@mysticaldonut: Team Ninja and FromSoftware are well established develpoers though. They have made games for multiple platforms before. Those games would have still released with or without Sony's backing (My opinion not fact). Just like Capcom would have released Street Fighter V with or without Sony's backing. Unless I'm ill informed I guess.
You are misinformed- Team Ninja and FromSoft are developers, Capcom is a publisher. Developers pitch their game ideas to a publisher to get funding and the publisher funds the game development (inn exchange for profit obviously but also sometimes owning the IP). In the case of Capcom, they are a big publishing arm with multiple devs under their umbrella so yes Street Fighter would get made either way, the deal was Sony just being greedy and literally paying to keep the game off of Xbox. In the case of Bloodborne, Sony directly funded the game and FromSoft developed it so without Sony it would not been made (unless, of course, FromSoft had pitched the game to another publisher and they funded it)
@mysticaldonut: Team Ninja and FromSoftware are well established develpoers though. They have made games for multiple platforms before. Those games would have still released with or without Sony's backing (My opinion not fact). Just like Capcom would have released Street Fighter V with or without Sony's backing. Unless I'm ill informed I guess.
You are misinformed- Team Ninja and FromSoft are developers, Capcom is a publisher. Developers pitch their game ideas to a publisher to get funding and the publisher funds the game development (inn exchange for profit obviously but also sometimes owning the IP). In the case of Capcom, they are a big publishing arm with multiple devs under their umbrella so yes Street Fighter would get made either way, the deal was Sony just being greedy and literally paying to keep the game off of Xbox. In the case of Bloodborne, Sony directly funded the game and FromSoft developed it so without Sony it would not been made (unless, of course, FromSoft had pitched the game to another publisher and they funded it)
Can you provide the link that the games you mentioned were funded by Sony? It would be good for clearing the misinformation.
@mysticaldonut: Team Ninja and FromSoftware are well established develpoers though. They have made games for multiple platforms before. Those games would have still released with or without Sony's backing (My opinion not fact). Just like Capcom would have released Street Fighter V with or without Sony's backing. Unless I'm ill informed I guess.
You are misinformed- Team Ninja and FromSoft are developers, Capcom is a publisher. Developers pitch their game ideas to a publisher to get funding and the publisher funds the game development (inn exchange for profit obviously but also sometimes owning the IP). In the case of Capcom, they are a big publishing arm with multiple devs under their umbrella so yes Street Fighter would get made either way, the deal was Sony just being greedy and literally paying to keep the game off of Xbox. In the case of Bloodborne, Sony directly funded the game and FromSoft developed it so without Sony it would not been made (unless, of course, FromSoft had pitched the game to another publisher and they funded it)
Can you provide the link that the games you mentioned were funded by Sony? It would be good for clearing the misinformation.
@mysticaldonut: Team Ninja and FromSoftware are well established develpoers though. They have made games for multiple platforms before. Those games would have still released with or without Sony's backing (My opinion not fact). Just like Capcom would have released Street Fighter V with or without Sony's backing. Unless I'm ill informed I guess.
You are misinformed- Team Ninja and FromSoft are developers, Capcom is a publisher. Developers pitch their game ideas to a publisher to get funding and the publisher funds the game development (inn exchange for profit obviously but also sometimes owning the IP). In the case of Capcom, they are a big publishing arm with multiple devs under their umbrella so yes Street Fighter would get made either way, the deal was Sony just being greedy and literally paying to keep the game off of Xbox. In the case of Bloodborne, Sony directly funded the game and FromSoft developed it so without Sony it would not been made (unless, of course, FromSoft had pitched the game to another publisher and they funded it)
Can you provide the link that the games you mentioned were funded by Sony? It would be good for clearing the misinformation.
It is a pretty common fact that this is how deals are done in the gaming industry- especially with Sony, they almost always have required ownership of the IP- you have seen this with games like Bloodborne, The Order 1886, Until Dawn- all developed by third party independent developers but published by Sony. They needed Sony (a publisher) funding to make the game possible. Ready At Dawn said at one point they would love to move forward with a sequel to The Order but couldn't because Sony did not greenlight one and Sony retains the IP:
More info the business relationship between Ready At Dawn and Sony: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/06/08/the-order-1886-developer-ready-at-dawn-expanding-in-new-directions.aspx
Gallery
Back in the day, they were called "second party" exclusives because while they were not devs owned by the publisher, the game would still be exclusive (this term isn't used as much nowadays from what I have seen, though). Ready At Dawn Studios, FromSoftware and Supermassive Games were all second party developers to Sony. Insomniac Games was one for a long time because they had traditionally developed exclusively for Sony platforms (and now Sony has acquired them as of 2019 as a first party studio).
"First party" exclusives are games developed by studios owned by the publisher directly (in Sony's case, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch Productions, Guerrilla Games, etc.) and "third party" exclusives would be where another publisher has agreed to publish and develop a game only for that console manufacturer: Street Fighter V is an example of this because Capcom is a publishing arm and development studio.
Supposedly, Insomniac went to Microsoft for Sunset Overdrive because they wanted to retain ownership of the IP and Microsoft agreed to let them remain 100% in control of it: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/sunset-overdrive-exclusive-to-xbox-one-because-microsoft-allowed-insomniac-to-own-the-rights-to-its-creation/1100-6419558/
@mysticaldonut: Wow thnx for the info. It's good to know. Also thnx for not turning this into a childish flame war with insults like others do on this board.
@Pedro: you can say the same about MS from mass effect all the way to odd world stranger, difference is Sony will not be able to make any deals any more with them.
@Pedro: you can say the same about MS from mass effect all the way to odd world stranger, difference is Sony will not be able to make any deals any more with them.
That is the luxury of purchasing a studio. It is weird that you are OK with purchasing exclusives but not OK with permanently purchasing exclusives.🤷🏽♂️
@Pedro: its called competition Sony has been busy creating new IPs and old IPs and been busy making deals with 3rd party studios and publishers just like MS is doing right now getting exclusive rights to put day 1 release on Gamepass that’s fair practice, buying up Big publishers like Activision or Bethesda that have established franchise is taking away that part of gaming industry. Just look at Disney + has more subscribers than Netflix by buying out established franchises and that is what ms is doing
It is first time I have seen "gaming journalist" talk about this practice is a negative way, even though it has been the norm for decades. "More exclusives", "Exclusives is good","No exclusives means no competition" <- objectively false.
Objectively false is your representation of the argument. It isn't "no exclusives no competition". The competitve game shifts from quality to quantity, from the individual game exceeding and setting new standards to low-quality bulk products, from innovation to stagnation.
@Pedro: its called competition Sony has been busy creating new IPs and old IPs and been busy making deals with 3rd party studios and publishers just like MS is doing right now getting exclusive rights to put day 1 release on Gamepass that’s fair practice, buying up Big publishers like Activision or Bethesda that have established franchise is taking away that part of gaming industry. Just look at Disney + has more subscribers than Netflix by buying out established franchises and that is what ms is doing
What is called competition? The purchasing of exclusives? Sony, MS and Nintendo create new IP and support old IPs, so what is your point? What MS is doing is pushing the exclusive practice that so many of have been praising to the next level. Exclusives were NEVER good for gamers and since gamers and journalist has ALWAYS been in support of this practice, we are getting the fruits of it. Since purchasing exclusives is acceptable, then by extension purchasing studios even in bulk is. The rules don't changes because MS came along and super sized the practice. It is called competition.😏
@palasta said:
@Pedro said:
It is first time I have seen "gaming journalist" talk about this practice is a negative way, even though it has been the norm for decades. "More exclusives", "Exclusives is good","No exclusives means no competition" <- objectively false.
Objectively false is your representation of the argument. It isn't "no exclusives no competition". The competitve game shifts from quality to quantity, from the individual game exceeding and setting new standards to low-quality bulk products, from innovation to stagnation.
What is objectively false? My comment that gaming journalist stating that no exclusive equates to no competition? What is being misrepresented?
The rest of your comment has no relation to what was stated.
@Pedro: MS buying Big publishers with popular franchise eliminates competition buy not being able to compete for timed exclusive or exclusive dlc deals at all, if you really don’t understand this than go back to school, buying smaller studios i am fine with it, buying exclusive games rights i am fine with it since all companies can compete,🤷♂️
Exclusivity is never going to end as long as there are 2+ competitors in a market. Why is this considered so evil? As a consumer you have access to every option and make the decision of which one you want. You don't NEED to have it all.
@gotgames: That is objectively false. The acquisition of Activision Blizzard does not eliminate competition. If Activision Blizzard was the only source of game development then you would have a point, but they are not. Your assessment relies on monopoly status, which isn't the case. So, the many things that were wrong with my comment, turned out to be one thing and the one that thing was false.
@Pedro: so you would be fine if sony started buying other small publishers like konami square Capcom cd project red EA etc., sure body that’s why MS is trying to pull a Disney + 🤷♂️
@Pedro: so you would be fine if sony started buying other small publishers like konami square Capcom cd project red EA etc., sure body that’s why MS is trying to pull a Disney + 🤷♂️
I am not fine with acquisitions and/or exclusives. You are fine with exclusives, so your objection to acquisitions for exclusives goes contrary to that stance.
@Pedro: you can say the same about MS from mass effect all the way to odd world stranger, difference is Sony will not be able to make any deals any more with them.
That is the luxury of purchasing a studio. It is weird that you are OK with purchasing exclusives but not OK with permanently purchasing exclusives.🤷🏽♂️
Not surprised to read this hypocritical bullshit from you. I thought you were against buying publishers, I guess it’s only ok when your favourite company does it hey Pedro? 🤡
@Pedro: MS buying Big publishers with popular franchise eliminates competition buy not being able to compete for timed exclusive or exclusive dlc deals at all, if you really don’t understand this than go back to school, buying smaller studios i am fine with it, buying exclusive games rights i am fine with it since all companies can compete,🤷♂️
Don’t bother he bleeds green. he’ll only attempt to sound unbiased by answering your points with more questions. Inside he’s got the biggest erection for this deal to go through because he hates PlayStation
@Pedro: its called competition Sony has been busy creating new IPs and old IPs and been busy making deals with 3rd party studios and publishers just like MS is doing right now getting exclusive rights to put day 1 release on Gamepass that’s fair practice, buying up Big publishers like Activision or Bethesda that have established franchise is taking away that part of gaming industry. Just look at Disney + has more subscribers than Netflix by buying out established franchises and that is what ms is doing
What is called competition? The purchasing of exclusives? Sony, MS and Nintendo create new IP and support old IPs, so what is your point? What MS is doing is pushing the exclusive practice that so many of have been praising to the next level. Exclusives were NEVER good for gamers and since gamers and journalist has ALWAYS been in support of this practice, we are getting the fruits of it. Since purchasing exclusives is acceptable, then by extension purchasing studios even in bulk is. The rules don't changes because MS came along and super sized the practice. It is called competition.😏
@palasta said:
@Pedro said:
It is first time I have seen "gaming journalist" talk about this practice is a negative way, even though it has been the norm for decades. "More exclusives", "Exclusives is good","No exclusives means no competition" <- objectively false.
Objectively false is your representation of the argument. It isn't "no exclusives no competition". The competitve game shifts from quality to quantity, from the individual game exceeding and setting new standards to low-quality bulk products, from innovation to stagnation.
What is objectively false? My comment that gaming journalist stating that no exclusive equates to no competition? What is being misrepresented?
The rest of your comment has no relation to what was stated.
“exclusives are completely counter to what gaming is about” - Phil Spencer.
I guess when he didnt have access to papa Nutella’s wallet, this was the best he could do. And surely you agreed. Funny how your sentiment changes based on what Phil does. What a joke
@randy_lahey: My sentiment with exclusives have not changed. I literally stated that I am against exclusives and acquisitions in this very thread.🤣 What a 🤡
Edit: Damn, I didn't realize you got triggered by my response.😂
@randy_lahey: My sentiment with exclusives have not changed. I literally stated that I am against exclusives and acquisitions in this very thread.🤣 What a 🤡
Edit: Damn, I didn't realize you got triggered by my response.😂
Not surprised to read this hypocritical bullshit from you. I thought you were against buying publishers, I guess it’s only ok when your favourite company does it hey Pedro? 🤡
@randy_lahey said:
Don’t bother he bleeds green. he’ll only attempt to sound unbiased by answering your points with more questions. Inside he’s got the biggest erection for this deal to go through because he hates PlayStation
“exclusives are completely counter to what gaming is about” - Phil Spencer.
I guess when he didnt have access to papa Nutella’s wallet, this was the best he could do. And surely you agreed. Funny how your sentiment changes based on what Phil does. What a joke
@Pedro: you really should go back to school and learn how to answer questions, by not answering my question just tells me that I am right 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
What is objectively false? My comment that gaming journalist stating that no exclusive equates to no competition? What is being misrepresented?
The rest of your comment has no relation to what was stated.
The tediousness debating with the likes of you. You didn't provide a source for your claim - and failed to do so, insinuating there is nothing else to the argument and that them gaming jourlanists have no idea. But you do... of course.
The rest of my comment is indeed related. You just like to ignore the undeniable facts. If it isn't exclusives(=quality) to drive the competition what then? Right, "value" like you would say. Or "low-quality bulk products and stagnation". Or shorter "Steam Shop", the sea of garbage you cherish so much.
@Pedro: you really should go back to school and learn how to answer questions, by not answering my question just tells me that I am right 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
You need to improve of your recollection.
@Pedro said:
@gotgames said:
@Pedro: so you would be fine if sony started buying other small publishers like konami square Capcom cd project red EA etc., sure body that’s why MS is trying to pull a Disney + 🤷♂️
I am not fine with acquisitions and/or exclusives. You are fine with exclusives, so your objection to acquisitions for exclusives goes contrary to that stance.
I guess your are wrong. Again.🤭
@palasta said:
@Pedro said:
What is objectively false? My comment that gaming journalist stating that no exclusive equates to no competition? What is being misrepresented?
The rest of your comment has no relation to what was stated.
The tediousness debating with the likes of you. You didn't provide a source for your claim - and failed to do so, insinuating there is nothing else to the argument and that them gaming jourlanists have no idea. But you do... of course.
The rest of my comment is indeed related. You just like to ignore the undeniable facts. If it isn't exclusives(=quality) to drive the competition what then? Right, "value" like you would say. Or "low-quality bulk products and stagnation". Or shorter "Steam Shop", the sea of garbage you cherish so much.
You stated my comment was false yet you are unable to point to the portion that was false. Instead you beat around the bush with whatever the above is. You are asking for a source. A source to what claim? Seems like you have lost track of what was actually stated and when called to be specific throw this weird hissy fit.
The rest of your statement has NOTHING to do with my comment. You needed to rant about something and decided to insert your opinion which you are now parading as facts. You are also factually equating exclusive to quality. That is objectively and demonstrably false.
Just in case you forgot the original context to your...whatever you are doing.
@palasta said:
@Pedro said:
It is first time I have seen "gaming journalist" talk about this practice is a negative way, even though it has been the norm for decades. "More exclusives", "Exclusives is good","No exclusives means no competition" <- objectively false.
Objectively false is your representation of the argument. It isn't "no exclusives no competition". The competitve game shifts from quality to quantity, from the individual game exceeding and setting new standards to low-quality bulk products, from innovation to stagnation.
@SecretPolice: I believe Sony tried to put psNow on Xbox and MS did not allow it and MS tried to put Gamepass on PlayStation and Sony did not allow it. As long both Sony and MS are making Hardware exclusive games are necessary to sell the hardware and compete for costumers
I don't see any reason why they'd have a downfall. Sony has been asshats for decades.
The PlayStation is the console to have (according to people) when you wanna game FIFA with the bros. That's basically all they need for success. Remember back in the day when people just said they have a "Nintendo", and that was basically "I have a console"? That's what PlayStation is now. When someone who has no idea wtf videogames is goes out to buy a console, he or she will buy a PlayStation.
Log in to comment