MGS3 Xbox Exclusive? Doubt it....

[xsarien]

Originally posted by AtariX


You could maybe make this argument for a company like Nintendo, Atari, Sega or SNK. As for Sony, no way. Sony has bought like five or six companies since they have been in the video game buisness and all the companies they buy turn to crap and they eventually just become part of Sony and all the original people who made the company great, end up bailing on Sony. Ex-Psygnosis people are all over England now and either work for other companies or started their own companies(Quantum Redshift for the Xbox/ex-wipeout developers). If you were ever into the Euro gaming back when Amiga and Atari ST were king, then you know that Psygnosis made some of the most lush and playable 2-D games ever, they were up there with Capcom, SNK and Konami in 2-D goodness. Sony came in and laid the law down and said it was either their way or the highway and all the great titles from Psygnosis great past went down the drain. Anyone remember Sony Imagesoft during the 16-bit days? Sony Imagesoft made some of the most crap games ever, to tie in with Sony/Columbia movies, that is Sony's gaming past.

The difference being that Nintendo, et al had already proven themselves in the gaming market. When the new kid on the figurative block comes in and starts buying up companies to get immediate support before their console is even out, that doesn't come off too well in certain development circles. You're buying friends as opposed to making them. Yes, Sony and Nintendo have bought out companies. I don't recall ever denying that; it's all in the when, the where, the how, and the why; read between the lines.

Microsoft on the other hand, when they buy a game developer, they seem to do it the right way. They come in and infuse cash into the company and lets the developer keep their identity and seem to say, "We bought you because we feel you make great games and can make us some money, do what you do best and make some great games". That is why you see the Stamper Brothers(Rare), Alexander Seropian and Jason Jones(Bungie), Chris Roberts(Digital Anvil) and the head of Fasa Studios(can't remember his name at the moment) stay with Microsoft. This is off the FASA web page and says it best:

"After shipping the best-selling action game MechWarrior 4 in November 2000, a reorganization of the games groups enabled us to reclaim our heritage and establish the internal game studio known as FASA Studio at Microsoft. The studio is comprised of extraordinary talent from both the old FASA group as well as Microsoft Games. Together we are intensely focused on creating the next generation of PC and XBOX games. We are fierce. We have a vision. We are FASA Studio."

Um, okay. So we'll completely ignore the fact that Silicon Knights and Retro Studios seem to have just as much latitude as any company that Microsoft has recently bought out? You're posting nothing but a regurgitation of marketing's press releases. Even a quick Google search will tell you that there were plenty of people within Rare that weren't thrilled with the sale to Microsoft (I also don't like how it's constantly assumed that this was some major coup by MS, Nintendo let Rare go with a big ol' sloppy blessing). Those employees are also at different companies or forming their own; a lot of Goldeneye alums are actually at Free Radical now. It happens whenever a company changes hands. To what extent is dependent on too many factors to count. To even imply that it's always as simple as "Dude, our new corporate masters bite" is pretty naive.

If people stay, hey, great. I'm actually happy that the Stampers seem to be staying on, they'll probably mitigate any drastic changes Microsoft may have in store (like a desire for games released on schedule. I'll believe PD0 in 2003 when I see it staring at me at the mall.)

Remember one thing, though: It was never my argument that developers were unhappy under Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo; they all agree to be bought, even your Psygnosis. It's the terms of why they were bought, when they were bought, and the public perception inherent to that purchase that's the crux of my argument. Let's get back to that.

Here are a few other examples of companies flexing their cash:

1.) Nintendo's initial investment in Rare. If you go to Rare's website, you'll see on their timeline that they were independent before Nintendo swooped in and staked their claim! This effectively killed any chance of Rare games appearing on Sega consoles, and later PS consoles. Please now remind us again why you consider this action different than MS "buying" Rare in 2002, if anything they have done exactly as Nintendo did in the past.

2.) Sony bought out a huge chunk of Square stock and now exerts tremendous influence over the games that Square will be allowed to develop for the GC. It is no accident that it is a side story to the FF series appearing on the GC, and not the real deal.

3.) Sony also bought out the Tomb Raider series so the sequels were never released on Saturn, a tactic being used now against the GC and Xbox with the new TR game.

4.) Consider that prior to 1995, Sony never had a console in the marketplace, yet somehow, they racked up tremendous third party support, exclusives and exclusive windows (time window on Mortal Kombat for one) on key titles, all in year one with no prior fanbase. Why would any software company take such a risk on a new console against the incredibly popular Nintendo and Sega? The same reason MS has so much third party support = money and lots of it. Don't fool yourself into thinking it happened any other way. Developers are not console fanboys, so when they were approached in 93/94 to start developing games for the PSone the took Sony's money and ran to the PS platform...damaging the N64 beyond belief (compared to prior console SNES which had huge third party support), dooming the Saturn and later the DC.

5.) Nintendo has also grown their software through acquisition: from Rare (which later sold of course), Silicon Knights, Retro Studios. It's the way of the business. The bigger fish devour the little fish.

[xsarien]

Originally posted by Canton
Here are a few other examples of companies flexing their cash:

1.) Nintendo's initial investment in Rare. If you go to Rare's website, you'll see on their timeline that they were independent before Nintendo swooped in and staked their claim! This effectively killed any chance of Rare games appearing on Sega consoles, and later PS consoles. Please now remind us again why you consider this action different than MS "buying" Rare in 2002, if anything they have done exactly as Nintendo did in the past.

Actually, I kinda chuckled when Microsoft bought Rare, all they got was a name. Yeah, Kameo, Banjo, Conker and Perfect Dark. It's just a shame that their last real mega-hit was Goldeneye. Nintendo came out the winner here, Rare is a talented studio, but they've been lapped several times and Microsoft paid way too much. Unless, of course, a logo is actually that important to them. There's a reason why Timesplitters 2 is being compared to Goldeneye so often. :) Free Radical has a lot of former Rare guys from the N64 days.

2.) Sony bought out a huge chunk of Square stock and now exerts tremendous influence over the games that Square will be allowed to develop for the GC. It is no accident that it is a side story to the FF series appearing on the GC, and not the real deal.

Sony did that well after Square went to them on their own free will; I think it was around the time of the FF movie pretty much castrating the company's financials. Last time I checked, Sony owns approximately 20% of the company. I don't think that's a controlling interest. It's an interest, sure, but if Sony was pulling that many strings Square would've outright refused to make FFCC period.

3.) Sony also bought out the Tomb Raider series so the sequels were never released on Saturn, a tactic being used now against the GC and Xbox with the new TR game.

You know, at this point, claiming exclusive rights to Tomb Raider probably isn't something you want to brag about. :)

4.) Consider that prior to 1995, Sony never had a console in the marketplace, yet somehow, they racked up tremendous third party support, exclusives and exclusive windows (time window on Mortal Kombat for one) on key titles, all in year one with no prior fanbase. Why would any software company take such a risk on a new console against the incredibly popular Nintendo and Sega? The same reason MS has so much third party support = money and lots of it. Don't fool yourself into thinking it happened any other way. Developers are not console fanboys, so when they were approached in 93/94 to start developing games for the PSone the took Sony's money and ran to the PS platform...damaging the N64 beyond belief (compared to prior console SNES which had huge third party support), dooming the Saturn and later the DC.

No, do you know what damaged the N64 beyond belief? Cartridges. It's actually that simple. In a time when every other console was making the move to CD, Nintendo was being their typical, arrogant self and sticking with a cartridge system for both fears of piracy and claims of access time being more important than CD storage space. Publishers were pissed, if you'll allow me to be blunt. Cartridges were more expensive to produce, and gave them less room to create the games they wanted. If you're looking for reason #1 why Square ditched Nintendo like some one-night stand, that's it. When the dearth of 3rd party games on the N64 was finally made apparent, that's when the PlayStation took off. People went where the games went.

The Saturn's death was more at the hands of retailers than anything else. Sega decided to ship it several months in advance to specific, exclusive retailers. That gave, say, Toys R Us a huge jump over places like EB. Think that made them happy? They got even, they made it pretty hard to find Saturn software come the system's REAL launch date.

5.) Nintendo has also grown their software through acquisition: from Rare (which later sold of course), Silicon Knights, Retro Studios. It's the way of the business. The bigger fish devour the little fish.

The key word here is "grown", not "muscled in". That's the core of many an XBox hater's argument.

[Havoc2049]

Originally posted by xsarien


The difference being that Nintendo, et al had already proven themselves in the gaming market. When the new kid on the figurative block comes in and starts buying up companies to get immediate support before their console is even out, that doesn't come off too well in certain development circles. You're buying friends as opposed to making them. Yes, Sony and Nintendo have bought out companies. I don't recall ever denying that; it's all in the when, the where, the how, and the why; read between the lines.

Microsoft isn't exactly the new kid on the block. The Dreamcast had the windows logo on it and Microsoft was making videogames years before the Xbox. I guess I can't read between the lines, explain how it is different when Microsoft buys a videogame company, as compared to Sony and Nintendo.

Um, okay. So we'll completely ignore the fact that Silicon Knights and Retro Studios seem to have just as much latitude as any company that Microsoft has recently bought out?

You mean how Nintendo laid the law down at Retro Studios and laid off more than half the employees and cancelled all games at Retro Studios except Metroid Prime. Is that the kind of lattitude you are talking about? Nintendo isn't the sweetheart you think they are.

Nintendo going cartridge for N64 is not why they lost so much third party support to Sony. The lost it because Sony offered up a more profitable business model with cd's and Sony was cutting great deals with high profile companies such as Namco (Tekken and Ridge Racer defined the platform early on). Sony offered better financial terms for third parties - so the lure of cash - because they are a huge corporation and could afford to take massive upfront losses to get the PS off the ground.

One of the problems with Nintendo's cartridge plan is that they were the only company who could produce the custom cartridges, so third parties (after spending money on developement), had to fork over money for the production of cartridges to Nintendo! A great business model for Nintendo, not so great for the third parties.

Once Sony made thier presentation, and illustrated their massive monetary committment to launch the PS platform ( to buy their way into the industry..seem familiar), publishers jumped at the chance to lower the production costs of their games by switching to the cd format. That is clearly a monetary incentive. The only reason Xbox has as much support as it did in year one and now entering year two, is money...they simply are doing what Sony did in the mid 90's to launch the PS platform.

[xsarien]

Originally posted by Canton
Nintendo going cartridge for N64 is not why they lost so much third party support to Sony. The lost it because Sony offered up a more profitable business model with cd's and Sony
One of the problems with Nintendo's cartridge plan is that they were the only company who could produce the custom cartridges, so third parties (after spending money on developement), had to fork over money for the production of cartridges to Nintendo! A great business model for Nintendo, not so great for the third parties.

Okay, explain two things:

1) How does this not contradict your argument?
2) How is it any different from what I said?

Once Sony made thier presentation, and illustrated their massive monetary committment to launch the PS platform ( to buy their way into the industry..seem familiar), publishers jumped at the chance to lower the production costs of their games by switching to the cd format.

Now you're really going to answer my second question.

That is clearly a monetary incentive. The only reason Xbox has as much support as it did in year one and now entering year two, is money...they simply are doing what Sony did in the mid 90's to launch the PS platform.

Two things, then: Where's the financial incentive for the media format? If you're going to run with that argument and apply it to the XBox, that has to be the case. DVDs, technologically, are so closely related to the CD that the distinction sometimes bothers me. But no, if your argument here (as it seems to be) is that Sony's offer of a CD-based media was a large chunk of the "huge monetary incentive", then you're making it look like you're disagreeing with me just out of spite against me saying something negative about the XBox. Of course they jumped at the chance to save some money. CDs also offered the chance for games to get bigger. You're right, game developers aren't "fan boys", they go where they think they have the most likely to achieve success. The N64, for all of Nintendo's legacy, couldn't compare to what a CD based system could let developers do, and the market was obviously shifting to CDs with 3D0 and Saturn setting the precedent (despite their failures which were more price and managerial-based, respectively.)

It's really the fact that Microsoft is being pretty blatant in what it's doing, and if you'd even take a cursory look at their history as a company you'd see where the problem is going to be. They see a new market, they first try to buy their way in, if that doesn't work, they make their own attempt. But even with that, support was obviously weak for the idea to the point where buying entire companes for support from the start was the only viable solution.

Sony didn't try to buy Nintendo, the Playstation was originally (as I'm sure you know) a CD add-on to the SNES. Nintendo all but gave them the know-how, Sony just needed to complete the system and they were ready. That's a stark, stark difference from flashing a dumptruck full of gold bars in front of Nintendo's owners and saying "We like you, really. We want to give you all this cash. What? No, no, it has nothing to do with us wanting to use you to penetrate your market." (Ew.)

[xsarien]

Originally posted by AtariX

You mean how Nintendo laid the law down at Retro Studios and laid off more than half the employees and cancelled all games at Retro Studios except Metroid Prime. Is that the kind of lattitude you are talking about? Nintendo isn't the sweetheart you think they are.

If by "laid down the law" you mean "the game was going down a very wrong road" then, yeah, why not? And please, go back through my posts and tell me where I implied that Nintendo was a "sweetheart." No company is, and if you somehow think that Microsoft is going to let Rare get away with constant (constant!) delays when they placed so much faith in them to help the 'Box, you're more idealistic than I ever thought. We're talking about the same company that set out to "crush" Netscape after they refused to be bought by Microsoft.

In fact, Rare is the best example of how loose Nintendo tends to be with their developers, so long as there are no problems like with Metroid. Nintendo let them take as long as much time as necessary, so long as the game turned out the way both Rare and Nintendo wanted it.