Author Topic: WHAA Sony may work with MS in the future?!?! (Read 5889 times)

Flames_of_chaos · « **on:** February 18, 2006, 08:16:00 AM »

Hey guys I found a interesting tid-bit on the-magicbox.com

"Sony Computer Entertainment Asia's VP Tetsuhiko Yasuda said Sony expects to ship over 100 million PlayStation 3 game consoles, and Sony aims to launch PS3 at the same time throughout Asia. He also said that Sony does not regard Xbox as a competitor, in fact Sony may work with Microsoft to develop games together in future."

Now that is very interesting, maybe Sony and Microsoft are dilusional even more? But wow that is interesting or Sony is desperately loosing so much money that they are changing their stance who knows.

EDIT: But some of this does not make sense to me because isn't Microsoft helping Nintendo indirectly by allowing their IP's exist on the DS via 3rd party publishers such as THQ and Majesco? So by my personal observation I think that this won't happen unless Microsoft will some how absorb Sony.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2006, 09:26:26 AM »

I think the whole bit of "Not regard as a competitor" is just one more way of trashing on your competition. The bit about collaboration could mean developing a new codec for game movies and it would still count as "developing games together".

And I think Sony is too damn big to be absorbed.

capamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2006, 01:56:45 PM »

They might be thinking around the lines of porting over PC games to the Xbox360 as well. Everquest 2 and StarWars Galaxies are by no means system sellers but if Sony were to port them on the the Xbox360 it would mean more money for them and it wouldn't effect their console sales.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2006, 02:00:46 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
They might be thinking around the lines of porting over PC games to the Xbox360 as well. Everquest 2 and StarWars Galaxies are by no means system sellers but if Sony were to port them on the the Xbox360 it would mean more money for them and it wouldn't effect their console sales.

That and the real $$$ to be made on those games are from the monthly subscriptions, not the actual purchase of the game, regardless of the platform it is played on.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2006, 03:55:08 PM »

Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't think this means we can expect Halo 3 on the PS3 and the latest FF on the 360 (with Sony's consent, I mean).

capamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2006, 05:00:20 PM »

Sony has no say what so ever on where the next installment of Final Fantasy goes. Infact Square has been hinting that Final Fantasy could be going multi-console since cost of game development has gone up high enough that it doesn't make sense to make console exclusives.

A better example would have been Halo3 on the PS3 and Jak 5 on the Xbox360.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2006, 11:04:51 PM »

I think it has no meaning beyond being an insult. "Hey MS, you can come and make games for our console, you won't be making your own when we're done here anyway!" Sega made games for the PS2 after the Dreamcast sank, I think Sony wants to suggest MS will do the same.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2006, 08:44:41 AM »

I know it may sound strange, but I think Square Enix might be making a bad business decision to go multi-console. perhaps if there's such a huge price gap between the three consoles that there will clearly be splits in the market, but otherwise, it makes sense to have a "home" system that your fans can buy. Of course, if Square Enix simply ports a few games from PS3 to other consoles, with few exclusives for the other consoles, that might be okay.

capamerica · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2006, 08:52:02 AM »

I'm pretty sure Sqaure wasn't hinting that all their games would go multi-cosnsole, just their big guns like DragonQuest and Final Fantasy. But again it was just them hinting about it. We won't know for sure untill they say something offical. Truth be told I would be more then happy if Square dropped most suport for the PS3 and relesaed all their Exclusives on the Revolution. And the PS3, Xbox360 and Revoultion all got Final Fantasy XIII, StarOcean 4, Kingdom Hearts 5 and DragonQuest IX.

Only reason I bought a PS2 was cause of Square and if they were to suport the Revolution like they did the PS2 I would be very happy and really have no reason what so every to buy a PS3.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2006, 11:13:29 PM »

couchmonkey: I have a feeling multiplatform doesn't mean like Sega but like EA (i.e. making ports for all systems instead of scattering exclusives over multiple systems). Scattering exclusives makes no sense business-wise, porting everywhere does.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2006, 04:10:40 AM »

Well KDR hopefully Squeenix wont scatter the exclusives as sega did because most of those exclusives bombed especially the ones on Xbox.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2006, 05:56:13 AM »

I think that's exactly what KDR was saying they won't do...anyway, I tend to agree that Square Enix probably won't be developing lots of exclusives for the other consoles, I guess I was just saying

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2006, 06:43:45 AM »

Spreading out your exclusives, as Sega demonstrated, is a great way to slice off big chunks of your marketshare and hand them to your competitors.

Squeenix would do well for themselves to pick a console and stick with it. Their fans will buy that console. It also wouldn't hurt to be the cheapest console as then more of your fans can afford it.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2006, 07:25:42 AM »

Squeenix would do well for themselves to pick a console and stick with it.

They'd do even better if they ported their games to multiple consoles.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2006, 08:02:59 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
They'd do even better if they ported their games to multiple consoles.

Historically, this is not the case.

As with any company with a following and a fanbase, the fans will buy the console which they make the games for. For every case where a multi-console game has succeeded, there are 5-7 that have failed and failed horribly. The extra effort and development costs in porting games very often offsets the beneficial sales from not only spending more money in porting but also in the way the quality of the game tends to suffer as a result.

Sonic Adventure 2 sold very well on the GC, as did other Sega games. Games like TJ&EIII, Crazy Taxi, HotD3, etc. went to the xbox to die. I strongly think that, if Sega had consolidated their franchises on one console, the Sega fans would have picked that console and stuck with it. I would have bought TJ&EIII, HotD3 and many other Sega games but I was unwilling to because I didn't want to buy an xbox. Since Sega's flagship mascot (Sonic) was so readily available on the GC, one would assume that this would be the console Sega fans could choose for their favorite franchises.

Sonic Heroes was the first multi-console Sonic game and it bombed horribly, followed by Shadow and we all know how THAT went over. If the extra effort and development costs spent in making a game across three platforms will degrade the quality, then it's NOT WORTH IT.

In Squeenix's case, as Cap already said in this thread, he has no reason to buy a PS3 if he can get these games on the Rev. Players will buy SE's console of choice to play their games. They will NOT, however, buy all 3 to play their games, and if the games degrade in quality because of three-way development cycles, then no one will be buying consoles for them at all.

Pick a console, establish your fanbase on it, and produce the best goddamn games you can. It worked for Tecmo, it worked for Sega up until they blew it, it worked for Square on the PS2 and it WILL work on whatever console they support this gen.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2006, 11:19:27 PM »

Historically, this is not the case.

EA and Ubisoft are the two biggest publishers and they do it. Games sell to more than just the fanbase and many people who would buy the game won't do so if they have to grab a new console over it. Look where Nintendo got by relying on a fanbase only. We're not talking about scattering exclusives (i.e. to buy all their games you have to own all consoles), we're talking about porting everywhere (i.e. no matter what console you have you can buy their games).

Sonic Heroes was the first multi-console Sonic game and it bombed horribly

Nonsense, Sonic Heroes sold very well.

If the extra effort and development costs spent in making a game across three platforms will degrade the quality, then it's NOT WORTH IT.

It doesn't degrade anything except graphics. And since S-E was already working with the weakest platform it won't get any worse. The reason most multiplatform games suck is because the devs/publishers didnt try to make the game better. Tell me, would Timesplitters, PoP or Beyond Good & Evil have been better gameplay-wise if they were exclusive?

Pick a console, establish your fanbase on it, and produce the best goddamn games you can. It worked for Tecmo

Which platform is that? PS2? What about Ninja Gaiden and DoA? Xbox? Where's Rygar, Deception or Monster Rancher?

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2006, 05:24:29 AM »

Quote
EA and Ubisoft are the two biggest publishers and they do it. Games sell to more than just the fanbase and many people who would buy the game won't do so if they have to grab a new console over it. Look where Nintendo got by relying on a fanbase only. We're not talking about scattering exclusives (i.e. to buy all their games you have to own all consoles), we're talking about porting everywhere (i.e. no matter what console you have you can buy their games).

EA and Ubi are terrible examples because they're the two largest publishers. They have the money and resources to port games without compromising the development. Even Sega doesn't have that.

Quote
Nonsense, Sonic Heroes sold very well.

Care to link me some numbers? And this isn't about sales: this is about the game sucking as a result of a 3-way port.

I distinctly remember the reviewer from Playstation magazine saying, "Where's Sonic headed next? To the garbage, that's where." And what about Shadow the Hedgehog?

Quote
It doesn't degrade anything except graphics. And since S-E was already working with the weakest platform it won't get any worse. The reason most multiplatform games suck is because the devs/publishers didnt try to make the game better. Tell me, would Timesplitters, PoP or Beyond Good & Evil have been better gameplay-wise if they were exclusive?

Writing code costs money. Porting requires the additional writing of many new lines of code. If a company intends to port its game to multiple consoles, it will need to spend the money to make those ports happen. If the company is swimming in money, like Ubisoft and EA, they can afford to port games like Timesplitters, PoP and Beyond Good & Evil to three consoles without the game development suffering as the project budget isn't restricted by monetary means.

However, if the company is NOT EA or Ubi, then it's not likely that they'll be able to afford the porting process AND every last bit of polish which will make their game an AAA title.

This is not conjecture: if you want to spend money for porting, that money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Between development kit costs, reduced/increased polygon count models, compressed/uncompressedd FMVs, texture changes, etc. guess what? It's going to be expensive and WILL cut into the budget of the game resulting in features being "cut" from the finished product.

I don't know if SE would suffer the same fate as Sega, but I do know that a game built from the ground up for one console and one console alone will ALWAYS be a better game than a ported one (provided both developers share the same general level of competence).

Quote
Which platform is that? PS2? What about Ninja Gaiden and DoA? Xbox? Where's Rygar, Deception or Monster Rancher?

Xbox...

You likely don't read Ian's posts, but he makes the very valid point that DoA went to the Xbox because it was the only fighting game available on it for the longest time and thus was very successful despite not being THAT great of a game. The console was associated with DoA and any real fan of the series bought the game and console as a result.

animecyberrat · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2006, 06:20:56 AM »

About the Sega fans you wrong, MOST Sega fans ARENT JUST SONIC FANS. Latley Sonic has been their WORST series and Sega fans are very dispiinted witht hat. Sega hs MANY other outstanding games that MOST sega fans went out and bought, the problem when they were spreading exclusives aorund was itw as too early to tell where the gameswere going, more Sega fans ended up with Xboxes than GC, Sega, besides sonic and monkey ball, has not really made a lto for GC. THey pretty much dropped it except for SOnic.

SOnic heros was a million seller BTW, and I can find the nukmbers if I must. It sold roughly 500K on both systems, exbox excluded it didnt sell too good there hence the reason shadow and soinic riders were not ported to xbox.

Sega at first, was desparate and needed money, MS paid them to get Shenmue, TJ and E, Panzer Dragoon and Sega Rally Online as sexclusives becaus ethey saw how well thsoe games sold on previous systems.

Xbox didnt have a large enough userbase yet and because Sonic was on GC a lot of sega fans knew Sega had announced they prefered teh GC over the others so expected it to get tehr others eventualy, but it never happened.

House of the Dead and Spartan Total Warrior and Sega Rally Online have al;l sold pretty good on Xbox, where as Sonic is all they haev tahst sodl good on GC, Billy Hatcher, Samaurio Jack and everything but sonic and monkey ball sold poorly on GC, so Sega fans didnt NOT go to GC as peopel assume.

capamerica · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2006, 08:17:26 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
SOnic heros was a million seller BTW, and I can find the nukmbers if I must. It sold roughly 500K on both systems, exbox excluded it didnt sell too good there hence the reason shadow and soinic riders were not ported to xbox.

I think you need to go back and recheck your facts:

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=210896

http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=210782

Also yes Sonic Heroes did break a million but it was no where near as fast as Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic MegaCollection and Sonic Adventure DX, infact it took almost a whole year longer to break a million and go greatest hit then it did in the UK. Not even sure if it went Greatest hits yet in Japan.

Sonic Heroes technicly tanked as a game, It did way under what they had hoped for for a multi-console game. That is one reason why all plans for a Sonic Heroes 2 were thrown out and they went off to do Shadow.

one last thing Samurai Jack didn't do good on the PS2 too, that game at best was so-so, and Bill Hatcher wasn't that great too. Sega games in general haven't been doing well no matter what system they are on.

If anything overall Sega games have been doing their best on the GameCube, Not only have Sonic and Monkeyball done better there then on the PS2 and Xbox, but so has PSO and Sega Soccer Slam.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2006, 09:00:41 AM »

I'm getting the feeling that all of Sega's competent teams are working on GBA games these days...

Writing code costs money. Porting requires the additional writing of many new lines of code. If a company intends to port its game to multiple consoles, it will need to spend the money to make those ports happen.

The money that ports cost is a tiny fraction of what a whole game costs. In fact there are toolkits that allow you to port a game almost by just changing a compiler switch. That's what EA is using, they're not writing code for all systems separately, they feed a base code into their multiplatform toolkit and tweak the result afterwards.

However, if the company is NOT EA or Ubi, then it's not likely that they'll be able to afford the porting process AND every last bit of polish which will make their game an AAA title.

This is not conjecture: if you want to spend money for porting, that money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Between development kit costs, reduced/increased polygon count models, compressed/uncompressedd FMVs, texture changes, etc. guess what? It's going to be expensive and WILL cut into the budget of the game resulting in features being "cut" from the finished product.

Those processes are pretty disjunct. There's a core engine team that does the porting and a game logic team that does all the polishing (okay, so it may not be perfectly disjunct but the tasks are separate and there's no reason you can't do both properly). The multiplatform porting can be done within a few months, especially if the game is designed for that from the start.

Besides, you overestimate the amount of work that's done for ports, usually they just make a PS2 version and port the code to work on the other consoles as well, no need for lowering texture reolution or polygon numbers after that. The only difference is maybe the size the textures get downsampled to from the work size and the shaders involved, if any.

Xbox...

You likely don't read Ian's posts, but he makes the very valid point that DoA went to the Xbox because it was the only fighting game available on it for the longest time and thus was very successful despite not being THAT great of a game. The console was associated with DoA and any real fan of the series bought the game and console as a result.

Team Ninja is the only group within Tecmo that makes XBox exclusives. Gamerankings lists 12 PS2 titles and 9 XBox titles by Tecmo, the PS2 is the primary platform for the rest of Tecmo.

Rat: What the hell is that post supposed to mean? Please, write proper English. You might be able to decipher that but I'm not. There's a reason orthography has been introduced.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:25:10 PM »

Quote
SOnic heros was a million seller BTW, and I can find the nukmbers if I must. It sold roughly 500K on both systems, exbox excluded it didnt sell too good there hence the reason shadow and soinic riders were not ported to xbox.

Yes cyberrat sega Exboxed the Xbox because SEGA likes to put every game on 2 or 3 different formats and sometimes they throw in a PC version.

Quote
Sega at first, was desparate and needed money, MS paid them to get Shenmue, TJ and E, Panzer Dragoon and Sega Rally Online as sexclusives becaus ethey saw how well thsoe games sold on previous systems.

Please enlighten us on what this "sexclusives" are.

Quote

House of the Dead and Spartan Total Warrior and Sega Rally Online have al;l sold pretty good on Xbox, where as Sonic is all they haev tahst sodl good on GC, Billy Hatcher, Samaurio Jack and everything but sonic and monkey ball sold poorly on GC, so Sega fans didnt NOT go to GC as peopel assume.

HotD did decently on xbox while Spartan sold so/so on all formats. What the hell is Samaurio Jack. I always thought that SEGA games on cube enjoyed a sizeable success on cube. Sega tried to properly segment all their franchises on all 3 formats so that everybody could enjoy a taste of sega on whatever console they had. Well that worked largely with their Gamecube and PS2 games but I believe that only their racing games sold well on Xbox since its one of Xbox user's main demographic.

And cyberrat in all seriousness please write in some form of english thats understandable because I highly doubt that anybody on these forums takes you seriously with your abysmal forum posting and your really really bad "typos" if you can call that at your track record on this forum.

News:

Author Topic: WHAA Sony may work with MS in the future?!?! (Read 5889 times)