If i owned a company that sells a video game console im gonna do whatever it takes to get people to buy my product.Thats what microsoft and any other company is doing.Its very simple people, these guys are in a very competetive buisness and there gonna use all there recoureses that they have to come out on top ,theres nothing wrong with that its just buisness.Fanboys have a problem with it because they cant take it when there favorite starts to lag behind another.Its pretty annoying that people dont understand and just accept the fact that what u worship isnt always gonna be whats on top.Atari was top dog for a while and then nintendo came along.After a while sega was the main man and the there was sony.Sony held the crown for a while and now its back to nintendo and microsoft in second.Just enjoy the games people and stop this pointless brand loyalty because no matter what companys on top today doesnt guarantee theyll be on top tomorrow, thats just the nature of the game industry.
I'm personally more than happy to allow 360 owners the opportunity to pay 800 points for DLC that sucks enormous amounts of donkey you know what. Have all the DLC you all want. In fact, go ahead and bath in the sweet glory of that content. It is totally worth it...totally.
MS paid for Grand Theft Auto 4 DLC. How bout the Tomb Raider: Underworld DLC, did they pay for that? If so, it's only natural to assume they paid for Fallout 3 as well?
Anyway, I don't believe MS paid for exclusives to go multiplatform that would be stupid, imo. In the case of SquareEnix, I don't really know what to say. They did a fine job supporting the 360 not so much with the ps3. Well, now I can see why cows are starting to support Factor 5.:(
No, We just hate ignorant comments like this and I am not a cow, I am a manticore or whatever you guys call someone who has different systems.... AS a multiplatform owner (PC/PS3/PSP/Wii/DS) gamer, i don't like one company who uses monopolistic tactics to strong hold companies to release exclusive dlc to one console when the other console owner payed the same $60 for the game...it's wrong. MS is notorious for these strong arm, shady back alley deals. They did it all throughout the 90's in court with companies and eventually the companies would loose as ms could out spend anyone. MS is greedy and has so much loot that sony would be stupid to try to outbid them, it wouldn't be worth it. So instead they make their own exclusives. This is why Sony has 20+ 1st party developers and Nintendo has more then 10 while MS has 2, just 2 and now they have 0 pc devs killing off them all ( god I hate that poor ensemble and aces workers...and they were killed because ms was short a million or 2 from projections....horrible just horrible!!!!)
Why else would bethesda not want to relaease to everyone? They sold over a million version of fallout 3 to ps3 owners, thats a lot of potential dlc. MS had to buy it, and as well it is only available on gfw live on pc...which is pissing so many pc gamers off too, as no pc gamer likes live...we hate it and it casued so many issues on that new dlc its not even funny. Plus what about people who live in other countries who don't have access to it.....hmmm...... world69star69
Well when someone said they are a manticore that often means they are a fanboy trying to show they are unbias.
Yeah Sony is a friendly company. When the PS1 came out Sony had really nothing so need to sign up 3rd party developers. You make MS out to be this baby eating evil compnay, The Holy Sony isn't that much better, MS is still pretty new to console gaming, so need to spend money to get people on board the 360.
Also you want to think of Monopolistic stuff look at Sony, it seems that after the PS1 & 2 they could of priced the PS 3 at any price they want and use it to help win the fromat war.
They certainly paid for much less than Sony did when Sony bought half of the third party devs that nintendo was using when they released the Playstation, nothing that severe.
Log in to comment