Your Ad Here
Respected Sites

Exclusive Mirror's Edge DLC Coming To PS3 >
2008/09/02 15:30:59: Posted by DM
The PS3 version of the new Dice game Mirror's Edge will apparently be getting exclusive downloadable content. The game was previously rumored to be a timed PS3 exclusive, but Sony revealed that was incorrect. Sony was still able to wrangle some exclusive content, though.

“The game is multi-platform, although PlayStation has an exclusive marketing agreement with EA regarding the title, and exclusive downloadable content will be offered on the PlayStation Network.”

Labeled With  mirrors edge playstation 3 ea

Comments [114]  | Rate this article:  | Avg. rating of 10.0

Delicious Technorati Digg Blinklist Furl Reddit Newsfine Fark Simpy Spurl Yahoomyweb

Mirror's Edge

Related News:
 Mirror's Edge Demo Now Available On Xbox Live
 Mirror's Edge Demo Confirmed For PSN Thurs, XBLM Friday
 Mirror's Edge Hands On & Free Music Remix CD
 DICE Predicts 3M Sales For Mirror's Edge
 Mirror's Edge Console Officially Dated, Pre-Order Demo Bonus
 Sony Denies Copying Non-Winning LBP Costumes For PSN Sale


Written by poprocker on 2008/09/02

PS3 version for me then.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/02


Sony: We don't play for exclusives.

Need I say more?

All that crap that Sony talked about DLC not mattering. Yet here they are playing follow the leader with Microsoft.

Controller Guide Button.

Controller Force Feedback.

Online Gaming Service.

Internal HDD.

Custom GPU.

Multiple SKU.

Wireless Controller.

Etc... Ya that's a shout out to the SDF who was downplaying DLC for GTA4 along with Sony.
Written by blacktiger on 2008/09/02

PimpD, I belive he was talking about DLC that are important, seriously, you really think GTAIV is that good...?>

I thought the multiplayer was awesome but the game is so damn boring...

For big hype with no game release to REVIEWERS, OF COURSE THEY GAVE PERFECT BUT SECOND THOUGHT ???

I doubt it, SONY was smart not going for GTAIV,

how much you wana bet that GTAIV DLC isn't gonna sell much...

I bet more 70 percent hasn't even finished the game,

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/02

@ Blacktiger, you really aren't making any sense.

Regardless of your opinion over GTAIV (I agree it's over rated), grabbing the exclusive episodic content for GTA was a wiser choice than some DL extras for Mirror's Edge.

Personally, if these companies are going to start grabbing DL content as exclusives as a selling point, then that's just sad. I was hoping it would have been a one time deal with GTA, but now we see both sides trying to show off how big their e-penis is and I don't agree with it. If the game is going to be on all platforms, make the DL content on all platforms. This goes for every game, GTA, Fallout, etc.

I think it's a stupid selling point that only the hardcore gamers (who are going to get said game anyways) would pay attention to.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/02

blacktiger: I don;t even have GTA4. So what do you think.

On second thought let me answer that. The only DLC I have purchased this generation is the WarHawk booster add-ons.

I just love to ruffle the feathers of the SDF.

Written by blacktiger on 2008/09/02

I don't know boys but I can careless...

about this DLC...

Although I have to admit Mirror Edge does look good, but I dont care about DLC as same as MMO !

I just feel they are so fake, and that every single game that sells for 360 and PS3 is not full version !
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/02

Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Wow Pimp, troll much? I saw nowhere in the article where is says Sony paid for exclusive DLC. It mentions a marketing agreement, which could mean a lot of different things. What it specifically doesn't mean however is a direct payoff. Not paying for exclusivity does not mean they won't try to secure exclusives, it simply means they don't see the value in bribing a developer with a fat cheque to get it. Probably a smart decision since by the time GTA IV DLC actually gets released for the 360, Microsoft may have a hard time recouping the $50 million they paid for it. I enjoyed GTA IV, but I finished and stopped playing it so long ago that I'm not sure I'd care enough to spend $15-20 for more content.


It's only better value if it IS better value. If it costs you extra for the DLC, and it gives you less game hours per dollar than the original game, then it's not as good a value as the original, and you might be better off just putting that money towards the next full game that catches your eye. I have to agree with blacktiger that this trend towards selling DLC after the game's release is setting a bad precedent. How much of this content would have ended up in the original game if there wasn't a carrot dangling in front of the developers faces to make more money by selling it separately? At the end of the day, it ends up taking a $60 game and makes it an $80+ game. It reminds me of all the food/cosmetics companies that instead of raising the price of their products, just reduce the quantity while keeping the price and packaging size the same. But when you compare the old and new packaging, you see you're getting 15% less in the box/bottle/jar.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

@ Madgunde

Read carefully so that next time you don't sound so.............wrong. First of all, when it's a "marketing" agreement, this usually indicates that the manufacturer will pay for, or partially fund, the marketing of said game. So what's the difference if Sony gives EA $10 million for the exclusive DLC or if Sony pays the $10 million for Mirror's Edge marketing? Either way, Sony is PAYING to have that DLC exclusive.

Also the $50 million that MS paid for the exclusive GTA DLC was a up-front loan, that 2K must pay back, regardless if they sell enough DLC to make up the cost. Just because you haven't finished GTA and don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean everyone agrees. You truly don't know the measure of this GTA DLC if you think it's in the same league as the Mirror's Edge deal. Both are retarded deals IMO, but I'm sure if Sony bagged the GTA DLC, you would have been singing a different tune about it entirely.

And last, what you're saying to arthur is really narrow-minded. EVERYONE has a different perception towards the value of ANY purchase. Most of the value differs per gamer, some people thought the shivering isle expansion was a rip off for $30, but I don't regret buying it at all even though I never finished it yet (especially since most expansions are around $30).

As for how much content would be in the game if publishers weren't trying to milk the few extra bucks out of us, well it all depends. Some publishers, lookin at you EA, have occasionally required payment for things already on the disk. It's easy to see if you're paying for something already on the disk, the DL content will be 108kb, in which you are merely paying for the "key" to unlock the content already on the disk.

Everything else though is pretty much fair game and the whole idea that developers purposely keep things out of a game to get extra money is largely exaggerated. Games get delayed left and right for the development of the base content itself, how much longer do you think we would be waiting for games if EVERYTHING was included? No, DLC is honestly supposed to be a legit OPTION for people to extend the life of their games and I support it as long as it's handled with respect. If games lacked the content of previous generations, then there might be something behind the DLC conspiracy theories, but in reality, it's mostly for good reasons.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: It's about time you put your SDF hat back on. Spin it however you wan't. I don't ever wan't to hear another PS3 owner diss the 360 for it's GTA4 exclusive DLC. It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it?

I love the hipocracy that is Sony Defense Force. IF Sony does something it's innovative, it's worth every penny, it's why can't Microsoft do it.

If Microsoft does something they are copying, bribing, raping, or inept.

Have to love the double standards.

Bravo Madgunde. Can't wait to hear your response...
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

the only reason logical enough for me to think of DLC going on one platform and not another is that it is paid for, plain and simple
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K.

The difference between paying for DLC and having a marketing agreement to secure DLC can be a lot of things, depending on the specific agreement. If Sony said they'd pay for $50 million in advertising to promote the product IF they get exclusive DLC, then I agree with you, but if the deal is EA gets preferential placement on the PS Store, and that Sony plugs Mirror's Edge in it's PS3 advertising campaign and maybe gives EA a bigger cut of the DLC revenue, then I don't see that as "paying for exclusive DLC content" for the purposes of calling Sony liars. The term paying can have a very broad definition or a very specific one. You and Pimp are using the broad definition to paint Sony as liars, while I believe when Sony made the statement, they were using the more specific definition.

Without knowing the terms of the marketing agreement, I don't think any of us are in the position to say whether Sony 'paid' for exclusive DLC or not.
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

madgunde, you also have to notice that game production costs have gone higher this gen, they are off the roof, the install bases arent that big, and while most may not like paying the extra $10 for a game, it is IMHO justified, it is something i dont like, but i can understand.

as for DLC, whichever version has extras always has an advantage, real or percieved, DLC has been there not only fo fisrt and second party games, but also for third party titles, it cuts across the board.

and i know that most of you have downloaded DLC for 360 and ps3 games, depending on affiliation, i dont know why excuses should be made for third party titles
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: Your not in the position to say they "didnt" pay for the DLC in some form. If Sony gives EA a larger percentage of DLC profits then it is a type of payment. Charging less for game royalties, advertising the game, etc...

It's all money that EA either gains or doesn't have to spend at the expense of Sony.

Like I said Spin this all you wan't till you're dizzy. The economics this generation don't make sense for a game not to go multiplatform from a 3rd party developer with the same content, same support, and simultaneous release.
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03


its the same thing madgunde, you are paying money you really shouldnt have paid to go on and get extras.

why would Sony be paying to advertise a third party product unless they thought they would get something from it?

in the business world, there is nothing like no strings attached, DLC must have been part of the deal, and that Sony made the announcement should confirm any fears any one had
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03


Do you realize how hypocritical you are? You label someone who disagrees with you as a Sony defender and lump us all together. I don't ever recall dissing Microsoft over the GTA IV exclusive DLC, so please don't insult me by lumping my post with every other post made by people who you disagree with and labeling me. Seems to me you started the mudslinging and were the first to defend Microsoft in this thread.

I love the irony of a hypocrite calling others a hypocrites. Wake up and realize you are just as bad as the Sony fanboys. You're also a troll:


Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

Whenever a 3rd party game goes timed exclusive, has exclusive content, or stays exclusive to "one" console there has been some type of deal made.

Look at MGS4 and GTA4 being bundled and tell me Sony didn't make some sort of payoff to Take Tow and Konami. Just like Microsoft is paying off Epic and Bioware for Gears of War and Mass Effect...

My point is every company does it. For Sony's PR to say Sony doesn't pay for exclusives is absolute BS.

For anybody to sit in here and try to defend Sony is even worse.

Sony lied. It's not the first or last time. Move along...
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

a simple apology admitting you were wrong would have given you more respect than trying to defend the undefendable, and just that you are trying to disuade us from the facts, confirms something.

not being arrogant, just an observation
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: Call me a troll if it makes you feel better aboout yourself. The fact that what I said made you come out of hiding and issue a response in defense of Sony just further proves my point that you are a member of the Sony Defense Force. So who is worse. Somebody who pokes fun at Sony, or somebody who takes the time to defend Sony.

Besides you haven't seen trolling from me yet. I never said that you dissed GTA4 DLC. You just did when you said Microsoft bribed Rockstar and you weren't sure they could recoup thier investment.

Then somehow you tried to twist and spin things to make Sony look innocent of what you just accused Microsoft of.

Does any of this really matter MadGunde? If you own both consoles you can just choose the superior version anyways right?

Arthur56k: Careful he might call you a troll next or worse...
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03


Oh, Sony lied! Sony's a bunch of liars! What are you, 9 years old? If the 'SDF' annoy the crap out of you, what annoys the crap out of me is people playing this incessant "they lied!" game. If all Sony meant was that they won't pay directly to secure DLC, then how does it make them liars because they find some other way to secure DLC? Did Sony say they would never try to secure exclusive DLC? No. Just because you choose to interpret their words differently or paint it with broader brushstrokes than what they intended does not make them liars.

I can play the game too. For instance, you said, "Whenever a 3rd party game goes timed exclusive, has exclusive content, or stays exclusive to "one" console there has been some type of deal made." You're a liar, because clearly there are tons of third party developers that simply choose to develop for only one console for other reasons. Like because they are a small developer with a small budget. You're a LIAR! Oh, sorry, did I maybe take your comment too literally, or out of context? Too bad, so sad. What you meant doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is how I choose to interpret what you say. Since I can interpret what you say any way I choose, I can claim anything you say is a lie.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

@ Madgunde

Wow you are defensive for sony. I never said anything about Sony being a liar. All I said is that money IS coming out of Sony's pocket if this DLC really is exclusive. While it's true that there are many factors that can effect DLC, when it comes to the ps3, a pay off of some kind is almost a guarantee and at least I can give GOOD reasons why. How interesting that both you and sky have this knack to ignore anything posted that goes against your biased beliefs.

I love it how the sony fanboys like you will spin it. If MS gets any kind of exclusive it's through money hats or a fat check, but if Sony lands an exclusive it's because of other reasons. Sony will NEVER come out and said they paid for exclusive.

And for the last time, MS loaned...........LOANED 2K the $50 million, so quit being so ignorant and falling back to that inaccurate example.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: There you go again defending Sony like they are your family, country, race, or religion.

*News Flash* Sony is just a corporation. Stop being thier tool.

Like I said. I am poking fun at Sony and thier loyal defenders. Your the one over thier getting bent out of shape over what I am saying.

I didn't ask for you to agree with my opinion. I think you should chill out though. It's just a videogame console. Nothing too serious...

Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

a good example to use may be the fallout 3 DLC
Written by dudeman on 2008/09/03

Dang Sony gets 1 little exclusive DLC and the XDF is in full force. That first post was just a bait by the way :)
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

i think baiting should be added to TOS
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03


I wanted to clarify my earlier comment to why excWhat I'm saying is that the way Sony's marketplace works, differs from the 360's Marketplace. The fallout exclusive DLC for example probably doesn't have anything to do with a pay off from MS. Back when Bethesda was making Oblivion for the ps3, they explained to how Sony leaves much of the work to the developers regarding DLC and how it's implemented within the game, where MS' regulates how DLC is done in a game. Since this was the case, the ps3 version of Oblivion didn't get any of the DLC until it was included in the later released GoTY edition. I would imagine that this is the same reason that they are providing DLC only on the 360 right now. If they were to re-release Fallout in some kind of GoTY edition, I'll bet we'd see the additional content on the ps3 version as well.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

So you know Madgunde what I said about 3rd party games is true. Some type of deal "has" to be made. I didnlt say what type of deal. But both Microsoft and Sony have quality control, royalty arrangements, etc that have to be agreed upon before they will "allow" the game to be released for thier respective console.

A 3rd party developer can't just make a game and sell it without coming to an agreement with Sony or Microsoft.

Gotta love the "too Bad, so Sad" line. Haven't heard that since I was about 9 years old. Looks like I really pissed you off if you have to go that far back in time to insult me...
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

So honestly, between the lack of provided servers, regulated implementation, and overall DLC sales; companies really have little reason to go exclusively with sony unless $$ was involved.

But believe whatever helps you sleep at night.

lusive DLC almost guarantees a pay off. I'm not in any way trying to bash sony by saying this, every company will provide some funds or financial support if it lands them any kind of advantage

Damn it pimp, you posted in between the parts of my post lol

@ dudeman, I don't know if you're including me in your "cute" little comment, but I'm not getting worked up over anything. This news means little to me and if it's true, great for ps3 owners.

I hope I made it clear in the beginning of this topic that I think the trend of exclusive DLC is a stupid idea that won't really matter in the bigger picture.
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

i really dont think so, i think MS paid something, right now the tools and the knowhow exists for these developers to have DLC on any console they so wish, and bethesda is reputable, they were the first devs to put out a great port.

i read more into it
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

dudeman: I knew that was bait. But I'm not wearing my XDF hat today. I could care less about DLC for either console. Like I said earlier. The only DLC I have purchased this generation is for WarHawk. That's only because it is a multiplayer game that continues to evolve and the only way I can follow that evolution is to buy the add-ons.

I actually just wanted to take a crack at Sony for securing exclusive DLC after they said it didn;t make sense for Microsoft to have DLC for GTA4. Everytime Sony's PR says something they just dig themselves a deeper hole.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

@ arthur, I was talking about the extra hoops involved with doing ps3 DLC, not the fact that it can't be done.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

Kenny K: Dudeman and I have this ongoing thing where I poke fun at the PS3 and he pokes fun at the 360. We try to one-up each other. We both actually "like" both consoles...

Dudeman: PM me please. I need you to make a choice so you can stay in line with the TOS.

SDF: I gotta head out to take care of some clients. It's obvious from the response I got that I accomplished my mission. You guys take your PS3 way TOO serious.

BTW only 3 people showed up for the PS3 WarHawk tournament. VaeVictus had a legit reason because of Hurricane Gustav and I hope he along with the state of Louisiana recover quickly. The rest of you guys who told me you would make it and flaked again SUCK!!!

Anyways it just further proves my point that PS3 owners talk about games, 360 owners actually play games. We have had only one 360 tournament and we had "8" people show up. I have done 3 PS3 tournaments and had the following numbers in order. 3, 4, 3. 1 guy was only available for 45 minutes, the other was late, and I ended up just playing on the dedicated servers by myself.

This weekend I wan't to do another 360 tournament. Hollar at me...
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

If I can pull myself away from some games I may have to review, I'll be down for another tournament. Why do we call them tournaments anyways? lol

Written by dudeman on 2008/09/03

Pimp sorry i've missed the last 2 tourneys/get togethers.

I've no excuses...I'm just a tard.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Wow, just because I'm defending my own point of view, that makes me defensive of Sony? I just don't like taking some comment a marketing tool makes and reinterpreting it to paint them as liars. Sorry if that makes me a Sony fanboy.

In my opinion, the discussion on this board would be a lot better without all the lame ass trolling and labeling of people. If you aren't interested in hearing opposing opinions, then just say so.

For the record, I did attempt to join the Warhawk tourney. Pimp, you said you were going to message me, but I never saw squat from you.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

I really hope you're not painting me as a marketing tool.

I didn't do or say anything to lead to that.

You find it hard to believe that any $$ is coming out of Sony's pocket for this exclusive(?) DLC. However you are also so quick to jump on the $50 million MS loaned for the GTA DLC, while also twisting it around as a direct pay off.

So tell me again why you're so surprised people are saying you're quick to defend sony?

It's not the fact that you're expressing your own point of view that makes you defensive of sony, it's the fact that your views are so sided with sony that makes people question your views.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

Kenny K: I call them tournaments to make it sound like a big deal. Try to get people to participate...

madgunde: I didnt mention anybody by name for a specific reason. I didn't wan't to cause any "direct" embarassment to the people who didn't show up. For the record you were one of the "3" who did show up. I was the other. And the 3rd shall remain anonymous becuase he was late :p The reason I didn't message you was because he showed up after you had left...
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

Sorry I haven't had time to respond to every one of your posts, but really in none of my posts was I directly referring to you. My apologies if you got that mistaken impression. The marketing tool I was referring to in my last pose was the Sony rep who was quoted at saying they don't pay for exclusives. I don't remember who it was. Please read my posts again, because you and Pimp seem to be doing very selective reading. I never said it wasn't costing Sony anything. In fact, I already stated that NONE of us, (yes, that includes myself) can be making any claims without knowing the details of the marketing agreement.

I simply choose to give marketing statements the benefit of the doubt with respect to what they mean, regardless of who makes them. You won't see me defending Microsoft simply because a) I don't have a 360 and therefore don't care about it, b) I actually have a dislike of Microsoft because of their history in the PC market (no, I don't want to start a PC/Mac flame war), and c) others have answered that call.

But to constantly be throwing out the liar label every time a company changes their mind, or simply does something that through some broad interpretation could be construed (even mistakenly) as being in contradiction to something someone representing the company said in the past is just lame.

Oh, and I'm not claiming you called Sony liars, I think my comments to that effect are directed squarely at Pimp.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

@ Madgunde

Oh ok, sorry, didn't know you were talking about an actual Sony guy lol. And I don't do "selective reading", that does little to drive the conversation forward, I merely misunderstood.

I agree that none of us can claim to know the EXACT details behind this deal, but I'm saying that $$ was in fact involved regardless of anyone's opinion. I do have some understand of what a "marketing agreement" means.

Also that was Jack Tretton who didn't just say Sony "will not pay for exclusives" but instead he said that Sony "NEVER has paid for exclusive and never will". So basically he was lying out of his teeth at that very moment, I guess he forgot about the exclusive GTA and Tomb Raider deals the last two generations for example.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: But you just made the claim that Microsoft paid for GTA4 exclusive content with 50 million dollars. How can you make that claim without knowing the full details?

How can you say Microsoft did something and then defend Sony for doign the same thing and expect anybody to not label you SDF?

Like I said I'm not going to sit here and defend Microsoft because there is no defense. What I will do is attack Sony for being hipocrites...

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03


just read your last two paragraphs. I understand that companies change their mind, ALL 3 of the big guys do and will continue to change in order to adjust to the ever-changing console war. However, when Jack said that "no paying for exclusive" policy, he was blatantly lying. Sony has paid for exclusives in the past and will do so in the future. His comment was an immature, pathetic, and desperate attempt to downplay the 3rd party support that the 360 was enjoying. So in truth, Pimp was right about the part of sony lying.

Also regardless of you owning a 360 or not, your dislike for MS shows through very clearly. I don't like MS myself, but I don't allow these feelings to stop me from enjoying their games/consoles.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03


I was only using the $50mil because that's what I recall reading, if I'm incorrect, then my apologies. My point wasn't to criticize Microsoft but merely express why I disagreed with your claim that Sony lied. I think I've made that point. I really don't care if Microsoft pays companies off to get exclusives, in fact, I kind of expect them to do that, what with that huge pile of cash they're sitting on and their past examples.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

You see, that's the kind of biased crap I'm talking about Madgunde. You "expect" MS to pay off exclusives?

The reality is that all 3 are "expected" to provide $$ if they see it as a benefit.

Perfect example to how your opinion of MS effect your view of this console industry. It's. Not. Right.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

As for disliking Microsoft, I believe in voting with your dollars. If you dislike a company and don't agree with their business practices, then I think as consumers the best way to let those companies know is to not buy their product. The reason companies take advantage of their customers is because their customers let them. It accomplishes a lot more and gets your point across much better than just lamely attacking them on a forum.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

Also It's nice that you aplogize for assuming things that you don't know, but in the future, I think it would be best for everyone NOT to assume too much.

Umm no madgunde, just no.

The MS that you are judging now is not the same MS as they were years ago when they got busted for their monopoly.

By voting with your dollar, your missing out on good things, and closing your mind to some possibilities at the same time.

Also, EVERY company takes advantage of their customers.............yes, even sony.

So basically you are picking and choosing who you're voting with your dollar.

It's all BS. I hate sony for overpricing everything, over hyping everything, and giving out shitty products, but I don't deny what IS good from the company.

oops I slipped up again Pimp, sorry, I swear I'm trying to catch them.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

When I say I expect it, I mean it doesn't surprise me, not that it would surprise me if they didn't or that I think they should. Why, does it surprise you that they might? Do you not think that if the business justification is there they wouldn't? I'm not sure why you think that's biased crap. To be honest, I expected Sony was doing the same thing, but if they say they aren't (I mean directly paying for exclusives), I'm willing to take their word on it. But if MS came out and said they were going to stop paying for exclusives and months later they secured exclusives by reaching some other arrangement, I wouldn't be here posting about how they lied.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

It's biased crap because you "expect" MS to "moneyhat" but you don't expect sony to do the same "because they said they don't"

Did you read anything I said? Sony was lying from the beginning regarding this whole exclusive pay off thing.

You looking for reasons to side with sony over MS. If that's not biased I don't know what is.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

"It's all BS. I hate sony for overpricing everything, over hyping everything, and giving out shitty products, but I don't deny what IS good from the company."

@Kenny K

Now who's spouting biased crap? Tsk tsk tsk. Practice what you preach man man.

I have a limited amount of time and limited funds to spend on gaming. I only need one console. Some of you might have more time and money than I do to spend on games, good for you. I'm not knocking your choices or telling you how to spend your money.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "siding with Sony over Microsoft" in this discussion. I thought I was simply disagreeing with Pimp's statement that Sony lied. Now of course you have also claimed that Sony is lying, so I guess now I'm disagreeing with you as well.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

How is my post biased crap? I am practicing what I preach? I never said I'll never get a ps3 because I don't like how sony over-prices their products, over hypes their products, delivers crap theatre equipment, and treats their consumer base as a bunch of mindless zombies (although you and sky do fit the part).

No I'll be glad when I get my ps3 and my Wii.

You're the biased one who refuses to listen to reason. How can you disagree with me when it's a FACT that sony has lied about "never" paying for an exclusive. The Tomb Raider and GTA exclusive contracts (which involved money) were very well known.

If I can find the exact quote tonight, it was in a magazine, I'll quote it here so you can see how sony has lied regarding buying exclusives.

Please don't lower yourself to sky's and krogan's level.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: Again I have no issues with the PS3 anymore now that it has a decent price tag. Nor do I have some "sick" agenda to punish them. Yes I dont care for Sony. But I am a gamer at heart.

So for you to say that you method of dealing with your issues is superior to mine. Well just so you know. Your way off base. I'm not trying to punish Sony at all.

I'm just having fun making the people on here who defended Sonys every PR statement eat crow. I could honestly care less what people thing about Microsoft...

Go back and read your comments again. You will see why people think you are defending Sony.

If you think Sony has never told a lie than you really are a Sony tool.

My comment was made in pure fun. Like I said earlier you are taking this way "TOO" serious.

It's a long standing/running joke with Dudeman and I.

Look at the very first comment by Dudeman/Poprocker. He said he was going to buy it for the PS3 because of the exclusive DLC. IF you knew the history of this site you would know that Dudeman ripped on DLC for the 360 version of GTA4 in the past. It was simply to poke fun at him and his pro PS3 persona...

Edit: Oh damn. My bad. I didn't see that the RFOM2 beta thread only had 1 comment. I better leave my cave so I can go "troll" that article too...
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

Um, you hate Sony, and you claim Sony overprices EVERYTHING? You don't see the bias in that statement? Seems to me you were just criticizing me for very similar statements. For one, the PS3 has always sold for less than the cost of manufacturing. So they obviously aren't overpricing the console hardware. You want to talk overpriced, lets talk Nintendo.

I don't recall Sony saying they have NEVER paid for exclusives, I remember it being that they don't pay for them now (understandable, seeing as how they can't afford to, what with all the money they're losing on each console). I think it would be helpful if someone could post a link to the actual quote. If I'm mistaken, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

@Pimp Daddy

Did I say that I thought Sony has never told a lie? No. I simply didn't think that what you construed as a lie in this case with your trollish flamebait post, was in fact a lie. Do companies lie? Certainly they do. Does Sony lie? Yes, they're a company like any other. Does that mean they ALWAYS LIE or that everything they say is a lie? No. I think Sony lied plenty when news first broke about their defective batteries. I'm sure they knew more than they were admitting, and I think that was wrong. But I also can tell the difference between a quote from a marketing guy that may have been taken out of context and an outright lie. For instance, Microsoft's initial claims about how many 360s were affected by the RROD was an outright lie.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

How am I biased by saying that Sony over prices their products? I really don't understand your logic there.

You really need to just shut up regarding anything in the game industry. EVERY manufacturer has sold their consoles at a loss except nintendo. Sega, MS, and Sony has always sold their consoles lower than it costs to produce, initially at least.

Why bother bringing Ninty into this? No one is saying that other companies don't overprice things, but I'm not just talking about the video game market, my dislike for sony stems WAY back before they even entered the video game industry.

You don't "recall" sony saying they never paid for an exclusive? Holy crap, so because you have the memory of a alzheimer patient, it's not true?

Get ready to be a happy camper, because you WILL be very happy to admit how wrong you are.

I don't post BS just for the sake of it, I tend to know what I say before I make the effort to type it.
Written by Sky on 2008/09/03

in the end sony wins and ms loose . nothing new here.
Written by poprocker on 2008/09/03

This thread needs more cowbell. getting way too serious.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

You said Sony overprices ALL of their products. That is clearly not true. I believe you made such an extreme statement because of your clear bias against them, seeing as you already admitted you hate them. Do you not even read what you post?

And telling me to shut up in a discussion forum is pretty fscking lame if you ask me. Not cool at all. Oh I get it. You don't want people posting things that you don't agree with. But if everyone did that, what would you discuss?

I'm still waiting to see the actual quote. So rather than being an insulting jackass, why don't you just find it already and post it ffs? Wow, I love coming to this site, the locals are so friendly. @sshole.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: Your right my post was flame bait. And you took it. Thank you.

Sky: SDF has arrived a little late to help their fallen comrade.

PopRocker: You started it :p Besides I'm not the least bit upset. In fact as I type this I have a grin from ear to ear.

Everyone: We all have some bias. I admit I prefer the 360 to the PS3. Microsoft to Sony. I won't defend Microsoft the way the Playstation Polesmokers defend Sony on here though. Just like I don't attack Sony as much as I did in the past. They are both good consoles in thier own right. The sad thing about the exclusive DLC is that Microsoft and Sony are continually dividing and destroying the same user base they are trying to sell thier consoles to.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03


"Yeah, 'fewer exclusives' is a term, and I don't know what makes an exclusive," says Tretton. "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 the lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform."

"That's correct, generating reasons for consumers to purchase and enjoy your console over others became a dubious, underhanded maneuver when you weren't looking. Since the publisher (of third-party titles such as Heavenly Sword and Lair) isn't willing to stoop that low, it would much rather "earn" exclusives. "We earn it by saying 'you can build a better game on our platform. If you focus your development on our platform, you will ultimately be more successful. We can try to partner up with you from a technological standpoint. We can try to partner up with you from a marketing standpoint. But just economically and technologically, this is the system that makes the most sense for you.'"

Since both Pimp Daddy and Kenny K seem to have problem reading my posts, I'll repeat the relevant portion of Jack Tretton's quote:

"We can try to partner up with you from a technological standpoint. We can try to partner up with you from a marketing standpoint."
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: For the record I didn't tell you to shut up or try to persoanlly insult you. I use the terms SDF and tool loosely... In fact I actually like debating with you. So please feel free to post your opinions. Just like I will feel free to disagree with a large percentage of them :p

At least you try to explain you opinions. Unlike Sky who opens his mouth and sounds exactly like Sony's PR.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

So Kenny K and Pimp Daddy, YOU TWO ARE THE LIARS HERE. Now, I somehow don't expect either of you to admit you're wrong, but I might be pleasantly surprised.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

Holy crap, you pick one interview of many and think you're right?

The "never" interview came from a magazine, like I said before.

It was said and even then it was BS, so what do I have to admit?

Yeah, your really doing a good job proving how your not a sony tool. /sarcasm
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

My opinions are my own and I certainly would appreciate not being lumped together with Sky or labelled as a member of the SDF, just as I'm sure you and Kenny K would appreciate me not lumping you guys together or worse lumping you guys with Krogan. It's not conducive to good discussion. Also, I know you didn't tell me to shut up, I was responding directly to Kenny K.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: Do you actually believe anything coming out of Jack Tretton's mouth? It makes absolutely no sense for a 3rd party developer to make a game for just one console this generation. Neither the 360 or PS3 have dominant hardware sales. Both perform pretty equally as far as graphics. Both cater to the same hardcore audience.

Bottom line is some type of incentive is offered for these 3rd party developers to do the deals they do with Sony or Microsoft.

I can't believe you actually took the time to post Jack Tretton's PR stamement. Damn now I'm not sure who is the bigger Sony tool on here. You or Sky...
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

also I'm at work, so excuse me if I don't jump to your every request. I only tell people to shut up when they don't know what they are talking about. It gets really old to read baseless A$$umptions from people who are clueless. @ sky, how or what exactly is sony winning? And how big was your check out of it? Get the f*ck out of here.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

That's the interview I read, which is probably the one that most people are aware of, since it's on the internet and was widely reported. I find it absolutely dumb though that you would ridicule my memory and insult me for not having read a PAPER F*CKING MAGAZINE over a story that was widely reported on many major gaming blogs. Is it MAYBE possible that you are the one who misread the quote or just doesn't remember it correctly? If you don't have the magazine handy, how can we know? If you have the magazine, please feel free to quote it word for word. If you don't have it, then it's irrelevant to this discussion, since I have an actual quote to support my position and you don't.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

Come on now. Do better than that please... I am fully aware that Jack was one of Sony's PR to make mention of that.

I can talk to the media and make a similar statement on behalf of Microsoft and it wouldn't mean jack either. Forgive the Pun.

What's Jack going to say? Ya Sony pays for games to be exclusive, and it's ok if we do it because were not Microsoft?

PimpDaddy has left the building...
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Pimp Daddy

I'm in no position to make claims about Jack's overall honesty, and that is not my intention. I simply disagreed with your assertion that Sony lied, which I believe was based on that interview with Jack Tretton. I think I have more than supported my position in this respect. If you and Kenny K want to continue trying to portray me as some raving Sony fanboy who blindly defends everything they say and do, then I think I'm going to drop out of the discussion since in my opinion, I've proven my point. If you want to start a new discussion about exclusivity in general, then maybe the forum is a better place to have it.

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

@ madgunde.

I'm at f*cking work, so I don't have the interview handy, but when I get home I will gladly quote it word for word.

READ what I typed earlier:

"If I can find the exact quote tonight, it was in a magazine, I'll quote it here so you can see how sony has lied regarding buying exclusives."

The article you pulled was from PSM, why the hell would I read any fanboy magazine?

I swear you f*ckin sony fantards know how to ruin everything
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Um, it was reported by Joystiq. Do you read them? How about Kotaku?


In any case, it pretty much doesn't matter what your article says, unless it specifically reports proof that Sony did directly pay for exclusivity. My whole point has been that when Jack Tretton made his statement, he meant directly paying for exclusive content, not using other means for obtaining exclusivity. The quote I posted clarifies that quite nicely. Still, I'd be interested in seeing this damning evidence you have.

Which magazine was it btw? Maybe I can find it online.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

No I don't tend to read blogs either, they aren't much better than a fanboy rant hub.

Also I have found the exact quote and magazine, I had my buddy email it to me when I told him about idiots like you:

The February 07 Issue of GameInformer:

GI: Recently, MS has been very aggressive in getting exclusive games for the 360. We'd heard that certain games that were exclusives were lost because Sony japan didnt move on the deals fast enough - particularly GTA. Will Kaz Hirai's move to running things in japan help the company move on things like this more quickly? Have you lost some momentum on gathering exclusives for PS3?

Tretton: Well, there are a number of questions in there, so i'll address a few points. First off, we are well aware of the fact that development costs have risen greatly, that platform differentiation is more challenging for the development community than it's ever been, so it's difficult for a publisher to build a game exclusively for a certain platform, unless the hardware manufacturer wants to pony up big dollars to lock in that exclusive. It has always been our philosophy that we earn support from publishers; we dont buy it. That's in contrast to some other publishers that feel that it's important to lock down strategic relationships with software publishers - if they have to buy it, so be it.

GI: So, you've never paid for an exclusive?

Tretton: We've lent marketing support in the past, but we've never paid for exclusivity on any platform for any piece of software. Because we know that the barriers to buying exclusives, even if you were interested, have grown greatly; the only thing you can really control is the software that you develop yourself from a first-party standpoint. So, we've invested heavily since we've been in the business, but even more so over the last five years, in building our internal software development organization. It is, far and away, the largest effort worldwide of any hardware or software company in the business......Coupled with that, I think we work really closely with the publishers to make sure that they differentiate their offering for our platforms from the others and that we work to aggresively promote and market those products together to call consumer attention to it.

As you can see, I DON'T MAKE SH!T UP.

So I'll be waiting for you to admit a few things, or are you going to go the "sky" route and twist this around?

I don't care how you care to spin it madgunde, "marketing support" is generally understood as paying for marketing, usually the most expensive part of any project. That is in fact $$ that Sony would be paying for an exclusive.

Again, like ALL other PR speak, Sony was just trying to downplay MS' efforts with 3rd party developers with their immiture and pathetic PR spin.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

OK, thanks for posting it. I admit that I hadn't seen that quote, and was wrong in my thinking that Jack was only referring to the PS3. I'll happily admit that, as it's clearly true. But I have still yet seen anyone post anything that makes it a lie. He's clearly saying that they use other means like marketing support to gain an exclusive, that they don't pay for it directly. So where's the lie? You and Pimp were all up in arms about how marketing is the same as paying for it, but in both quotes, yours and mine, Jack clearly differentiates. You may feel that it's the same thing, but that doesn't make what he said a lie.

He was very clear and specific in both interviews.

Seems to me you and Pimp Daddy are both selective readers who take small snippets of what Jack Tretton said out of context. When you read the whole response, the context is clear.

So it's not so much you making shit up, it's more that you ignore pertinent information to spin someone's words in a way that was not intended. I'm not sure you do it intentionally, I think your bias and hate clouds your judgement. :-)

Of course Sony was trying to downplay MS's efforts, just as MS will try to downplay Sony's efforts. That doesn't make it a lie. It's PR, plain and simple. Immature and pathetic? No. PR? Yes.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

Holy sh!t are you a tool.

There is no "selective" reading on my part. He was asked directly that they "never" paid for an exclusive and he couldn't give a direct answer since they have.

Again, the Tomb Raider and GTA contracts were very well known to include a pay off.

Yeah I know, and will never deny, that MS and Ninty also spew their own PR BS.

However we'ere talking about sony and how they "never" pay for an exclusive. Think what you want, but I know that "marketing support" requires sony to spend their own money. And when marketing is the most expensive part of a game's budget (FACT), well that's a pretty big chunk of money that Sony "is not" paying for the exclusive.

Also I regret being honest with you regarding my feelings of sony as it's obvious now that you'll try to use it as ammo as often as possible. I don't "hate" sony, but I do dislike them very much. However I don't allow my opinion of the company effect my judgement of their products. IMO they make great TVs, some of the best. They may be over priced TVs, but they are VERY good. The same with the ps3, I never said that the ps3 sucks, isn't a good game systen, isn't powerful, etc. However I did NOT buy into their over hyped 2X as powerful as the 360 BS like so many of your kind did.

I swear you and sky have no commen sense or logic when it comes to sony. It's all *slurp* *slurp*

So go ahead and spin away, whatever helps you sleep at night. I think anyone with the LEAST bit of reading comprehension can see how Mr. Tretton beat around the bush over a very direct topic.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

@Kenny K

Wow, just wow. You are completely blind in your opinion, aren't you? Even when I make very clear and concise arguments and back them up, you are simply unable to concede any ground whatsoever or worse, to properly understand the point I'm making, even after I've repeated it numerous times. Worst off, you are the biggest hypocrite I think I've ever had the misfortune of running into on the internet. That says a lot, since I've been using the internet for probably 18 years.

Oh, so now Tretton 'beat around the bush'? What happened to outright lying? Beating around the bush isn't lying. It's avoiding the question. But I disagree with you there (big surprise), I thought his responses in both interviews were very well worded and clear.

I'm still waiting for some backing evidence to prove Tretton lied. I'm sorry I can't just take your word for it. I'm not familiar with the GTA and Tomb Raider agreements, so if you have some details, please share.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

You haven't backed anything up, just like you can't back up how I'm a hypocrite.

I don't bash the ps3, I don't go out of my way to downplay everything ps3 related, I won't refuse a ps3 or deny it's merits because it's made by sony, and I don't type something out unless I'm sure it's the truth.

So please enlighten me, how am I blind in my opinion? Show me the light so that I may better myself and reach the higher standards of tools like you and sky.

"Oh, so now Tretton 'beat around the bush'? What happened to outright lying? Beating around the bush isn't lying. It's avoiding the question. But I disagree with you there (big surprise), I thought his responses in both interviews were very well worded and clear."

Please go back to the 2nd grade to learn about reading comprehension. If I ask you, "so you have never paid for an exclusive" and you can't give a simple "yes" or "no" then that's beating around the bush. People beat around the bush because they can't face up to the truth for whatever reason.

"I'm still waiting for some backing evidence to prove Tretton lied. I'm sorry I can't just take your word for it. I'm not familiar with the GTA and Tomb Raider agreements, so if you have some details, please share."

Holy crap, fine I'll find another quote just for you to spin it around and this never ending cycle will continue.

Just keep spinning away..........
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

hypocrite |ˈhipəˌkrit|


a person who indulges in hypocrisy.

hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|

noun ( pl. -sies)

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

"I never said anything about Sony being a liar. ", "Did you read anything I said? Sony was lying from the beginning regarding this whole exclusive pay off thing. "

"You see, that's the kind of biased crap I'm talking about Madgunde.", "I hate sony for overpricing everything, over hyping everything, and giving out shitty products...", "I don't "hate" sony, but I do dislike them very much.", "You haven't backed anything up, just like you can't back up how I'm a hypocrite." Um, I've backed up plenty, which supports my claim that you are both a hypocrite and blind in your opinion.

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

You see, you're as bad as the PR idiots.

I know what a hypcorite is, but you have yet to explain exactly to HOW I'm a hypocrite.

It's really sad that you're arguing over semantics.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

"I'll find another quote just for you to spin it around and this never ending cycle will continue." Um, I read the quotes in their entirety in plain english and don't reinterpret them. You on the other hand ignore entire portions of the quote and read into them different meaning than what is stated at face value, and I'm the one who's spinning?!?

@Kenny K

Read my last two posts. Gonna assume you posted too quickly.

Oh, and it's really simple. Just post a link to an article that says that Sony paid out independant developer a or publisher b, x amount of dollars in exchange for exclusivity on any Sony platform and I will admit that Jack Tretton told a bald faced lie in those two interviews. That's it, that's all. Just one piece of clear evidence and I'll admit I was wrong to disagree with you and Pimp Daddy about Sony lying about paying for exclusivity. Should be real simple.
Written by Sky on 2008/09/03

madgunde +1

Kenny K -1

Pimp daddy -1

Aurthur56k is a non player in my world

First off let me say Kudos to Madgunde for standing face the face with the red ringed eyed demons kenny K and pimp daddy. you will be awarded my PSN ID for your courage

But seriously.. I understand where both arguments are coming from and they are valid points. the only logical thing to do now and i agree with who ever said it was.. "since we don't know the exact terms of the exclusivity" we can't make a claim sony lied.. I'm sure its a lot more complex then we think

anyways I'm sure no one is surprised but I agree with madgunde. reading jack's interview verbatim nullifies pimp daddy and kenny k argument.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

Sky: Nothing you say ever surprises me. In fact the more you post the more I am convinced that you have some sick love for Sony or are on thier payroll :p

Madgunde: Your actually giving as good as your getting which is rare on this site... So kudos to you.

Kenny K: I'm looking forward to you providing proof on Sony paying for games.

GUys I have to clean up a few of your posts when I get home of the unedited foul language. Please try to edit your foul words.

Also for the most part this discussion stayed clean. Some advice though. If I could I would refrain from telling people to shut up or calling them offensive names.

Things such as troll, tool, fanboy, etc related to videogames is fine though...

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03


Holy crap, I'm starting to wonder if madgunde is a woman. So you take my comments about sony's lie out of context and you really think that makes me a hypocrite?

I have one simple question and all I want is a simple yes or no. Where, before my original comment of sony being a liar, did you see me calling them a liar?

As for my "hate" for sony. Yes, I typed it, but of course you have to grasp for straws on everything else I say since you don't have anything else to fall back on. Yes, I'm sorry, I did say I "hate" sony. However it's NOT really meant to be taken in the literal sense. I do have a strong dislike for them and how they carry out their business, I've always been honest about that. However I've also been enjoying how this gen has been turning out seeing as how Sony had to eat a big piece of humble pie and they are starting to become a better company because of this. So yeah, enjoy your small victory of proving how I said I "hate" sony. You're more pathetic if you're going to hang on every one of my words.

If you REALLY try to weasel out of answering my question, I think that'll say a lot right there.
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/03

Sony and 2k had a contract that ended in 2004:

"an Investor's Business Daily report suggests that after Rockstar's exclusivity contract with Sony ends in 2004, the company plans to bring both Grand Theft Auto 3 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to the Xbox and GameCube that same year. However, Rockstar has not officially announced any such plans, and representatives from the company were unavailable to comment on the story as of press time."

As for Sony's marketing support, like I said, this means that sony will PAY to market the 3rd party published game:

"Hirai told Nikkei that the format holder will work closely with third-party software publishers on promoting new titles with in-store marketing and special events."

Do you think that marketing and those events are free?

Twist it any way you want, all 3 pay some $$ for 3rd party publisher support.

for some reason I can't post the links but if you wish I could PM them to you
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Sorry Kenny K. That's no proof that Sony paid outright for exclusivity. It only mentions marketing considerations, which Jack Tretton on TWO occasions already disclosed. So how exactly did he lie again if he actually disclosed that? How exactly am I spinning this other than as the gods honest truth?

I don't disagree that paying for marketing or any other consideration that saves or makes the developer/publisher money equates to the same thing at the end of the day. My beef as I have reiterated several times is the claim that Sony lied about it. It's very clear that they didn't. You are the one who is trying to spin a very clear cut case of total disclosure as lying and beating around the bush.

If you find any more evidence, please feel free to bring it forth, but until then, I suggest both you and Pimp avoid making unsubstantiated claims about Sony lying about this particular subject.

As for your simple question, you didn't and I never claimed you did. I simply wanted to show how you flip-flopped from not claiming they lied to claiming you lied, which demonstrates your feeble attempts to hide your bias.

@Pimp Daddy

I wasn't aware that you are a moderator here. I'm sorry, but that actually makes me have less respect for you. It's bad enough that you wait until a discussion gets far past the point of being civil before stepping in. But it was your trollish flamebait that instigated the whole affair and set the tone. If you're that desperate for comments here that you have to resort to such low levels, then I'm not sure this is the forum for me. You both may have thoroughly enjoyed yourselves, but I did not, and only continued out of principle. I highly doubt I'll be posting here again as I don't find it to be a friendly and open-minded environment.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03


"Sony third party relations cheif Michael Shorrock has said that the company has purchased exclusive rights for the next game franchise by Rockstar Games, makers of the popular Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt series among many others."

madgunde: I don't wan't respect from an established member of the Sony Defense Force. You were the one complaining about leaving because of Krogan. Now that he left voluntarily, your complaining about being mistreated here by others. Is there no satisfying you?

You know where the door is if you can't handle it. Oh boo hoo somebody on GamersReports didn't agree with you so your going to cry...

Need a tissue???

FYI:: The only thing I am enforcing is both yours and Kenny K's use of foul language and both of you throwing personal insults each others way. I am very loose on the personal insults as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I don't need a lecture in moderation from somebody who isn't interested in being a serious contributor to this website.

It appears to me that Kenny K served you real good and you can't hang with it so now your leaving with your tail between your legs.

If my memory serves me right you were the one who started all this with your rebuttal to my comment. Calling me a troll. Then later a liar. A Hopocrite. A little kid, etc...

We have done this before and it always ends this way. You can't win an argument/debate. Then you piss and moan. Throw around personal insults. Stomp your feet, throw yourself on the ground, and then leave.

So what are you waiting for?
Written by B1ueBurneR on 2008/09/03

@Madgunde, Kenny K, PimpD, Sky. that was one of the best debate I've seen a while thank you. It was good read.

To me it sounds like Sony doesn't pay-out directly for exclusivity (anymore).

Lets put it in my perverted perceptive.

lets say you're having a wedding and I have a big house that I can let you use for your BIG Weeding. that way you don't lose out any money on a location to hold it. and I (Sony) Don't have to spend squat on it, I'll just have a my in-house servants (Sky, [email protected],& Mangina-Dude)decorate or do what ever I tell them to, thats needs to be done. ALl the pictures that are takend during the wedding is exclusive to us(SONY) or we own the copy rights to them.NO one spent extra money or came out of pocket for anything. This a win win situation.

I was going to take it further and say.. just let me f$ck your wife and we call it even. but I think we get the point right.
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Sorry Pimp, that quote of yours is heresay and unsubstantiated. If you click through to the original article, nowhere does it mention that Michael Shorrock stated Sony purchased the rights. All I see is a reference to an analyst who speculates that Sony paid good money for the rights. Close but no cigar.

So it's a clear case of a blog misreporting the news.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

What is substantial about Jack Tretton saying Sony doesn't "pay" for exclusives. Your not the judge and jury on GamersReports for what is an isn't fact. Your throwing around a single interview with a Sony Corporation executive and claiming it to be irrefutable evidence that Sony didn't lie about paying for exlcusive games. And somehow that trumps the blog post I found?

Neither one of us can prove whether Sony paid for exclusives or not. It's my opinion that they did. It's your opinion that they didn't. As I have said before. Lets just agree to disagree and call it a night.

I have no issues with you being a momber of this site. I have no issues with you disagreeing with me. Calling me names. Whatever...

Just stop complaining about the way things go on this site. Go check out some of the other videogame websites such as N4G, 1UP, Gamespot, etc... Once you see how bad things are over there, maybe you will view this site like I do.

Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

You and Kenny K have served me nothing. I'm still the only one who has provided any real proof to support my position. I think I've given you two enough opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, and you both came up empty.

It's time you own up to your hypocrisy and realize you're part of the problem. B!tching at Sony fanboys for defending Sony all the while being a bigger defensive MS fanboy. I called you a troll because you are the very definition of one. I posted a link to the Wikipedia entry on Internet Troll for your benefit. Here's another pertinent article that helps illustrate why your techniques are counter-productive to this forum: hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiting_(trolling)

Innocent until proven guilty. If you're going to call someone a liar, you should be able to substantiate that claim. You can't. I'm not claiming they aren't lying, I'm simply claiming that there's no proof they have. The quotes, which are from two separate interviews, not one, are provided to substantiate what Sony DID say. You claim they lied about it, but provided no proof. I simply wanted to show what they did say, so everyone understands what you are claiming they lied about. The burden of proof is not on me to prove they didn't lie, it's on you to prove they did lie. Something you or Kenny have yet to do.

lol, OK, now I understand why things are the way they are around here. You don't actually care about having a good site, just one that sucks a little less than the competition.
Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

sky, how can MS lose if they are making money from the 360, games, DLC, live, and each and every blue ray disc sold?

tell me, how can they lose?

they are a business, and they are making money on all fronts, so, how can they lose.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

You know I actually was gaining respect for you for standing up for yourself. Then you had to go and diss this site because as a "volunteer" moderator I decide to actually participate in the discussions. This website doesn't need you and I arguing back and forth to get hits. It gets enough of those on it's own.

What it needs is more discussions where the cussing and name calling are kept to a minimum. Where people can't spam. Where people can voice thier opinions without fear of losing a speech bubble or getting kicked from the site for voicing an unpopular opinion. I welcome anybody to come in here and debate. My comments are not reflective of this website, nor do I have any financial consideration invested in GamersReports. I moderate because I like this website and it's members. Even the ones I get into heated debates with.

I am trying to build up the community aspect of this website. Would it be nice if everybody got along and said nice things about each others choice of videogame consoles and games? Sure. Would it be realistic or keep peoples interest? No.

This website is not for everyone. It's for people who have a passion for videogames. If your going to take part in the discussions, then you need to have thick skin, and a quick tongue.

Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

You call it complaining, but others would consider it constructive feedback. I'm trying to help you. If you want to attract more users and create more friendly discussion, then you'll at least consider my feedback. If you want this site to stagnate with the same 6 people just b!tching back and forth about who is the bigger fantard, insulting each other and dissuading new members from sticking around, then by all means, ignore my criticism.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

MadGunde: You got served repeatedly. You call my comment that was directed at another member of this site trolling. Thats funny. Bottom line is you found my comment offensive. Why? Because you like Sony and hate Microsoft therefore you feel the need to defend Sony. Hence your first comment that was directed right at me.

You think Sony doesn't lie. 4D? Rumble being unable to work with motion control? Spring 2006 worldwide Simultaneous launch for PS3? 2 million units available at launch? Dual HDMI? No multiple sku strategy? Damn son I could go on and on...

I'm not sure how we got stuck on the topic of Sony lying about paying for exclusive rights to games. Other than you and your love affair with Sony refusing to give an inch on an already dead topic. Nothing your going to say will convince me that 3rd party developers are just waiting in the wings to hop on board with a console that is sitting in last place and has the lowest game attach rate.

I have a website that should be more to your liking. Since it's obvious that this website doesn't meet your standards.


Written by arthur56k on 2008/09/03

i think that this place has started to change, a lot still has to be done, but the change has started.

all the administration now needs is to enforce things that people have been yearning for, and a ban section would be great.

as for the name calling,i think it is one of the things that needs to go fast, real fast if this place is to go on and grow


everyone here has given you facts, but you have simply ignored them, the only reason i can come up with is that you may have had your mind already made up.

at the end of the day, yours is an opinion, what others have given is fact, that can be proved any given day.

opinions are what we are here for, but opinions have never influenced facts, but facts have always swayed opinions if one so wishes to acknowledge them.

you on the other hand dont want to, and since you dont seem to have a way or method to prove or back what you are saying, you have taken to going off topic and claiming others are hypocrites.

this i said way up there, before this thing blew up
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: I can take constructive criticism fine. But you helped participate in the same problem your now complaining about. I am working towards cleaning up this site. But the bottom line is that the comments are reserved for people to make thier opinions heard. So with that in mind I am going to moderate in a gentle manner. There was one person who was abusing this site with thier own personal agenda. That person is gone.

I made a comment. Not directed at any one person. It was direct at Sony. Instead of just saying your opinion, you attacked me and accused me of trolling. It was your one comment that set the whole article on fire. Not mine.

arthur56k: This site is improving. But it has to do so in steps. If I were to strictly inforce the TOS then nobody would ever be allowed to post... You have to pick and choose your battles. The websites mass spammer is gone. You and Sky had a nice tussle in a different article that violated quite a few TOS rules if I were to interpret them strictly. People are either cutting down on the profane language or at least editing it out. Most of the flame wars are tame in comparison to how they used to be. Give it time...

Madgunde: I am asking politely for you to please dit out your profane words. Since I can edit the comments I will do so. But please help me out with this in the future...

example: b!tching
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/03

Sorry Arthur56K, I saw very little fact, just lots of unsubstantiated claims, and still nothing to prove the original claim that I take issue with. As for going off topic, I saw a little bit of that from everyone. i continually tried to bring it back on topic by restating what it was that I disagreed with. I've been called a member of the SDF, biased, etc by people who are clearly biased themselves. That is hypocrisy. I'm not directing this at you, just explaining myself. And I apologize that we didn't get to continue the discussion we started, I kind of got side-tracked by Kenny K's and Pimp Daddy's posts.

Let me make it really simple. You call someone a liar and I ask you to prove it, you should be able to do that. Show exactly what they said, then show the evidence that what they said was false. Simple. Has that been done? No.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/03

madgunde: What part of SDF do you not understand? You are exactly what I called you. Just like I can accept being called a member of the XDF (Xbox Defense Force). You bought that hat a long time ago. Todays actions just reinforce what I have known all along. Madgunde is SDF.

I didn't call you biased. But then again it describes you perfectly. Never have I "EVER" claimed that I wasn't biased. I have made it clear since I joined this site that I prefer the 360.

So now what?

My cards are on the table. Always have been. At least I can be honest with myself and others. Like I said earlier my statement was towards Dudeman/Poprocker. He threw out the bait. I took it and ran with it.

You could have been this holy, better than thou, non biased saint that you would like us all to think you are and not posted at all.

Instead you took the first shot. And started a flame war. Then get made when people call you out on it.

Why live in denial? You yourself said today that you can't stand Microsoft as a company. You voted with your wallet to not buy thier console or games. You have your agenda.

I remember you telling me that last generation you owned an Xbox and not a PS2. Then this generation you went with the PS3. You and I had countless debates about the 360 and PS3.

Yet you still deny that your SDF?

Your such a typical Sony Droid that Sky even tried to come in and defend you. Are you the only one who can't see how much a PS3 fanboy you are? Damn dude come to grips with reality.

It's ok to be a fanboy...
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

Wow wow wow wow wow.

Madgunde, you CAN NOT expect us to pull any kind of quotes or documents specifying $$ amounts over a contract. This type of information is not made public. Do you really think that companies like 2k will hold out on making money if someone else isn't making up for it??? Why do you think 2K and sony had a contract until 2004? Out of good faith? These companies aren't in the business to lose money.

I can not even begin to understand how you can accuse me of spinning anything when within the same paragraph you say that you understand how paying for marketing can be seen as the same thing as paying for the game itself, but of course you don't see it that way. Giving you $10 million for your game or paying $10 million of your $20 million marketing bill to have your game IS THE SAME THING.


"As for your simple question, you didn't and I never claimed you did. I simply wanted to show how you flip-flopped from not claiming they lied to claiming you lied, which demonstrates your feeble attempts to hide your bias."

You never claimed anything? Really? Find my comment that you quoted (my 3rd comment), ok now find your comment above it where you addressed me (your 2nd comment) directly and you said:

"You and Pimp are using the broad definition to paint Sony as liars"

This line right here is why I said what you quoted, but you never claimed anything, right?

Then while looking through all of your psycho-babble, I was reminded of what you said:

"The difference between paying for DLC and having a marketing agreement to secure DLC can be a lot of things, depending on the specific agreement. If Sony said they'd pay for $50 million in advertising to promote the product IF they get exclusive DLC, then I agree with you"

So how is what you said above different than what Hirai was saying about "in-store marketing and special events."?????

You see, if you want to play this stupid game, I can comb over your comments and point out how you just want to go around in circles.

With this I'm done, like I said earlier, no exclusive contract will ever be made public. MS has made a few pay off exclusives this gen and we don't know the details of any of them. So asking the same for a sony contract is very ignorant and retarded.

Like Arthur said, you already have your mind made up and it's pointless discussing ANYTHING sony related to you because you can't see it them in an unbiased manner.

@ Arther, I'm sorry about the cussing, I do a lot of posting at work and that place gets me pissed off as it is. I guess I just get easily annoyed by ignorance. I'll be cool =p
Written by B1ueBurneR on 2008/09/04

@MadGunde, its nice to have a girl on the site, you wrote this earlier,

"To be honest, I expected Sony was doing the same thing, but if they say they aren't (I mean directly paying for exclusives), I'm willing to take their word on it. But if MS came out and said they were going to stop paying for exclusives and months later they secured exclusives by reaching some other arrangement, I wouldn't be here posting about how they lied."

I can't help but think that said that because its Sony. If the companies come up with other arrangements trust there will be money involved. lets not forget we are talking about huge companies trying to get the upper hand on the console war.

If you ask a girl if she's a virgin, and she says "we never had sex so according to you I am" She not directly lying right? That whore of a girl is Sony, be sure she has a trick up her sleeves to get money. I can't say Sony is Directly-lying about their agreement but I know a whore when I see one.

@[email protected] tell your mom I said Hi. (I hope I don't get banned for telling someone hi)
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

I'm still waiting on madgunde to make sense to what I posted or to fess up to spinning around in circles.

However, in typical sony fanboy fashion, I would imagine that he either twists things around or just ignores this topic entirely now.

Sad how he has lowered to the ranks of "he who shall not be named" and sky
Written by madgunde on 2008/09/04

Lots of rhetoric, yet I still have yet to see the proof I repeatedly ask for. If you don't have it, just admit that you have NO PROOF that Sony lied about paying directly to secure an exclusive. Quit beating around the bush and trying to cloud the issue by calling be biased and a SDF member and all that other crap that really adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Calling someone else out for being biased and a "defender" while doing it yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy. Get past that crap people. WE ARE ALL BIASED. You only throw those generalizations around to try and discredit people's argument because you can't do it legitimately.

@Kenny K

I can admit when I'm wrong. You can't. I have already done it above. I don't claim to know all the details, I'm simply asking to see this proof that you and Pimp claim to have that Sony lied about paying for exclusives. I'm not spinning anything. You and Pimp claim they lied about something, I've shown they clearly haven't and on two occasions gave full disclosure of what their activities are with respect to securing exclusives.

The fact that after all this discussion, we keep coming back to this is proof that you and Pimp are the spinmeisters, not I.

It's REALLY simple. You have no proof, you are making and unsubstantiated claim. End of argument. That's all I wanted to establish, and I think I've done that nicely.
Written by poprocker on 2008/09/04

You both win. We've reached 100 comments!
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

"I'm simply asking to see this proof that you and Pimp claim to have that Sony lied about paying for exclusives."

I never claimed to have such detailed proof BECAUSE it's not made public.

Seriously you pic and choose what you read and what you reply to. Yes we all have bias, but some of us are more extreme or blind with our bias.

And what about this?.....

Then while looking through all of your psycho-babble, I was reminded of what you said:

"The difference between paying for DLC and having a marketing agreement to secure DLC can be a lot of things, depending on the specific agreement. If Sony said they'd pay for $50 million in advertising to promote the product IF they get exclusive DLC, then I agree with you"

So how is what you said above different than what Hirai was saying about "in-store marketing and special events."?????

Go on thinking that sony doesn't pay for exclusives, everyone else with a brain knows that they have.

You're asking for what can't be obtained and thus you "think" you're right. I swear, people like you need to get help. I have provided enough "proof" that sony has made contracts and has done "marketing support" aka paid for marketing for 3rd party games.

YOU yourself have even said that if Sony's money was used for marketing than you would agree with me. But here you are, still spinning BS around.

I have never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I know for a fact that in this case, I'm clearly not. WHAT exactly am I spinning? You keep making claims about me with nothing to back it up, how about you look in the mirror before spewing such rubbish.

Again, people like you should be banned since it's impossible to have a judgemental conversation with you regarding sony.

You ignored the point of my "simple question", gone back on your word over the definition of "marketing support", and have made claims about me with nothing to back it up besides me using the word "hate".

So if you TRULY believe that Sony never paid for an exclusive, then tell us why would 2K have a contract for sony until 2004? I want to know why, seeing as how you understand this industry so well. Why would 2K hold out on releasing the xbox version of GTA3, Vice City, etc. which would have made 2k money? Why?

Or why would EA, the most multi-platform publisher out there, throw away $$ to only provide DLC for the ps3 version of Mirror's Edge? I want to know why would a company turn away money when the 360 leads in DLC sales. So go ahead, tell us your logic behind all of it.

Again, like any other ignorant fanboy, you ignore what you can't argue against and you twist around everything else that you "think" you have a point. F*ckin people like you really make me sick, and just like good old sky, you obviously enjoy being a taint in the gaming community. Good job
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

I'm still waiting madgunde, it's either explain your BS, or admit that you're wrong.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/04

Kenny K: He can't say anything. He is still stuck on his whole "prove to me that Sony lied".

People like that can't be reasoned with. He cried foul because you called him biased, and I called him Sony Defense Force. Then he tried to act unbiased. I called him out on his BS, and now he is singing the "everybody is biased" tune. We all know he hates Microsoft and loves Sony. How more BIASED can you be???

Madgunde is a joke. He can't prove that Sony didn't pay for exclusives, just like we can't prove that they did. But anybody with an IQ higher than "1" would be safe in thinking or that some sort of financail consideration was made. It's the only logical conclusion. I'm starting to wonder if B1ueBurner is right. Men deal in logic, women deal in emotion. Madgunde is obviously speaking emotionally and not logically...

Madgunde: You said this "You and Pimp claim they lied about something, I've shown they clearly haven't and on two occasions gave full disclosure of what their activities are with respect to securing exclusives.


Care to explain how you "clearly" proved that Sony didn't lie about paying for 3rd party exclusives? Because an interview with Sony's PR proves nothing. Show me the financial data for Sony Computer Entertainment. Show me how much they pay for advertising 3rd party games. How much each game pays them in royalties. Show me all of thier expenses. That would be "clear" proof. What you did was run a smoke screen with that Jack Tretton interview.

Typical Sony Defense Force move. Sony said it so it must be true and I will defend them to my grave...
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04


I know he can't say anything because he has really tripped up over too many comments in this topic.

First he wants "proof" that sony has paid for exclusives, then he wants proof that includes actual details regarding money when I have repeated and made it clear that such details are never made public. The only reason that we know anything about MS giving 2K $50 million is because IT WAS A LOAN and not a pay off for exclusive content. The ACTUAL details surrounding their exclusive contract are not known to us.

He also clearly says "marketing agreement to secure DLC can be a lot of things, depending on the specific agreement. If Sony said they'd pay for $50 million in advertising to promote the product IF they get exclusive DLC, then I agree with you"

And I provide a post where a PR from sony admits to providing in store marketing and events. There's that "marketing support" where sony will pay millions in marketing for a 3rd party title.

It also REALLY bothered me how he twisted my comments OUT OF CONTEXT. It's very immature and pathetic that he has to stoop to such levels.

There is so much that we can pick apart from this one topic alone, it's very sad.

While he was trying to play the "everyone is biased" card he could have realized who or what I'm biased towards. Sure I prefer the 360 right now, but in no way do I like MS, I can't stand many of the decisions they have made this gen. If I'm biased towards any company it's Sega and I've always expressed that. Sony and MS are a lot like IMO, and I don't put one console on a pedestal above the other unlike the fantards here.

Seeing as how they'll believe everything sony tells them, I wish sony would tell them to stop playing games so I can enjoy talking about my hobby instead of dealing with people like him
Written by poprocker on 2008/09/04

PS3 version for me then.

lol. couldn't resist!
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/04

Well seeing as how I have both a PS3 and 360. PS3 version for me too tongue.gif

As Sky would say. Day 1. Top that...

Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

I sent madgunde a PM saying that I wanted an explenation regarding his backpeddling or at least an apology for acting like a woman on the rag twisting around my words while making BS claims.

Here is the typical response that I got:

Mangina.....er.....I mean madgunde aka Sky's pet:

"Sorry, I told myself I was done with that discussion after my last post and I don't see any reason to apologize to you since you haven't afforded me any such courtesy. I certainly don't have to explain anything to you."

lmao, so he'll twist my words around and go back on his own words but he shouldn't have to explain anything. lol.

What. A. F^ckin. Tool.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/04

Kenny K: let's just leave it alone. He/she got schooled by 4 different people on this thread. If I were him/her I wouldn't wan't to continue this discussion either.

I'm willing to let him/her off easy.

Bottom line is nobody was able to prove anything. My statement stands as Sony lied about paying for exlcusives. And he/she can disagree all he/she want's. It won't change my opinion that all 3 companies "pay" for exclusive 3rd pary support in some form or another.


My favorite is number 5.

4. to defray (cost or expense).

5. to give compensation for.

6. to yield a recompense or return to; be profitable to

Compensation can be obtained in many different ways.

Therefore Sony did "lie" about "paying" for 3rd party exclusives. Because Jack Tretton admitted to compensating in the past with "marketing".

Tretton: We've lent marketing support in the past, but we've never paid for exclusivity on any platform for any piece of software

Madgunde= OWNED!!!!!


The process of payment for goods and services, an aspect of trade

Gotta love the "aspect of trade"
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04


That was my point the whole time. What's the difference between Sony giving EA (for example) $10 million in cash or paying $10 million to market Mirror's Edge? NONE.

As for leaving him alone, I'll do it now that it's obvious that he's has no backbone or common sense. However, I wouldn't have any problem admiting I'm wrong or apologizing for spreading around BS if I was in his position. Of course I wouldn't be so stupid to be in his position, I can at least tell when I'm not thinking in the most logical manner.

Between this and the newer 360 price drop topic, it's obvious that his opinion and comments are worthless.
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/04


The simplest and oldest form of payment is barter, the exchange of one good or service for another.

However, there are no arbitrary limits on the form a payment can take and thus in complex transactions between businesses, payments may take the form of stock or other more complicated arrangements.

Hmmm. I wonder if the payment Sony gives to 3rd party developers for exclusives could be classified as one of these "complicated" arrangements???
Written by PimpDaddy on 2008/09/04

Kenny K: I really had no issue with the debate with Madgunde and I. Madgunde and yourself. Madgunde and Arthur56k. There was B1ueBurners comments too, but Madgunde never responded to him.

I just wan't to make sure people aren't cursing on here or telling each other to shut up or calling each other profane words.

By all means debate away. This thread is already 110 comments and going. And in the past debates such as these would have been alot uglier.

To me this is acceptable. I will check with DM. But I didn't find too much wrong with it other than you telling him to shut up and the fiew curse words both of you used that I had to edit out :p

To be honset theres really nothing more he can say after what I just posted. I used his strat of using website "definitons" for the word pay or payment against him. I just owned him in every possible way while also establishing his bias for Sony and against Microsoft. So in true Madgunde style.


Owned has now spread beyond computer and gaming contexts and become part of standard slang, where it typically entails severe defeat or humiliation, usually in an amusing way or through the dominance of an opposing party


To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrasing someone: Being embarrased.

Total and undeniable dominance of a person, group of people or situation as to make them/it akin to ones b!tch.

when one disses one another so hard that for a brief moment, it was as if they legally owned that person.

To be outplayed, outfought, out-talked, etc. by another person, esp. one whom is considered your nemesis.

Damn I could do this all day... Anyways lets just end this thread on a positive note. MadGunde got OWNED!!!!!
Written by Kenny K on 2008/09/04

Yeah I told him to shut up and I don't regret it. You and DM don't want people to tell each other to shut up because you guys like the post count to raise.

However I only told him to shut up because if it wasn't for his biased BS, this discussion could have gone A LOT better. I think it's possible to have a civil and open minded discussion regarding topics like this and STILL reach 100+ posts.

I understand why you guys have your wishes for the site, but I wish the trolls would just shut their mouth when they don't know what they are talking about. I can have a great conversation with t