Beyond3D Forum

BenSkywalker · 08-Aug-2002, 09:54

I was having this discussion in another forum and am interested in what people here think about the two. I'm not interested in hearing about Nintendo or the third party titles, just MS and Sony head to head and who has the better first party group.

IMO I think MS wins hands down, if the Vivendi rumors are true MS could be elevating their status considerably higher still. What do you guys think?

Ozymandis · 08-Aug-2002, 10:01

Sony. ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Gran Turismo, Dark Cloud...

PC-Engine · 08-Aug-2002, 10:22

Currently I'd have to say SONY, but long term M$

iscariot · 08-Aug-2002, 11:09

Sony, quite easily. And if you include 2nd parties, even more so.

duffer · 08-Aug-2002, 11:24

What does "better" mean? Do you mean

* Sell more games

* Sell more games as a percentage of their console's market.

* Write more critically acclaimed games.

* Write more carefully coded games

* Write games that move more polygons, or have prettier graphics?

* Is more important to the success of their platform.

* Some weighted average of the above.

In general, it would seem that both companies have a good stable of game developers. I would have to say that MS games have been more important to the success of Xbox than Sony games has been to the success of the PS2. (And clearly Nintendo games are absolutely vital to the success of the GameCube.) But it's harder to say which team is better in a more absolute sense.

BenSkywalker · 08-Aug-2002, 11:31

Quote:

What does "better" mean?

All of the examples you bring up are valid, I'm more interested in which you think is better in terms of games that you like/appeal to you/find good/great.

Most of the other points are really marketplace concerns which, while certainly worthy of discussion, are something a bit different then what I'm hoping to see your views on(though everyone should feel free to offer all perspectives of course

).

Johnny Awesome · 08-Aug-2002, 12:52

I voted MS for a couple of reasons:

Presently, I would rather have: Halo, PGR, Rallisport Challenge, Amped, and Oddworld, then : ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Dark Cloud, and GT3.

Obviously, Sony's sports is pathetic compared to Inside Drive and Fever, which are both competent offerings.

It's amazing that we're even having this discussion when you look at the fact that MS has been in the console business for 9 months, while Sony has been at it for 6 years.

Long term, I think that games like Psychonauts, Blinx, MechAssault, Brute Force, Quantum Redshift, Crimson Skies, The Unseen, and Midtown Madness 3 will be the start of MS coming into it's own as a 1st party force. Certainly there are other things in the works like Project Ego, BC, Halo 2, and Project Phoenix (Bungie) that will push MS over the top a year from now.

MS has 24 studios contracted for 1st party titles. That's a lot of games.

cybamerc · 08-Aug-2002, 13:11

Johnny Awesome:

> Presently, I would rather have: Halo, PGR, Rallisport Challenge,
> Amped, and Oddworld, then : ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Dark Cloud,
> and GT3.

I don't like M$' definition of 1. party. Bizzare Creations and DICE are multiplatform developers and the fact that they have entered exclusive publishing agreements with M$ doesn't change that.

There is no argument: Sony wins.

Qroach · 08-Aug-2002, 13:23

Cybermerc, as always your arguments are completly biased. SONY does the same thing as MS for first party developers. In fact Sony just recently purchased the developer Incog Inc (Incognito Studios) the makers of twisted metal black whom fo rthe past 5 years made games fo rthem under an exclusive contract. In other words, you don't need to own the company in order to make it really a first party game.

Either way, you wouldn't let MS win in a discussion like this no matter what. I personally vote MS, becuase they have brought quite a few new and interesting games to the table, while not relying on mostly sequels

maskrider · 08-Aug-2002, 13:33

I don't see much difference between MS and Sony in relying on sequels. There are quite some sequels and new ones for both systems, just that which ones you like are completely your own preference.

I have voted Sony as there are not many games on X-BOX that I consider to be great titles.

Sony's ICO is simply the greatest console game of the year IMHO.

Goldni · 08-Aug-2002, 13:45

While neither compare to Ninty, I'd say MS has the better of the two. It looks as though they really want to innovate and improve the gaming experience rather than cater to the masses of casual sheep at the marketplace.

BTW, whats the Vivendi rumours? I hope they still bring the Hobbit out for the Cube.

Magnum PI · 08-Aug-2002, 13:50

what is the difference between first party and second party ?

BenSkywalker · 08-Aug-2002, 14:14

Quote:

BTW, whats the Vivendi rumours? I hope they still bring the Hobbit out for the Cube.

Vivendi is in real bad shape and looking to unload Sierra, Blizzard and Universal Interactive for $2 or $3Billion(one of the two, I'm forgetting which at the moment). As of this point in time there really is only one company who can both easily afford and stand to reap major benefits acquiring them.

Magnum-

Quote:

what is the difference between first party and second party ?

First party is either fully owned or at least a majority stake is owned by the platform maker. IE- Bungie is first party. If a company is partly owned and/or develops exclusively for a given platform they are second party- IE- Rare is second party(as of now at least).

Magnum PI · 08-Aug-2002, 14:39

so if incongito studios, Bizzare Creations and DICE are not owned by MS or sony they're not MS or sony first party ?

BenSkywalker · 08-Aug-2002, 14:41

Quote:

so if incongito studios, Bizzare Creations and DICE are not owned by MS or sony they're not MS or sony first party ?

Correct.

mkillio · 08-Aug-2002, 17:57

I personaly don't think of companies being bought out by Sony or M$ as being First Party. Nintendo all the way.

Glonk · 08-Aug-2002, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnum PI

what is the difference between first party and second party ?

First party implies that the developer is majority owned (>50%) by the console maker.
Second party implies that the developer is under an exclusive contract to develop content for the console, but is not actually owned by the console maker.
Third party is everyone else.

It seems that MS is trying to redefine it as being:
First party = anything published by MS
Third party = everything else

wazoo · 08-Aug-2002, 18:19

Sony all the way, but I already replied to Ben elsewhere

GT3, HSG3, Sky Gunner, wipeout, JD, dropship, Ico, TMB, Mark of kri, socom, Primal, Gateway and much more if you include Sony published games (sly racoon, Ratchet and clank, drakan, ...).

I forget Vic ribbon 2

archie4oz · 08-Aug-2002, 18:24

Quote:

Long term, I think that games like Psychonauts, Blinx, MechAssault, Brute Force, Quantum Redshift, Crimson Skies, The Unseen, and Midtown Madness 3

Funny you mention Crimson Skies and Midtown Madness... I don't know if you could consider those an argument for strong 1st party, since Zipper (who did Crimson Skies is doing SOCOM and another title for the PS2), and Angel of course devs for all three platforms... While we're at it, Curly Monsters is an independent as is Artoon (who mostly does GameBoy and mobile phone software)...

Quote:

I personaly don't think of companies being bought out by Sony or M$ as being First Party. Nintendo all the way.

Well a lot can depend on the studio's relationship history to a particular platform provider as well... For example most of the acquisitions that Sony has made lately have either had extremely close relations (and pretty much dev'd exlusively for Sony) or were substantially staffed by ex-Sony Interactive folk after it folded/restructured... For Sony it's basically solidfying the security (especially financial) of successful producers for your platform. In the case Naughty Dog, they've been so close for years now it just simply made sense. In the case of Incognito, they've had their ups and downs but have done a pretty decent job (and carved out a nice niche genre), and it definately gives them a more stable foundation (which I'm glad since before TMB they were on life support)...

Quote:

It seems that MS is trying to redefine it as being:
First party = anything published by MS
Third party = everything else

Indeed...

However, that aside, getting first party status is indeed a good thing(TM)... (however I still won't forgive MS for acquiring Bungie...)

Johnny Awesome · 08-Aug-2002, 20:29

I'm pretty sure they're not asking for your forgiveness.

aneep · 08-Aug-2002, 20:43

Sony

however IMO MS have the potential to be the better of the two in a few years time (in time for next gen)

-aneep-

V3 · 09-Aug-2002, 06:40

Well, I am not quite sure, what are MS first party except Halo that are currently out (and I am not even sure that's made by MS, I thought it was made by Bungie, and development of it started before the purchased I think) , so I would go with Sony.

Mr. Angry Pants · 10-Aug-2002, 16:02

How has MS's acquisition of Bungie harmed the company in any way? It has only assured their financial stability, and vastly increased the rescources at their disposal. Being the developer of the #1 selling Xbox game has only given them the industry-wide recognition they've deserved (and been denied) for the past 10 years. I'm crying.

And as a openly-biased Bungie fan since 1997, I say this with the utmost confidence:

Bungie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else.

V3 · 10-Aug-2002, 20:10

Quote:

How has MS's acquisition of Bungie harmed the company in any way?

It doesn't. Well it shouldn't anyway, but we will see in the future, if MS get rid of them once they are done.

All I remember Halo was being developed before the acquisition of Bungie and wasn't it being develop for another systems before Xbox ? was it PC ?

iscariot · 10-Aug-2002, 20:38

It was being developed for PS 2 and PC iirc. I think the game is way better suited for the Xb tho, for obvious reasons

View Poll Results: Who has the better first party developers?
Microsoft	9	24.32%
Sony	28	75.68%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

08-Aug-2002, 10:01	#2
Ozymandis Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 618	Sony. ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Gran Turismo, Dark Cloud... __________________ Currently Playing: Call of Duty 4, Uncharted, Mass Effect.

08-Aug-2002, 13:33	#10
maskrider Henshin ! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,279	I don't see much difference between MS and Sony in relying on sequels. There are quite some sequels and new ones for both systems, just that which ones you like are completely your own preference. I have voted Sony as there are not many games on X-BOX that I consider to be great titles. Sony's ICO is simply the greatest console game of the year IMHO. __________________ Maskrider (a.k.a. Felix M.C. Li) The first thing I lost when getting older is memory, probably because of alcohol !

08-Aug-2002, 17:57	#16
mkillio Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indpls. IN Posts: 503	I personaly don't think of companies being bought out by Sony or M$ as being First Party. Nintendo all the way. __________________ "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-Aug-2002, 09:54	#1
BenSkywalker Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 823	First party- Sony v Microsoft - Which is better? I was having this discussion in another forum and am interested in what people here think about the two. I'm not interested in hearing about Nintendo or the third party titles, just MS and Sony head to head and who has the better first party group. IMO I think MS wins hands down, if the Vivendi rumors are true MS could be elevating their status considerably higher still. What do you guys think?

08-Aug-2002, 10:22	#3
PC-Engine Naughty Boy! Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,802	Currently I'd have to say SONY, but long term M$

08-Aug-2002, 11:09	#4
iscariot Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 202	Sony, quite easily. And if you include 2nd parties, even more so.

08-Aug-2002, 11:24	#5
duffer Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 124	What does "better" mean? Do you mean * Sell more games * Sell more games as a percentage of their console's market. * Write more critically acclaimed games. * Write more carefully coded games * Write games that move more polygons, or have prettier graphics? * Is more important to the success of their platform. * Some weighted average of the above. In general, it would seem that both companies have a good stable of game developers. I would have to say that MS games have been more important to the success of Xbox than Sony games has been to the success of the PS2. (And clearly Nintendo games are absolutely vital to the success of the GameCube.) But it's harder to say which team is better in a more absolute sense.

08-Aug-2002, 12:52	#7
Johnny Awesome Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Windsor, ON Posts: 1,929	I voted MS for a couple of reasons: Presently, I would rather have: Halo, PGR, Rallisport Challenge, Amped, and Oddworld, then : ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Dark Cloud, and GT3. Obviously, Sony's sports is pathetic compared to Inside Drive and Fever, which are both competent offerings. It's amazing that we're even having this discussion when you look at the fact that MS has been in the console business for 9 months, while Sony has been at it for 6 years. Long term, I think that games like Psychonauts, Blinx, MechAssault, Brute Force, Quantum Redshift, Crimson Skies, The Unseen, and Midtown Madness 3 will be the start of MS coming into it's own as a 1st party force. Certainly there are other things in the works like Project Ego, BC, Halo 2, and Project Phoenix (Bungie) that will push MS over the top a year from now. MS has 24 studios contracted for 1st party titles. That's a lot of games.

08-Aug-2002, 13:11	#8
cybamerc Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,252	Johnny Awesome: > Presently, I would rather have: Halo, PGR, Rallisport Challenge, > Amped, and Oddworld, then : ICO, Twisted Metal Black, Dark Cloud, > and GT3. I don't like M$' definition of 1. party. Bizzare Creations and DICE are multiplatform developers and the fact that they have entered exclusive publishing agreements with M$ doesn't change that. There is no argument: Sony wins.

08-Aug-2002, 13:23	#9
Qroach Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,859	Cybermerc, as always your arguments are completly biased. SONY does the same thing as MS for first party developers. In fact Sony just recently purchased the developer Incog Inc (Incognito Studios) the makers of twisted metal black whom fo rthe past 5 years made games fo rthem under an exclusive contract. In other words, you don't need to own the company in order to make it really a first party game. Either way, you wouldn't let MS win in a discussion like this no matter what. I personally vote MS, becuase they have brought quite a few new and interesting games to the table, while not relying on mostly sequels

08-Aug-2002, 13:45	#11
Goldni Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 394	While neither compare to Ninty, I'd say MS has the better of the two. It looks as though they really want to innovate and improve the gaming experience rather than cater to the masses of casual sheep at the marketplace. BTW, whats the Vivendi rumours? I hope they still bring the Hobbit out for the Cube.

08-Aug-2002, 13:50	#12
Magnum PI Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,054	what is the difference between first party and second party ?

08-Aug-2002, 14:39	#14
Magnum PI Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,054	so if incongito studios, Bizzare Creations and DICE are not owned by MS or sony they're not MS or sony first party ?

08-Aug-2002, 18:19	#18
wazoo Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 866	Sony all the way, but I already replied to Ben elsewhere GT3, HSG3, Sky Gunner, wipeout, JD, dropship, Ico, TMB, Mark of kri, socom, Primal, Gateway and much more if you include Sony published games (sly racoon, Ratchet and clank, drakan, ...). I forget Vic ribbon 2

08-Aug-2002, 20:29	#20
Johnny Awesome Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Windsor, ON Posts: 1,929	I'm pretty sure they're not asking for your forgiveness.

08-Aug-2002, 20:43	#21
aneep Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Malaysia Posts: 89	Sony however IMO MS have the potential to be the better of the two in a few years time (in time for next gen) -aneep-

09-Aug-2002, 06:40	#22
V3 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,271	Well, I am not quite sure, what are MS first party except Halo that are currently out (and I am not even sure that's made by MS, I thought it was made by Bungie, and development of it started before the purchased I think) , so I would go with Sony.

10-Aug-2002, 16:02	#23
Mr. Angry Pants Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 158	How has MS's acquisition of Bungie harmed the company in any way? It has only assured their financial stability, and vastly increased the rescources at their disposal. Being the developer of the #1 selling Xbox game has only given them the industry-wide recognition they've deserved (and been denied) for the past 10 years. I'm crying. And as a openly-biased Bungie fan since 1997, I say this with the utmost confidence: Bungie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else.

10-Aug-2002, 20:38	#25
iscariot Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 202	It was being developed for PS 2 and PC iirc. I think the game is way better suited for the Xb tho, for obvious reasons

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More Sony rumors concerning PM, TGS, etc...	Oda	Console Technology	18	18-Jul-2005 20:13
XBOX360 outclassed by SONY	suhim	Console Technology	10	19-May-2005 15:36
SCEA mentions ?? they will discuss PS3 at GDC ?	hey69	Console Technology	28	09-Mar-2005 06:48
Idei Interview(Long) - Confirms Linux for PSX3	Deadmeat	Console Technology	20	18-Jan-2004 20:59
Microsoft moves into chip world with Xbox Next	Megadrive1988	Console Technology	151	13-Nov-2003 13:22

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.