I've always hated the multiplatform concept myself because all it does is promote the 360 and undermines the more expensive competition of the PS3. What'll happen if Microsoft gets a monopoly?!

Most recent blog posts from Jeff Pearcy...
I try to be realistic, but I've improved a lot over the past year... A Videogame Monologue Holy hell!

Feedback

EmP - June 03, 2009 (10:17 AM) It’s either respond to this, or earn my wage and work. ... Really, it’s a little silly to level this kind of rant and try and pretend to be the unbiased medium; you like your PS3 and I’m happy for you. You probably had to sell your kidneys and remortgage the house to get it, so that you enjoy it so is a plus. But arguing against multiplatform and using the PS3 as your foundation is foolhardy. It has, by far, the weakest exclusive content and, more often than not, slightly weaker versions of the games that do go pushed across the board. I’ll not hide my obvious bias in the MGS stakes: I’d willingly take a screwdriver to the eye than play these titles. I own a 360 (that I play) and a Wii (which is a very pretty dust collector) so I’ll never play MGS4. This begs the obvious question of what else I’m missing on the PS3 which is a sum total of nothing whatsoever. Thing is, I can kind of see where you’re coming from when you say that Xbox owners complain about missing out on MGS4 because, alien to me though it is, some of you oddballs actually enjoy that series, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with voicing disappointment in missing a title you think you’d enjoy. What amuses me the most is that prominent voices from the Sony camp seem to do this in reverse. They don’t complain so much about missing out on great games like Mass Effect, or Gears, or Halo, but they do complain, very loudly, should something seen as a Sony staple moves across. See Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, Ninja Gaiden. That was a very clever joke. I'm just pointing it out for those of you who might have missed it. I’m taking a broader argument because I wouldn’t play MGS5 if it was delivered to my 360 loading tray by naked models carrying silver trays of frosty beer and siren-like whispers of the next XCOM game, so it makes it hard for me to care in this instance, but the overall outlook seems very close minded. We’ll bash the 360 by bashing Microsoft’s OS rehauls on a completly different platform and ignore the fact there’s 92 different versions of the PS3 on the market, and rising, all built around exaggerated marketing propaganda and straight-up lies. We’ll call Microsoft corporate demons, but forget that Sony went to tremendous lengths to buy the publishing rights for certain big budget games over on the PAL side of the market so they could purposefully keep them off more popular platforms. We'll call Microsoft M$ and say they're all about the cash (it;s clever -- it has a dollar sign!) and forget how much Sony overcharge oversea customers for what is usually an inferior product to the ones sold at a fairer price within regions like Japan and NA. Here’s the big secret. Games are not made out of love for your fanbase: they’re made to make money. There’s more money to be made if you sell the games to group X as well as Y. Especially when group X has a much bigger foundation than the one you were expecting group Y to have. I can reel off a list of multiplatform games that have done just fine, but, really, I don’t need to. It’s been around ever since EA decided to make FIFA games back in 1771, and it’s not going anywhere nor will it be the death of video gaming as we know it. Quite the opposite: it’s what keeps these developers in business, allowing our great, great, great grandchildren to still be able to play FIFA games long after we’re in the ground.