Publishers Getting the Crap Kicked Out of Them by Microsoft Claims Sony

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

Oh yes I'm quite aware they made a deal, but where's the proof that MS did this just to spite Sony, which was his original claim. :?

FoolwithaLancer

But you said Microsoft is doing it to Spite Sony, where's your proof of that :?

I'm quite sure M$ IS doing this to spite Sony, but my question would be this.. These are two companies who both want their product to outsell the other competitor.. Why the hell wouldn't they do this? Does anyone here understand business 101.. :|

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] http://bwone.com/microsoft-and-activision-make-multi-year-deal-for-call-of-duty

*Dusts hands*. Won't let me hyperlink Glitchspot at it again.

tormentos

Oh yes I'm quite aware they made a deal, but where's the proof that MS did this just to spite Sony, which was his original claim. :?

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

Oh yes I'm quite aware they made a deal, but where's the proof that MS did this just to spite Sony, which was his original claim. :?

FoolwithaLancer

But you said Microsoft is doing it to Spite Sony, where's your proof of that :?

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Go read what i claim again dude. http://www.callofduty.com/mw3 Both games release the same day and MS pay for the maps to be release first on 360,since both games have the same development time,both downloadable content would take the same,and there is no indication of the contrary,if not MS would not make a deal and just wait for Activision to release the maps on 360 since the PS3 version would take more time.OhSnapitz

But you said Microsoft is doing it to Spite Sony, where's your proof of that :?

I'm quite sure M$ IS doing this to spite Sony, but my question would be this.. These are two companies who both want their product to outsell the other competitor.. Why the hell wouldn't they do this? Does anyone here understand business 101.. :|

Actually microsoft and Sony are pretty friendly and aren't raging Companys trying to get the other Bankrupt. There number one goal is to make a lot of money, which they can do even if there competition is outselling them.

And MS isn't doing it to spite Sony, they want more people to buy MW3 on 360 so they can get more $$$, they could care less how well it does on PS3.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Go read what i claim again dude. http://www.callofduty.com/mw3 Both games release the same day and MS pay for the maps to be release first on 360,since both games have the same development time,both downloadable content would take the same,and there is no indication of the contrary,if not MS would not make a deal and just wait for Activision to release the maps on 360 since the PS3 version would take more time.tormentos

But you said Microsoft is doing it to Spite Sony, where's your proof of that :?

All companys just care about money,MS Is did the deal most likely for more $$$, so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, they didn't make the deal with Sony in mind, they could not care less how well it sells on the PS3 as long as they see $$$$

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Go read what i claim again dude. http://www.callofduty.com/mw3 Both games release the same day and MS pay for the maps to be release first on 360,since both games have the same development time,both downloadable content would take the same,and there is no indication of the contrary,if not MS would not make a deal and just wait for Activision to release the maps on 360 since the PS3 version would take more time.OhSnapitz

But you said Microsoft is doing it to Spite Sony, where's your proof of that :?

I'm quite sure M$ IS doing this to spite Sony, but my question would be this.. These are two companies who both want their product to outsell the other competitor.. Why the hell wouldn't they do this? Does anyone here understand business 101.. :|

still not proof that MS did it to spite SONY, the only thing i see is a company trying to secure exclusive DLC for there customers so they can make more money, you are trying to tell us that a company that is greedy for money,your words, is doing something to spite there competition instead of doing it to make money, doesn't make any sense does it?delta3074

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Yeah, I just read the whole thing, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

MS doesn't want stuff that shows up on Sony's system first then that's their policy. Deal with it. You don't like it then get Sony's system.

There's Sony saying that MS is trying to protect weaker technology or something, but let's face facts, that's a load of bull. After all, it came from freaking Sony. Of course they're going to bag on MS. The only thing I can see is that MS wants games on their system first or to show up at the same time as PS3. And it doesn't mean a damn thing to me either way. MS wants to pay for exclusive content, let them. What do I care how something is exclusive? The fact that it's exclusive is what matters in the end. You get CoD map packs first, so what's the big deal? You get Skyrim DLC first so what's the big deal? Do you really care that MS paid for that or do you just want your extra content sooner?

tormentos

So what part of your response has anything to do with what I said?

MS will secure their own interests and Sony will complain about it. I'm SO glad you get a free copy of a game every 360 owner bought 4-5 years ago. And I'm so glad you get a 2005 shooter packed in with the 2011 shooter now that all of this modern crap is "in."

People want to pay for the DLC. That's why MS secures it. This isn't about anyone's personal preference. I don't give a crap what you like or what you want. This is about how MS goes after their own interests and how Sony is whining about it. Sony has never been free of similar practices nor has Nintendo. They've all done shady things at one point or another. I'm not about to whine about it as it doesn't affect any of us. We still get the content and we choose from which company we want to receive the content.

And WTF does Blu-Ray have to do with anything? Get your ridiculous responses away from me, my man.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]still not proof that MS did it to spite SONY, the only thing i see is a company trying to secure exclusive DLC for there customers so they can make more money, you are trying to tell us that a company that is greedy for money,your words, is doing something to spite there competition instead of doing it to make money, doesn't make any sense does it?tormentos

Whoever started this "spite" BS doesn't know the definition of "spite".

What Microsoft did when they paid Activision for this timed exclusive DLC that Call of Duty players have to pay for is to try to one-up Sony on system and software sales. Plus their marketing that Xbox 360 is the definitive system to play Call of Duty. Look at this commercial-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7gxLI7Tz8#t=1m12s

(and there was another Call of Duty commercial with that guy saying "best on Xbox 360")

Essentially, you have to be a completely ignorant consumer to think that getting something first that you have to pay for is a better deal than getting something permanently exclusive and free. And Microsoft is wasting money that they could have put towards developing exclusive games instead. Microsoft is a bane in the industry.

Also, this-

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424909

Whoever started this "spite" BS doesn't know the definition of "spite".

What Microsoft did when they paid Activision for this timed exclusive DLC that Call of Duty players have to pay for is to try to one-up Sony on system and software sales. Plus their marketing that Xbox 360 is the definitive system to play Call of Duty. Look at this commercial-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7gxLI7Tz8#t=1m12s

(and there was another Call of Duty commercial with that guy saying "best on Xbox 360")

Essentially, you have to be a completely ignorant consumer to think that getting something first that you have to pay for is a better deal than getting something permanently exclusive and free. And Microsoft is wasting money that they could have put towards developing exclusive games instead. Microsoft is a bane in the industry.

Also, this-

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424909

GameShtopper

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Yeah, I just read the whole thing, and you know what? I don't give a damn.

MS doesn't want stuff that shows up on Sony's system first then that's their policy. Deal with it. You don't like it then get Sony's system.

There's Sony saying that MS is trying to protect weaker technology or something, but let's face facts, that's a load of bull. After all, it came from freaking Sony. Of course they're going to bag on MS. The only thing I can see is that MS wants games on their system first or to show up at the same time as PS3. And it doesn't mean a damn thing to me either way. MS wants to pay for exclusive content, let them. What do I care how something is exclusive? The fact that it's exclusive is what matters in the end. You get CoD map packs first, so what's the big deal? You get Skyrim DLC first so what's the big deal? Do you really care that MS paid for that or do you just want your extra content sooner?

NeonNinja

So what part of your response has anything to do with what I said?

MS will secure their own interests and Sony will complain about it. I'm SO glad you get a free copy of a game every 360 owner bought 4-5 years ago. And I'm so glad you get a 2005 shooter packed in with the 2011 shooter now that all of this modern crap is "in."

People want to pay for the DLC. That's why MS secures it. This isn't about anyone's personal preference. I don't give a crap what you like or what you want. This is about how MS goes after their own interests and how Sony is whining about it. Sony has never been free of similar practices nor has Nintendo. They've all done shady things at one point or another. I'm not about to whine about it as it doesn't affect any of us. We still get the content and we choose from which company we want to receive the content.

And WTF does Blu-Ray have to do with anything? Get your ridiculous responses away from me, my man.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Whoever started this "spite" BS doesn't know the definition of "spite".

What Microsoft did when they paid Activision for this timed exclusive DLC that Call of Duty players have to pay for is to try to one-up Sony on system and software sales. Plus their marketing that Xbox 360 is the definitive system to play Call of Duty. Look at this commercial-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7gxLI7Tz8#t=1m12s

(and there was another Call of Duty commercial with that guy saying "best on Xbox 360")

Essentially, you have to be a completely ignorant consumer to think that getting something first that you have to pay for is a better deal than getting something permanently exclusive and free. And Microsoft is wasting money that they could have put towards developing exclusive games instead. Microsoft is a bane in the industry.

Also, this-

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424909

FoolwithaLancer

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Whoever started this "spite" BS doesn't know the definition of "spite".

What Microsoft did when they paid Activision for this timed exclusive DLC that Call of Duty players have to pay for is to try to one-up Sony on system and software sales. Plus their marketing that Xbox 360 is the definitive system to play Call of Duty. Look at this commercial-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7gxLI7Tz8#t=1m12s

(and there was another Call of Duty commercial with that guy saying "best on Xbox 360")

Essentially, you have to be a completely ignorant consumer to think that getting something first that you have to pay for is a better deal than getting something permanently exclusive and free. And Microsoft is wasting money that they could have put towards developing exclusive games instead. Microsoft is a bane in the industry.

Also, this-

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424909

GameShtopper

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]No you are actually refuting my argument with nothing at all,once again both games release the same day,there is not a single reason to think maps will be ready for 360 first than for PS3 and that Activision is rushing the 360 ones or making them first,if that what the case why in hell would MS pay so the maps release first.? They pay so the maps are delay on PS3,you can spin it all you want. And like i told the dude on the original post you quoted,call me when MS actually pay Activision to give the maps free for 360 fans exclusive,then i would say they are doing a neat thing for 360 fans.FoolwithaLancer

Read Caseys guide to not getting moderated, one of the rules states

12. If you make an argument, it needs to be supported. Don't ask somebody who doubts the validity of your argument to "prove me wrong" or somebody who asks you where you got the data that supports your argument to "find it yourself." This is "debating 101"so please don't get yourself moderated for trolling over this.

CaseyWegner

So, again, please provide proof. :)

The only way it's an argument is when someone disagrees. "If you make an argument" which is the one who disagrees, provides their dispute information. How can someone make an argument by themselves? I would have to think that person knows their audience will reject to it, which we know as trolling in the first place. It's even better for the one who disagrees also provide some back up anyways. Both sides need to have something to go along with what they say.

With this rule the disagree isn't disagreeing by what the first has said, just what they didn't say. Then instead of anything getting done both sides rinse and repeat. It would be much better if the disagree were to provide their stuff of why they think otherwise. As it should be just as easy.

Even the statement maker were to post site after site of articles and opinions of reputable people. How would that be an argument? It would look more like a persuasive speech, because the disagree or the one who says, "proof" is on the fence and cannot decide for themselves because they don't have their own sources.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="vashkey"] You mean like what Sony did in the PS1 era? vashkey

Okay, so this is the original post that spouted this BS.

SEGA was the one that required more content for games like Mega Man 8, not Sony. The one who was getting the short end of the stick in terms of sales was SEGA, but their multiplats would get more content than PSOne multiplats to help win over some people (it didn't work). However, SEGA wasn't really supplying much in terms of 1st party content to begin with so it was the worst buy at the time. Overall, it was better to go with the PSOne due to the vast amount of exclusive games. The minimal exclusive content in multiplats wasn't worth the investment.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

FoolwithaLancer

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Whoever started this "spite" BS doesn't know the definition of "spite".

What Microsoft did when they paid Activision for this timed exclusive DLC that Call of Duty players have to pay for is to try to one-up Sony on system and software sales. Plus their marketing that Xbox 360 is the definitive system to play Call of Duty. Look at this commercial-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7gxLI7Tz8#t=1m12s

(and there was another Call of Duty commercial with that guy saying "best on Xbox 360")

Essentially, you have to be a completely ignorant consumer to think that getting something first that you have to pay for is a better deal than getting something permanently exclusive and free. And Microsoft is wasting money that they could have put towards developing exclusive games instead. Microsoft is a bane in the industry.

Also, this-

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=424909

GameShtopper

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

Erm ok so MS is doing it better then Sony . whats your point?

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

NeonNinja

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

Why should I, You really think MS gives two cents how well CoD sells on PS3, As long as they see a huge profit?

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"] No they do not care, MS one intention is profit, huge profit, mega profit w/e, they can do that even if Sony is selling more CoD games.

FoolwithaLancer

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

Why should I, You really think MS gives two cents how well CoD sells on PS3, As long as they see a huge profit?

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

They did not make the deal with Activision to hurt Sony in any way, they did it so more people would buy MW3 on the 360, meaning more $$$ for MS. They could not care less how well it sells on PS3.

FoolwithaLancer

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"] No they do not care, MS one intention is profit, huge profit, mega profit w/e, they can do that even if Sony is selling more CoD games.

FoolwithaLancer

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

Why should I, You really think MS gives two cents how well CoD sells on PS3, As long as they see a huge profit?

Yes they do. Any and all sales taken from Sony are sales gained for MS and vice versa. When Sony has Gabe Newell announce the PS3 version of Portal 2 as the definitive one it is to take sales away from MS. When MS announces CoD map packs on their platform first, it is to take sales away from Sony. The end result is to maintain your current fanbase while chipping away at the competition's fanbase in order to become the market leader.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

NeonNinja

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Please take a Marketing course before commenting on who does and doesn't care.

NeonNinja

Why should I, You really think MS gives two cents how well CoD sells on PS3, As long as they see a huge profit?

Yes they do. Any and all sales taken from Sony are sales gained for MS and vice versa. When Sony has Gabe Newell announce the PS3 version of Portal 2 as the definitive one it is to take sales away from MS. When MS announces CoD map packs on their platform first, it is to take sales away from Sony. The end result is to maintain your current fanbase while chipping away at the competition's fanbase in order to become the market leader.

^Bingo. But what Microsoft is doing is not beneficial to their users at all, while Sony's platform holders reap the benefits.

Microsoft's policies are one of the reasons why publshers such as Level-5 and NISA don't put out games for the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 users miss out on good games that remain exclusive elsewhere.

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

Why should I, You really think MS gives two cents how well CoD sells on PS3, As long as they see a huge profit?

GameShtopper

Yes they do. Any and all sales taken from Sony are sales gained for MS and vice versa. When Sony has Gabe Newell announce the PS3 version of Portal 2 as the definitive one it is to take sales away from MS. When MS announces CoD map packs on their platform first, it is to take sales away from Sony. The end result is to maintain your current fanbase while chipping away at the competition's fanbase in order to become the market leader.

^Bingo. But what Microsoft is doing is not beneficial to their users at all, while Sony's platform holders reap the benefits.

Microsoft's policies are one of the reasons why publshers such as Level-5 and NISA don't put out games for the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 users miss out on good games that remain exclusive elsewhere.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

Sony's platform is competition to the Xbox 360. Of course Microsoft cares if it sells. If you work for a business, you want your product to sell more than the competition's. One way to do that is to garner deals with your suppliers.

This is ****ing common sense and deosn't require an economics professor to tell you that.

GameShtopper

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"] No they do not care, MS one intention is profit, huge profit, mega profit w/e, they can do that even if Sony is selling more CoD games.

FoolwithaLancer

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

So what part of your response has anything to do with what I said?MS will secure their own interests and Sony will complain about it. I'm SO glad you get a free copy of a game every 360 owner bought 4-5 years ago. And I'm so glad you get a 2005 shooter packed in with the 2011 shooter now that all of this modern crap is "in."People want to pay for the DLC. That's why MS secures it. This isn't about anyone's personal preference. I don't give a crap what you like or what you want. This is about how MS goes after their own interests and how Sony is whining about it. Sony has never been free of similar practices nor has Nintendo. They've all done shady things at one point or another. I'm not about to whine about it as it doesn't affect any of us. We still get the content and we choose from which company we want to receive the content.And WTF does Blu-Ray have to do with anything? Get your ridiculous responses away from me, my man.NeonNinja

..

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]So what part of your response has anything to do with what I said?MS will secure their own interests and Sony will complain about it. I'm SO glad you get a free copy of a game every 360 owner bought 4-5 years ago. And I'm so glad you get a 2005 shooter packed in with the 2011 shooter now that all of this modern crap is "in."People want to pay for the DLC. That's why MS secures it. This isn't about anyone's personal preference. I don't give a crap what you like or what you want. This is about how MS goes after their own interests and how Sony is whining about it. Sony has never been free of similar practices nor has Nintendo. They've all done shady things at one point or another. I'm not about to whine about it as it doesn't affect any of us. We still get the content and we choose from which company we want to receive the content.And WTF does Blu-Ray have to do with anything? Get your ridiculous responses away from me, my man.tormentos

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"] No they do not care, MS one intention is profit, huge profit, mega profit w/e, they can do that even if Sony is selling more CoD games.

FoolwithaLancer

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

LOXO7

Of course they'd be mad, they wouldn't be seeing a profit. :)

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"] No they do not care, MS one intention is profit, huge profit, mega profit w/e, they can do that even if Sony is selling more CoD games.

FoolwithaLancer

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

What was the point of Microsoft paying for the timed-exclusive map packs, then? It wasn't from the bottom of their heart, otherwise it would be free.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

Yes they do. Any and all sales taken from Sony are sales gained for MS and vice versa. When Sony has Gabe Newell announce the PS3 version of Portal 2 as the definitive one it is to take sales away from MS. When MS announces CoD map packs on their platform first, it is to take sales away from Sony. The end result is to maintain your current fanbase while chipping away at the competition's fanbase in order to become the market leader.

Allthishate

^Bingo. But what Microsoft is doing is not beneficial to their users at all, while Sony's platform holders reap the benefits.

Microsoft's policies are one of the reasons why publshers such as Level-5 and NISA don't put out games for the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 users miss out on good games that remain exclusive elsewhere.

"In the months following, Level-5 President and CEO Akihiro Hino stated in a Japanese interview that the poor relations between his company and Microsoft, partially due to the latter's inexperience in dealing with Japanese developers, was one of the major reasons behind True Fantasy Live Online's cancellation. He also heavily implied that the two companies did not part amicably, and it stands to reason that the two companies most likely will never work together again."

http://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/16/true-fantasy-live-online-xbox-cancelled/

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

GameShtopper

What was the point of Microsoft paying for the timed-exclusive map packs, then? It wasn't from the bottom of their heart, otherwise it would be free.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

You have got to be ****ting me. There is no way you believe this. If you by some small chance do believe the drivel you are typing, here's an easy example as to why a company would want to prevent a competitor from having access to something-

Hmm, I wonder why Walmart wants to make it known that you can only buy this game at their store?

GameShtopper

What was the point of Microsoft paying for the timed-exclusive map packs, then? It wasn't from the bottom of their heart, otherwise it would be free.

We have no definite reason, though it was most likely so more people would buy MW3 and its DLC on the 360, Thus, earning a profit for them.

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]\ They do NOT care. Why do you have the image of MS Being power hungry and wanting all other companies to go Bankrupt? They did not make the Map Packs deal so people would not buy the PS3 version of MW3, They most likely did it so they'd see more MW3 sales on the 360, which in turn, means more $$$$$$. They could NOT care how well it sells on PS3, If they see huge profits on the 360, they will be fine. If they really did care, don't you think they'd do something else to try to get more people to get the 360 version, Like extra content or a free couple months of Elite or something ;)

FoolwithaLancer

What was the point of Microsoft paying for the timed-exclusive map packs, then? It wasn't from the bottom of their heart, otherwise it would be free.

We have no definite reason, though it was most likely so more people would buy MW3 and its DLC on the 360, Thus, earning a profit for them.

And thus, they wouldn't buy it on PS3.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

It's not an infinite market. There is only so well CoD can sell. Sony has part, PC, and MS. If everyone buys the next CoD on PS3 there is a chance MS will be pretty pissed.

FoolwithaLancer

Of course they'd be mad, they wouldn't be seeing a profit. :)

[QUOTE="Allthishate"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

^Bingo. But what Microsoft is doing is not beneficial to their users at all, while Sony's platform holders reap the benefits.

Microsoft's policies are one of the reasons why publshers such as Level-5 and NISA don't put out games for the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 users miss out on good games that remain exclusive elsewhere.

GameShtopper

"In the months following, Level-5 President and CEO Akihiro Hino stated in a Japanese interview that the poor relations between his company and Microsoft, partially due to the latter's inexperience in dealing with Japanese developers, was one of the major reasons behind True Fantasy Live Online's cancellation. He also heavily implied that the two companies did not part amicably, and it stands to reason that the two companies most likely will never work together again."

http://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/16/true-fantasy-live-online-xbox-cancelled/

[QUOTE="Allthishate"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

^Bingo. But what Microsoft is doing is not beneficial to their users at all, while Sony's platform holders reap the benefits.

Microsoft's policies are one of the reasons why publshers such as Level-5 and NISA don't put out games for the Xbox 360. Xbox 360 users miss out on good games that remain exclusive elsewhere.

GameShtopper

"In the months following, Level-5 President and CEO Akihiro Hino stated in a Japanese interview that the poor relations between his company and Microsoft, partially due to the latter's inexperience in dealing with Japanese developers, was one of the major reasons behind True Fantasy Live Online's cancellation. He also heavily implied that the two companies did not part amicably, and it stands to reason that the two companies most likely will never work together again."

http://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/16/true-fantasy-live-online-xbox-cancelled/

I remember True Fantasy Live.... it looked so promising.

But certainly, MS does have bad practices and in the end it definitely effects their audience. I've noticed it and I'm sure many others (like you) have as well. the point remains though that MS, much like Sony, certainly care about taking sales from the competition.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]

What was the point of Microsoft paying for the timed-exclusive map packs, then? It wasn't from the bottom of their heart, otherwise it would be free.

GameShtopper

We have no definite reason, though it was most likely so more people would buy MW3 and its DLC on the 360, Thus, earning a profit for them.

And thus, they wouldn't buy it on PS3.

Black Ops is one of the highest selling PS3 Games, how are people not buying it on the PS3. :?

it's there system, they created it ,they reserve the right to decide what will be released on there system and what will not, it's also the publishers choice which system they release there games on, if they cared that much about the games they create they would just release it on the Ps3 and be done with it, MS is not forcing them to publish games on there console dude, if anything it reminds me of SONY's arrogance coming into this generation 'developers will only want to develope games on our platform and nobody elses' that's why they deliberately released hard to code for technology, so any game made on there system could no be easily ported to the competitions because they wrongly assumed that because they dominated the last 2 generations that developers would use the Ps3 as the lead platform, there plan backfired,why? because they made the mistake of thinking that all developers would flock to the playstation brand,they overestimated brand loyalty 'people will take a second job just so they can afford a ps3', trust me, that kind of arrogance is what MS is showing right now and it will backfire on them too,they are wrongly assuming that developers will pander to there arrogance and there silly little rules because they believe that developers wouldn't even dream of not releasing a multiplatform game on the 360,but that's not really the point, why do you care so much? why does all this bother you so much? there ain't a damn thing you can do about it and does it really matter why a business does the things it does, as a consumer i only care about what they can offer me, i went with the 360 because it offers me what i want not through loyalty to MS, i only care about what i want, i couldn't give a monkeys if SONY and MS whip each other with jungle vines to death as long as i can get what i want and i can enjoy my games i don't care what these big corperations do, they don't care about me so why should i care about them, i don't buy DLC unless i feel it's worth it, i don't buy map packs so why would i care who gets them first.delta3074

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

It's not an infinite market. There is only so well CoD can sell. Sony has part, PC, and MS. If everyone buys the next CoD on PS3 there is a chance MS will be pretty pissed.

LOXO7

Of course they'd be mad, they wouldn't be seeing a profit. :)

They saw a profit. A huge one. I think they're aware it's working ;)