More ignorant Sony news

Margaret

Margaret

Margaret

Permabanned
Joined
15 Nov 2006
Posts
16,474
In a recent interview with the UK centric Playstation magazine, PSN, Jack Tretton, president of Sony Computer Entertainment America, has commented that Sony won't pay off publishers to get exclusives access to their game, and thus receive a possibly huge system seller for the PlayStation 3. In the interview he said "we have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it…"

From there he went on to comment on the opposition by taking a few digs at both Nintendo and Microsoft by commenting, "Microsoft is too dependent on the third-party community, and Nintendo is too depended on first-party. We like to feel that we got a pretty good mix."
Click to expand...

http://darkzero.co.uk/v4/games/news/12423/...-buy-exclusives
 
Strange... I seem to remember they paid something like £10mil to get GTA:Vice City as a timed exclusive! Could be wrong though!
 
Microsoft too dependent on third party? I could have sworn I read that a Sony reprasentative saying that Microsoft soley relies on Halo (a first party game).
 
oooooh. well that i can understand lol. :D


it is, slightly arrogant, yes. The thing is though, do paied exclusives really do anything for us as the gamers? ms recently paid what was it...50mil for two episodic gta4 games? what benefits do we really see? its not something that ive ever agreed with - paying for exclusives. only the fat cats get anythign from it.
 
james.miller said:
oooooh. well that i can understand lol. :D


it is, slightly arrogant, yes. The thing is though, do paied exclusives really do anything for us as the gamers? ms recently paid what was it...50mil for two episodic gta4 games? what benefits do we really see? its not something that ive ever agreed with - paying for exclusives. only the fat cats get anythign from it.
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit stupid for them to do this really, exclusives do sell consoles and if Microsoft act on this news and start splashing cash around the future could be grim for the PS3.
 
I'm a bit gutted they won't buy exclusivity, it's their loss if they lose the big sellers though :o
 
Joebob said:
Strange... I seem to remember they paid something like £10mil to get GTA:Vice City as a timed exclusive! Could be wrong though!
Click to expand...

i always though that was just a rumor made up on this fourm :p
 
If all companies decided to do this then if would benefit us all by not having to shell out for yet another console to play a certain game. Commendable but bad move on Sony's part. It's not arrogant, what they are saying is they want people to buy the PS3 for what it is, not for what exclusives they can buy for it.
 
I think Sony are in the position where they have enough first party developers to make sure they have plenty of exclusive content without having to pay out large lumps of dosh to secure more. I know Rockstar approached Sony to make GTAIV a timed PS3 exclusive, but off the back of the success of the series they probably would have been demanding astronomical amounts - it cost MS $50mill for the episodic content.
 
Its a bit short sighted of sony imo. However they must feel that they have enough market share/draw from the previous generation that they no longer require exclusives to succeed. Personally I'd see little reason to get a PS3 if it had more or less all the same games as I could find on the 360.

I need a reason to buy the ps3 rather than a reason not to buy it.

I doubt many developers will want to release exclusives if they have the ability to sell the game on every platform if no one has paid for exclusive rights..
 
The problem with all these type of comments is you can spin them many ways..

E.g.
Since the PS3 is 'late' and the 360 has the larger user base, dev houses are going to want a lot of money to make their game 'exclusive' on the PS3 to offset the possible financial 'loss' of not making it multiplatform, and perhaps in the current climate, that's a cost too much for Sony?

Or perhaps it's because 3rd party games developed in a reasonable time are not 'performing' as Sony intend and not producing the 'it's twice as powerful as it's nearest rival' output everyone is being promised, so they would rather spend the money in-house developing kick-ass titles that befit the claims..

I think there is some underlying strategy Sony are sticking to, Kill Zone 2 and especially GT5 are having at least double the development time of any game on the 360, I assume it's to produce something stunning that will 'shock and awe' to give some credibility to the PS3's hyped superiority. Of course, give most dev teams 3 years+ and they should come up with something stunning on any platform..

All conjecture, but looking at 3rd party multiplatform titles, it does seem developers are under-achieving slightly on the PS3, and Sony are definitely spending 3-4 years developing what should hopefully be the 1 or 2 stupendous games they keep promising..
 
I don't think the developers need exclusives tbh. If they sold on all consoles they'd make decent revenue the same as if they had released only on the one with the 'exclusive payment'. It would be a reasonable assumption that developers would wish for their hard work to be enjoyed by all gamers despite what console they own. But unfortunately, it seems that the payment they get for making them exclusive to one manufacturer is a stronger pull. If Sony are trying to change this then good for them, might be a bad business move but good for them.
 
I think what he is trying to say is, he wants to try and get the console to a level where its own merits is enough to get developers to want to develop games for it. And that's fair enough for me. He could have worded it much more differently though, and now looks like a proper muppet. As usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom