Sony and Exclusive Titles.

Ok, Ive noticed that whenever an exclusive title that isnt for the PS2 is released and it does well, Sony always gets it. RE4 for an example. It had the "Only For Gamecube" badge and all, yet Sony still steals it up somehow. And they get extra stuff with it as well. I am just curious how an exclusive title gets put on another system. In RE4's case, would Capcom have made the decision to make it a PS2 title as well?

Same thing happened for Tales of Symphonia I believe.

Originally Posted by Mystic Link

Same thing happened for Tales of Symphonia I believe.

Not really. Tales of Symphonia won't be coming out on the PS2, but the next Tales game will be. That's different.

Originally Posted by Re-Dead

Not really. Tales of Symphonia won't be coming out on the PS2, but the next Tales game will be. That's different.

No I read somewhere TOs was being released for PS2 as well

Originally Posted by Mystic Link

No I read somewhere TOs was being released for PS2 as well

It was a PS2 exclusive in Asia. The one for GC was the Director's Cut.
And yes, I am pretty pissed off at the fact that Sony get all the exclusive
titles. But that's because the poor sales that GC games get. It's a
business after all. The GC version of Resi 5, apparantly sold pretty poorly
and therefore Capcom decided to release it on PS2. Annoying, I know.
But like I said, business is business.

Originally Posted by Mystic Link

No I read somewhere TOs was being released for PS2 as well

No. Tales of Symphonia came out on both the Gamecube and later the PS2 in Japan. Namco decided not to bring it to the PS2 in the US.

And Sony didn't steal anything. It's the developers' own decision to bring a game to a different platform, not the console developers. Why to the PS2? Because obviously they'll be hitting the biggest market by putting it on the PS2. It's just marketing. I hate it how people try to look at marketing stradgies and turn them into something bad, dirty, or hateful. It's economics.

Resident Evil was originally created for PS1. Go figure.

I know Sony doesnt STEAL them, but Im curious to know why a developer would make the game exclusive for another system then make it for the PS2 as well, just a confusing thing to me.

Originally Posted by Alucard

It was a PS2 exclusive in Asia. The one for GC was the Director's Cut.
And yes, I am pretty pissed off at the fact that Sony get all the exclusive
titles. But that's because the poor sales that GC games get. It's a
business after all. The GC version of Resi 5, apparantly sold pretty poorly
and therefore Capcom decided to release it on PS2. Annoying, I know.
But like I said, business is business.

Actually, I'm almost certain that Resi 4 sold bucket loads on the Cube. Still, I suppose it would more than likely sell more on the PS2 since the Playstation is by-and-by the Resident Evil console.

It irritates me, and it annoys me when PS2 fanboys get uppity and say things like: "if gamecube gets any decent games, we get them later." If third party companies were patient, they could make gamecube as sucessful as PS2. I mean, canning gamecube versions or re-releasing exclusives (often with added extras, like Symphonia or RES4) for PS2 so quickly isn't really going to help sales for cube is it?

WHAT????? Sony stole Revolution's controller? They really are shameless!

I can see why Resident Evil 4 was eventually moved onto PS2 as well as Gamecube. Capcom, like most third-party developers, are disillusioned with Gamecube's poor sales when compared with particularly the PS2, and to an alternating extent, the X-Box. I don't know sales figures, I don't know if either version of RE4 has sold better on which console, but it makes business sense. Presumably, Capcom weren't happy with the sales revenue from RE4, so they decided to put it out on another console. PS2 sells better than X-Box (on average), therefore, they release it on PS2.

What I don't get is the advertisements now saying "Resident Evil 4, now exclusive to Playstation 2", when Gamecube has had the title since... September? It's like they completely disregarded Nintendo, as the Nintendo version of RE4 as I remember, never had that kind of advertising. Then again, the advert could be made by Sony, not Capcom, so that could be why. But I don't agree with the complete disregard for the Gamecube. If advertising was better spent and co-ordinated for the Gamecube version of RE4, then it could have easily shifted a lot more units.

WHAT????? Sony stole Revolution's controller? They really are shameless!

No, they haven't. It's just a humorous, satirical poster.

But they eventually might... *ahem*...

They didn't? That's good. I thought it was pretty funny, but that picture looked pretty real and then it stopped being so funny....how silly of me, but it's all gravy now. Do you have sticky tape? I think my left atrium exploded.

The thing is, third parties do not have the patience to make Gamecube sell well. If gamecube was treated to the sheer amount of titles that PS2 enjoys, of course it would sell well. If all the eggs are in one basket, which one would the casual choose?

Actually, the announcement for PS2 Resi 4 was announced just before the release of the GC version in January, so it could not have been due to poor sales. But it does aggravate me when titles originally announced as exclusive for one console sneak their way onto other consoles. This includes the likes of Metal Gear and Grand Theft Auto.

From what I've heard, the GC version has actually been doing better.

And having releasing a game on multiple consoles does not equal thievery from Sonys side.

I don't see why it matters. But anyway....

Third parties make the games, therefore they have every right. It's thiers. In the case of resi 4, (which works beautifully on the ps2, might I add) it was moved to the ps2 for several reasons.

For one, gamers who only owned (and counldn't afford the other consoles) a ps2 *****ed capcom out for always getting the short end of the stick. Which they did. Gamecube owners got the Re1 remake....they get dead aim. GCN owners get Zero and they get outbreak. Sony was getting kind of pissed to it seemed, especailly seeing as the series wouldn'r exsist today, if not for them. (Nintendo rejected the orginal RE for the n64)

There're far more PS2 owners than Gamecube owners. While it's nice to think that developers will be swayed by exclusive deals and unique console features, sales are the bottom line.

Capcom is a bad example: They have a long history of not being sincere regarding exclusive titles. The first three RE games were all declared PSX-exclusive. Each title would subsequently be ported to every single possible platform. And here's the beautiful thing: 99% of the people actually buying their games won't give a darn about them ever having been declared exclusive to one platform or another.

Heh, this actually makes me remember several series nintendo orginally rejected.

Rockstar purposed to make GTAIII and VC both gamecube titles. But nintendo rejected it. Once GTA became a super series, rockstar asked them again, nintendo said yes....so they gave them GTA advance. Brilliant. Ever since then, there hasn't been a rockstar game on a nintendo console. Yeah, you guessed, Rockstar pretty much hates nintendo now. You can't really blame them either.

Does anybody remember the ORIGINAL snes mortal kombat? The one with no blood or gore? And how nintendo finally gave in after that version sold like crap?

Nintendo's biggest problem has always been the way they treated third parties.