In a not-very-disguised jab at Microsoft, SCEA President Jack Tretton told PSM in the latest issue, "We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it..."
Note: Though this is a forum post, it is from a GamesRadar editor, increasing its reliability.
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."
Me leaving it out should be telling of my thoughts on it. Better than 2 as a DMC game.
Still a good game though.
3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them
2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.
God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best
Order changes depending on your focus. I tend to focus on gameplay/fun factor, so...
5, 3, 1, 4, 2.
I really didn't like 4 but commend Dante's weapon diversity. The retreading of old ground was pretty unacceptable to me.
But even then... Still more enjoyable than 2 for me
Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
I like the sound of that!! I will for sure never support these gaas games.
Sony must be shocked at gamer's reaction, making them cancel a few of these and hopefully go back to the good heavy hitters they had us used to..
now bring on that PSPro reveal and show us some SP 1st party awesomeness.
It's pretty ridiculous.
Imagine having a breadth of data at your disposal to see the statistically low success rate of these games, only to be laser focused on the exceptional case studies.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
Bribes in this industry go high, as high as 50 million.
Edit: @ toughluck
Yes! That's exactly how much the XROBOTS bribed Rockstar for the two exclusive GTA4 DLC.
Well said, Jack.
Show me the GAMES.
before the rabit ps3 fanboy vampire in me eats your soul.
Anyway with that said lol
It's just plain economics, with the amount of money invested in their own studios for exclusives along with the not so High number of ps3 sales, its just plain not work shelling out millions for exclusives at this point.
But Jack I bloody hope you weren't referring to MGS4 or this may come back to haunt you like so many other things said.
I'll say it again only Phil should be allowed to speak
If Sony goes out and buys a developer are they not, de facto, buying exclusivity?
It might be a 'different' way to do it but it amounts to the same thing.
"We don't 'fund' development'...
Well...if they have teams of Sony developers on call to assist third party developers understand the Cell...you are funding the development. Not with cash but again it amounts to the same thing.
I'm not a Sony basher generally (in fact there are those here that call me a Sony fanboy ???) but the spin on this is getting me dizzy.
They lose all the exclusives.