ghaleon0721's forum posts

Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
Just sign the petition. If you don't want to, then don't.KraftForgotten
Thanks for that guidance bud. So let me get this straight....If I want to sign the petition, I should sign, but if I don't want to sign it, I should not. Got it. Thanks Man I was lost there for a bit
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
Having a petition is like Sony admitting they won't win the console race (not that I care. actually, I do).headninjadog
No, if Sony PAYS for exclusives it will be like Sony admitting that they can't win the console race and that they have no faith in their system.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
I haven't played any of the other incarnations of the game so I'm definitely getting it. But if you're unsure you should pick up this month's issue of PSM. It has a HUGE feature on the game. Apparently its being completely rebuilt from the ground up with ALOT of new stuff. Check it out
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
I think the most fun I ever had playing multi-player was TMNT 4 for the SNES with a buddy. There is nothing like a good beat-em-up for multi-player cooperative play. that's why its odd to me that no one has suggested Marvel Ultimate Alliance.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
The absolute worst thing that Sony could do in this generation's console war is to start paying for 3rd party exclusives. I don't know how many times I've said it but I'm getting sick of hearing myself almost as much as all of you are getting sick of hearing me. But yet, everyday I fire up these forums and see some misinformed numbskill piss and moan because Sony won't pay for a 3rd party exclusive. Usually it's some high and mighty 11th grader who thinks he has the business world figured out and beating the competition is as simple as paying for exclusives. It's NOT that simple. 1. The "pay for exclusives" approach would only work if both consoles were equal. They are not even close. The PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 by a considerable margin. Therefore, Sony's strategy includes a sort of darwinism that says that "If we offer the best gaming potential, we will get the best games". And so far its working. This is evidenced by the fact that MGS4 and FF13 are still Sony exclusives without any contractual obligation or payment from Sony. 2. Sony makes money by licensing its hardware to developers. It's simple, Sony says "you want to publish a game for our console, pay us the licensing fees". If Sony starts giving that money back in "exclusivity fees" they have essentially negated their own revenue stream. That means that Sony will either start hemorrhaging cash and eventually close its gaming division, or they will have to make the money back in other ways. Imagine paying $1000 for your PS3, $100 for controllers, etc. The same thing happens on the other end. I firmly believe that any developer with a shred of business sense can not name a price that will make him ignore 10 million Xbox 360 gamers (and growing). Even if he could name that price, there is no way Sony would pay it because it would be entirely prohibitive. But lets assume that Sony did pay, the developer would have to derive more of his profits from just one market, which means that the game itself could be more expensive. Now apply those two nuggets of wisdom to MGS4 and FF13 which are still Sony exclusives. Did Sony pay for those? No. Sure they may have cut some licensing fees or helped with publishing costs, etc. but there is no way that those savings would be enough to make Square or Kojima turn its back on a market of 10 million Xbox gamers. There is TOO much money to be made. So wait, why then are those two games still exclusive??? Because they include technology designed specifically for the PS3 and can not be played on any other platform, at least not without being stripped down, compressed, cut-up and completely ruined. Paying for exclusives is a short-sighted, desperate, cowardly, back-pedaling strategy. If Microsoft is doing it, then they are basically saying "Hey, I think that other console is better than ours, I better bribe some of these developers with cash so they don't go to the competition" Paying for exclusives will mean two things for us gamers 1. Gaming hardware, and possible the games themselves, will become astronomically more expensive 2. Games will be developed in their early stages with the "lowest-common denominator" in mind. Games will not be made to take advantage of a particular systems strengths since the game's fate won't be decided until all the bids come in. So if you want to play crappy, cookie-cutter games, and pay through the nose for them, then by all means sign this petition. Right here and now in front of everyone on this forum....I solemly swear....that if Sony PAYS for exclusivity on either of those games, I will toss my PS3 into the lion cages at the zoo and go buy a Wii (PS. The lion cage thing is probably a bad idea. I think the PS3 would whoop those lions)
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="bballboy986"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"] If Sony starts PAYING for exclusives, then they have absolutely NO revenue stream from its best games. Hulabaloza, you claim that you know so much about business yet you seem to be clinging to a philosophy that a company should adopt a strategy that eliminates revenue. EXPLAIN THAT!!! If sony was going to pay for exclusives, then they are giving up the revenue that the receive from the game developers. And they are NOT making money on consoles. So you tell me how is paying for exclusives a winning strategy? Here's a quick business lesson for you. Companies like profits. The first ingredient in profits is Revenue

Yeah... paying for exclusive rights to a game on your console doesn't mean it costs the same amount as the profits you would have made from sales. It means you are assuring the developers of a sum of money to make up for their lack of sales on the console that won't be receiving the game. Its only a fraction of the sales profits... why? Because if its not going to be on a certain system that means that the developer saves labor costs since they're no longer porting it to a system, marketing costs since it no longer needs to be pushed for multiple systems, etc. Think of it (an extremely simple analogy, and I'll agree its a stretch) like when you win the lottery, everyone always takes the lump sum even though its much less money in the long run.

First of all, only a retarded crack addict would take the lump sum. And your argument is bogus since we are talking about Sony paying for PS3 exclusives. Even if they were willing to do it, which they aren't, what possible price would a developer accept that would make them ignore 10 million Xbox 360 gamers?
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"]Looks like I read the article wrong. It doesn't say that Sony published the game. However, nowhere in that article does it suggest that Sony entered into any kind of contract where the terms were "here is some money, now don't develop for another console" Phil Harisson himself has stated in interviews that have appeared in Game informer, EGM, and PSM that Sony has NEVER paid for an exclusive. I have NEVER said that Sony was above cutting licensing fees, offering publishing services, or anything else of that nature. However, when it comes to games like GTA (now, not then), MGS4, and Final Fantasy 13, there is no offer that Sony could make other than overtly BUYING the exclusive, that would keep the game exclusive. The fact that they DID NOT create a new contract for GTA4 shows that they actually HAVE a strategy of NOT PAYING for exclusives. And I think that the fact that MGS4 and FF13 are exclusives is due to the fact that they are developed specifically for the PS3's hardware because Kojima and Square want to make the best games. If Sony starts PAYING for exclusives, then they have absolutely NO revenue stream from its best games. Hulabaloza, you claim that you know so much about business yet you seem to be clinging to a philosophy that a company should adopt a strategy that eliminates revenue. EXPLAIN THAT!!! If sony was going to pay for exclusives, then they are giving up the revenue that the receive from the game developers. And they are NOT making money on consoles. So you tell me how is paying for exclusives a winning strategy? Here's a quick business lesson for you. Companies like profits. The first ingredient in profits is Revenue

damn you for making me wrong by siding with you without reading the article!!!! :P

Sorry dude, I could have SWORN I read that SCEA was publishing the game. But whatever. You know, now that I think about it, maybe the exclusivity contract was actually more for Rockstar's benefit. Maybe Sony tried to say, "Hey, you CAN'T publish your game on our system unless you promise to be exclusive" Rockstar would HAVE to go along since the PS2 was selling so well compared to the Xbox. It also explains why the contract was amended once the Xbox got more momentum. That gave Rockstar some leverage against Sony and then Sony had to back off. Yup, It took me a little while to put that thought together in my head but now that I wrote it down. It makes perfect sense. I'm still sticking to my argument of Sony didn't PAY for anything. I'm even skeptical now that they would have cut the licensing fee. I'm pretty sure that Sony had all the power when they went to negotiate this contract.
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
Looks like I read the article wrong. It doesn't say that Sony published the game. However, nowhere in that article does it suggest that Sony entered into any kind of contract where the terms were "here is some money, now don't develop for another console" Phil Harisson himself has stated in interviews that have appeared in Game informer, EGM, and PSM that Sony has NEVER paid for an exclusive. I have NEVER said that Sony was above cutting licensing fees, offering publishing services, or anything else of that nature. However, when it comes to games like GTA (now, not then), MGS4, and Final Fantasy 13, there is no offer that Sony could make other than overtly BUYING the exclusive, that would keep the game exclusive. The fact that they DID NOT create a new contract for GTA4 shows that they actually HAVE a strategy of NOT PAYING for exclusives. And I think that the fact that MGS4 and FF13 are exclusives is due to the fact that they are developed specifically for the PS3's hardware because Kojima and Square want to make the best games. If Sony starts PAYING for exclusives, then they have absolutely NO revenue stream from its best games. Hulabaloza, you claim that you know so much about business yet you seem to be clinging to a philosophy that a company should adopt a strategy that eliminates revenue. EXPLAIN THAT!!! If sony was going to pay for exclusives, then they are giving up the revenue that the receive from the game developers. And they are NOT making money on consoles. So you tell me how is paying for exclusives a winning strategy? Here's a quick business lesson for you. Companies like profits. The first ingredient in profits is Revenue
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
Anyone else notice that Hulabaloza always joins these discussions around 2:30 or 3pm ish?
Avatar image for ghaleon0721
ghaleon0721

338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 ghaleon0721
Member since 2003 • 338 Posts
[QUOTE="Hulabaloza"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="Hulabaloza"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="Hulabaloza"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"] Here is one of a million stories on the contract...... http://xbox.ign.com/articles/421/421504p1.html Still....if you DIDN'T know there was a contract just from what happpened it shows why you have such a bad misunderstanding of how this stuff works. Your arguments make no sense at all.

You are such a little weiner. If you read the article it says that Sony had a contract that garaunteed a "timed" exclusive. Also, NO WHERE does it reference any sort of PAYMENT from Sony. The contract existed because of the fact that the game was published by Sony. Those were the terms. Sony publishes, Rockstar/Take-two stays exclusive for 3 years. Period. And the fact that the contract was amended serves as further evidence that Sony provided no financial motivation for GTA to stay exclusive. Because if Sony was willing to do that, they would have. And it would have been an easy decision for Rockstar because the Xbox sold like crap.

So Rockstar signed a contract to make it exclusive.....for no reason? They contractually obligated them self to limit a huge game to one console......and Sony gave them nothing? Then they had to fight out of that contract and renegotiate (all while Sony paid or gave up nothing in llcensing fees)? For an adult.....you suck at business. Your argument makes no sense.....it's seriously delusional. Fan boy delusional.

Not for "no reason" SONY PUBLISHED THE DAMN GAME FOR THEM!!! Are you retarded?