Topic: Sony May Be Blocking Games from Nintendo Switch

How much truth is between the lines here? I think alot if not most avid gamers know there's something fishy going on here. They talk about two games but two well known games that could be more well known as to why Sony would go so far as to block Nintendo from getting these two games. And why would they do this - if it was competitive consoles they should be glad for competitions but it seems like they want everyone to play ball but they don't play ball. I don't know but in my gaming days that is stifling competitions and if PS was that good then let the competitions roll.

I'm still baffled as to why neither Journey nor Rez Infinite are on Switch. It would be nice to have those games in portable form. But it's...whatever. If I have a burning desire to play those games, that's what my PS4 is for.

I think that is why SONY paid for the making of Castlevania Requiem so they can make it exclusive. Imagine how much more the Switch would've sold of SotN than the PS4/PS5.

I think there's some truth to this, in that Sony (just like the other platform holders, if maybe a bit more) does money hat exclusives (Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy VII Remake, etc.), but it's usually out in the open that they're doing so.

I really don't buy the conspiracy that they're paying off devs not to release specifically on Switch (when the games are still releasing on Xbox), and there's likely a multitude of reasons (probably more on the developer/publisher side) as to why that happens.

Persona 5 is more of an edge case in this debate, but as others have said in the past Atlus can simply just be obtuse with their release schedule all on their own.

@RR529
If you consider what buying exclusives really is- paying a publisher or developer to not release on other platforms or delay their release on other platforms, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume the same is happening but with smaller sums of money to skip specific platforms. More bang for buck that way.

Why pay to keep JRPGs off Xbox when they're not a threat anyways. Or why pay to keep realistic AAA off which when it's not a threat anyways.

But JRPGs on Switch? Massive threat. Realistic AAA on Xbox? Massive threat. It just seems logical they'd target their paid exclusivity and focus on depriving the platforms that would challenge them the most with a multiplat release.

Sony is on another level when it comes to screwing over other platforms though.

@JaxonH, eh, I just don't see the conspiracy.

I think that it's often more like Falcom's case, where (even though they've recently committed to Switch) they weren't releasing on Switch due to their own pre-conceived notions rather than Sony getting directly involved.

Atlus is famously obtuse, and many other big devs are cheap (Square releasing Kingdom Hearts as Cloud only versions, etc.), and I think these kind of instances are much more common than Sony paying devs off to ignore Switch specifically.

What baffles me people talk about competitions is good for game sharing for all gamers but then when Sony is caught or seen doing it - it not that it matters but if Nintendo do that then the "Sky is falling". This is what surprises me the double standards we have here.

@RR529
You could call anything speculative a "conspiracy". But phrasing it that way gives a specific connotation of illegitimacy. Whereas this is no leap of logic.

I'm not disagreeing about Falcom, or even Persona (though I can't be sure), but I'm speaking generally. In general, if a company is willing to pay X amount of $ to deprive 2 platforms, how much more so would they be willing to pay far less than X amount of $ to deprive 1 platform that accounts for the vast majority of competition for that specific game? That doesn't seem conspiratorial, that seems like a logical conclusion. Especially with regard to a company we know bends over backwards to pay to deprive gamers of as many hype games as possible.

I've always assumed Street Fighter V & Metal Gear never came to the Switch because of Sony playing hardball.

But I've also accepted that some games are console exclusives. We got the Switch because of Nintendo console exclusives.

Sony own the IP rights to Journey and also funded Street Fighter V which Capcom asked them to do so that's why both of these titles were exclusive

@Sam_ATLUS

Sure, I get the exclusivity bit. Which is why I was surprised when Tetris Effect made its way to Switch. I thought that was a Sony platform exclusive. But I suppose Sony didn't pay for exclusivity as they had with Rez Infinite?

@Magician Tetris Effect is a weird one. The original game was PS4 exclusive with VR support, then the updated Connected version was Xbox and PC exclusive for a while and then there was an Epic Games deal and I think it finally hit Switch and Steam after that. Looking into this it has to be one of the weirdest releases with all these exclusive deals. But to answer if Sony paid for Tetris Effect to be exclusive I can't seem to find anything that outright states Sony paid for it to be exclusive back in 2018. It's a weird game to be exclusive to begin with.