Sony or Microsoft: Which Has Better First Party Game Developers?

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

The topic of this thread is "Sony or Microsoft: Which Has Better First Party Game Developers?" and not "Sony or Microsoft: Which Will Have Better First Party Game Developers?". NG2 and GoW3 haven't released yet so you cannot effectively compare Sony's and Microsoft's 1st party game developers by using games that have yet to come out.

In return, we can only use games that are out now and not "just wait" till NG2 and GoW3 come out. You said it yourself, who cares about the past and the future? We live in the present.

Ninja-Hippo

Ninja Gaiden 2 is in development now. It's very much the present. :| Please, dont tell me you cant acknowledge a developer making a game for a company and say "x company is lucky to have y developer". "No that doesn't count because the game isn't out yet!"

Or would you like to make this already flawed comparison even more convoluted and specific, eliminating even more perfectly good games because they dont fit the definition of the comparison?

Because hey, technically microsoft doesn't have any first party developers at all. I guess xbox owners should just throw their consoles out. :?

It is in development now, but is it out? No? How can we use it and judge it by its own merits? Going by your logic, that Ninja Gaiden belongs exclusively to Microsoft, it would be the first Ninja Gaiden that could actually be considered 1st party for Microsoft. The game could very well be a disappointment. Cows hyped so many games and most of them ended up being rather disappointing. This is why we should only acknowledge games that are out now i.e. part of the present, and not the future. NG2 is coming out in over 2 months.

Convoluted and specific? Being specific is a good thing or else we would have numerous cows rounding up scores and screaming that they have AAAe games. Even more perfectly good games, btw? So you already know that NG2 is good? Played it and all?

Is that so? They only rent them, it seems. :o

[QUOTE="girlpowerz"]

Okay, then I see what you're getting at now. But GOWIII and NGII aren't even out yet. NGII is being developed and GOWIII hasn't lifted off paper yet. It's still kind of unfair what you're doing in terms of comparison...imo.

Ninja-Hippo

Comparing what? Alls i said was it's daft to say Ninja Gaiden doesn't count as a microsoft exclusives because it showed up on the DS and PS3. You cant argue that God of War 3 has no competition from microsoft because it clearly does; Ninja Gaiden 2. Like i said, this comparison is just horrible because people insist on throwing in bizare definitions of what counts and what dosen't count. "But they only own that GAME, not that FRANCHISE!"

Big deal. The fact is there's a microsoft-only ninja gaiden game releasing this gen and a sony-only god of war game. To compare the two as company-exclusives is completely reasonable. If microsoft doesn't snap up the rights to ninja gaiden 3 and it goes elsewhere; sucks to be them. That game can no longer be used as a reason to own an xbox.

Okay, you win. I'm done.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="girlpowerz"]

Okay, then I see what you're getting at now. But GOWIII and NGII aren't even out yet. NGII is being developed and GOWIII hasn't lifted off paper yet. It's still kind of unfair what you're doing in terms of comparison...imo.

girlpowerz

Comparing what? Alls i said was it's daft to say Ninja Gaiden doesn't count as a microsoft exclusives because it showed up on the DS and PS3. You cant argue that God of War 3 has no competition from microsoft because it clearly does; Ninja Gaiden 2. Like i said, this comparison is just horrible because people insist on throwing in bizare definitions of what counts and what dosen't count. "But they only own that GAME, not that FRANCHISE!"

Big deal. The fact is there's a microsoft-only ninja gaiden game releasing this gen and a sony-only god of war game. To compare the two as company-exclusives is completely reasonable. If microsoft doesn't snap up the rights to ninja gaiden 3 and it goes elsewhere; sucks to be them. That game can no longer be used as a reason to own an xbox.

Okay, you win. I'm done.

And I can't be asked anymore. -.-

I'm talking about franchises and he's talking about games yet Microsoft only rents developers to develop games for them and what not, thus making them the odd one out.

Microsoft seems to be a unique case since they just rent game developers for single games, then.Hexagon_777

Which i pointed out about 20 minutes ago, concluding that this thread will never work because you insist on only comparing first-party franchises. Microsoft does not have any first party games.

I realised that obviously the thread title wasn't a concrete "THEY MUST BE FIRST PARTY" as microsoft doesn't have any. Thus, i simply used games which are as close to first-party as you can get. But then the definition guys stormed in with "ZOMG but technically that's not first party!!"

I say again; they have no first party games. So close the thread now.

That just isn't how microsoft do it. Rather than wholesale buy developers, they seem happier to rather strike up working relationships with developers who agree to develop their games with help from microsoft, who in turn publish them. See Gears of War.

And I can't be asked anymore. -.-

I'm talking about franchises and he's talking about games yet Microsoft only rents developers to develop games for them and what not, thus making them the odd one out.

Hexagon_777

So you admit that in forcing us to only discuss "franchises" you effectively make discussion impossible? :|

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

And I can't be asked anymore. -.-

I'm talking about franchises and he's talking about games yet Microsoft only rents developers to develop games for them and what not, thus making them the odd one out.

Ninja-Hippo

So you admit that in forcing us to only discuss "franchises" you effectively make discussion impossible? :|

That's how it is usually done. Look at how many people responded to you and argued against you. We didn't think to give Microsoft a handicap.

Furthermore, why do you say "us"? It was only you, really. You were the one forcing us to give Microsoft a handicap. Everyone else, as indicated by the above paragraph, seemed to be fine with how it would usually be done. Discussion was going well since it was only NG we saw a problem with. Then you came along and decided to spurt all this handicap nonsense which effectively made discussion impossible.

Anyway, since Microsoft seemingly has no 1st party developers...Sony is the obvious winner. :|

Sony. A shame they still can't get an AAAE though.TMontana1004

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

And I can't be asked anymore. -.-

I'm talking about franchises and he's talking about games yet Microsoft only rents developers to develop games for them and what not, thus making them the odd one out.

Hexagon_777

So you admit that in forcing us to only discuss "franchises" you effectively make discussion impossible? :|

That's how it is usually done. Look at how many people responded to you and argued against you. We didn't think to give Microsoft a handicap.

Furthermore, why do you say "us"? It was only you, really. You were the one forcing us to give Microsoft a handicap. Everyone else, as indicated by the above paragraph, seemed to be fine with how it would usually be done. Discussion was going well since it was only NG we saw a problem with. Then you came along and decided to spurt all this handicap nonsense which effectively made discussion impossible.

Anyway, since Microsoft seemingly has no 1st party developers...Sony is the obvious winner. :|

By "us" i meant me and you.

Three people arguing against me does not mean i'm wrong. :|

And your logic just perplexes me - microsoft has no first party developers therefore sony wins? Was the whole point of everything i said not that that comparison is obviously flawed in the first place as there can only be one winner? Is that not why i tried to explain that microsoft HAS no first party developers but has plenty of games which are the equivalent? Which you took such exception to?

Jeez. :|

now that bungie is out.., which has better first party developerment studios?Mystery_Writer

With Bungie Studios and Bizarre Creations jumping ship, there's no doubt Sony has better 1st party developers. The fact that many of the 3rd party developers who once support Sony exclusively have now favored the XBox 360 speaks volumn though. Developers like Capcom, Temco & Atlus seem to be enjoying the high profits they've been making on the XBox 360. M$ also has many PC developers looking to make games for the 360 like Epic, Crytek, Bethesda Softworks, Sierra & Eidos, plus all the regular 3rd party developer who make games for Sony and Nintendo as well. So in terms of 3rd Party developers, I think Microsoft currently has the edge.

**************************************************

[QUOTE="TMontana1004"]Sony. A shame they still can't get an AAAE though.Bubblehash

When I started using Gamerankings to make a point that many XBox 360 games got "AAA", Cows laughed and said only Gamespot scores counted. :lol: :lol: So Gamespot scores only counts when it favors PS3 games? :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

Also; let's just examine your logic here:

Me: "well microsoft doesn't have any first party developers so there's nothing to discuss here.... however microsoft does have plenty of games they're publishing exclusively to their system. I suppose we could compare those to sony's exclusive games? It's the closest thing you can get to a comparison of the two."

You: "No; that's not a franchise, that's just a game. That doesn't count. Etc etc".

And then YOU conclude that it is ME who is "making discussion impossible."

Wowsers.

[QUOTE="goddamn_"]Microsoft by far. None of Sony games nowhere near Forza, Halo, Ninja Gaiden, ConkerLord_Pro

Gran Truismo franchise> Forza
Final fantasy franchise > Halo
God Of War franchise > Ninja Gaiden
Jak and Daxter franchise > Conker

POSTED OWNED :lol:

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

Also; let's just examine your logic here:

Me: "well microsoft doesn't have any first party developers so there's nothing to discuss here.... however microsoft does have plenty of games they're publishing exclusively to their system. I suppose we could compare those to sony's exclusive games? It's the closest thing you can get to a comparison of the two."

You: "No; that's not a franchise, that's just a game. That doesn't count. Etc etc".

And then YOU conclude that it is ME who is "making discussion impossible."

Wowsers.

Ninja-Hippo

So we might as well include Sony's 3rd party exclusives, right? Like...the ones published by them because that means they are 1st party by Microsoft standards. This just screams for us to change this whole thread just to fit Microsoft's handicap.

It is indeed you. Having to fit the whole topic to Microsoft's handicap ends up causing the convolution you accused me of at first. How many people have seen your post anyway and don't just read the first post of this thread and respond to it? Not many as the thread becomes longer and longer, I'm sure. This thread has become pointless.

Microsoft does have 1st party develoeprs. They have Rare Studios, Lionhead Studios, Turn 10, Ensemble Studios, MS Game Studios and a couple others, I'm sure. Even with Bungie leaving, they are still considered a 2nd party developer since Halo will always be on the XBox consoles exclusively. blackace

So where do we put Ninja Gaiden and Team Ninja in all this if Microsoft does have 1st party developers?

The thread title can only be answered with "Microsoft doesn't even have any first party developers therefore obviously sony wins." Thread over. Alls i did was factor i microsoft's games which are exactly the same as first party titles without fitting the definition exactly.

Put it this way; i tried to talk to people about the quality of games like Ninja Gaiden vs the quality of games like God of War. You on the other hand, decided not to discuss that but to complain about how ninja gaiden shouldnt' count because it doesn't fit your rigid definitions of what may or may not be discussed.

To say it is i who am making "discussion impossible" is to have a major problem with not being able to admit you're wrong.

Microsoft does have 1st party develoeprs. They have Rare Studios, Lionhead Studios, Turn 10, Ensemble Studios, MS Game Studios and a couple others, I'm sure. Even with Bungie leaving, they are still considered a 2nd party developer since Halo will always be on the XBox consoles exclusively. blackace

Dont bother. I tried pointing out how they have games which aren't first party but are obviously xbox exclusives and people just started complaining about how they dont count. It would appear that they (or at this point he) would rather argue about what does and doesn't count as opposed to just talking about the darned games.

[QUOTE="Bubblehash"][QUOTE="TMontana1004"]Sony. A shame they still can't get an AAAE though.blackace

When I started using Gamerankings to make a point that many XBox 360 games got "AAA", Cows laughed and said only Gamespot scores counted. :lol: :lol: So Gamespot scores only counts when it favors PS3 games? :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

The PS3 has no AAAE games by GameRankings standards and the Xbox 360 has less AAAE games by GameRankings standards. Just felt like throwing that in.

:P

[QUOTE="blackace"]Microsoft does have 1st party develoeprs. They have Rare Studios, Lionhead Studios, Turn 10, Ensemble Studios, MS Game Studios and a couple others, I'm sure. Even with Bungie leaving, they are still considered a 2nd party developer since Halo will always be on the XBox consoles exclusively. Ninja-Hippo

Dont bother. I tried pointing out how they have games which aren't first party but are obviously xbox exclusives and people just started complaining about how they dont count. It would appear that they (or at this point he) would rather argue about what does and doesn't count as opposed to just talking about the darned games.

Why not change the whole topic to simply: Sony or Microsoft: Which Has Better Exclusives?

Is Sony allowed to use 3rd party exclusives?

Why not stop being so pedantic about what does and doesn't count and what the wording of the topic title is and just let people compare games on reasonable terms? :|

The thread title can only be answered with "Microsoft doesn't even have any first party developers therefore obviously sony wins." Thread over. Alls i did was factor i microsoft's games which are exactly the same as first party titles without fitting the definition exactly.

Put it this way; i tried to talk to people about the quality of games like Ninja Gaiden vs the quality of games like God of War. You on the other hand, decided not to discuss that but to complain about how ninja gaiden shouldnt' count because it doesn't fit your rigid definitions of what may or may not be discussed.

To say it is i who am making "discussion impossible" is to have a major problem with not being able to admit you're wrong.

Ninja-Hippo

You don't understand. The franchise isn't exclusive. Your only talking about Ninja Gaiden 2 and we are talking about first party developers. The Ninja Gaiden franchise was made in the ps3 and the DS also, which means the developers aren't with microsoft exclusive.

You don't understand. The franchise isn't exclusive. Your only talking about Ninja Gaiden 2 and we are talking about first party developers. The Ninja Gaiden franchise was made in the ps3 and the DS also, which means the developers aren't with microsoft exclusive.

Lebron181

I understand perfectly well. You've simply made the mistake of quoting a post without reading the thread.

[QUOTE="Lebron181"]

You don't understand. The franchise isn't exclusive. Your only talking about Ninja Gaiden 2 and we are talking about first party developers. The Ninja Gaiden franchise was made in the ps3 and the DS also, which means the developers aren't with microsoft exclusive.

Ninja-Hippo

I understand perfectly well. You've simply made the mistake of quoting a post without reading the thread.

??? The thread is about who has better first party developer. :question:

The thread title can only be answered with "Microsoft doesn't even have any first party developers therefore obviously sony wins." Thread over. Alls i did was factor i microsoft's games which are exactly the same as first party titles without fitting the definition exactly.

Put it this way; i tried to talk to people about the quality of games like Ninja Gaiden vs the quality of games like God of War. You on the other hand, decided not to discuss that but to complain about how ninja gaiden shouldnt' count because it doesn't fit your rigid definitions of what may or may not be discussed.

To say it is i who am making "discussion impossible" is to have a major problem with not being able to admit you're wrong.

Ninja-Hippo

Okay, so Microsoft lacks 1st party developers and therefore cannot be compared to Sony. Conclusion? We have to broaden the question a bit more in order to have a discussion. Is it Sony's 1st party developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 1st party developers and Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers against Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers?

The last one seems to be the most fair since both would be treated equally instead of comparing one's 1st party to the other's 3rd party exclusives.

??? The thread is about who has better first party developer. :question:

Lebron181

I've said dozens of times that Ninja Gaiden was on the DS and PS3. So you pointing that out to me only shows that you haven't read the thread. I'm not saying you should; lord knows i wouldn't read pages and pages of posts. But what i also wouldn't do is pick a random post from pages back and start arguing about it when all of this has already been discussed to death.

I'm not repeating everything i've said for the benefit of a new arrival. Sorry.

It's tough to call really; Metal Gear Solid would be my favourite game of the bunch, and that's Sony. However i also couldn't live without Halo or Ninja Gaiden and those are both microsoft. I think if i had to only have one console i'd probably go with microsoft, as it's better to have more AAA games. Missing out on MGS would be tough though. :P

Ninja-Hippo

Why not stop being so pedantic about what does and doesn't count and what the wording of the topic title is and just let people compare games on reasonable terms? :|

Ninja-Hippo

Comparing one's 1st party to the other's 3rd party exclusives just doesn't sound right to me. :|

Play if fair both ways by keeping the factors discussed even.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

The thread title can only be answered with "Microsoft doesn't even have any first party developers therefore obviously sony wins." Thread over. Alls i did was factor i microsoft's games which are exactly the same as first party titles without fitting the definition exactly.

Put it this way; i tried to talk to people about the quality of games like Ninja Gaiden vs the quality of games like God of War. You on the other hand, decided not to discuss that but to complain about how ninja gaiden shouldnt' count because it doesn't fit your rigid definitions of what may or may not be discussed.

To say it is i who am making "discussion impossible" is to have a major problem with not being able to admit you're wrong.

Hexagon_777

Okay, so Microsoft lacks 1st party developers and therefore cannot be compared to Sony. Conclusion? We have to broaden the question a bit more in order to have a discussion. Is it Sony's 1st party developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 1st party developers and Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers against Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers?

The last one seems to be the most fair since both would be treated equally instead of comparing one's 1st party to the other's 3rd party exclusives.

You appear obsessed with rules and definitions of what can and cannot be discussed. I have no idea why. All i did was simply answer a question of "what does microsoft have to counter god of war?" Ninja Gaiden 2. You then flipped out at how that doesn't count as it's just a game and not a franchise and it's been on other platforms in the past; when all i was trying to do is make the topic discussable because while not technically first party, it's as good as. Just like the other guy was pointing out before; microsoft doesn't have any real first party developers on the 360. But it has a few games which are as good as. They may not OWN the developer but they exclusively publish the game, own the rights to it and choose to publish it on their system.

So please; just forget about your rules and definitions and the constant complaining about what does and doesn't count and accept that i was simply pointing out that microsoft has games which are just as good as first-party titles. The only reason i even brought it up was because microsoft has NO FIRST PARTY DEVELOPERS and therefore it's hard to discuss this at all. I didn't even say microsoft was better. I said hands-down that i loved MGS. I honestly dont know what your problem is.

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

Lebron181

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can make games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd party developers though.

*********************************************************

[QUOTE="blackace"]Microsoft does have 1st party develoeprs. They have Rare Studios, Lionhead Studios, Turn 10, Ensemble Studios, MS Game Studios and a couple others, I'm sure. Even with Bungie leaving, they are still considered a 2nd party developer since Halo will always be on the XBox consoles exclusively. Hexagon_777

So where do we put Ninja Gaiden and Team Ninja in all this if Microsoft does have 1st party developers?

Team Ninja is not 1st party. Do you guys know the difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd party developers?

1st Party = Are developers who are owned by the company who created the system. (i.e. Sony owns Polyphony & Isomniac. M$ owns Rare Studios and Lionhead Studios) Those are 1st party companies.

2nd Party = Are developers who aren't own by the company who created the system, but choices to make only games for only one platform with/without being paid to do so. (i.e. Naughty Dog, Working Design, Bungie (for now), etc.,.)

3rd Party = Are developers who make games for multiple game consoles and systems.

That's basically it.

[QUOTE="goddamn_"]Microsoft by far. None of Sony games nowhere near Forza, Halo, Ninja Gaiden, ConkerLord_Pro

Gran Truismo franchise> Forza
Final fantasy franchise > Halo
God Of War franchise > Ninja Gaiden
Jak and Daxter franchise > Conker

POSTED OWNED :lol:

the 2 underlines are wrong, and why would u compare FF to Halo?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

Why not stop being so pedantic about what does and doesn't count and what the wording of the topic title is and just let people compare games on reasonable terms? :|

Hexagon_777

Comparing one's 1st party to the other's 3rd party exclusives just doesn't sound right to me. :|

Play if fair both ways by keeping the factors discussed even.

It was one game. I was just talking about ninja gaiden vs god of war. And like i said; i'm well aware that it isn't a first party game. I pointed out how it's as good as however. Let it go. :|

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

It's tough to call really; Metal Gear Solid would be my favourite game of the bunch, and that's Sony. However i also couldn't live without Halo or Ninja Gaiden and those are both microsoft. I think if i had to only have one console i'd probably go with microsoft, as it's better to have more AAA games. Missing out on MGS would be tough though. :P

kage_53

I said that earlier. Again, please dont strike up arguements with posts made so long ago. Odds are it's already been discussed.

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd party.

blackace

That is wrong...Sony acquired Naughty Dog. They can't go off and make games for other systems.

[QUOTE="Lebron181"]

??? The thread is about who has better first party developer. :question:

Ninja-Hippo

I've said dozens of times that Ninja Gaiden was on the DS and PS3. So you pointing that out to me only shows that you haven't read the thread. I'm not saying you should; lord knows i wouldn't read pages and pages of posts. But what i also wouldn't do is pick a random post from pages back and start arguing about it when all of this has already been discussed to death.

I'm not repeating everything i've said for the benefit of a new arrival. Sorry.

Ive actually read all the posts. You didn't justify that youve stop with the arguement.

Ive actually read all the posts. You didn't justify that youve stop with the arguement.

Lebron181

Would you like me to embarrass you and quote all of the posts making the exact same points as yours? :|

[QUOTE="blackace"]Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd party.

Cute_Red_Panda

That is wrong...Sony acquired Naughty Dog. They can't go off and make games for other systems.

True indeed. Do sony own Insomniac too?

[QUOTE="Lebron181"]

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

blackace

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can make games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd part developers though.

... They haven't made any games since the psone era. They could do anything they want and they dont seem to be attached to a contract.

[QUOTE="Cute_Red_Panda"][QUOTE="blackace"]Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd party.

Ninja-Hippo

That is wrong...Sony acquired Naughty Dog. They can't go off and make games for other systems.

True indeed. Do sony own Insomniac too?

No, they're independent.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Lebron181"]

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

Lebron181

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can make games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd part developers though.

... They haven't made any games since the psone era. They could do anything they want and they dont seem to be attached to a contract.

Uncharted...

[QUOTE="Cute_Red_Panda"][QUOTE="blackace"]Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd party.

Ninja-Hippo

That is wrong...Sony acquired Naughty Dog. They can't go off and make games for other systems.

True indeed. Do sony own Insomniac too?

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

The thread title can only be answered with "Microsoft doesn't even have any first party developers therefore obviously sony wins." Thread over. Alls i did was factor i microsoft's games which are exactly the same as first party titles without fitting the definition exactly.

Put it this way; i tried to talk to people about the quality of games like Ninja Gaiden vs the quality of games like God of War. You on the other hand, decided not to discuss that but to complain about how ninja gaiden shouldnt' count because it doesn't fit your rigid definitions of what may or may not be discussed.

To say it is i who am making "discussion impossible" is to have a major problem with not being able to admit you're wrong.

Ninja-Hippo

Okay, so Microsoft lacks 1st party developers and therefore cannot be compared to Sony. Conclusion? We have to broaden the question a bit more in order to have a discussion. Is it Sony's 1st party developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 1st party developers and Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers against Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers or is it Sony's 3rd party exclusive developers versus Microsoft's 3rd party exclusive developers?

The last one seems to be the most fair since both would be treated equally instead of comparing one's 1st party to the other's 3rd party exclusives.

You appear obsessed with rules and definitions of what can and cannot be discussed. I have no idea why. All i did was simply answer a question of "what does microsoft have to counter god of war?" Ninja Gaiden 2. You then flipped out at how that doesn't count as it's just a game and not a franchise and it's been on other platforms in the past; when all i was trying to do is make the topic discussable because while not technically first party, it's as good as. Just like the other guy was pointing out before; microsoft doesn't have any real first party developers on the 360. But it has a few games which are as good as. They may not OWN the developer but they exclusively publish the game, own the rights to it and choose to publish it on their system.

So please; just forget about your rules and definitions and the constant complaining about what does and doesn't count and accept that i was simply pointing out that microsoft has games which are just as good as first-party titles. The only reason i even brought it up was because microsoft has NO FIRST PARTY DEVELOPERS and therefore it's hard to discuss this at all. I didn't even say microsoft was better. I said hands-down that i loved MGS. I honestly dont know what your problem is.

I live by rules and facts, yes. Why bend and spin stuff and cause loads of arguments that way?

Anyway, since that's just you, let's agree to disagree.

[QUOTE="Lebron181"]

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

blackace

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can make games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd part developers though.

Nah, they still count. They are exclusive to Sony. That's as good as 1st party.

... They haven't made any games since the psone era. They could do anything they want and they dont seem to be attached to a contract.

Lebron181

He's right man. Sony own Naughty Dog. They aren't going anywhere. :)

Nah, they still count. They are exclusive to Sony. That's as good as 1st party.

Hexagon_777

Are you serious? :| Did you just use the exact same logic i've been using this whole time, which you've taken such exception to? Not ACTUALLY first party, but releasing a game on their platform which obviously isn't going to be released anywhere else for the foreseeable future? Good AS first party? Is that not what i've been saying this whole time? :?

[QUOTE="Lebron181"]

... They haven't made any games since the psone era. They could do anything they want and they dont seem to be attached to a contract.

Ninja-Hippo

He's right man. Sony own Naughty Dog. They aren't going anywhere. :)

I wasnt really sure. Thanks for the confirmation.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Lebron181"]

Sony has better First party and third party than M$.

Team ICO

• SCE London Studio
• SCE Studio Cambridge
• SCE Studio Liverpool
• SCE Studio San Diego
• SCE Studios Santa Monica
• Sony Bend
• Sony Computer Entertainment
• Sony Online Entertainment
• Naughty Dog
• Polyphony Digital
• Guerrilla Games
• Insomniac Studios

Its a no-brainer that Sony has better First party since they had two systems that won.

Third party like

Square-Enix

Atlus

Level-5

Konami

etc.. have big franchises exclusive to the PS brand.

Lebron181

Naughty Dog isn't 1st party. They can make games for whatever system they choice to. They just favor Sony's systems. They could be considered 2nd part developers though.

... They haven't made any games since the psone era. They could do anything they want and they dont seem to be attached to a contract.

YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. NAUGHTY DOG IS OWNED WHOLLY BY SONY.

THEY ARE SONY.