So I just realized this game is only coming to the 360 PC and DS. So what's up with that? I thought we were pretty much done with third party exclusives. I mean I have a 360 and would probably be playing it on my 360 anyway but what about those people with only a PS3? So anyone know what the reason for this is?
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction
Game » consists of 20 releases. Released Apr 13, 2010
Splinter Cell: Conviction is the fifth installment in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell franchise. Sam Fisher breaks apart from the Third Echelon in order to find the people responsible for the death of his daughter, only to find that not everything is what it seems.
Why is this game not coming to the PS3?
Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game.
MONEY its Microsoft think about it.
Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
@02sfraser said:
" why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? "
Because the game cost millions to make, and it's the only way Square will make their money back.
Just like how the GTA series went multiplatform.. It had nothing to do with Microsoft. Why would MS pay to have a game on both platforms, that makes no sense.
Didn't alle the other Splinter Cell games come out on PS2/PS3 later on?.
" @cstrang said:Proof that Ubisoft's PR is doing their job.Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
Oh it will come to PS3, the age of third party exclusives is over. It will just take a while and come out much later.
" Oh it will come to PS3, the age of third party exclusives is over. It will just take a while and come out much later. "I agree, the other Splinter Cell games that where launched as Xbox exclusives where also released on the Playstation platforms. I think its only a matter of time.
" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "That's funny, I definitely remember playing all of the splinter cell games on my ps2.
" @cstrang said:I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. If not.... I'm embarrassed for you.Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "@cstrang said:
" Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "@scarace360 said:
" MONEY its Microsoft think about it. "@02sfraser said:
" why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? as everyone says above me, Microsoft have money "@Steve_C said:
" It'll come eventually no doubt, but Ubisoft like wads of money. "
I'm no expert but isnt Sony the electronics titan much richer than microsoft ? i know that bill gates is the richest pimp alive but that doesnt necessarily mean his company is aswell... i could be wrong and probably am.
" @Stephen_Von_Cloud said:No Microsofts much richer, Sony has more diversity but your forgetting what Windows did for the PC" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "@cstrang said:" Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "@scarace360 said:" MONEY its Microsoft think about it. "@02sfraser said:" why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? as everyone says above me, Microsoft have money "@Steve_C said:" It'll come eventually no doubt, but Ubisoft like wads of money. "I'm no expert but isnt Sony the electronics titan much richer than microsoft ? i know that bill gates is the richest pimp alive but that doesnt necessarily mean his company is aswell... i could be wrong and probably am. "
" why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? as everyone says above me, Microsoft have money "I don't think they paid for FFXIII, I think SE knew that the ps3 is not the same console as the ps2
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:Here are some numbers for that fact: Sony Corp (SNEJF) has a market capital around $30 Billion US as of the market close on New Years Eve. Microsoft (MSFT) has market capital close to $271 Billion US." @Stephen_Von_Cloud said:No Microsofts much richer, Sony has more diversity but your forgetting what Windows did for the PC "" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "@cstrang said:" Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "@scarace360 said:" MONEY its Microsoft think about it. "@02sfraser said:" why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? as everyone says above me, Microsoft have money "@Steve_C said:" It'll come eventually no doubt, but Ubisoft like wads of money. "I'm no expert but isnt Sony the electronics titan much richer than microsoft ? i know that bill gates is the richest pimp alive but that doesnt necessarily mean his company is aswell... i could be wrong and probably am. "
I see this turned into economy 101.
To quote the developers:" @WinterSnowblind said:
I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. If not.... I'm embarrassed for you. "" @cstrang said:
Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
"Splinter Cell conviction is a true Microsoft exclusive title and there are no plans to have Splinter Cell Conviction on other platforms. There are several reasons behind this choice. First of all, Splinter Cell games are historically linked with Microsoft platforms. The first Splinter Cell on the original Xbox was one of the first games to fully exploit the console's technical possibilities. At that time, Microsoft really believed in the game potential and provided strong support to promote it. So, there is a "link of heart" between the franchise and the platform. Some games are like this (think of Final Fantasy for instance). The second reason behind this choice is purely linked to production. Having a single target platform means that we can optimize the game even further, because we only have one type of - console - hardware to support."
Yes, this was before FFXIII was multiplatform, but it's the same situation that's keeping games like MGS4 exclusive to the PS3. There was no contract between Sony and Kojima, he just wanted to keep it that way.
" Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "this is the only true reason why...
It had nothing to do with Microsoft. Why would MS pay to have a game on both platforms, that makes no sense. "because they wouldn't have had it otherwise, and FF is so popular that it would sell incredibly well, and maybe move a few thousand consoles as gamers who didn't have ps3s buy it to get that game/in part to get that game. Microsoft probably paid to have it ported to the 360 the same way they paid so that GTA IV would come out on the same day as it did on the ps3.
It'll definitely hit PS3 within 12 months of its initial release I reckon. I wouldn't be surprised if they had it running in some form already.
Ubisoft have basically said Microsoft locked it down early so, yeah, there's your reason. In other words - cash-bash. And no, I'm not making Microsoft sound like the enemy here - I appreciate it's how the world works.
Microsoft probably stumped up the money because Splinter Cell is kinda synonymous with XBOX. I'm not sure how well it's going to do for them though.
@WinterSnowblind:
They've said other things since then which conveniently I can't find. You'd be naive if you assumed no money changed hands though. That quote is great PR, and I don't doubt there's some truth in it, but I doubt it's the "whole" truth.@Brendan
said:And therein lies the difference between Sony and Microsoft's exclusive strategies. Expect Microsoft to really flash the cheque-book this year after Sony's development studios started hitting their stride throught 2009 and in fall '08." I think it'd be great if Conviction came to the PS3, but only if you Playstation people give us some God of War in return ;). And Resistance. And Killzone. "
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft "bought" full exclusivity for something like Grand Theft Auto or Metal Gear Solid. I'm serious. They've essentially paid for Playstation parity at this point (coupled with errors on Sony's part), and I think there intention is to win the console war through whatever means.
Sony were the ones paying for GTA exclusivity. That eventually stopped because Rockstar realised they could make far more money by porting the games to the Xbox and PC. It had nothing to do with Microsoft paying for them to be released on their systems, infact it was the exact opposite. Despite the fact Sony were paying them millions, no amount they could throw at them could make up for how much they'd make from Xbox / PC sales, which is why we eventually saw GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas come to other systems. When GTA IV came around, they wouldn't even do a timed exclusive for Sony. (Although MS did obviously pay for exclusive content here)." @WinterSnowblind said:
because they wouldn't have had it otherwise, and FF is so popular that it would sell incredibly well, and maybe move a few thousand consoles as gamers who didn't have ps3s buy it to get that game/in part to get that game. Microsoft probably paid to have it ported to the 360 the same way they paid so that GTA IV would come out on the same day as it did on the ps3. "It had nothing to do with Microsoft. Why would MS pay to have a game on both platforms, that makes no sense. "
FFXIII is a little more hazy, but the development cost is no secret, go look it up. The game has cost square MILLIONS. I find it far more likely that they've decided to go the same route as GTA, the FF games have never been tied to one particular system and releasing it on multiple systems, essentially doubles the profits. The fact it's not being released on the 360 in Japan is suspicious, but that wouldn't have sold anyway, and if MS were paying to have this port done, then surely they'd have wanted it released in Japan regardless. It would still boost their standing and sell something. I think it's infinitly more likely that it was purely a decision by Square. If MS had paid, I'm sure they'd be getting extra content, earlier release, more DLC... something. Perhaps MS contacted them and gave them a push towards doing so, but paying a developer purely to release a game on your system is completely unheard of, and I don't buy your consipacy theories about it one bit. They'll make money from releasing the game on the system, MS do not need to give them money for it.
But either way, you can't pretend to know how or why it happened, so don't post your assumptions as fact.
i think i need clear up what i have said before. i totally believe microsoft paid for FF XIII and Splinter Cell exclusivity for the time being. however i don't think it makes them bad in any way. they are a business and if they have the money to get their way and increase their profit and install base then why wouldn't you do it? it makes sense.
" @Stephen_Von_Cloud said:They didn't come out at the same time:" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "That's funny, I definitely remember playing all of the splinter cell games on my ps2. "
Spinter Cell 1 came out in Nov 2002, not til early 2003 on other systems (that's even including PC). Spinter Cell 2 came out in March 2004 for PC and Xbox, not til June for PS2 and elsewhere. Chaos Theory and Double Agent saw simultaneous release (like I was getting at in my original post). Also, the games weren't always the same (as is the case with Chaos Theory specifically).
When I said "exclusive" I just mean exclusive for the a set time. I wouldn't be surprised to see this "exclusive" Splinter Cell game show up on PS3 later either.
" @Stephen_Von_Cloud said:They didn't come out at the same time:" Splinter Cell has a history of being a Microsoft exclusive and Microsoft locked this game back up into that. Nothing else really to say about. I wish people could play it on the PS3, it looks like it's going to a really great game. "That's funny, I definitely remember playing all of the splinter cell games on my ps2. "
Spinter Cell 1 came out in Nov 2002, not til early 2003 on other systems (that's even including PC). Spinter Cell 2 came out in March 2004 for PC and Xbox, not til June for PS2 and elsewhere. Chaos Theory and Double Agent saw simultaneous release (like I was getting at in my original post). Also, the games weren't always the same (as is the case with Chaos Theory specifically).
When I said "exclusive" I just mean exclusive for the a set time. I wouldn't be surprised to see this "exclusive" Splinter Cell game show up on PS3 later either.
" @Drebin_893 said:I forgot that they're definitely going to tell the whole, truthful story. Good stuff.To quote the developers:" @WinterSnowblind said:
I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. If not.... I'm embarrassed for you. "" @cstrang said:
Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
"Splinter Cell conviction is a true Microsoft exclusive title and there are no plans to have Splinter Cell Conviction on other platforms. There are several reasons behind this choice. First of all, Splinter Cell games are historically linked with Microsoft platforms. The first Splinter Cell on the original Xbox was one of the first games to fully exploit the console's technical possibilities. At that time, Microsoft really believed in the game potential and provided strong support to promote it. So, there is a "link of heart" between the franchise and the platform. Some games are like this (think of Final Fantasy for instance). The second reason behind this choice is purely linked to production. Having a single target platform means that we can optimize the game even further, because we only have one type of - console - hardware to support." Yes, this was before FFXIII was multiplatform, but it's the same situation that's keeping games like MGS4 exclusive to the PS3. There was no contract between Sony and Kojima, he just wanted to keep it that way. "
Yup. Anyone who buys into that crap that Ubisoft "feels" something "belongs" on a single platform is a "sheep."" @WinterSnowblind said:
" @cstrang said:Proof that Ubisoft's PR is doing their job. "Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
Also, what do you think the developer means when they say "Microsoft offered strong support..."
I see why "blind" is in your name.
If it were coming from Microsoft, I could understand how you could feel this might be dubious. But from the developers themselves? I'm not sure why they'd make up something like this, rather than simply saying. "It's Microsoft exclusive"." @WinterSnowblind said:
" @Drebin_893 said:I forgot that they're definitely going to tell the whole, truthful story. Good stuff. "To quote the developers:" @WinterSnowblind said:
I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. If not.... I'm embarrassed for you. "" @cstrang said:
Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
"Splinter Cell conviction is a true Microsoft exclusive title and there are no plans to have Splinter Cell Conviction on other platforms. There are several reasons behind this choice. First of all, Splinter Cell games are historically linked with Microsoft platforms. The first Splinter Cell on the original Xbox was one of the first games to fully exploit the console's technical possibilities. At that time, Microsoft really believed in the game potential and provided strong support to promote it. So, there is a "link of heart" between the franchise and the platform. Some games are like this (think of Final Fantasy for instance). The second reason behind this choice is purely linked to production. Having a single target platform means that we can optimize the game even further, because we only have one type of - console - hardware to support." Yes, this was before FFXIII was multiplatform, but it's the same situation that's keeping games like MGS4 exclusive to the PS3. There was no contract between Sony and Kojima, he just wanted to keep it that way. "
If you want to call me a "sheep" or gullible, then that's fine. Much better than being so cynicle that I see conspiracy theories everywhere.
Like I said, I'm sure this'll wind up on the PS3 eventually when the higher ups want to make more profit from the series rather than being loyal. But I'm simply quoting what the developers have said.
@Crono said:
" @cstrang said:Yup. Anyone who buys into that crap that Ubisoft "feels" something "belongs" on a single platform is a "sheep." Also, what do you think the developer means when they say "Microsoft offered strong support..." I see why "blind" is in your name. "" @WinterSnowblind said:
" @cstrang said:Proof that Ubisoft's PR is doing their job. "Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
Fair enough. I assume you also believe Konami and Hideo Kojima were paid off by Sony to keep Metal Gear Solid exclusive then?
Or does this only apply when Microsoft is involved?
Duder, it's a pointless argument with him.
@WinterSnowblind:
If we go by past history then all the signs are there. Splinter Cell has had a long history of appearing on the xbox platform first then making it's playstation debut so going as far as claiming that this game will make it's way to the PS3 is not so far fetched.
It's not like any of you have any evidence, so acting as if he is wrong is kind of pointless. You have no proof (unless someone digs something up)." @cstrang said:
" @WinterSnowblind said:Yup. Anyone who buys into that crap that Ubisoft "feels" something "belongs" on a single platform is a "sheep." "" @cstrang said:Proof that Ubisoft's PR is doing their job. "Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
And also keep in mind there are benefits to be exclusive that wouldn't be just receiving money for said exclusivity, mainly the marketing that Microsoft puts behind your game. Being exclusive to Microsoft got Splinter Cell: Conviction in the E3 Microsoft press conference for example (and thank god because that Ubisoft press conference was a disaster). They also have been featured plenty of times on the Xbox LIVE service in different forms. Bioware is reaping the same benefits with Mass Effect. Sure that is somewhat like basically recieving money money, but it isn't anything shady and is good business sense for both parties involved. Sony does the same thing, look how they are featuring Uncharted 2 in their PS3 commercials.
Again, maybe money changed hands, maybe it did not but if you don't have any proof, basically calling him an idiot is pretty, well, dumb.
Absolutely, I'm not desputing the fact it'll likely end up on the PS3 by the end of the year, only that the developers have said it's currently exclusive.. because they want it to be exclusive." @Drebin_893:
Duder, it's a pointless argument with him.
@WinterSnowblind: If we go by past history then all the signs are there. Splinter Cell has had a long history of appearing on the xbox platform first then making it's playstation debut so going as far as claiming that this game will make it's way to the PS3 is not so far fetched. "
Actually that is because Square Enix wants to become a world wide company and not a Japan focused company see the acquisition of Eidos. So it's only logical that they want to sell there products on every platform as possible, and Square also likes money and a multi-platform release guarantees more sales in the US and in smaller ways in the EU." why isn't Final Fantasy XIII still a PS3 exclusive? as everyone says above me, Microsoft have money "
@WinterSnowblind said:
Well this is more to do with pressure of Konami see the explanation above and replace Square Enix With Konami....Fair enough. I assume you also believe Konami and Hideo Kojima were paid off by Sony to keep Metal Gear Solid exclusive then? Or does this only apply when Microsoft is involved? "
Ps And a little money of Microsoft did probably also help in both examples.
" @Crono said:Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point?It's not like any of you have any evidence, so acting as if he is wrong is kind of pointless. You have no proof (unless someone digs something up). And also keep in mind there are benefits to be exclusive that wouldn't be just receiving money for said exclusivity, mainly the marketing that Microsoft puts behind your game. Being exclusive to Microsoft got Splinter Cell: Conviction in the E3 Microsoft press conference for example (and thank god because that Ubisoft press conference was a disaster). They also have been featured plenty of times on the Xbox LIVE service in different forms. Bioware is reaping the same benefits with Mass Effect. Sure that is somewhat like basically recieving money money, but it isn't anything shady and is good business sense for both parties involved. Sony does the same thing, look how they are featuring Uncharted 2 in their PS3 commercials. Again, maybe money changed hands, maybe it did not but if you don't have any proof, basically calling him an idiot is pretty, well, dumb. "" @cstrang said:
" @WinterSnowblind said:Yup. Anyone who buys into that crap that Ubisoft "feels" something "belongs" on a single platform is a "sheep." "" @cstrang said:Proof that Ubisoft's PR is doing their job. "Not true." Money talks. Microsoft has money, and they threw enough at Ubisoft to convince Ubisoft to only develop for Microsoft platforms. "
Microsoft heavily supported the series back when it first started and Ubisoft feel the series "belongs" on the Xbox and that they should be loyal in return and only release the game on 360 / PC. There was no money involved, and while the higher ups may eventually decide to port the game over for more profit, it seems less likely to happen than other franchises going multiplatform. It's exclusive because the developers want it to be, not because they're being payed for any kind of timed deal.
Providing marketing is not throwing money at something, it's a business relationship. People in this thread act is if Microsoft gave Ubisoft a briefcase full of non-sequential bills for Splinter Cell's exclusivity and that is not the case. if you don't know the difference between a business relationship and just a pay out I don't need to talk to you any further."
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "
BTW: Marketing does not simply = Money. If you think that's true you're an idiot. When I spend money at a store I'm not marketing anything, am I?
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "I think it was that your posts were very arrogant, based completely on speculation and instead of trying to give any kind of evidence or valid arguements you resorted to insults in an
asinine attempt to discredit my opinion.
" @DystopiaX said:From my understanding and what i've heard, Sony were presented with GTA IV exclusivity, but their mindset against paying for exclusive content led to it being multiplatform, a position from which they've backpeddled on in more recent times, and now they and Rockstar North have make-up sex in the form of Agent (who knows whether it'll be any good or not).Sony were the ones paying for GTA exclusivity. That eventually stopped because Rockstar realised they could make far more money by porting the games to the Xbox and PC. It had nothing to do with Microsoft paying for them to be released on their systems, infact it was the exact opposite. Despite the fact Sony were paying them millions, no amount they could throw at them could make up for how much they'd make from Xbox / PC sales, which is why we eventually saw GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas come to other systems. When GTA IV came around, they wouldn't even do a timed exclusive for Sony. (Although MS did obviously pay for exclusive content here)." @WinterSnowblind said:
because they wouldn't have had it otherwise, and FF is so popular that it would sell incredibly well, and maybe move a few thousand consoles as gamers who didn't have ps3s buy it to get that game/in part to get that game. Microsoft probably paid to have it ported to the 360 the same way they paid so that GTA IV would come out on the same day as it did on the ps3. "It had nothing to do with Microsoft. Why would MS pay to have a game on both platforms, that makes no sense. "
FFXIII is a little more hazy, but the development cost is no secret, go look it up. The game has cost square MILLIONS. I find it far more likely that they've decided to go the same route as GTA, the FF games have never been tied to one particular system and releasing it on multiple systems, essentially doubles the profits. The fact it's not being released on the 360 in Japan is suspicious, but that wouldn't have sold anyway, and if MS were paying to have this port done, then surely they'd have wanted it released in Japan regardless. It would still boost their standing and sell something. I think it's infinitly more likely that it was purely a decision by Square. If MS had paid, I'm sure they'd be getting extra content, earlier release, more DLC... something. Perhaps MS contacted them and gave them a push towards doing so, but paying a developer purely to release a game on your system is completely unheard of, and I don't buy your consipacy theories about it one bit. They'll make money from releasing the game on the system, MS do not need to give them money for it. But either way, you can't pretend to know how or why it happened, so don't post your assumptions as fact. "
As for your comparison between random Ubisoft developers and Kojima in terms of loyalty, the less said about that the better. Even in Kojima's case, MS have managed to get MGS Rising out of Konami, which Kojima seems to very subtly shitting on. Most developers won't undermine the business relations they have. Ubisoft saying about Splinter Cell Xbox loyalty, while perhaps partly true, is just like some PS3 developers saying their game is only possible with the power of the PS3 and the cell, when in most cases the game is fully capable of being on other platforms.
" Maybe you should ask Sony to bring out their big bucks to try to get this game on their platform. Splinter Cell will come to the PS3 when Uncharted 2 comes to the Xbox: never. "But that makes no sense. Uncharted is an original IP, owned by Sony.
MS have no claim to the Splinter Cell series, and it's even appeared on Sony consoles in the past.
Conviction will come to the PS3 long before Microsoft see Uncharted.
Perhaps a better example would be Metal Gear Solid will come to the Xbox when Conviction goes to the PS3? i.e. next year.
"Sure that is somewhat like basically recieving money"
"@Crono
said:Providing marketing is not throwing money at something, it's a business relationship. People in this thread act is if Microsoft gave Ubisoft a briefcase full of non-sequential bills for Splinter Cell's exclusivity and that is not the case. if you don't know the difference between a business relationship and just a pay out I don't need to talk to you any further."
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "
So are you going back on what you said previously? The part where you concede that "Sure that is somewhat like basically (redundant by the way) receiving money" Because it isn't "somewhat like basically" receiving money - it is receiving money. Now their marketing needs have been taken over by Microsoft, so any money that Microsoft covers their (Ubisoft's) marketting expenses with now won't have to come out of Ubisoft. That is to say that whatever money Ubisoft had intended to spend on their own marketing they can now keep for themselves - depending on how much Microsoft covers with their marketing. To make this an exclusive, we can expect that to be a significant amount. Since Ubisoft is keeping money they would have had to front themselves - that means in turn that by providing marketing for Ubisoft, Microsoft is in turn giving them money because they no longer have to worry about that expense. A huge and extremely important expense has been removed from Ubisoft. The key word here is expense. Expense infers money.
What do you think a company makes a business relationship for? For a benefit of some type. They don't do it for nothing. They do it because there is a mutual benefit for both parties and since it is business, the benefit usually stems from the idea of more money. Marketing costs money and if you don't understand that in itself is a HUGE benefit and reason enough to go exclusive as opposed to "feeling" that is the console they "belong" on then I don't need to talk to you anymore, because you are incapable of registering a few simple ideas. You say that we act like MS gave Ubi a briefcase full of non-sequential bills, but I'd say none of us are acting like that. We understand the marketing angle just as well as you do... actually, I'd say more so, since we don't think MS is JUST throwing money at them in the form of bills, but in other forms too - i.e. covering marketing expenses. Also, when the two companies sit down and draw up a contract for exclusivity, you don't think there aren't numbers being thrown back and forth between both parties? You don't think there aren't numbers attached to the marketing as well? When you break down all of the benefits of this business relationship - it all gets broken down to numbers and those numbers all deal with money once you break them down all the way.
"BTW: Marketing does not simply = Money. If you think that's true you're an idiot. When I spend money at a store I'm not marketing anything, am I?"
If you break down where your money goes after you give it over to said store, then in effect, yes, you are paying for marketing. Marketing doesn't appear out of thin air and it is paid for somehow. How do you suppose that happens?
@WinterSnowblind said:
Oh I don't have to discredit your opinion, you seem to be doing just fine on your own." @Crono said:
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "I think it was that your posts were very arrogant, based completely on speculation and instead of trying to give any kind of evidence or valid arguements you resorted to insults in an asinine attempt to discredit my opinion. "
" @Stephen_Von_Cloud said:Yep, I'll just take back what I poorly worded earlier. It's a business relationship and that's not shady in any way, it's the same thing that companies do all the time (Apple showing bands on their iPod commercials, Avatar in the current LG ads, etc). It makes sense for both parties.So are you going back on what you said previously? The part where you concede that "Sure that is somewhat like basically (redundant by the way) receiving money" Because it isn't "somewhat like basically" receiving money - it is receiving money. Now their marketing needs have been taken over by Microsoft, so any money that Microsoft covers their (Ubisoft's) marketting expenses with now won't have to come out of Ubisoft. That is to say that whatever money Ubisoft had intended to spend on their own marketing they can now keep for themselves - depending on how much Microsoft covers with their marketing. To make this an exclusive, we can expect that to be a significant amount. Since Ubisoft is keeping money they would have had to front themselves - that means in turn that by providing marketing for Ubisoft, Microsoft is in turn giving them money because they no longer have to worry about that expense. A huge and extremely important expense has been removed from Ubisoft. The key word here is expense. Expense infers money. What do you think a company makes a business relationship for? For a benefit of some type. They don't do it for nothing. They do it because there is a mutual benefit for both parties and since it is business, the benefit usually stems from the idea of more money. Marketing costs money and if you don't understand that in itself is a HUGE benefit and reason enough to go exclusive as opposed to "feeling" that is the console they "belong" on then I don't need to talk to you anymore, because you are incapable of registering a few simple ideas. You say that we act like MS gave Ubi a briefcase full of non-sequential bills, but I'd say none of us are acting like that. We understand the marketing angle just as well as you do... actually, I'd say more so, since we don't think MS is JUST throwing money at them in the form of bills, but in other forms too - i.e. covering marketing expenses. Also, when the two companies sit down and draw up a contract for exclusivity, you don't think there aren't numbers being thrown back and forth between both parties? You don't think there aren't numbers attached to the marketing as well? When you break down all of the benefits of this business relationship - it all gets broken down to numbers and those numbers all deal with money once you break them down all the way. ""Sure that is somewhat like basically recieving money"
" @Crono said:"Providing marketing is not throwing money at something, it's a business relationship. People in this thread act is if Microsoft gave Ubisoft a briefcase full of non-sequential bills for Splinter Cell's exclusivity and that is not the case. if you don't know the difference between a business relationship and just a pay out I don't need to talk to you any further.
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "
OH SHIT, I just realized.
" @Crono said:Is the end result any different though? Whether it be a lump sum or help with marketing, Ubisoft is giving Microsoft an exclusive and in return they're receiving some form of financial help.Providing marketing is not throwing money at something, it's a business relationship. People in this thread act is if Microsoft gave Ubisoft a briefcase full of non-sequential bills for Splinter Cell's exclusivity and that is not the case. if you don't know the difference between a business relationship and just a pay out I don't need to talk to you any further. BTW: Marketing does not simply = Money. If you think that's true you're an idiot. When I spend money at a store I'm not marketing anything, am I? ""
Thanks for arguing for us. Marketing = money. You even note it yourself. So I ask you, what was your point? "
And when people talk about Microsoft or any other company throwing money or whatever, it's just a general shorthand term not to be taken literally. People are just trying to disprove the point that it's all down to loyalty and not for financial reasons. Even if you call it a mutually beneficial business relationship, that's not loyalty.
I don't want to sound like a cynic, but to think that a company is doing something because they FEEL it's right is just flat out wrong. There is nothing shady about Microsoft paying Ubisoft money for the exclusivity, it's business as usual. Also the developers don't have much power over what gets done on what. Those decisions are done by the big bosses who are counting the money. Global ecomony is not a happy-feel-good world, it's all about the money.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment