Yesterday I wrote a rather lengthy blog about how utterly amazed I was that Sony had been able to come out with some stellar titles this year. Anybody that takes the time to read the crap I blog about should know by now my head is always churning, especially when it comes to gaming, and gaming "politics." If you've ever been online surfing through gaming related forum topics, you will always somehow steer head-on into a console wars debate. It doesn't matter if the topic is about the mating rituals of fruit flies. Eventually it will end with plenty of "ZOMG N00BS 360 ROCKS J00 SUX" ot "ZOMG NOOBS PS3 OWNS ALL THEIR GAMES ROCK STFU". Yes, we've been caught up in those. Admit it.
I'm going to get into a bit of history I think everybody knows about, so bear with me. It's going somewhere.
Before the current generation consoles had launched, we had the plethora of news, press releases and interviews with some of the biggest representatives for their prospective companies. Now lets step back a bit and talk about last gen's system. The PS2 dominated the market share, trumping the fledgling Xbox 1 and Gamecube by a ridiculous sales margin. I don't think anybody can deny that last gen, PS was king. Much of their success had to with their exclusive titles - titles only found on playstation. This is where, in my opinion, the problem began.
You see, in life, as in business, you need obstacles. You need competition, otherwise you become arrogant and stale fueled by the belief that your market share and fanbase is so high, nothing can change that. When the PS2 originally launched, it was leaps and bounds over the original Playstation in terms of technology and features. It sported a DVD drive, an 8MB storage card, and more. The launch price point was also the highest by a console at the time, floating in at $300. The demand for the console was so high that people were paying upwards of $1000 just to get their hands on one. Sony would then back it's new system with an extensive library of games, many of them high grossing exclusives like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 4, and others.
When Microsoft threw their hats into the gaming ring, they were treated as a joke. The initial thought was that it was going to fail tremendously. Microsoft had no prior experience with video game consoles. Initial criticism of the system was faily high. The box was large and clunky, the controllers were really unfairly compared to the Playstation's second perfected Dual Shock controller. "i'm not playing on a system that's going to BSOD int the middle of my games", people said. Although Microsoft did not have the pedigree to backup it's legitimacy in the gaming world, years of catering to the masses through products like Windows and other software the giant produces, gave them the knowledge to understand what the people want, and deliver to them. Their first priority was gaining a hold of the online market. First, the realized Sony had all but completely ignored it. Second, it was luring in PC gamers mainly comprised of 18-25 year old males, the perfect demographic for sales. Why were FPS games like Quake so popular at the time? Two things: online competition and violence. The blockbuster sales numbers of Grand Theft Auto 3 also confirmed that gamers wanted violence. The paradigm that gaming consoles were children's toys was taking a dramatic shift. Microsoft realized this and went to work. First, they focused on creating and perfecting Xbox Live, which would end up being the best online console service to date. They really got a leg up on this, as many PS2 games were not offering online services, and to get online you would have to purchase a $100 adapter. The Xbox, on the other hand, had an Ethernet adapter built in to every box, making it more attractive for people to get online and play. All of this wasn't nearly enough to trump the Playstation's chokehold on the industry, but Microsoft was able to get a bit of footing for the rough climb ahead.
We fast forward to this generation. It's very interesting from a business standpoint, because you can clearly see the differences between East and West business practices throughout the console wars. Still on a high from the PS2, Sony was extremely confident in the PS3 continuing to dominate in the industry. Long standing CEO of Sony Ken Kutagari boldly stated, "I want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else." This statement really defines the Eastern business model when it comes to goods. To be fair, I'm almost certain this comment was lost in translation, both figuratively and culturally. The Japanese take pride in working overtime to support themselves and their families. So the comment wasn't as.... cocky as it came out to be in the US. However, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. Comments from a company telling their customers to work overtime so they can afford their product just doesn't fly. But they might have pulled it off, if they had launched the console on time.
Unfortunately for them, the 360 had arrived on the scene.
The 360 was the first console on the market to produce high definition gaming in a time where people were just beginning to purchase HD sets at home. The launch price was reasonable - $299 for core, $399 for premium. The functionality of the 360, sleek menus, and a variety of launch titles, ranging from Madden to FPS like Perfect Dark allowed them to dictate how the next-gen (now current gen) is going to be run.
People got impatient. The graphical leap from SD to HD had been one of the biggest technology jumps in gaming, and everybody wanted to be a part of it. By the time Sony came around, it was greeted with lukewarm reception, mainly because it wasn't brand new gaming technology. They attempted to justify a $600 purchase to gamers who already had a HD system. The 360 had already dropped price point by the time the PS3 launched, and had many more games than the PS3's starting line-up. But this wasn't the real issue. Not even close. Sony, with all it's gaming pedigree, had never come across a rival Western company that produced consoles.
Microsoft, whether you love them or hate them, are good at one thing: making money. If you go back and watch earlier E3 press conferences, you will notice something very interesting. Sony would hold a one-hour conference in which they would show small glimpses of the work-in-progress exclusives they had been working on. Microsoft, on the other hand? They talked about the major PlayStation exclusive franchises they were bringing to the 360. Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft's XBOX division at the time, posted up a a most wanted: dead or alive list on his personal blog. "Final Fantasy. Devil May Cry. Grand Theft Auto. Three down, one to go." The last game? Metal Gear Solid 4, which escaped Microsoft at the time. Eventually they would work out a deal with Kojima for the upcoming MGS games.
Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives. Why should they? Microsoft's aggressive business plan was so well thought out, and executed, it's scarry to imagine what goes on behind closed doors. Instead of focusing time, money, and effort into producing a game in-house, they go to efforts to hinder the competition by imposing certain rules and restrictions on their games. At first, Microsoft banned all multi-dvd games on their system. They said it couldn't be done. This was an obvious attempt to squash the PS3's bluray advantage. They later rethought this policy and now allow multi-dvd games, but the developers have to pay a fee for each additional DVD. Secondly, 360 games must have some sort of online functionality, no matter how big or small. But the third and final thing, and in my opinion, the thing that keeps Sony down, is the SDK (software developer kit) Microsoft gives to the developers. John Carmack, founder of ID, has gone on record saying that developing games on the 360 is easier than on a PC. For those that don't know, ID has been developing PC titles since Doom. Bold statement. The level of support and ease of usability for the developers to make games for the 360 is really what has helped it become the success it is today. Carmack went on to make another excellent point about the 360 and the PS3. He states that given an infinite amount of time, PS3 games would look and run much better than the 360. But because developers are on a schedule, they just don't have the time to polish games on the PS3's SDK. That's why, for some games, the 360 version is the better choice.
Sony realizes this. Technically, it could have played dirty ball as well, and I'm sure there's things going on in the background we're aware of. They're no choir boys. But they chose to instead re-evaluate their business. Sony pushed very hard to make it known their console, with blu-ray support, built in hard drive, HDMI, and other features was a future-proof console. Once MS nerfed that with restrictions, Sony did the only thing it could: turned to exclusives. 2009 was a great year for PS3 exclusives. I ranted about them in an earlier blog. They also lowered their price point to a reasonable $300. But will it be enough? Uncharted 2 might be the best game no one played, staying in the top seller's list for a very short time (whoever decided to release the same month as MW2 is nuts). Demon's Souls is a niche game, and not for everyone. Infamous did moderately well at the box office, but not enough to raise attention.
"but Dr3, isn't the quality of games the only thing that matters at the end of the day?" Unfortunately, no. To the consumers it absolutely matters. To a board of investors that doesn't know what the hell Modern Warfare 2 is, but know it's selling like crack out in the streets, that's all that matters. Am I saying Sony will go bankrupt? No. The PlayStation is their best selling product. if it dies Sony dies. What I am saying is that excellent games like Uncharted 2 might not see a sequel. It's not encouraging when a game's sequel sells less copies than it's original, no matter how good it is.
Won't you adopt a PS3 today?
This seems like a lot of Playstation bashing and Microsoft praise, which wasn't my intention. I really wanted to talk about what I thought the state of the console wars between MS and Sony stand, how they're going, and where they're heading.
Yesterday I wrote a rather lengthy blog about how utterly amazed I was that Sony had been able to come out with some stellar titles this year. Anybody that takes the time to read the crap I blog about should know by now my head is always churning, especially when it comes to gaming, and gaming "politics." If you've ever been online surfing through gaming related forum topics, you will always somehow steer head-on into a console wars debate. It doesn't matter if the topic is about the mating rituals of fruit flies. Eventually it will end with plenty of "ZOMG N00BS 360 ROCKS J00 SUX" ot "ZOMG NOOBS PS3 OWNS ALL THEIR GAMES ROCK STFU". Yes, we've been caught up in those. Admit it.
I'm going to get into a bit of history I think everybody knows about, so bear with me. It's going somewhere.
Before the current generation consoles had launched, we had the plethora of news, press releases and interviews with some of the biggest representatives for their prospective companies. Now lets step back a bit and talk about last gen's system. The PS2 dominated the market share, trumping the fledgling Xbox 1 and Gamecube by a ridiculous sales margin. I don't think anybody can deny that last gen, PS was king. Much of their success had to with their exclusive titles - titles only found on playstation. This is where, in my opinion, the problem began.
You see, in life, as in business, you need obstacles. You need competition, otherwise you become arrogant and stale fueled by the belief that your market share and fanbase is so high, nothing can change that. When the PS2 originally launched, it was leaps and bounds over the original Playstation in terms of technology and features. It sported a DVD drive, an 8MB storage card, and more. The launch price point was also the highest by a console at the time, floating in at $300. The demand for the console was so high that people were paying upwards of $1000 just to get their hands on one. Sony would then back it's new system with an extensive library of games, many of them high grossing exclusives like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 4, and others.
When Microsoft threw their hats into the gaming ring, they were treated as a joke. The initial thought was that it was going to fail tremendously. Microsoft had no prior experience with video game consoles. Initial criticism of the system was faily high. The box was large and clunky, the controllers were really unfairly compared to the Playstation's second perfected Dual Shock controller. "i'm not playing on a system that's going to BSOD int the middle of my games", people said. Although Microsoft did not have the pedigree to backup it's legitimacy in the gaming world, years of catering to the masses through products like Windows and other software the giant produces, gave them the knowledge to understand what the people want, and deliver to them. Their first priority was gaining a hold of the online market. First, the realized Sony had all but completely ignored it. Second, it was luring in PC gamers mainly comprised of 18-25 year old males, the perfect demographic for sales. Why were FPS games like Quake so popular at the time? Two things: online competition and violence. The blockbuster sales numbers of Grand Theft Auto 3 also confirmed that gamers wanted violence. The paradigm that gaming consoles were children's toys was taking a dramatic shift. Microsoft realized this and went to work. First, they focused on creating and perfecting Xbox Live, which would end up being the best online console service to date. They really got a leg up on this, as many PS2 games were not offering online services, and to get online you would have to purchase a $100 adapter. The Xbox, on the other hand, had an Ethernet adapter built in to every box, making it more attractive for people to get online and play. All of this wasn't nearly enough to trump the Playstation's chokehold on the industry, but Microsoft was able to get a bit of footing for the rough climb ahead.
We fast forward to this generation. It's very interesting from a business standpoint, because you can clearly see the differences between East and West business practices throughout the console wars. Still on a high from the PS2, Sony was extremely confident in the PS3 continuing to dominate in the industry. Long standing CEO of Sony Ken Kutagari boldly stated, "I want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else." This statement really defines the Eastern business model when it comes to goods. To be fair, I'm almost certain this comment was lost in translation, both figuratively and culturally. The Japanese take pride in working overtime to support themselves and their families. So the comment wasn't as.... cocky as it came out to be in the US. However, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. Comments from a company telling their customers to work overtime so they can afford their product just doesn't fly. But they might have pulled it off, if they had launched the console on time.
Unfortunately for them, the 360 had arrived on the scene.
The 360 was the first console on the market to produce high definition gaming in a time where people were just beginning to purchase HD sets at home. The launch price was reasonable - $299 for core, $399 for premium. The functionality of the 360, sleek menus, and a variety of launch titles, ranging from Madden to FPS like Perfect Dark allowed them to dictate how the next-gen (now current gen) is going to be run.
People got impatient. The graphical leap from SD to HD had been one of the biggest technology jumps in gaming, and everybody wanted to be a part of it. By the time Sony came around, it was greeted with lukewarm reception, mainly because it wasn't brand new gaming technology. They attempted to justify a $600 purchase to gamers who already had a HD system. The 360 had already dropped price point by the time the PS3 launched, and had many more games than the PS3's starting line-up. But this wasn't the real issue. Not even close. Sony, with all it's gaming pedigree, had never come across a rival Western company that produced consoles.
Microsoft, whether you love them or hate them, are good at one thing: making money. If you go back and watch earlier E3 press conferences, you will notice something very interesting. Sony would hold a one-hour conference in which they would show small glimpses of the work-in-progress exclusives they had been working on. Microsoft, on the other hand? They talked about the major PlayStation exclusive franchises they were bringing to the 360. Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft's XBOX division at the time, posted up a a most wanted: dead or alive list on his personal blog. "Final Fantasy. Devil May Cry. Grand Theft Auto. Three down, one to go." The last game? Metal Gear Solid 4, which escaped Microsoft at the time. Eventually they would work out a deal with Kojima for the upcoming MGS games.
Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives. Why should they? Microsoft's aggressive business plan was so well thought out, and executed, it's scarry to imagine what goes on behind closed doors. Instead of focusing time, money, and effort into producing a game in-house, they go to efforts to hinder the competition by imposing certain rules and restrictions on their games. At first, Microsoft banned all multi-dvd games on their system. They said it couldn't be done. This was an obvious attempt to squash the PS3's bluray advantage. They later rethought this policy and now allow multi-dvd games, but the developers have to pay a fee for each additional DVD. Secondly, 360 games must have some sort of online functionality, no matter how big or small. But the third and final thing, and in my opinion, the thing that keeps Sony down, is the SDK (software developer kit) Microsoft gives to the developers. John Carmack, founder of ID, has gone on record saying that developing games on the 360 is easier than on a PC. For those that don't know, ID has been developing PC titles since Doom. Bold statement. The level of support and ease of usability for the developers to make games for the 360 is really what has helped it become the success it is today. Carmack went on to make another excellent point about the 360 and the PS3. He states that given an infinite amount of time, PS3 games would look and run much better than the 360. But because developers are on a schedule, they just don't have the time to polish games on the PS3's SDK. That's why, for some games, the 360 version is the better choice.
Sony realizes this. Technically, it could have played dirty ball as well, and I'm sure there's things going on in the background we're aware of. They're no choir boys. But they chose to instead re-evaluate their business. Sony pushed very hard to make it known their console, with blu-ray support, built in hard drive, HDMI, and other features was a future-proof console. Once MS nerfed that with restrictions, Sony did the only thing it could: turned to exclusives. 2009 was a great year for PS3 exclusives. I ranted about them in an earlier blog. They also lowered their price point to a reasonable $300. But will it be enough? Uncharted 2 might be the best game no one played, staying in the top seller's list for a very short time (whoever decided to release the same month as MW2 is nuts). Demon's Souls is a niche game, and not for everyone. Infamous did moderately well at the box office, but not enough to raise attention.
"but Dr3, isn't the quality of games the only thing that matters at the end of the day?" Unfortunately, no. To the consumers it absolutely matters. To a board of investors that doesn't know what the hell Modern Warfare 2 is, but know it's selling like crack out in the streets, that's all that matters. Am I saying Sony will go bankrupt? No. The PlayStation is their best selling product. if it dies Sony dies. What I am saying is that excellent games like Uncharted 2 might not see a sequel. It's not encouraging when a game's sequel sells less copies than it's original, no matter how good it is.
Won't you adopt a PS3 today?
This seems like a lot of Playstation bashing and Microsoft praise, which wasn't my intention. I really wanted to talk about what I thought the state of the console wars between MS and Sony stand, how they're going, and where they're heading.
My goodness that's a lot of text to say "People like different things and sometimes don't agree". So much text I didn't bother reading any of it and just assumed from the title, someone lemme know how close I am.
Um did u check out the sales? Just in US it sold above 1.5 million so far and i am sure its one of those games that will continue selling for many months.
The major problem I have with MS (not from a gaming perspective) is that they almost never look to advance the market but instead chocking it and monopolizing it to the point where the consumer has no choice but to buy their products. Look how they keep chock holding Linux by straight out threatening companies to revoke their windows licenses if they offered Linux with their hardware. Don't believe me? then go call HP, Dell or Asus and ask to buy a net book with Linux in it, or better yet, ask for a net book or note book with no OS on it.
God blog but I wished you touched on other points but I know then it would become a book...lol
What's next MS Vs. Apple? Boy would that bring fanboys out of the woodwork.
Well thought out, of course, but you seem to be misinformed a little on the success of Sony excelusives this year. They did sell really well, and just because MW2 trumped everything does not mean that everything else failed.
" This guy must think we're all a bunch of idiots... "
But we definitely are idiots... I doubt a single person that has replied so far has actually read his post. "
Ah but surely that makes us the clever ones! because the ones who have read the whole thing will undoubtedly be left with that feeling of vomit in their mouth, whereas my mouth is full of Colgate freshness!
Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives. Why should they? Microsoft's aggressive business plan was so well thought out, and executed, it's scarry to imagine what goes on behind closed doors. Instead of focusing time, money, and effort into producing a game in-house..
This is very VERY incorrect.
In any case though, good read but way too long. You should try proofreading such a long piece since there was a lot of stuff that was just redundant and way too many assumptions.
@FartyMcNarly: Sorry, that would be wrong. To sum it up in short sentences: Microsoft has managed to completely negate most of Sony's hardware advantages through shrewd business tactics. Sony is trying to regain some lost ground but is having a hard time. Your initial thought is "duh, and sky is blue why such a long post." I write lengthy posts. I try to think about what I'm saying before I write it, and I make an honest attempt at being specific about my topics. I rarely, if ever, condense my thoughts in my blogs. Sometimes I'll post parts because people are turned off by long posts. This time I didn't. Thanks for commenting.
@Fragstoff: Really good question. I was going to bring it up, but it didn't really hold any value to the topic. Unfortunately, people keep buying the systems. I know I bought two myself before saying "screw this" and purchased a PS3. 360's are really throw-away consoles They're priced less than PS3's but mos of the people I know are on their second or third 360. My main point, and interests me, is that instead of Microsoft raising their standards, they suppress the competitions. It's dirty politics, but at the end of the day it's all about money. You can't argue with success. Thanks for commenting.
@Mordukai: Yes, MS has trying to keep Linux suppressed for years, but I really wanted to stick to their gaming division. Thanks for commenting.
@Bombs_Away: It's actually the opposite. What I wrote isn't fact, it's opinion. If I thought you all were stupid I would have condensed my thoughts into two paragraphs. Thanks for commenting.
@pirate_republic: lol... probably not but I expected it. I don't blame anybody for not reading it. It's long and there's plenty of other 360/PS3 topics out there.
@Brendan:You're right, it doesn't mean that everything else sold poorly. Initial trends, however, suggest Uncharted 2 will sell less than the first game. In November, it was thought to be one of the highest selling PS3 games of all times. By middle of December, it's sold a little more than Batman Lego and a little less than Assassin's Creed 2. "Pure", which is a generic ATV racing game that's been out for months is ahead of Uncharted 2 in the sales. chart ending December 26. But you do have a point; as more people buy a PS3 one of the first games for them will probably be Uncharted 2. The sales numbers are just dissapointing to me; not necessarily compared to a behemoth like MW2, but within the context of being arguably the best game on the PS3. Thanks for commenting.
@C2C: They haven't a conservative effort to lock down quality exclusives since Gears of War. The last E3 was full of rehashed trailers from multiplatform games, and Natal, which, depending on how you look at it, is a gimmick concept. I'm not blaming MS, it's cheaper for them to provide better multi-platform games than to take a chance on exclusives that might or might not sell well. Thanks for commenting.
" This guy must think we're all a bunch of idiots... "
But we definitely are idiots... I doubt a single person that has replied so far has actually read his post. "
Ah but surely that makes us the clever ones! because the ones who have read the whole thing will undoubtedly be left with that feeling of vomit in their mouth, whereas my mouth is full of Colgate freshness!
Ok, First off, you bring up some interesting points and I've skimmed past your previous blogs and you have earned a "follower" good shit man. 2nd, Get to this later, I'll edit or something need to have dinner :)
Anyone else notice the title... Microsoft Vs Sony, better known as East Vs West. Correct me if I'm wrong...But isn't Microsoft in the West and Sony in the East...Ergo West Vs East. I'm just saying! I may be wrong on this one...
@Red12b: Hey thanks for the compliment, really a follower is the biggest compliment someone can give me. :)
@Bombs_Away: You're right, I thought about that for a second Sony Vs MS sounded weird.... and then West Vs East sounded worse, so I went with what sounded good. I'm sure everybody knows Sony is East MS is West.
@eclipsesis: Nintendo is Nintendo. They managed to make an affordable console with mass appeal, and they've sold tremendously. No question. But personally I can't take the Wii seriously. It's not for the lack of mature content games: they're trying with Silent Hill and Dead Space, but it's just not enough to make me purchase one. They also don't fall into the same gaming category as the PS3 and 360. If developers want to make a game on all three platforms, it has to be a special Nintendo version. That's really nothing new, but what ends up happening, for better or worse, is Nintendo developing most of their console games in-house.
Regardless, I made no mention of Nintendo because they have their own target audience, which are the casual gamers. Sony and MS are battling it out for the "hardcore" gaming audience. "Hardcore games" nowadays are the ones that you have to have to hit the left AND right triggers on your gamepad at the same time to make your character aim and shoot.
Aside from the tons of assumptions, generalizations, and bias...
"Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives."
Is very wrong. I would even say that its completly opposite. Microsoft has a very large resource pool thanks to windows, and they can afford to use that money to aggressively persue the acquisition of IPs for their console, thats why you see tons of games that are 'timed exclusives'. We can all agree that selling your game on one console, and then releasing it on the other several months later is an insane business model, except when Microsoft is making it more lucrative for you to do so.
So I would say that the most important thing for Microsoft (And for any company for that matter) is to try and control the largest portion of the available market that you possibly can, and how do you do this? Offering a product or service that your competiters don't. So by Microsoft buying timed exclusives, or full on exclusives if they can, they are stealing customers from other consoles.
There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft aggressively persues the exclusive rights to every major release. They have the resources to attempt it, and it will generally make them sufficiently more money in profit. Not to mention that by getting more consumers to buy your console, means they are more likely to purchase future multiplatform games on your console because all their friends also have the game on that console.
got both systems so it doesnt matter to me, but at the end of the day, sony's shit lasts a long time and microsofts doesnt. on the other hand sony computers use microsoft o.s - SO CONFUSING!
Microsoft and Sony are two huge companies, but I believe Microsoft are willing to throw money about a bit more for timed exclusives. One could argue that they generate more income on accessories alone. wireless adaptor £60, overpriced Sata hard drives and the new stronger wireless adaptor to name only a few. Yes Sony have their own accessories but none of them are unique and the xbox has its own equivalent of any of Sony's accessories.
Also, developers always say that its easier to code for the xbox, so obviously they are going to favour the xbox. The advantages for the developer here are they get more money for making it a timed exclusive to the xbox and it gives them more time to make sure that they have the playstation version working properly. I believe that if a game devloper needs more time to develop for the PS3 to make a game work right then so be it. i would rather wait a while longer and play a working game rather than playing a rushed broken game. Yeah us PS3 gamers have to wait a while longer... so what, its not the end of the world, you'll get over it.
I beleieve timed exclusives for dlc packs is ridiculous unless you have that particular game on both consoles. Example: the mw2 first expansion is a timed exclusive. i have both an xbox and ps3 but i play mw2 on ps3. im not gonna go out and buy it on xbox to get the dlc first, im more than happy to wait knowing that i will get it.
" Aside from the tons of assumptions, generalizations, and bias... "Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives." Is very wrong. I would even say that its completly opposite. Microsoft has a very large resource pool thanks to windows, and they can afford to use that money to aggressively persue the acquisition of IPs for their console, thats why you see tons of games that are 'timed exclusives'. "
You completely contradicted yourself with this statement. I've seen the term "timed exclusives" mentioned several times in the replies.Timed exclusives are not exclusives. Microsoft has paid companies to delay their releases on other platforms. That's not an exclusive, that's a marketing tactic. Besides Halo, Gears of War, Forza, Fable, and a few other titles, Microsoft couldn't care less about exclusives, ie games that will never show up on rival consoles. And like I said, they shouldn't. Paying out 5 million or whatever they pay for first rights to a game they know are going to sell isn't the same thing as committing to a 20 million dollar gaming project they don't know whether or not is going to sell. It's not bias. I'm not taking sides. In this case I'm siding with no one, just stating my opinion and merely pointing out Microsoft's business practices have earned them a top spot in this cycle of consoles.
Good blog post, but it could have been a bit shorter and still made the same points.
And I think it's cynical to say Microsoft's shrewd business was also detrimental to gaming in general. They didn't just sign up exclusives, but they opened up a lot of Sony exclusives (GTA, FF, etc). And at the same time Microsoft gave gamers a lot of things they wanted, good online play with plenty of community features, decent online distribution, a lot of experimentation with things like XNA, Natal (Whether you like it or not, it is forward looking). It's all business, but I think we benefited from Microsoft's shrewd business.
Sony were arrogant to let Microsoft pull all these moves and not really come back with much to compete, and they paid the price for it.
Log in to comment