Part-Time Viking
SuperJawes2112
Part-Time Viking
SuperJawes2112
Part-Time Viking
Square Enix and Namco come to mind when you said slip-away, but either way, the PS3 is maintaining a decent number of third party exclusives... Microsoft would be having trouble keeping a good number of them too if they didn't opt to publish ******** everything...

Anyways, the only way to really ensure third party exclusivity these days is to fork over money anyways, kinda like what I'm sure Sony did with MGS4 from the get go. Hell, Ubi making Haze a PS3 exclusive was a surprise to me.

Anyways, in the long run, a strong first party will help build a base, and third parties will follow when in doubt.
Funny you mention that Microsoft is publishing everything...that's exactly what gave Sony the edge in the market with PSOne/2...

@ Live: Maybe I just don't have anything to compare to, but Microsoft for sure made Live a success by making such a big deal about it. Nintendo kind of made a deal with it's WiFi, but I didn't see too much online advertisement for PS2 games, DS hasn't done a whole lot compared to XBL, and the GC either had online play or had PLANNED for an online service, but how often do you hear about that?

This could simply have been a "first step in the door" advantage.
Not really with the PS2, because while Sony did publish some exclusives, the bulk of them were third party completely independent of Sony... I'm not really sure about the PSone though, my memory isn't that great from that time.

Microsoft hypes XBL because it draws a lot of attention to them, it certainly is their strong point in the gaming industry, downside is that many games seems to take a single player hit in favor of supplying a semi-decent online community, Gears is a prime example of that.

But hey, it makes them money, and gets them support, so who am I to butch about it?
Solution: work for Microsoft and make some of that money xd

But as for the PSOne thingy, here's the way I was told it...

Nintendo had, and still has a seal of approval, meaning that any game published by Nintendo must meet their standards, which doesn't leave a lot of room for third party, as they have to conform to Nintendo's will to begin with (and I have no idea about Sega). Sony basically said to hell with that, as they had no gaming division aside from the work with Nintendo to develop the Playstation, which was not the software part. To remedy this ailment, Sony let third parties go by without needing a seal of approval. The sign of this are still clear, as the PS2 library is MASSIVE. The upside is that Sony now has a lot of games, and a lot of good games by the spitball theory. The only downside is the concentration of good games drops, which is no matter, because the console markets well.

I'm pretty sure the PS2 followed in these footsteps, but Sony was able to build a first-party with games like Ratchet & Clank, God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.

This is what I was referring to with the "Sony did the same thing" comment.
Aw yes, Well they all need to draw developers somehow, Nintendo by being the only real successful name in the late 80's early 90's, Sony by offering creative freedom, and Microsoft by throwing a lot of money to the companies, which means that there is little chance of the developers going multiconsole unless if they wanted to face a nasty lawsuit from Microsoft.

Sony has a pretty solid first and second party base though, they've developed their developers well.


...Microsoft bought many of theirs. That's real inspirational. rolleyes

I'm not even touching the Nintendo/Sony thing. I have strong opinions about that and I'm not going to express it.