Quote:
Originally Posted by Jays
I'd like to see this article, because I'm pretty that the reason Bioshock and Red Alert came out later for the PS3 was because of development issues. Your second and third paragraphs does make sense, seeing as that is only a developer/publisher thing. Why would Sony force developers to add extra stuff to late blooming multiplats that probably no one will buy?
|
You are not understanding what I said. Sony isn't
forcing anybody. Plus... multi-plats that no one will buy? Well, that's exactly why these developers have to add something in the first place. It's something that Kaz Hirai said. I read it on Kotaku, but I found it on Three Speech.
Q: What’s your policy on securing games exclusively for the PS3 from third parties? Because Phil Harrison changed the policy towards not paying for exclusives. Is that still the case?
KH: That’s something that we can re-evaluate, but it’s also something that the publishers need to make a business decision on. Ultimately, it becomes a dialogue – if it makes sense for them to go exclusive, that’s a business decision that they need to make. But generally speaking, because of the investments that publishers need to make in this round of hardware, it’s going to be more difficult for publishers to make that decision. Where we come into the picture is to have that dialogue with the third-party publishers, to say: “OK, what can we do together if it’s not exclusive that makes the PS3 version of the game more compelling for the consumers than any other version?” Let’s face it – all the games are coming out on a Blu-ray disk which has 50Gb capacity, so let’s put in some making-of content, or maybe additional levels. Also, it really becomes important for the first-party studios to really come up with some envelope-pushing, genre-defining content.
Interestingly, the discussions about Tales of Vesperia for the PS3 over at Kotaku has someone mentioning something that Shuhei Yoshida said regarding Sony's policy, but I can't confirm that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jays
Do you honestly think Sony out of all people who aren't interested in buying anything third party from anyone, would waste their time trying to secure dropplets of little exclusive content for games that no longer really mean anything? I have a hard time believing anyone, Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo were the ones responsible for extra content in a year old game coming out on their console.
|
Like I said, the incentive for the developers to release new content is that they can charge full price
again. Whatever reasons they have for delaying their game—be it timed exclusivity or development setbacks—they want to give gamers a reason to buy an old game. Bioshock, Red Alert 3, NGS2, Eternal Sonata... and now ToV. Sony doesn't really have to even discuss this with them, but they make it a point to do so nonetheless. Frankly, it isn't that hard to grasp.