drganon
Member
Next up is bitching about the saturn.Psygnosis!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tom Henderson: "Xbox baffled by the extend of rumors. Sources tell nothing set in stone for xbox ports apart from Hifi Rush and Sea of Thieves"
cireza
Member
One example indeed. And you don't have to buy a publisher to privatize a third party license either, which has been very common from Sony and quite petty.Psygnosis!
Last edited:
Unknown?
Member
You're deluded. You actually believe this stuff hasn't been done by Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft? Microsoft creates the rules of 3rd party dlc and that means nothing?
cireza
Member
Where did I say this already ? I can't find it this thread...
Sony brought this to the next level when they entered the market and paved the way for the modern video-games landscape. Like it or not.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
What did they do that was vastly different from their predecessors, though?
Last edited:
ulantan
Member
Ah sony the great satan.
cireza
Member
They bought their way in the market in 1995 with unlimited money compared to Sega/Nintendo, more or less. What's the issue with MS doing the same thing already ?
ulantan
Member
Sony didn't try to buy the most popular ip on earth to stick it to Nintendo.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Nintendo did a lot of buying when they entered. SEGA did a lot of buying when they entered. Microsoft did a lot of buying when they entered.
So, it has already happened in all cases. The only difference? Microsoft started buying pubs and made what would have been multiplatform franchises complete exclusives. AFAIK, no one else has done that nor has anyone else openly stated that they "could spend a competitor out of business".
I agree with you that many of these tactics are scummy, but every last one of them are guilty of it. Microsoft simply has the funds to take it to unprecedented levels.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
Openly ? These were internal emails. Pretty sure the exact same kind of thinking is going around in private discussions in a lot of companies. Don't be naive like this.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
It isn't being naive. It's working with the cards in front of me. If Sony (or anyone else) has said that, it isn't on me to prove that they didn't.
Point is Sony didn't create these sorts of tactics, but Microsoft definitely took it up a notch.
Last edited:
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
All about that engagement.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
More so than an announcement of a game, it'll more about the business strategy and its shift.
If I have to guess, implications/hints that they're going multiplatform (e.g., we will now spread the joy of gaming to millions more gamers across all consoles and platforms, blah blah), and some changes to how Game Pass works.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
This is my guess.
There will be two more tiers for GP.
Gamepass Ultra - £35 per month -this will work like GP does now, so all MS games release day one on this tier. This will replace the current Ultimate, which will be renamed Gamepass Super where MS games release 3 months after Ultra.
Gamepass Xtreme - £170 per month - all the benefits of Ultra, plus you get access to every third-party release day one. Every game that gets released on the Xbox store you have access to. You'll never need to buy another game again.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Very much a possibility.
Though that Ultra tier wouldn't have a 3-month waiting period, in my opinion. I think it'll be for 12 months.
Their documents revealed the impact on sales for a 12-month period. Based on the other software sales data we have, we know that the 12 months are crucial for sales of games. Sales usually drop after 12 months. This is also a reason why most Sony's console timed exclusives are for a period of 12 months.
Elysium44
Banned
Nobody in their right mind would pay those sort of prices, surely.
(I guess you were joking.)
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
That's not close to true. Sony didn't really acquire much at all, what they did was make a lot of deals for product on their system. Even something like Psygnosis which they did buy wasn't acquired to take support away from other platforms, it was picked up as a publisher that was well connected with the grass-roots independent development scene in UK and Europe.
Its why the overwhelming majority of titles developed for the PS1's lifetime were not internal productions they came from start-ups and small established teams. Psygnosis essentially acted as a coordination/distribution centre for devkits and system documentation.
People forget that the Nintendo/Sega dominated years were a nightmare for small devs in the UK, as although from a technological aspect console hardware itself was similar to (and in many ways simpler than) the Amigas and Atari ST's that were the bread-and-butter platforms of the time, they had to be hooked into the very controlled and expensive cartridge manufacturing pipelines totally controlled by the platform holders.
Moving to Playstation was hugely liberating as well as exciting from a creative standpoint. Which was why the transition was so rapid and uptake so high.
cireza
Member
Paying for temporary deals and marketing rights, with infinite marketing budget. Paying for games from third parties and blocking them from competitors etc... Different means, same expected results.
mayham2199
Member
I think we are going to see changes to GP at this point. They've been silent for way to long just to announce a 3rd party move.
Unknown?
Member
No they did not, they just followed Microsoft's footsteps. You don't know history.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
They weren't blocking competition because noone else was making competitive pitches! Nintendo were distant and frankly mostly disinterested, Sega was flailing badly at the end of the 16/32-bit era with a string of underperforming hardware spun off or added onto Genesis/Megadrive so noone had high hopes for Saturn... Amiga and ST were on their last legs, Atari, Commodore and 3DO don't make me laugh...
You clearly have no understanding of how the competitive landscape looked at that time. Sony had a largely open-goal and they just slotted it in the back of the net!
By the time Nintendo had entered the market Playstatiom was already dominant, and again both they and SEGA's hardware and publishing pipelines were way less appealing than Sony's was, albeit for different reasons.
PontiusFeeb
Member
I really hope they backtrack. The word I heard on the Defining Duke podcast is that there is a huge rift inside Microsoft about this, and the anti-multi-platform side leaked these rumors. Maybe it worked. But it's probably too much to hope for -- Microsoft almost always does the exact wrong thing.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Indeed. Stuff like carts vs CDs was one of the biggest layups for Sony. Unlike Microsoft's failure to capitalize on their goodwill garnered by the 360, Sony didn't just rest on those fortunes, they put in the work (which was part of what made both the PS2 and PS4 so successful)! They certainly didn't stop Nintendo and SEGA from competing — those two injured themselves all on their own and didn't have the competitive edge that Sony did with the original PlayStation as a result!
Now, Sony did make some dev acquisitions, but generally with folks who worked with them and didn't permanently take IPs that were already multiplatform. The Final Fantasies, Metal Gears, and Tekkens were not strictly down to who was willing to pay the most. PlayStation (PS1/2) just had the fanbase to ensure success (which is exactly how the PS5 is being treated.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
I’m more baffled by this brand being alive after being fucked over by this.
Goes to show the strength the Xbox brand once had. A lot of other companies would have folded after that era of complete humiliation and annihilation.
The Series consoles, on the other hand (along with other mounting fumbles), may have just sullied its rep permanently, regardless of Microsoft's war chest.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
Strength? They never recovered in the market after that.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Negotiator101
Member
Phil got you all hanging off his enormous balls 
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Without the 360, they wouldn't have even been in the conversation.
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL
Member
They probably wanted to let the hardcore xbox fanbase have a meltdown and get used to the idea, instead of just drop the bomb out of nowhere.
Negotiator101
Member
digoutyoursoul
Member
Phil got you all hanging off his enormous balls
Pics?
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Negotiator101
Member
I ain't your man, Phil isDon't make my man reveal his most intimate moments like that!
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And I still feel ripped off !!
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Where's @GavonWest? He was Xbox's biggest supporter.
Megatron
Member
Well Sony did buy exclusivity for the KOTOR remake whichwas originally an Xbox exclusive. Ff15 was on Xbox and Sony paid Square to keep 16 off XBox. I’m not sure why it’s worse to buy the company and do the same thing. MS can’t buy exclusivity like Sony can, because their install base too small. This is the only way they can do it.
graywolf323
Member
except they can and do
they have plenty of their own console launch exclusives, or have you missed all of the games that they did this before in their showcases?
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
When was the KOTOR Remake ever set to be Xbox exclusive? And it's A LOT worse to buy the whole publisher. This isn't even a comparison.
On top of that, Microsoft paid for 3rd party exclusivity too.
Negotiator101
Bro, you defend Xbox likes it's your girlfriend. Just stop.
Last edited:
Megatron
Member
KOTOR was Xbox exclusive. Sony made the remake exclusive to them.
And no, paying a company to keep a game they are making for everyone just to keep it off the competitor is worse than buying a company. Option 1) gains no value at all for your customers.l because they were already getting the game. Option 2) is at least providing value for your customers. As we know Sony was trying to buy Starfield exclusivity when MS decided to buy Bethesda.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
No, it isn't. Nothing beats buying a pub and permanently canceling other versions of games, no matter how you try to spin it. And, like I said, Microsoft has done it all (paying for exclusivity, buying pubs AND making their follow up games permanent exclusives, etc). Nothing to negate here.
Last edited:
Crayon
Member
Last time I've seen this reality bending argument was years ago when I was on era. It was actually quite common there.
Gambit2483
Member
Any chance Hi-Fi Rush will be saved for Switch 2 at least? This game deserves to be played @ a silky 60fps.
Of course they will instead push it on the weak ass hardware with 135m users @ a dissapointing 30fps...
Of course they will instead push it on the weak ass hardware with 135m users @ a dissapointing 30fps...
bender
What time is it?
The argument is amusing as it turns a blind eye to a practice that Microsoft has extensively employed in the past.