said. So that created the shit storm we saw. Nonetheless, the OP misrepresented what Sony commented on anyway. So Sony is being demonized for answering a question and not being properly quoted.

Yeah, that OP is incredibly misleading.

Once upon a time threads like this were locked by moderators repeatedly. These days, it seems moderators are not only condoning such behavior, I saw a misleading thread posted yesterday by a moderator.

Even for a company the size of Microsoft, it wouldn't be financially viable for MS to "buy up all 3rd party exclusives". That would literally cost $10's of billions, and likely be a foolish investment. I mean, think about it, the end result would almost certainly be MS closing down or consolidating a bunch of studios - and have to write down billions. Presuming there is a competing Sony or Nintendo console, new studios would re-form anyway to serve those customers... likely as mulitplat developers. So MS would have flushed money down the drain, and then come full circle to have a bunch of new studios still competing against them anyway.

It would be fun to see both Sony and MS expand their lineup of 1st party (considering how pathetic it is compared to the past) - but there is only so far they are going to go. It simply isn't viable to effectively have to "buy out" all of the sales from the other system. It doesn't even make sense, unless the investment is small enough that it can be seen as a marketing expense relative to their console revenues. With 1 game at a time to play with (Titanfall, and now Tomb Raider) it can probably be seen as a marketing expense to do a special console bundle featuring that game, but more than a few games and it becomes VERY hard to recoup those costs. At some point, when doing the analysis, they would realize there was no return to be made in just "buying" exclusives, and it would be better to invest money towards internal development. This is why we see so many "timed exclusives" and "first on PS4" or "exclusive DLC content" type deals. Buying an exclusive is expensive, doing some of those other gimmicky type deals are cheaper since they don't have to completely compensate the developers for sacrificing half their sales

@LJS9502_basic: The only thing I think is wrong is taking an AAA title that has been sold on multiple consoles and buying it

I agree. Sony is being misrepresented by the op. But well, that's SW. Not much here is 'right'. So, do you feel MGS4 being exclusive to ps4 is wrong? That series was on Ps, Xbox, and PC previously, and we all know PC could have easily ran that game.

I don't. Because its not my decision. Just like Rise of the Tomb Raider isn't. Maybe CD needed money and MS was willing to give, so in return they were willing to give this timed exclusivity. MS announced it as was beneficial to their product, as in its exclusive on launch for their product. Never claimed forever, or exclusivity by SW definition. Right, wrong? Again, not mine to judge.

Considering the sales in Japan, I think they do.

Wow sony is trying to damage control the fact they too are desperately getting games as console exclusives

FFS this is what most of gamescom was, who picked up the most developers for timed/console exclusives.

@Blabadon: Really, at the end of the day the PS4 is all they have left to boast about it. Sony is doing horrible right now on all of their other products that they have nothing else to talk highly about. All company's do this, and if you only look about 10 years ago some of Sony's biggest exclusives were third party.

Yeah I don't have a problem with TR being a timed exclusive. Like I said the reaction was because at first everyone involved was being coy and making it seem like it was MS' solely. And I get that they did that because MS paid the money for it...so the dev/pub wasn't going to make it clear. I believe MS finally came out and corrected the impression. And that was because of the bad reaction. One thing MS has been doing a lot this gen is dodging land mines (of their own doing see E3 2013). What would help them best is to get some new IPs of their own. I don't think they will be as successful if they don't. Most third party games are multi plat now so they really can't be relied on for selling consoles. DLC if exclusive ends up being able to bought or stuck in the game anyway in about a year give or take. I'm not really sure why MS kind of got away from first party games. Look what Halo did for the Xbox and it's successor. Most of the gamers that bought the X1 did so for the future Halo games. MS needs a broader genre of exclusives. That is what they should focus on.

@dommeus: they do buy exclusives though lol.

Read what was actually said...it was quoted in this thread. Then feel ashamed....very very ashamed.

@SolidTy: ok........ you haven't been involved in our conversation fella, or read it all, since you didn't comment on it the details of it all. So you know.....................i don't give a crap, 'Ty! I started commenting because of the usual this company is guilty shit. They're all guilty bro. But I still play games, buy their consoles an d talk with my buds,

They are all guilty...of trying to get us to buy their products! THOSE BASTARDS, haha. End of the day, I just wanna have fuh-un, oh girls just wanna have fuuuuun!

TBH, I was more surprised by the OPs misleading approach to information than the discussion itself. He didn't even hyperlink the article, I should have dug into that more, lol.

I want to upgrade to this gen.....no games.:( I guess I could do the Wii U first. It has some games.

Well. sony does have a point. I've always liked Sony strategy of buying studios and making games instead of throwing money at 3rd party just to have a game exclusively for only 1 month. The tomb raider nonsense just made M$ look foolish in the end, yet they've been doing the same dance since last gen. Remember gta 4 and its dlc, they put 50 million into having it first. Thats a damn studio that could of been made. i dont think developers need to have money thrown at them when it comes to sony, seems like developers are willing coming over to them and with sales going up for the ps4, i see more of this in the future.

@LJS9502_basic: you and I have come to a full, pot smoking, laughing peace. In my opinion, this will do nothing but sway the people who don't know better or can't wait to play TR to buy X1. PS2 did it with gta. I had both after gta 3 and got vice and san Andreas on Xbox because it was technically a better system. But WE are not the average consume. I did and do buy Xbox for halo. I wont apologize for it or the fact that I am American an so is MS. I own an American car as well. OH NOOOO! This life is fleeting, ask am learning of late and all I say is what my dying mom is telling me: don't live in 'if'; enjoy what you enjoy and justify to no body. Because it really doesn't effing matter. We're all going to die and take nothing with us.

Isn't the Xbox made somewhere else though? LOL. I have a Ford Escape 2014. American and one company that did not get a bail out. I also have the GTA games on the 360. And Assassin's Creed series. Only have the first two Halos. Really not a fan of FPS.

@LJS9502_basic: and the PlayStation is made some where else also. But there was a thread here months ago about Nintendo and Sony being in the top 10 favorite Japanese companies amongst the Japanese. And nobody here questioned it. I applaud them, and feel like wise about my country (with all the bullshit unfortunately)

The devs said themselves a Wii U version isn't happening and said that if they make something on Wii U, they'd have something different than Dreamfall (oh gee, where the hell have I heard that before?).

This isn't really news. BTW, who cares if MS buys exclusives or if Sony doesn't! Why should it matter as long as your favorite console gets the games that you want to play. If MS wants to spend millions to attain a particular games rights then let them. Why does it matter to the gamers?

People who doesn't own a M$ console care.

If Sony doesn't need to Exclusivity then Why do they do it ?

Thats right, they said they don't NEED to do it..... Doesn't mean they don't do it.

Because the truth hurts.