Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Sonic]

The Dreamcast had an amazing launch lineup and first year of games. Sadly the sales of the machine never reflected that. Much of the games and the exclusive ones came from SEGA itself, and it was when the company still made amazing games. It arguably had a better launch lineup than the PS2 did, and its sports offerings were vastly superior at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dreamcast_games

That console launch was my favorite in history. It's so sad that it ended the way it did.



Here's the thing with the new generation. I and the rest of us here waited patiently with a high level of anticipation for the next gen systems to launch. We talked the entire summer about specs, games that look cool, the bad PR. The systems finally launch and we get our first batch of games and we're all happy and glowing with joy that we finally have new systems to play on. But that was 6 months ago and now that the honeymoon is over we're now impatiently waiting for new games. But it's summer time, a slow time of the year for gaming with all the fun activities to do outside. I don't expect many AAA games to release during the summer, but a few would be nice for the days I just want to sit inside and get my game on. Yet again the wait is on.

I get the feeling this could be a massive holiday in terms of sales now that we'll finally be getting a large swath of quality games to gobble up. Gamers on next gen platforms are clearly hungry with sales of Watch Dogs showing it's time to focus energies there. If each system sells a few million more units hardware this holiday season then I think it could be a monster in terms of software sales.

 

[eastmen]

What about ten year old FPS ports, are those more exciting? I don't own Diablo or Garden Warfare, so what does it matter if someone else can by it? I guess if you narrowly define "games" as new $60 games never before released on any platform, then yes the summer is slow, as it always is.

Dunno about more exciting but consider you get 4 titles some of which aren't really avalible and haven't been in as you say 10 years and you get those 4 titles for $60 bucks its certainly more interesting to me than a year old game at $60 at least in the price to content ratio.

But I wont be buying either.

 

[Shortbread]

So is this good for gamers, or the bottom line ($$$)?

Speaking of basic games, and ID@Xbox, I wanted to ask you about the parity clause that governs if games can launch on Xbox after other platforms. Several indies have come out and criticised the fact it still exists. To what extent is it being enforced, and why?

Charla: I can't talk about it... one thing we do is we don't talk about publishing policies publicly. If a developer has a question then they can just give us a call and we'll explain everything. We'll talk through everything. But I can't comment on it publicly.

Do you think it's right that you can't talk about it? I know this sort of policy has no direct effect on gamers but people like to know what the company they have bought a console from is up to. Wouldn't it be better to just be transparent, and if not, why?

Charla: We definitely want gamers to be behind Xbox and we are excited to bring as wide a variety of games to Xbox as humanly possible. And if developers have questions about any of our policies they can call us and ask about it. But I just can't talk about it publicly - I can't.

The fact Microsoft chose the parity clause to be a policy means it must be something that benefits Microsoft in some way. How does having this policy benefit gamers?

Charla: You could ask us a question about a policy we don't have and I would have to tell you we don't talk about our policies... I can't confirm them or deny them. That's where I am.

One thing is for sure, MS needs to improve its messaging with gamers and it's developers.

 

[eastmen]

I'd assume its for both. As a gamer I don't want to wait for a game when its been out for months on another platform.

For ms I'm sure there is little point to getting a game long after its been avalible on other platforms

 

[Shortbread]

I'd assume its for both. As a gamer I don't want to wait for a game when its been out for months on another platform.

For ms I'm sure there is little point to getting a game long after its been avalible on other platforms

So, if the developer is able to get the PS4 edition out the door first... should it ship?

IMHO, if the game is multiplatform, and one particular platform edition is ready to ship, it shouldn't be held back, because the other (or others) are lagging behind in development.

Hell, spend the extra time on improving/optimizing the laggers, while the other is generating revenue.

 

[eastmen]

So, if the developer is able to get the PS4 edition out the door first... should it ship?

IMHO, if the game is multiplatform, and one particular platform edition is ready to ship, it shouldn't be held back, because the other (or others) are lagging behind in development.

Hell, spend the extra time on improving/optimizing the laggers, while the other is generating revenue.

The developer can do what they want. They shouldn't expect money from me however and it seems like they shouldn't expect to release on the xbox one.

Its their choice.

The question is why would the ps4 edition be done first. The systems are extremely similar

 

[-tkf-]

I'd assume its for both.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/03/14/sony-exec-teases-microsoft-over-xbox-policy

In the interest of transparency, I want to share our dev clause that lists which platforms you cannot release on," wrote Boyes, adding a picture that basically shows a blank page

The developer can do what they want. They shouldn't expect money from me however and it seems like they shouldn't expect to release on the xbox one.

Its their choice.

The question is why would the ps4 edition be done first. The systems are extremely similar

It´s not like they are trying to be evil to the XBOX ONE, it´s very normal that a game gets released on the best selling, most popular console first and then the "lesser" ones later. Why bother with the other platforms if the game doesn´t sell. And maybe it´s a small team that simply can´t handle more than one platform a a time.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/01/xbox-one-parity-clause-a-shame-says-stealth-inc-dev

"For us, it’s an annoyance," he said. "It’s preventing us from bringing some of the older stuff through and doing what we want. There’s 40 of us, and we’re still saying we should be able to work around it, so you can imagine how hard it is for smaller developers in one and two man teams who are faced with having to release on PlayStation and Xbox simultaneously. We’ll hopefully be on Xbox One at some stage.

I had a response up about Parity might be going deeper than release dates, but there seems to be no evidence of such a thing.

 

[Arwin]

The question is why would the ps4 edition be done first. The systems are extremely similar

By just about all accounts it is easier to port over to PS4?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For ms I'm sure there is little point to getting a game long after its been avalible on other platforms

That seems your principle philosophy in this thread - anything old isn't worth having - but that's patently untrue. A good game is a good game. Only if you've played it before on another platform is it not worth buying late, but most gamers have one box only and won't play a game until it's available on their box. If you own an XB1 and you want to play Octodad, when it releases on XB1 a year later you can buy it.

Games don't age horribly over a year. A game that's great today isn't going to be poop tomorrow. One can point to the excellent sales of Minecraft on consoles as proof. It release 2009 on PC, full release + mobile in 2011. Launched on consoles 6 months after official PC release and long after Minecraft was first available, and went on to sell loads. That's why indies are releasing PC games on PS4, because they are still valid games for people to enjoy and so buy, but PS4's paperwork ties up release so launch first on PC and follow up on PS4 later.

Now if you personally also have a second platform like PC on which you play these old ports, then they don't make sense, but that's the minority situation.

The question is why would the ps4 edition be done first. The systems are extremely similar

Save for the ESRAM. So a game that works on PC and PS4 ported to XB1 can suddenly hit a performance wall and need to be refactored to work within the constraints of the ESRAM. A game not designed for ESRAM from the get-go may need considerable work, and I expect most indies work on PC first as cheap to target and then look into ports with their $xxxx devkits.

You also have no idea what the red-tape is like. If it's worse at MS, it could slow things down. TBH I don't imagine it is but it could be.

 

[mosen]

All developers have a choice. If Sony has no problem to accept games that first released on XB1 and PC then developers can built their games first for XB1 and PC with DX11 (which is a pain in the ass) and then make a fast (!) port for PS4 (which is very fast to port). And if you think that games don't age in a short time (time that they need to do a really fast port) so, what's the problem? Those developers who want to be on both platform should make their games first for XB1 and then make a port for PS4, or release their game simultaneously for both platform.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So is this good for gamers, or the bottom line ($$$)?

One thing is for sure, MS needs to improve its messaging with gamers and it's developers.

Wow.. the guy managed to say "I won't answer your question" to each and every question he was posed.
What an useless interview and anti-PR situation.

 

[-tkf-]

All developers have a choice. If Sony has no problem to accept games that first released on XB1 and PC then developers can built their games first for XB1 and PC with DX11 (which is a pain in the ass) and then make a fast (!) port for PS4 (which is very fast to port). And if you think that games don't age in a short time (time that they need to do a really fast port) so, what's the problem? Those developers who want to be on both platform should make their games first for XB1 and then make a port for PS4, or release their game simultaneously for both platform.

Why should the bring their game to the smallest market first? to make sure they make less money? It's a competitive market, you want to hit the best market first, and then you fill up as you have capacity for.

You may not have read anything about this before you made your post, but this is indie games, they typically have very small teams, maybe just one or two people. Asking them to develop for several platforms as once seems harsh. Naturally they just go for the biggest (and friendliest) and release the game there, and then they can focus on PS3, Vita, PSP, PC etc.. Microsoft is just making sure they stay on the bench, there are other guys out there that wants to dance.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Why should the bring their game to the smallest market first? to make sure they make less money? It's a competitive market, you want to hit the best market first, and then you fill up as you have capacity for.

You may not have read anything about this before you made your post, but this is indie games, they typically have very small teams, maybe just one or two people. Asking them to develop for several platforms as once seems harsh. Naturally they just go for the biggest (and friendliest) and release the game there, and then they can focus on PS3, Vita, PSP, PC etc.. Microsoft is just making sure they stay on the bench, there are other guys out there that wants to dance.

My perception of MS, their policies on Indies and the Indie games/devs they seem to back, is that it seems very strongly that they only really care about the bigger Indie devs that have shipped 1 or 2 well known or successful games anyway.

So according to that ideology, if you're an indie dev with a good idea and concept for a game, but aren't big enough to develop for multilple platforms simultaneously, then you're not really the kind of dev MS is looking for with its Indie program in the first place.

 

[mosen]

Why should the bring their game to the smallest market first? to make sure they make less money? It's a competitive market, you want to hit the best market first, and then you fill up as you have capacity for.

You may not have read anything about this before you made your post, but this is indie games, they typically have very small teams, maybe just one or two people. Asking them to develop for several platforms as once seems harsh. Naturally they just go for the biggest (and friendliest) and release the game there, and then they can focus on PS3, Vita, PSP, PC etc.. Microsoft is just making sure they stay on the bench, there are other guys out there that wants to dance.

PCs/SmartPhones are the biggest market not PS4.

Developers could have more money by selling their games first on XB1 at the end (they can port their game for PS4 at a later time). By doing this they don't need more resources or time to hit their first platform.

If they want to be on XB1, it should be their first choice and if they want to be first on PS4 then they should not complain. That's how it works.

You may not have read anything about this before you made your post

I know what I'm talking about. When I said developers I meant indie developers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PCs/SmartPhones are the biggest market not PS4.

Yes, and they are typically targeted first and foremost. Then ports are made. That's what I'm doing - PC and mobile first, and then I'll worry about ports. Which consoles get it if any depend on who's approachable and what walls they put in place to prevent a smooth, worthwhile release.

Developers could have more money by selling their games first on XB1 at the end (they can port their game for PS4 at a later time). By doing this they don't need more resources or time to hit their first platform.

To be clear, you don't release on a console platform. You request permission to release, then go through all sorts of hoops and waiting and unclear messaging and get moved around the release schedule and then eventually you appear on the store having invested a lot of faff and possibly a fair bit of money too. As for making money on XB1 first, how do you prove that? How do you prove that developing on XB1 and releasing to 5 million users to make money to fund a PS4 port is better economy than developing on PS4 and releasing to 8 million to generate funds for an XB1 port? I've no idea what the costs are for either platform, other than a Unity license is supposedly $25,000 for PS4 although Sony will fund that for some titles. I don't know if Sony still have their half-and-half investment policy. I don't know what either SDK costs, or other fees. Without those details which are under NDA, there's no way of knowing which platform will have the lowest cost of entry and best returns. The only thing we do know is it should be simpler and thus cheaper to develop on PS4 as it has the simpler architecture, although for indies this'll be moot as the middelware will take care of all that so I consider that equal for both.

If they want to be on XB1, it should be their first choice and if they want to be first on PS4 then they should not complain. That's how it works.

So that's saying MS's policy means MS should always get the indie titles first? Okay, so Sony should introduce that policy too, huh? Force devs to release on PS4 first, while MS tries to force them to release on XB1 first, each trying to penalise devs for favouring the other platform...

Any console company trying to strong-arm developers is heading for a world of hurt. They don't command a strong enough position. Consoles provide a great audience and good price structure for software, but they aren't the be-all-and-end-all any more and the console companies can't get by with pissing devs about knowing they just have to lump it because there's nowhere else to go.

Releasing on XB1 first is an option. Another option is not to release on XB1 at all and see how MS likes that, with a large hole in its library and gamers hearing that PS4 is where the majority of games appear. If that happens, MS would soon change their tune. Kowtowing to unfair and unjustified policies doesn't really do anyone any favours. Well, save MS.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

PCs/SmartPhones are the biggest market not PS4.

Unlike the PS4, not every PC or smartphone user is a gamer, or someone who pays for games.
I think you're mistaking actual market size for potential market size.

Developers could have more money by selling their games first on XB1 at the end (they can port their game for PS4 at a later time). By doing this they don't need more resources or time to hit their first platform.

If they want to be on XB1, it should be their first choice and if they want to be first on PS4 then they should not complain. That's how it works.

Marketing and mindshare are at their peaks during release time, which is when the game goes to the top shelves, first page in Steam, reviews appear in the internet, etc.

You're saying developers should waste the time when everyone is thinking/hearing/reading about the game to only sell on the console with the least users, and then start selling on the most popular platforms when the public has already shifted their attention to the newest Battlefield, Call of Duty, Metal Gear or whatever new thing will be talked about by then.

You should be aware that this is not the smartest thing to do.

 

[mosen]

Yes, and they are typically targeted first and foremost. Then ports are made. That's what I'm doing - PC and mobile first, and then I'll worry about ports. Which consoles get it if any depend on who's approachable and what walls they put in place to prevent a smooth, worthwhile release.

To be clear, you don't release on a console platform. You request permission to release, then go through all sorts of hoops and waiting and unclear messaging and get moved around the release schedule and then eventually you appear on the store having invested a lot of faff and possibly a fair bit of money too. As for making money on XB1 first, how do you prove that? How do you prove that developing on XB1 and releasing to 5 million users to make money to fund a PS4 port is better economy than developing on PS4 and releasing to 8 million to generate funds for an XB1 port? I've no idea what the costs are for either platform, other than a Unity license is supposedly $25,000 for PS4 although Sony will fund that for some titles. I don't know if Sony still have their half-and-half investment policy. I don't know what either SDK costs, or other fees. Without those details which are under NDA, there's no way of knowing which platform will have the lowest cost of entry and best returns. The only thing we do know is it should be simpler and thus cheaper to develop on PS4 as it has the simpler architecture, although for indies this'll be moot as the middelware will take care of all that so I consider that equal for both.

My thought is simple. You are saying that 8 million user is bigger than 5 million. I'm saying that 13 million (5+8) million is bigger than both of them. If you want your game to sell more you should release your game first on XB1 and then port it for PS4 (if you have limited resources). Developing for either console needs spending money and developing on PS4 isn't seems cheaper to me:

Announcing Unity for ID@Xbox Developers

So that's saying MS's policy means MS should always get the indie titles first? Okay, so Sony should introduce that policy too, huh? Force devs to release on PS4 first, while MS tries to force them to release on XB1 first, each trying to penalise devs for favouring the other platform...

Any console company trying to strong-arm developers is heading for a world of hurt. They don't command a strong enough position. Consoles provide a great audience and good price structure for software, but they aren't the be-all-and-end-all any more and the console companies can't get by with pissing devs about knowing they just have to lump it because there's nowhere else to go.

That's how Microsoft trying to protect it's product and it's consumers, and it's not new (not directly related to PS4):

"Titles for Xbox 360 must ship at least simultaneously with other video game platform, and must have at least feature and content parity on-disc with the other video game platform versions in all regions where the title is available," it reads.

"If these conditions are not met, Microsoft reserves the right to not allow the content to be released on Xbox 360."

It's not about pissing devs. You only want to talk about devs perspective (we have low resource, low budget, we are few people, our game will be on your platform one year later and it will be fresh to you XB1 owners, etc.) but I as a Xbox owner don't like this kind of treatments. I prefer to don't play this kind of games (condition will be different for games that Sony/Nintendo were their publishers at the first place).

Releasing on XB1 first is an option. Another option is not to release on XB1 at all and see how MS likes that, with a large hole in its library and gamers hearing that PS4 is where the majority of games appear. If that happens, MS would soon change their tune. Kowtowing to unfair and unjustified policies doesn't really do anyone any favours. Well, save MS.

That's a good option, I have no problem with developers that choose to be only on PS4. But surprisingly there are some developers that like to release their games first for PS4 and then complaining about launch parity clause on XB1. This makes me sick. If they choose to be on PS4 first it's better for them to forget XB1.

That's all I'm saying.

I have no problem with developers that choose to be only on PS4.

Unlike the PS4, not every PC or smartphone user is a gamer, or someone who pays for games.
I think you're mistaking actual market size for potential market size.

Steam users are 8-10 times more than PS4 users, leave alone SPs users.

Marketing and mindshare are at their peaks during release time, which is when the game goes to the top shelves, first page in Steam, reviews appear in the internet, etc.

You're saying developers should waste the time when everyone is thinking/hearing/reading about the game to only sell on the console with the least users, and then start selling on the most popular platforms when the public has already shifted their attention to the newest Battlefield, Call of Duty, Metal Gear or whatever new thing will be talked about by then.

You should be aware that this is not the smartest thing to do.

OK, XB1 has least users, and making games for PS4 will provide best marketing and mindshare and never waste developers time and resources like XB1.

So isn't it better for some developers to entirely forget XB1 and move toward their next project instead of complaining about parity clause on XB1?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My thought is simple. You are saying that 8 million user is bigger than 5 million. I'm saying that 13 million (5+8) million is bigger than both of them.

Correct, and that's what devs want to do.

If you want your game to sell more you should release your game first on XB1 and then port it for PS4 (if you have limited resources).

Only because MS are (rumoured to be) forcing it that way. If you can only release on one machine at a time due to lack of budget, isn't it more sensible to target the 8 million platform than the 5 million?

That's how Microsoft trying to protect it's product and it's consumers, and it's not new (not directly related to PS4):

But it's a strategy that's counter-productive for the industry. The moment Sony demand that (or 'you have to provide exclusive content), and Steam (you have to provide upgraded graphics), and everyone else (you have to provide TV box support on your mobile app), it'll be a stupid shit-storm of conflicting requirements. At the end of the day there's no need for MS to enforce any parity or such. The devs want their games to be good to sell more. They just need an environment that enables that. The only problem with releasing on XB1 is the ESRAM setup. If that causes issues with a game's performance, it should be down to the devs to decide whether to invest more time to produce a better product or to ship with a lesser experience and risk lower sales as a result. That's how it is with the large publishers.

...our game will be on your platform one year later and it will be fresh to you XB1 owners, etc.) but I as a Xbox owner don't like this kind of treatments.

Then have MS remove their ridiculous conditions! Provide a platform that's open and easy to publish on, and developers will use it. They'll only avoid it if it's made difficult to work with.

That's a good option, I have no problem with developers that choose to be only on PS4. But surprisingly there are some developers that like to release their games first for PS4 and then complaining about launch parity clause on XB1. This makes me sick. If they choose to be on PS4 first it's better for them to forget XB1.

Huh?? I don't understand why you think it's okay to be first on XB1 and release months later on PS4, but not okay vice versa. Apart from you own an XB1 and are seeing this from a very selective perspective.

I have no problem with developers that choose to be only on PS4.

So you'd rather your XB1 doesn't get games than gets them 'late'?

So isn't it better for some developers to entirely forget XB1 and move toward their next project instead of complaining about parity clause on XB1?

Of course not. 5+8 million potential customers is better than 5 million or 8 million. Every dev wants to release with a splash as best their budget can afford and reach the most users. If daft clauses prevent that, it should be the MS platform that suffers, but that would also mean less sales for the devs so it's not at all fair.

If this parity clause was applied to AAA disc titles, either the existing PS4 games would need to be gimped to 900p or whatever versions, or these games shouldn't be released on XB1 until devs could get the hardware to render to the same quality, which might be never. It's a ridiculous double standard where MS is capitulating to the big publishers who they need to provide them games, but is still trying to be the old-school controlling console company when it comes to indies, in complete contrast to the way the rest of the industry has gone.

 

[mosen]

Correct, and that's what devs want to do.

Only because MS are (rumoured to be) forcing it that way. If you can only release on one machine at a time due to lack of budget, isn't it more sensible to target the 8 million platform than the 5 million?

They can choose to be on 8 million platform and not 5 million platform. That's a acceptable choice.

But it's a strategy that's counter-productive for the industry. The moment Sony demand that (or 'you have to provide exclusive content), and Steam (you have to provide upgraded graphics), and everyone else (you have to provide TV box support on your mobile app), it'll be a stupid shit-storm of conflicting requirements. At the end of the day there's no need for MS to enforce any parity or such. The devs want their games to be good to sell more. They just need an environment that enables that. The only problem with releasing on XB1 is the ESRAM setup. If that causes issues with a game's performance, it should be down to the devs to decide whether to invest more time to produce a better product or to ship with a lesser experience and risk lower sales as a result. That's how it is with the large publishers.

It's Microsoft policy not Steam or Sony. It's good for Their consumers while it may not be good for others (mainly some indie developers and maybe some gamers on other platforms). Also indie games shouldn't have many problem with eSRAM. Most of indie games have simple graphics.

Then have MS remove their ridiculous conditions! Provide a platform that's open and easy to publish on, and developers will use it. They'll only avoid it if it's made difficult to work with.

What are you referring to? They will give two free dev-kit to those who want to be a part of ID@Xbox program. What's ridiculous about their conditions? What they did to you?

Huh?? I don't understand why you think it's okay to be first on XB1 and release months later on PS4, but not okay vice versa. Apart from you own an XB1 and are seeing this from a very selective perspective.

No, I meant your second option (not to release on XB1 at all). It's far better than releasing their game first on PS4 and then complaining about parity clause on XB1.

So you'd rather your XB1 doesn't get games than gets them 'late'?

I don't like to read news like this about XB1: Project Cars won't release on Wii U until 2015

And after all nobody is going to play all of this games. So this isn't going to be a big loss for me (and maybe many other) since I will have many other games to choose from but it's certainly not a good thing for those indie developers. I don't like to see some developers treating me like second-class citizen.

Of course not. 5+8 million potential customers is better than 5 million or 8 million. Every dev wants to release with a splash as best their budget can afford and reach the most users. If daft clauses prevent that, it should be the MS platform that suffers, but that would also mean less sales for the devs so it's not at all fair.

You are right, it's not fair but it's not fair to let developers always treat your consumers like second-class citizens, too. Parity clause isn't the only tool for Microsoft, they introduced Windows universal app at their build 2014 conference and it will help developers to port their game for all windows platforms including XB1. So in the long term they will providing more content than you think for their platforms.

If this parity clause was applied to AAA disc titles, either the existing PS4 games would need to be gimped to 900p or whatever versions, or these games shouldn't be released on XB1 until devs could get the hardware to render to the same quality, which might be never. It's a ridiculous double standard where MS is capitulating to the big publishers who they need to provide them games, but is still trying to be the old-school controlling console company when it comes to indies, in complete contrast to the way the rest of the industry has gone.

This is not how they do this. It seems to me that the parity is about additional content which others (Sony or Nintendo) didn't pay for or releasing a game (without any exclusivity contract) later on Xbox platforms. There are already some games on XB1/XB360 that run better or have higher resolutions on PS4/PS3 and Microsoft didn't prevent them from releasing their games on their platforms.

 

[Billy Idol]

Do we really know if this MS clause exists? It sounds to extreme to me to be true.