Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Billy Idol]

@mosen: you don't want to be treated like a second class citizen (weird formulation btw), but in some sense your demand of parity reduces all the extra value PS4 users have, it makes their decision if it is based on 'I go for the faster system, as last gen showed me ports will be all better' obsolete and us hence very anti-consumer, and in the long run also hurts MS only customers as yourself.

To give a nice example: what you fight here for is like USA saying to car companies that the car needs to be speed capped at 75 mph, as USA don't want that people in Germany can drive their cars as fast as they want on the autobahn. You state: this is consumer friendly. I state, this sounds naive and like a kids reaction.

 

[mosen]

@mosen: you don't want to be treated like a second class citizen (weird formulation btw), but in some sense your demand of parity reduces all the extra value PS4 users have, it makes their decision if it is based on 'I go for the faster system, as last gen showed me ports will be all better' obsolete and us hence very anti-consumer, and in the long run also hurts MS only customers as yourself.

To give a nice example: what you fight here for is like USA saying to car companies that the car needs to be speed capped at 75 mph, as USA don't want that people in Germany can drive their cars as fast as they want on the autobahn. You state: this is consumer friendly. I state, this sounds naive and like a kids reaction.

I'm talking about release parity not resolution/fps or any other graphical parity. I want titles on XB1 to ship at least simultaneously with other platform, and I don't like to hear some developer complaining about this kind of parity. That's all I want.

 

[AzBat]

Who thinks the parity clause is still in effect? Outlast proves they were able to release on Xbox One after already shipping on PC & PS4...

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Ou...s-Parity-Clause-Isn-t-Impenetrable-64773.html

Contrast also recently released on XB1 where it was already on the PS4.

If this is any indicator I think it's probably nothing like it was originally invisioned. See this posted back in March...

http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/11/54...id-xbox-launch-parity-on-a-case-by-case-basis

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who thinks the parity clause is still in effect? Outlast proves they were able to release on Xbox One after already shipping on PC & PS4...

Is it the same game? If it has parity, it would satisfy the rumoured parity clause and thus be allowed. If it has not got parity, it'd prove that parity isn't a requirement for later releases.

 

[SlimJim]

Is it the same game? If it has parity, it would satisfy the rumoured parity clause and thus be allowed. If it has not got parity, it'd prove that parity isn't a requirement for later releases.

Come to think of it... Outlast is the closest multiplatform title yet released, as far as parity is concerned it should have the most.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-outlast-face-off

 

[AzBat]

Is it the same game? If it has parity, it would satisfy the rumoured parity clause and thus be allowed. If it has not got parity, it'd prove that parity isn't a requirement for later releases.

Are you sure you're reading it right? I thought it was parity in launch not in content. I thought the parity clause original meant that the XB1 got the same title at the same time, not after. Now we have 2 titles launching after PS4. BTW, yes, both Outlast & Contrast are the same game on both platforms.

BTW, found this from the developers of Contrast on Reddit...

So... console parity clause - care to elaborate how you got round that?

Hah, this had to be the first question, didn't it?

So, I'll preface the answer by saying that we have been asking Microsoft for years to allow developers to self publish. We had been talking about self publishing Contrast since at least early 2012, to anyone at MS who would listen. When self publishing was announced for MS, it took us by surprise - we had no idea it was coming, which is a bit of a bugger because we had just signed a publishing deal for the 360. So, when they announced it, we were already committed to four platforms on launch, and for an 8 person team, that's pretty crazy already.

However, we still asked for dev kits from the middle of last year. Unfortunately, it took some time (as you guys know) for the ID program to get up and running, and we didn't get kits until after release. I think that's pretty reasonable - Microsoft was creating a new program, and priority probably should have gone to other devs who were not launching on other platforms, who wanted kits. But, obviously it meant that we couldn't have launched on Xbox One even if we tried.

I think that's the gist of why we "got around" the parity clause. But Microsoft's reasoning is their own. They are pretty flexible in unique situations, which I think is a good thing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/29697l/compulsion_games_here_developers_of_contrast_ausa/

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Are you sure you're reading it right?

I haven't read the clause! I'm just going off the name (and previous talk of feature/content parity that I may be recalling wrongly). Same thing, though. It's an artificial requirement that just requires stress from devs. If I release a game on some platforms and then approach MS and they say, "no, you had to launch at the same time," it's quite simple a 'soddit' to me as a dev and to their users IMO. "This dev didn't prioritise us first, so we're going to snub their game." That's a clear invitation for developers to not bother with the XB1 platform, which only harms its library.

Console companies should be bending over backwards to help devs release content - it's that content which sells the platform. MS should be trying to shore up exclusives by providing the easiest, most rewarding experience and making every dev want to release on their platform.

Edit : Just seen this headline on EG - Sony considering Early Access. That's the sort of move that matters. Devs getting ongoing funding for their game? Awesome incentive. (Free Unity for XB1 is also awesome).
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-11-sony-is-considering-an-early-access-type-program

 

[AzBat]

Oh! Hey I agree completely. I don't like how MS has put this requirement on, but from what I'm reading it looks like it's not something they are enforcing anymore. I suspect the backlash they got was too much, but for them to not be transparent about it & answer the questions, now that's just dumb. I suspect Charla just don't have the authority to answer, but somebody should give him the authority. He's the face & voice of ID@Xbox.

Tommy McClain

 

[temesgen]

I'm talking about release parity not resolution/fps or any other graphical parity. I want titles on XB1 to ship at least simultaneously with other platform, and I don't like to hear some developer complaining about this kind of parity. That's all I want.

Why should anyone care when a title is released on your system versus another system you don't own?

I get that it would be annoying if you had to wait a year but if the delay is a couple weeks or a quarter personally I don't care. In some ways it affords me a better title with less bugs and more information about the quality before I spend 60 bucks on a poor game.

Maybe I'm an outlier but I almost never preorder or buy titles on the release date, the depreciation and risk with many titles is just to high.

 

[mosen]

Why should anyone care when a title is released on your system versus another system you don't own?

I get that it would be annoying if you had to wait a year but if the delay is a couple weeks or a quarter personally I don't care. In some ways it affords me a better title with less bugs and more information about the quality before I spend 60 bucks on a poor game.

Maybe I'm an outlier but I almost never preorder or buy titles on the release date, the depreciation and risk with many titles is just to high.

You are asking the wrong question. Actually if I had both/all systems then lunch parity wasn't important for me, but I have only one console and I like to have the best and newest contents on my console in the same manner. Even if someone have all systems but like to play games on a specific system more than others this would be annoying for him/her.

 

[Shortbread]

Sony Considering Steam-Style 'Early Access' For PS4

Speaking to Gamasutra, Sony’s Adam Boyes discusses the pros and cons of Early Access for the console.

“We still at some point ensure that we’re being mindful of the consumer. We don’t want somebody to stumble across that title and expect a full product, and have a negative experience.”

But he continues, saying there’s obviously a market for people who enjoy paying to playtest unfinished games.

“That’s the thing — we live in a different world. There are different types of people. There people who always back games, enjoy Kickstarters, try things that they know aren’t finished but are willing to help make better.”

Additionally, it’s unclear that just because Early Access has seen some success on PC, that it would translate to consoles very well. When a PS4 or Xbox One player hears about early access to a game, they’re thinking about Titanfall/Destiny style alphas/betas. Compared the state most Early Access games are in, console alphas and betas are much more polished and functional, practically serving as demos rather than actual tests. You might see a few bugs as you play, but compared to the sorts of horrors you will potentially come across during an Early Access test, it’s not even in the same league. A PS4 player might think that getting to play a cool looking new game early is worth shelling out the purchase price up front, but they may end up being hugely disappointed or feeling misled when they realize what they’re getting into.

Then again, it could be just what Sony needs to expand its reach to more and more indie games. If Early Access is clearly explained and positioned in a section of the PS Store that doesn’t overrun fully formed titles, I’m not sure it’s the worst thing in the world to at least give players the option to participate in the program. Early Access has worked great for some titles like DayZ and Rust, and we could end up getting more cool console games out of it. But that said, there are risks for both developers and the consumer. Developers could find console audiences far less receptive and helpful than PC players, and console players themselves could learn hard lessons about bug-riddled games, potential scams, years-long development times or outright cancellations.

Thoughts?

 

[eastmen]

God I hope not , early acess on steam is such a mess. I made the mistake of getting rust. The developers stoped updating the game and started a new verision of the game on a different code base.

Hopefully its a much more refiened verision

 

[Brad Grenz]

Oh! Hey I agree completely. I don't like how MS has put this requirement on, but from what I'm reading it looks like it's not something they are enforcing anymore. I suspect the backlash they got was too much, but for them to not be transparent about it & answer the questions, now that's just dumb. I suspect Charla just don't have the authority to answer, but somebody should give him the authority. He's the face & voice of ID@Xbox.

Tommy McClain

The clause still exists, but MS offered exceptions for a brief window when they first announced ID@Xbox to devs that had already signed deals with Sony, and they can waive the requirement if and when they think it is prudent. It still remains a deterrent to devs who have a good relationship with Sony and don't think they should be punished for having friendlier policies. Not every decisions is based purely on the money math. Some will simply resent what Microsoft is attempting and tell them to screw off.

 

[temesgen]

I think the clause can have unintended consequences. Lets say MS releases an update to Direct X and it could improve a title which is due for release shortly, now as a developer I have to decide if I am going to go ahead and release a multiplatform title as is and comply with the policy or push everything back (which may not be affordable) to give XB1 a version of the game which compares more favorable to the PS4 version....

As I said earlier why should I care when a game is released on a platform I don't own assuming the release on my platform occurs in a reasonable amount of time? Movies, music and games all release in different markets at different times and it doesn't impact me in a meaningful way. As a consumer I'm more concerned about getting a less buggy version of the game anyway.

 

[mosen]

I think the clause can have unintended consequences. Lets say MS releases an update to Direct X and it could improve a title which is due for release shortly, now as a developer I have to decide if I am going to go ahead and release a multiplatform title as is and comply with the policy or push everything back (which may not be affordable) to give XB1 a version of the game which compares more favorable to the PS4 version....

As I said earlier why should I care when a game is released on a platform I don't own assuming the release on my platform occurs in a reasonable amount of time? Movies, music and games all release in different markets at different times and it doesn't impact me in a meaningful way. As a consumer I'm more concerned about getting a less buggy version of the game anyway.

Then developers will have to spent more money for marketing and developing for delayed version of their game or that version will sell less than what they were expected without proper marketing (impact of all reviews/previews for all versions of the game at the same time on all sites). Also you will not going to see any other huge SDK update like what Microsoft released on June. At the end most of the (AAA?) games will have better graphics on PS4 so it's not very important to delay a game for a bit better graphics for weaker version.

Also PS4 will have SDK updates in future, too.

 

[SlimJim]

I believe the restrictive clauses stem from a time when Xbox was dominant in certain markets, give it up to a year from now and they will be dropped altogether.

 

[London Geezer]

I believe the restrictive clauses stem from a time when Xbox was dominant in certain markets, give it up to a year from now and they will be dropped altogether.

I don't think MS was ever in such a dominant position to justify some of their decisions with the One. We're not talking about PS2 kind of dominance here. Sure the 360 it killed the PS3 in the US, but everywhere else they never commanded such a portion of the market to be able to make such silly demands this time around.
Heck, if anything they should have known that even with a complete market take-over from the PS2 days, Sony managed to totally mess it up with their following platform. Instead of learning from that, they basically did the same and messed things up in the following generation, losing some of the the goodwill they managed to build with the 360. And it shows.

 

[temesgen]

Then developers will have to spent more money for marketing and developing for delayed version of their game or that version will sell less than what they were expected without proper marketing (impact of all reviews/previews for all versions of the game at the same time on all sites). Also you will not going to see any other huge SDK update like what Microsoft released on June. At the end most of the (AAA?) games will have better graphics on PS4 so it's not very important to delay a game for a bit better graphics for weaker version.

Also PS4 will have SDK updates in future, too.

Does Sony have a policy in place which wont allow the developer to release the title when they want? My point was and is the policy can have unintended consequences - not that MS or Sony is the good or bad guy....

 

[SlimJim]

I don't think MS was ever in such a dominant position to justify some of their decisions with the One. We're not talking about PS2 kind of dominance here. Sure the 360 it killed the PS3 in the US, but everywhere else they never commanded such a portion of the market to be able to make such silly demands this time around.
Heck, if anything they should have known that even with a complete market take-over from the PS2 days, Sony managed to totally mess it up with their following platform. Instead of learning from that, they basically did the same and messed things up in the following generation, losing some of the the goodwill they managed to build with the 360. And it shows.

Their goal was always increase market share, and dominate the market.

I know through a person working in the videogame industry, that every Durango presentation started with "15 million Kinects sold. Every day 4 out of 5 Americans watch several hours of cable tv" Those were the 2 most important pillars, and MS thought those would allow them to dominate the market this generation. bkillan; who took part in the development can confirm this btw. Also, on this very board, he explained how the audio capabilities of the Xbox One were developed: Kinect speech came as an absolute first. It turned out there was still silicium space left, only then were they were allowed to add some extra parts.

Regarding the Xbox One; if MS could go back the time, they would probably do 3 things
1) drop the kinect
2) drop the hdmi-in functionality
3) don't use DDR3 as shared video-ram

I think the only thing Sony would want to change, is:
1) increase production capacity

This is an ultimate testament to Sony's business approach. With MS, the higher suits got greedy, real greedy. They interfered with product design; forced kinect, forced cable tv (an at the time already dying method of media distribution). They came up with anti-developer, and anti-consumer policies/systems.
But gamers all over the world responded. Took up virtual arms. Gamers changed almost every single aspect about the Xbox One:
they removed the anti consumer DRM methods, they had MS kill off the Kinect, they silenced MS into not ever mentioning "TV" ever again, and this was only the beginning: the best thing is; gamers still voted with their wallets, dealing a big blow to MS.

They will write in books about Microsoft's business approach, and how gamers changed it.

 

[mosen]

Does Sony have a policy in place which wont allow the developer to release the title when they want? My point was and is the policy can have unintended consequences - not that MS or Sony is the good or bad guy....

I'm not talking about bad/good guys. It's unlikely that a developer/publisher attempt to delay one version of their game to improve graphics/performance (with new SDK/tools) on that version.

The most possible unintended consequences would be that some indie developers which have lower manpower and resources may have some problems to make their games simultaneously on all platforms which shouldn't be a big problem in near future. They can release their games first for PC and then port it for XB1/PS4 or choose to be only on the platforms with higher user base or different policies. So this policy definitely isn't good for all developers but it may be good for (at least) some consumers.