GDC: Sony offers to match development budgets with guaranteed royalties

By Ellie Gibson Published 27 March, 2009

In return for PlayStation exclusivity.

Sony has launched a scheme to offer developers guaranteed royalties in return for PlayStation exclusivity.

The first game to take advantage of the deal is Doublesix's Burn Zombie Burn, which goes live via the PlayStation Network today. Sony has indicated it's "looking for a great many more titles" to take advantage of the fund.

"It's all very well for us as platform holders to say, 'Put all your money into PlayStation Network, it's a fantastic idea,' but are we prepared to put or money where our mouth is? The answer is yes," Chris Eden, Sony's development relations manager, told the Game Developers Conference.

"We're looking for a number of great games, and in return for exclusivity we'll match your development budget with guaranteed royalties," he said.

Eden added that Sony is not buying titles directly from developers, and IP rights and control of games will remain in the hands of the teams that create them.

"A really important thing to point out is that this is not first-party publishing, this is not Sony buying your product," he said.

"You'll be the publisher, you'll own the IP and you'll control your product. This is assisting you to make your next step from developer to publisher."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (49) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • IneptPercy #1 3 years ago

    Does make business sense if they can afford it. How about they just paid to keep Devil my cry, Tekken, Ace combat, Resident evil, Grand theft auto, final fantasy... that would have made more sense! I would have bought a PS3 by now if they kept them.

    And people go on about Microsoft money hats!

  • man.the.king #2 3 years ago

    @disc

    "So Sony is finally admitting to doing what Microsoft has been doing for a while now?"

    Er, no, the way I see it, they have just now decided to join the MS bandwagon of bribing developers for exclusivity, timed or otherwise. Now, if they can only adopt other practices like controlling game-website opinions and reviews like Microsoft has been doing all along in order to garner positive public opinion, everything would be peachy :) .
    Edited by man.the.king at 27/03/09 @ 02:42

  • Ferror #3 3 years ago

    I am not sure I understood this right, but I think this idea applies more to the indie games for the PSN then the big budget games...

  • Spekingur #4 3 years ago

    So like Community Games on XBL?

  • Rash' #5 3 years ago

    sounds to me like this an offer to start up companies with a specific focus on DLC. as he says it's to help devs' transition into publishers.
    Edited by Rash' at 27/03/09 @ 06:05

  • des #6 3 years ago

    hmm..."please make PSN games for us"

  • syst #7 3 years ago

    Cheaters!

  • GamesConnoisseur #8 3 years ago

    ^^

    No not cheating, that is a normal business minded practice to encourage more contents than rivals, Sony was behind but now equal footings or so!

  • Bloodhunter #9 3 years ago

    its not buying out ip's and developers like MS, its just saying that they'll help them out if they go exclusive for sony lol

    i know this is just for indie games, but they might decide to do it for DLC was well, ill never forgive bethesda for cutting out 1/4 off fallout 3's ending for dlc that is only available on 360/pc :(

  • Doctor_What #10 3 years ago

    Err, no xXBrombeerXx. It doesn't sound like that. That's just you being anti-Sony again. *sigh*

  • penhalion #11 3 years ago

    All this seems to be saying is that they will allow you to break even. Basically you foot the bill to create the game and when it's done and released, you get your intial outlay back. That's not really any kind of incentive to do exclusives. There is no guarantee you'll see the money before the game is released and no guarantee you'll make a penny from the game at all.

    Seriously people, you need to look at what's being offered rathere than praising company X or Y just for making an announcement. An announcement that 90% of you clearly either didn't read or simply don't understand.

  • menage #12 3 years ago

    I thought they didn't pay for exclusives. Guess they think differently now.

  • jmg123 #13 3 years ago

    I've generally been very pleased with the content on PSN anyway, Flower , Pain , Savage Moon are all really good games for the money. I'm suprised sony hasn't done this sooner tbh, maybe they should start doing it for big budget games as well somehting along the lines of if you haven't broken even in the first month, then we'll give you a top up payment to make you break even.

  • miiiguel #14 3 years ago

    "Now, if they can only adopt other practices like controlling game-website opinions and reviews like Microsoft has been doing all along in order to garner positive public opinion, everything would be peachy"
    Do you have a link for that ? If not, can I has your tin foil hat ?

    A bit more seriously, what you're saying is that the games which has been praised by the critic so far that's on the 360 are in fact crap, we've all been hipnotised by those bad men at MS and their disgusting money.

  • BillyBrush #15 3 years ago

    its not buying out ip's and developers like MS

    @Bloodhunter

    don't wish to start a round of toy throwing, but Sony do exactly the same, and the day they let any of their devs go independant a la Bungie is the day hell freezes over. Will Guerilla make another big shooter and then Sony let them go the same way....mmmm...no

  • miiiguel #16 3 years ago

    Well, everyone knows that if the money comes from Sony they're being altruistic towards devs, and putting money in system. If it comes from MS it is a condemned practice and money-hatting.
    It's all about rethoric.

    edit: lol.
    Edited by miiiguel at 27/03/09 @ 09:40

  • Rich72 #17 3 years ago

    He's right though Miiiguel, i see the light now and god do i feel dirty. all those games i thought were great, damn. what is left for me now?

  • Shinji #18 3 years ago

    miiguel - If you can't see the difference between telling small indie developers that you'll guarantee that their games don't bankrupt them, and paying massive publishers millions of dollars to move their long-running franchises exclusively to your platform... *shrug*

    Console fanboy nonsense aside, this is great news purely because of what it means for creativity on PSN (which is already rather good in that department). The lower Sony can drop the financial barriers to entry, the better.

  • SlackMaster #19 3 years ago

    I know it's important to keep PSN competitive against the likes of XBL Marketplace and say Valve, but I think they should have done more in the past to keep exclusivity.

    They have even lost on on DLC for some of the major games over the past year, like GTA Lost and the Damned and the Fallout 3 content. I think they need more than just the blu-ray player and one or two great games to justify the high price.

  • Whatsfor #20 3 years ago

    Miiiguel,

    So are you trying to say that when the PS3 launched and microsoft sent all the gaming review and news websites £200-odd pounds worth of larger as that was the difference between the console prices that this act wasnt trying to gain favour from the websites?

    Dirty tricks no?

    Shinji, +1

  • Yaz #21 3 years ago

    @man.the.king who wrote: "Now, if they can only adopt other practices like controlling game-website opinions and reviews like Microsoft has been doing all along"

    You don't *really* believe that now, do you? :) What next, man didn't land on the moon? The world is ruled by reptiles? ;)

    Anyway, interesting move by Sony.

  • PiranhaUK #22 3 years ago

    @man.the.king who wrote: "Now, if they can only adopt other practices like controlling game-website opinions and reviews like Microsoft has been doing all along"

    Publishers releasing games on all platforms have done this for a long time, not just Microsoft. Ever wondered why some magazines/websites get all the exclusives? Ever wondererd why some magazines/websites get early access to preview games early in development and others don't? It happens for films/books and unsurprisingly computer games.....

  • PrivateJoker #23 3 years ago

    @bromberr

    I think you've had your dick in FarticusMaximus's mouth too long.

    Somewhere, there exists a PS3 thread without a single Xbot cock's irrelevent comments.

    If not, there fucking should be.

  • kangarootoo #24 3 years ago

    @penhalion

    "All this seems to be saying is that they will allow you to break even"

    Sounds actually like they GUARANTEE you will break even. Believe me, in game development that is no bad thing.

    Bear in mind that breaking even simply means there was no excess profit left over at the end, but everybody got their wages paid, and the lease costs of your office got paid, and your technology costs (such as buying PCs and dev kits) got covered.

    Breaking even might sound like a rough deal, but any business consistently breaking even is able to STAY in business. In some markets continued expansion is mandatory, but in others (like indide game development) expansion is not neccesary. Some people just want to be able to keep on making lower budget games, and this sort of scheme helps them do that.

  • Biggles #25 3 years ago

    If this is for indie devs, then it's not a bad deal at all, depending on the payment terms.

    Wonder how long before they run in to issues with creative accounting practices, though.

  • ronuds #26 3 years ago

    Basically: Put your games on PSN where they'll sell like shit, but at least you'll make your money back. Don't put them on XBLA where you'll actually make a profit, though.

    About right? :p

  • Spekingur #27 3 years ago

    Well, to be fair, if you are an indie developer and decide to release on PSN you are probably guranteed attention whilst on the XBL (arcade or community games) your release might just get drowned in the flood of games in there.

  • Whatsfor #28 3 years ago

    Ronuds,

    I would imagine games sell well on PSN because they are not surrounded by shit and get more attention...

  • ronuds #29 3 years ago

    I don't know about that, but I was just being a pisser anyway.

  • kangarootoo #30 3 years ago

    Its easy to be cynical about these things, God knows I am a prime exponent of that often enough. But schemes like this are quite simply good news for small devs worrying about going out of business after every project.

    We as gamers should be pleased for anything that gives small devs a bit more security. Even the most rampant of fanboys must surely see that supporting small devs, EVEN IF they are currently working on the "enemy" platform, is a good thing for everyone in the LONGER term.

    Today's PSN developer could be tomorrow's cross platform developer, or EVEN tomorrow's 360 exclusive developer, but only if they are still in business tomorrow.

  • man.the.king #31 3 years ago

    @miiguel

    "Do you have a link for that ? If not, can I has your tin foil hat ? "

    You can think whatever the hell you want. I call it as I see it. Proof is all around you (although no major site is going to discuss it in so many words). If you are too blinded by MS love, then I'm afraid I can't help you there as no amount of proof is going to shift your point-of-view.

  • man.the.king #32 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "You don't *really* believe that now, do you? :) What next, man didn't land on the moon? The world is ruled by reptiles? ;)"

    Actually, I do. I think I know you from other websites (I think QJ.net - I'm Thinker there, btw) and I know that your stance is firmly pro-MS. Ain't no amount of observation that's going to make you go "hmm... how come?". So I don't see any point in debating this with you, as it would probably turn into an argument quite fast.
    Edited by man.the.king at 28/03/09 @ 02:56

  • man.the.king #33 3 years ago

    @PiranhaUK

    Yep, you are right, and I'm not condemning anybody here - just saying that it would be a good thing if Sony adopted this practice as well, especially as their competitor has no such scruples.

  • Godhather08 #34 3 years ago

    Great news, good move from Sony.

    Sony is really on a roll these days.

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    "then I'm afraid I can't help you there as no amount of proof is going to shift your point-of-view"

    Well that is a bit rich, given that you have cunningly avoided providing even the tiniest amount of proof yourself, let alone "any amount". How about your provide a LITTLE bit of proof, as a good will offering, and then we can go and discover the rest of it ourselves. Deal?


    Anyway, putting aside suggestions of bribing for good reviews, and dealing only with the subject at hand, what is it about this that makes you think poor scruples are at play?

    I am starting to question whether you actually understand the scheme that Sony is offering. How about you describe the part of this guaranteed royalty scheme that you think is somehow unsavoury.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 28/03/09 @ 08:13

  • busboy33 #36 3 years ago

    @Bloodhunter:
    "its not buying out ip's and developers like MS"
    So MS bought Rockstar and Bethesda? Wonder how I missed that deal.
    They didn't? They paid Rockstar 50 mil upfront, but they get to keep the first 50 mil of income from the GTA4 DLC? So basically they're not only covering the development costs (assuming the DLC cost less than 50 mil), but they're also covering at least some profit (difference between development costs and 50 mil), and they're paying it up front as opposed to "we'll cover you on the back end"?
    No, I totally see the difference, how Sony is watering the flower of creativity, whereas Microsoft (sorry -- M$) is monopolistically buying out developers and IPs.

    Don't be a twit -- the two deals are essentially the same . . . although I'd argue MS's deal was sweeter. It's a smart move for both of them, although it seems to have taken Sony a bit longer to realize that developers didn't owe them anything, and that if they wanted exclusives they had to make it financially worthwile. Everybody on the goddamn planet knew this except for "We're above paying for exclusives" Sony brass. Guess we can toss this on the "pile of pure nonsense" with all the other statements Sony has made.
    Now, all we have to do is wait to add "we're not dropping our price anytime soon" and thet'll be pretty much every promise/claim/guarantee Sony made this generation. Sony's in big trouble with the PS4 -- they could claim it has an "on" button and the majority of gamers would automatically assume its bullsh!t.

  • man.the.king #37 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Well that is a bit rich, given that you have cunningly avoided providing even the tiniest amount of proof yourself, let alone "any amount". How about your provide a LITTLE bit of proof, as a good will offering, and then we can go and discover the rest of it ourselves. Deal?

    Actually, I wasn't being cunning or anything. I was just too weary to go on a link-gathering trip across the Net. Expecially when the person I was talking to ( miiiguel ) never seems to find anything good about Sony or anything bad about MS. So that would have been just a waste of time then, wouldn't it. Surely you can understand the frame of mind to which I'm referring to?

    Anyway, if you are interested, try digging into Metacritic aggregate scores, selection of critics to slant MC scores as preferred, try looking into the use by CNET/Metacritic of Variety (for e.g) as a Reviewer for PS3 games (esp when their parent company has content distribution deals with MSN), and try actually reading the reviews. For more in-depth discussion about these things (I don't think you will find much of that on EG), try the Metacritic forums. I hope you can understand that there cannot be any solid proof either way, as no media org would like to open that particular can of worms. All there can be is observation and inference. If you are not satisfied with that, fair enough, your opinion is your opinion.

    "I am starting to question whether you actually understand the scheme that Sony is offering. How about you describe the part of this guaranteed royalty scheme that you think is somehow unsavoury."

    I don't think any part of providing guaranteed compensation for development work done for their platform is "unsavoury". I was just referring to other aspects of business like moneyhats for exclusives/timed exclusives/exclusive DLCs that MS indulges in as being a trifle unscrupulous. If you don't think bribing for exclusives by MS is even slightly "unsavoury", I'm not sure what kind of ethics you believe in (not that I'm implying you are unscrupulous or unethical, btw :) ). Anyway, what I meant is that Sony should adopt such MS practices lock, stock and barrel, and to hell with scruples.
    Edited by man.the.king at 30/03/09 @ 09:10

  • kangarootoo #38 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Good response, cheers for being so diplomatic. I've only a couple of things to add really.

    First off, "in depth" discussion on forusm is not the same as proof. Lots of people agreeing with each other can still be completely wrong. Lots of people agreeing with each other also tend to exagerate a particular view. No doubt what you describe does go on, but to what degree it goes on is hard to discern from angry forums full of people who are certain that "everyone is up to it".

    Secondly, I take mild exception (not personally, but you know what I mean) to your overzealous use of the word "bribe". When a company pays for a platform exclusive, they are making a business decision. That decisions is perfectly out in the open, and is not in any way illegal or deceptive.

    Most definitions of the word bribe (though not all, I admit) make specific reference to an element of corruption. And we need to be careful of applying accusations of corruption simply to things or acts we "don't like". Talk like that de-intellectualises (horrible word, sorry) the discussion and brings it down to name calling.

    I think the reason you use the word bribe is because such agreements don't serve the interests of gamers, but the wakeup call (that I am sure you are already aware of) is that many aspects of the games industry don't just serve the interests of gamers.... and neither should they. A games industry that put the interests of gamers above ALL ELSE, would be a very short lived industry indeed.

    A balance can of course be struck, but I don't think the odd platform exclusive realy harms that balance. Exclusives contribute strongly to the sales of any new platform, and without them we might end up with only one significant games console in the market. We can probably agree as gamers that outcome would not serve our interests in the end.

  • Calgon #39 3 years ago

    man.the.king you have the gall to critisise Miiiguels objectivity with your utter ignorrant, biased, paranoid opinions?

    Sony dont pay for exclusives? Dont moneyhat? If you ask me in the past they have paid to keep 3rd party exclusives as IneptPercy suggested, which arent truthfully theirs in any way since they didnt fund any of the development nor support devs as much as they could have done. In todays console industry, it makes sense for devs not to be exclusive to Sony no matter where their IPs started out, the only reason they would is if Sony had been moneyhatting. The difference now is they cant afford it anymore, they certainly arent above it though and never have been, infact singling out their practices in the console industry only, MS have proved to have more integrity than Sony.

    Do you really think the developers of Heavy Rain for example, a PC style developer who obviously would have been better suited to the 360s fan base(which is why Sony wanted to buy their next game) werent paid to ensure their next title is exclusive to Sonys platform only?

    It could be you dont like Sony either but since you failed to mention or were unaware people thought the very same things you are suggesting now, about Sony last gen(Sony have had their shares in lots of publications, online its a different matter and the internet is now the home of the gaming press because thats where their audience went, there's much more freedom of information too which prevents some of garbage they've always spouted as fact being taken without question as it was in the past)... I myself wondered about how much Sony have dished out to get some of the more favourable coverage on the BBC at a time when PS3 was well behind the competition where they had special treatment(unnecessarily long features on Home and LBP for example, not only is it because Ive never seen any 360 titles receive such attention but its like the 360 doesnt exist sometimes there, its a good job nobody watches their tech shows much) this is probably normal but not something you'd expect from the BBC, to take cash to cover/favour one platform over the next which is more popular at the time.

    Also lets not forget MS offered breaks on royalties to devs(in Japan especially) near the very start of this gen and it was met with the same old "oooh MS desperate/buying their way forward" attitude... it's pretty satisfying to see I was right in my assumptions of how differently it would be perceived from these same people if it were Sony.(even Shinji isn't looking so good in that respect and he's EG staff)

    Or how about we remember which of the two has done more to help the dev community this gen, you know making their lives easier with tools and support, maybe taking a look at the hardware to see if the devs interests were considered during the designing stages. *shrugs*

    The point is man.the.king you are naive if you beleive Sony havent had a long history of doing it... its not like they have much integrity.

    edit: Also while Im at it just what "long established" I.Ps have MS paid/moneyhatted with their evil money to change to 360s exclusives... name these titles because I cant think of any(who ever suggested or supported this I think Shinji suggested it and several people copied without mention of one title). DLC is a different matter Sony are still following MS's lead on that anyway, MS were doing DLC LAST gen for crying out loud, grow up and get some perspective and burn your SDF flags while you're at it.
    Edited by Calgon at 30/03/09 @ 14:52

  • kangarootoo #40 3 years ago

    Gaaahhhh. Can we stop with this whole "my dad is bigger than your dad" nonsense?

    Every comment that is made gets a response in the form of "well at least its not as bad as...".


    Both MS and Sony have in the past paid for exclusives, because it suited their business to do so. They are not alone in doing this, within or without the games industry. When the guitarist from Bon Jovi signs a deal to endorse a certain model of guitar, his contract almost certainly contains a clause they says he isn't allowed to play a competitor's guitar whilst on tour (I've actually seen guitarists citing this as the reason for selling on certain instruments).

    That is just business, that is how it works. Its not unscrupulous, its not bribery, its just business and EVERYONE does it.


    "it's pretty satisfying to see I was right in my assumptions of how differently it would be perceived from these same people if it were Sony"

    You and man.the.king are as mad as each other in that respect. Both of you will find the proof you need if you look hard enough. You haven't been proved right about anything any more than he has. But hey, if you get your "satisfaction" from hollow self-fooling victories like that, knock yourself out.

  • Calgon #41 3 years ago

    kangarootoo wait a minute, that quote shouldnt tell you I was defending MS(the fact is just as many cases can be made for Sony if not more, the proving 100% isnt possible but then thats never stopped people), rather saying these people werent attacking MS out of their moral code or nobility to begin with, its just fanboyism or in some cases hate of a particular company. I was indeed proved right on that mark, they are hypocrites, every last one.
    Edited by Calgon at 30/03/09 @ 15:25

  • kangarootoo #42 3 years ago

    I'm getting confused here, so lets just clarify things.

    Are you saying that EG staff (every last one) hate Sony and bias their output as a result of that hate?

    or, the alternative questions, 'cos I can't bloody tell the difference.

    Are you saying that EG staff (every last one) hate Microsoft and bias their output as a result of that hate?


    I can't even guess at what answers you will give me, but I bet I could get the same answers in reverse from many other posters (make of that what you will).

  • Calgon #43 3 years ago

    kangarootoo no I dont beleive there is a collective mind or conspiracy on EG at all, that's garbage we both know this, I do beleive individually some of them clearly do have bias though which I'd rather they sort out(integrity) but they are only human afterall I suppose.

    When I said 'they' I wasn't referring to EG at all, but the individuals who did complain "omg evil MS blah blah" and continue to do so at every opportunity yet fail to see the hypocrisy when they sit and applaud Sony for the same things(cynasism nowhere to be seen strangly enough ;) ), Shinji's post didnt particularly do him any favours I'm sure you will agree(I mean you can see quite clearly the frame of mind he spoke to --the PS3 fanboy mindset-- by looking at the only posters who noticed it and agreed), I found it ignorrant at the very least but my main point is theres only fanboyism or hate of a particular platform at play rather than morals. I just get really irritated by that kind of hypocrisy, its an excuse to troll or to bash justified with something they clearly dont beleive in.
    Edited by Calgon at 30/03/09 @ 19:41

  • man.the.king #44 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    I feel debating things with you always turn out into arguments. So please excuse me if I don't start another war of words with you (our last little spat was interrupted by my being laid off, so I was kinda busy there). I would be open to talking with you if you weren't negative of anybody who happens to like the PS3 or is critical of MS. Anyway, I understand that you (and folks you agree with sooo much like miiiguel, ronuds, farticusmaximus, xxxbrombeerxxx) have probably put quite a bit of your time and money in the 360 (even though you probably do own a PS3) and as such, you feel more attraction to MS and their console, which is why you are usually so forgiving of all their faults and so condemning of all of Sony's blunders, no matter how big or small they may be. If you are not even willing to concede that I might have gotten at least a few points right, then obviously it would be a waste of time debating things with you. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Deal?

    "It could be you dont like Sony either but since you failed to mention or were unaware people thought the very same things you are suggesting now, about Sony last gen"
    You may be right or wrong about that, but I wouldn't know man - I didn't play video games then - I first started playing on the PSP, then moved on to the 360 and finally bought a PS3 as well. Recently I bought a Wii as well, although tbh other than Super Mario Galaxy, I haven't used it for much.
    Edited by man.the.king at 31/03/09 @ 01:19

  • man.the.king #45 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "First off, "in depth" discussion on forusm is not the same as proof. Lots of people agreeing with each other can still be completely wrong. Lots of people agreeing with each other also tend to exagerate a particular view. No doubt what you describe does go on, but to what degree it goes on is hard to discern from angry forums full of people who are certain that "everyone is up to it".

    Agreed, but then, I don't think I am so naive as to not be able to make out what seems plausible and what is just ranting. And then there are the reviews themselves. For example, for LBP, surely price-point of the PS3 ($400) and price-point of the game ($60) shouldn't count as negative factors for rating? But that's exactly what Variety has done in their LBP review. In other examples, PS3 exclusives are criticized for the same aspects that are praised in 360 exclusives.

    "Secondly, I take mild exception (not personally, but you know what I mean) to your overzealous use of the word "bribe". When a company pays for a platform exclusive, they are making a business decision. That decisions is perfectly out in the open, and is not in any way illegal or deceptive. Most definitions of the word bribe (though not all, I admit) make specific reference to an element of corruption. And we need to be careful of applying accusations of corruption simply to things or acts we "don't like". Talk like that de-intellectualises (horrible word, sorry) the discussion and brings it down to name calling. I think the reason you use the word bribe is because such agreements don't serve the interests of gamers, but the wakeup call (that I am sure you are already aware of) is that many aspects of the games industry don't just serve the interests of gamers.... and neither should they. A games industry that put the interests of gamers above ALL ELSE, would be a very short lived industry indeed. A balance can of course be struck, but I don't think the odd platform exclusive realy harms that balance. Exclusives contribute strongly to the sales of any new platform, and without them we might end up with only one significant games console in the market. We can probably agree as gamers that outcome would not serve our interests in the end."

    I am aware of the importance of exclusives for a platform. Also, I understand that in corporate circles, what happens might not be viewed as bribes, and I do understand your point of view. However, I speak more-or-less from the moral point of view. If say a vendor was making someone for both of us, and I paid the vendor to delay/cancel your product (e.g. Bioshock) and/or release mine first, or if you are ahead and I pay to delay yours so that I can get mine at the same time in order to cancel/decrease any advantage you may get from being early (Final Fantasy 13), then sorry to say, but the only way I can see that particular exchange of money is "bribe". Just because "everybody" does something doesn't make it right. Anyway, I'm not condemning any corporation/individual's practices here. I felt they were unscrupulous, but I also recognized that it was "good business", and as such, would be happy if Sony adopted their tactics completely.

    English (particularly the modern usage of English) is a funny language. I think you are giving in to the new (and particularly American) method of coming up with euphemisms (or different words entirely) to remove any distasteful associations with the offensive term, e.g. "collateral damage" for innocent civilian casualties, "pro-life" for removing choice, "green etc" for anti-environmental agendas, and the word "competitive ..." is used for any number of activities which, by any definition, would be, well, "not nice" :).
    Edited by man.the.king at 31/03/09 @ 01:21

  • man.the.king #46 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "You and man.the.king are as mad as each other in that respect."

    If calling me and Calgon "mad" (in whatever respect) makes you feel any saner, then by all means do so. The fact remains that we are adults (I assume both you and Calgon are adults) on a gaming website getting all stoked up about consoles, console games, console companies' business practices, etc :) .
    Edited by man.the.king at 31/03/09 @ 02:35

  • Calgon #47 3 years ago

    man.the.king that does sound a bit odd to me, I thought I understood where you were going with it but if you really beleive MS have ever paid anyone to delay PS3 a version of a multi-plat game then you better have long think about it, logic tells you the likely explanation isnt some conspiracy.

    Have Sony paid devs not to release games untill the PS3 version stops lagging behind(which is less common nowadays) and is ready to launch along with it? Thats more likely but I doubt that too. Two main reasons for this are first of all the PS3s userbase is now a considerable size so why wouldnt they want the most sales they can get from each platform? Its more worthwhile now(it was a different story with Bioshock, it wasnt even in development till after the 360 version arrived for all we know, I really dont think many people would be with you on that one). Second devs are more used to developing on PS3 so it may still take longer but it wont be as bad as it used to be and they've had more time to revise their scheduels to make sure everything comes together at the right time.
    Edited by Calgon at 01/04/09 @ 00:55

  • man.the.king #48 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    "man.the.king that does sound a bit odd to me, I thought I understood where you were going with it but if you really beleive MS have ever paid anyone to delay PS3 a version of a multi-plat game then you better have long think about it, logic tells you the likely explanation isnt some conspiracy. Have Sony paid devs not to release games untill the PS3 version stops lagging behind(which is less common nowadays) and is ready to launch along with it? Thats more likely but I doubt that too. Two main reasons for this are first of all the PS3s userbase is now a considerable size so why wouldnt they want the most sales they can get from each platform? Its more worthwhile now(it was a different story with Bioshock, it wasnt even in development till after the 360 version arrived for all we know, I really dont think many people would be with you on that one). Second devs are more used to developing on PS3 so it may still take longer but it wont be as bad as it used to be and they've had more time to revise their scheduels to make sure everything comes together at the right time."

    You may or may not be right. What I (and probably others who do happen to think like me) am thinking of is Microsoft's business tactics as a whole, starting from their inception in the 70s to today. If you are above 30, then you are probably aware that they have never played fair (although, in defense of your argument, it could be said that Sony is no small upstart that MS are attempting to squish underfoot). Still....

    Anyway, you are right about the Sony userbase now, although earlier that wasn't the case. Of course Sony hasn't been particularly smart about it's business as well - it looked as if most of the financial decisons had been taken exclusively by engineers, hence their enthusiasm about trying to redefine software development practices through a console. However, they have made significant strides towards rectifying this in the past 1.5 years.

    As for Bioshock, didn't it start out as a multiplat game, then suddenly (apparently) switched to 360 exclusive, stayed that way for a year and after that proceedings started on the PS3 version. Given MS tactics, isn't it reasonable to assume that they did indeed pay to make that game exclusive (the profit motive - who profited most by this)? If it was just a case of not being able to finish the PS3 version in time, why give it an appearance of being a 360-exclusive and then a year later, voila. Do you honestly that Irrational and 2K made the decision to scrap the PS3 version on their own, and then a year later thought, maybe we should do this now?

    Anyway, you may be right and I may just be a paranoid person with some conspiracy theory, but I'm saying what I honestly feel, based upon MS business "philosophy", their history, and well, Internet reports of their moneyhats for exclusives/DLCs. Surely you look at websites other than Eurogamer for your gaming news as well (and not just 360-centric websites)?

    BTW, I didn't understand what you meant by "that does sound a bit odd to me". Could you explain.
    Edited by man.the.king at 01/04/09 @ 07:10

  • kangarootoo #49 3 years ago

    Sorry chaps, was away for a bit and dropped out of the discussion. Good work on keeping it civil with each other though, despite me being a bit cheeky to everyone :)