Differences between xbl and psn(online only)

[patsu]

Making a demo doesn't cost much of anything. It's usually a single engineer that spends a few days stripping crap out, often even a junior engineer. The cost of a demo is little to none. Now the cost of paying for download bandwidth, that's something else. So if you really do prefer that the devs spend their $$$ on the real title, then you are on the wrong machine

May be that's why most of the demoes I have seen suck. The only good demo I have experienced is the inFamous one. I didn't try the Batman demo but I heard it's good. I bought Batman blindly just by listening to the folks here. Didn't regret it one bit.

If it's as cheap as you mentioned, then how come some big budget titles didn't have any demo on XBL and PSN ?

 

[joker454]

If it's as cheap as you mentioned, then how come some big budget titles didn't have any demo on XBL and PSN ?

No clue, I can't answer for every studio on the planet. But I'm sure they had some reason for not doing a demo. It's definitely not cost though, demos are cheap.

 

[patsu]

Perhaps your estimation is only a partial picture.

Doing a demo will require at least one segment to be polished early enough to be packaged into a demo. Even though the actual packaging may be done by one guy according to your estimate, the rest of the team still need to deliver the meat, separate from the critical path. It may be a challenge and distraction for a complex project.

If you game is game is good, a demo will do great things for it. If you game sucks, it'll expose it.

This is not necessarily true in practise. e.g., Valkyria Chronicle demo didn't do much except to confirm to the converted that it's a worthwhile game. It's the word of mouth that sold the game through and through.

For something like MGS4, a short demo wouldn't do it justice. Pretty much every act of that game has different gameplay mechanics.

Then there are those devs who just couldn't muster enough energy/time/resources to do a demo (GTA4, Assassin's Creed). Would be great if they could complete one for people who needs it.

 

[joker454]

Perhaps your estimation is only a partial picture.

Doing a demo will require at least one segment to be polished early enough to be packaged into a demo. Even though the actual packaging may be done by one guy according to your estimate, the rest of the team still need to deliver the meat, separate from the critical path. It may be a challenge and distraction for a complex project.

It really isn't. The demo will be done very late in the process, at a point where the game is fairly stable. They don't want the demo to be a crash fest after all! So by the time it's made, the game is usually in pretty good shape. Then, typically, the entire project in source control gets copied into a new project specifically for the demo. So this copy now shares nothing with the main trunk of the game in source control, it's now it's own unique project. That way the person working on the demo will have no negative effect on those working on the game itself. Then the demo dude starts stripping stuff out.

In the case of the inFamous demo that you mention, two of the islands get yanked out, but there is no need to get super precise and remove every single unused texture. More often than not, a demo will contain lots of unused stuff because it's easier to just remove stuff at a more macro level, instead of really getting deep in there and removing every single last piece of unused audio/art. You strip stuff out until you hit a reasonable target demo size, then you stop. After that, you usually short circuit the game to skip to the quest, mission, level or whatever that you want the user to play. Slap on some final "buy the game" splash screens, test, and you're done.

There is no distraction to the main team this way, and you can have a single engineer take care of it, sometimes with the help of a tools/script guy.

Then there are those devs who just couldn't muster enough energy/time/resources to do a demo (GTA4, Assassin's Creed). Would be great if they could complete one for people who needs it.

Some games can't be easily demo'd due to size. GTA4 doesn't really need to make a demo, their pedigree speaks for itself. But if they tried it might be hard to strip the demo down to a reasonable size, given that most GTA missions have you covering a large amount of terrain. Assasins Creed might have the same issue, maybe it just wasn't possible to get the demo down to around 1gb or so.

In some other cases, they may figure that they don't need a demo initially because sales will be great, and perhaps they offer a demo much later on in the products life cycle to try and rejuvenate new sales.

 

[patsu]

It really isn't. The demo will be done very late in the process, at a point where the game is fairly stable.

That's assuming the team can finish the game on time. Most complex project don't. And there are always things to fix and enhance at the cutoff date.

Plus the demo will need to be stripped down to reduce excessive bandwidth usage. That's part of the demo profitability equation (to the devs, MS and Sony).

EDIT:

Some games can't be easily demo'd due to size. GTA4 doesn't really need to make a demo, their pedigree speaks for itself. But if they tried it might be hard to strip the demo down to a reasonable size, given that most GTA missions have you covering a large amount of terrain. Assasins Creed might have the same issue, maybe it just wasn't possible to get the demo down to around 1gb or so.

Exactly. They will need to strip the game down. I remember some demo used a lower visual quality than the real game, which caused sharp eyed gamers to complain.

In some other cases, they may figure that they don't need a demo initially because sales will be great, and perhaps they offer a demo much later on in the products life cycle to try and rejuvenate new sales.

Yes, it should be left to the devs to decide rather than "Every game must have a demo". It may not help sales. And it could backfire. Or it could help promote sales if done well.

 

[RobertR1]

This is not necessarily true in practise. e.g., Valkyria Chronicle demo didn't do much except to confirm to the converted that it's a worthwhile game. It's the word of mouth that sold the game through and through.

For something like MGS4, a short demo wouldn't do it justice. Pretty much every act of that game has different gameplay mechanics.

Then there are those devs who just couldn't muster enough energy/time/resources to do a demo (GTA4, Assassin's Creed). Would be great if they could complete one for people who needs it.

If you keep reading you can see that my issue is mainly in reference to XBLA/PSN games. I don't want to blind buy games that I'll end up being stuck with forever.

Would it be great to have a demo/beta for all retail games? However, ask Joker pointed out, if the pedigree is there, the dev and publisher might not feel the need for one. They are going to spend 8 figures in marketing anyway, so I'm sure they'll get their game across to the intended audience.

Again, the PSN/XBLA games don't have these luxuries thus you're left with finding a way to promote your game. A demo goes a long way in this instance. Every single XBLA game has managed to do a demo and these games have been greatly varied in their gameplay so I'll certainly not buy the "complexity" talk.

Going back to my first point, if a retail game has no demo, I have the option to go rent it from a store and try it out first. I have no such option for a downloadable game. I have to spend the money to find to get a taste. That doesn't sit well with me.

Every single XBLA game I have purchased, no matter the hype and buzz, I have demo'd first. I've been burned on many retail games in prior generations but atleast I was able to quickly turn around and sell them and recoup a lot of my losses. No such thing if I buy a dud off XBLA/PSN.

 

[Yemeth]

In 2007 after skipping many console generations I wanted to buy a new console. As my last owned console was the Sega Mega Drive (Genesis in the US), I spent much time on researching the pros and cons...

I had three choices:

Wii
PS3
X-Box 360

Wii, fell out as I just bought an HD ready TV and did not wanted to play SD, even though the Mega Drive games were really tempting me.

PS3, the high price and missing of Bioshock and good PC conversions in 2007 was a big no for me at first...

X-Box 360, after reading about the monthly fees and the RROD fiasco (and finally hearing the turbines/ventilators of the 360 at my brothers flat) I crossed out the 360.

The PSN free online play was a very important factor, I rather not have features like direct online inviting, cross game voice chat etc. (because it is not important to me, someone else can maybe not live without it) then to pay for this.

The PSN free is a big thing and there are people where this was an deciding factor (and still is), playing it like "it is not really free/PS3 lovers will spin everything" is ridiculous.

And good luck to Sony if they want to sell me costumes et al. (even if I had not stopped using the Hong Kong et al store this would certainly not be on my list, rather games like Flower ), I was really displeased about the Oblivion DLC test on the PC a few years ago, sadly it was an success and now every publisher is trying the same thing.

Let alone how can any adult "adore/defend" a multinational corporation which only purpose is to please their shareholders is beyond me anyway... Now I'm talking about both Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo is a different story (not that I care to spent energy on any company that I do not work for, there are more important things to care about in this world, e.g. this forum ).

 

[Squilliam]

On the demo PSN vs Live thing; I don't think that theres a problem with PSN not offering demos for every game as there are a lot of other services which don't. I think I have a problem with it because I have been conditioned to always seeing a demo on Xbox Live.

My usual path which I take:

1. Find out about a game.
2. Decide whether im interested.
3. Try the demo.
4. Play game.

Step 3 isn't always needed, but since I always do it I feel very awkward about not having one. It took me weeks to get around to buying a fantastic game like Flower because it didn't have a demo. It was an innovative game so I wanted a proof of concept. I will probably never buy Fat Princess as it doesn't come with a demo because it feels wrong without one.

The more expensive the game the more sure I need to be about it before I buy the title. I treat my retail purchases the same way. Its just me, I hate wastage!

 

[E2K]

To me PSN is the best.

These are games which I play online:

Killzone2
Burnout Paradise
COD4
Resident Evil 5 (co-op with a friend).

In none of these games, XBL would have an advantage. Unless I want to talk with friends who play COD4 while I'm playing KZ2, which would be bullshit, imo. I believe XBox calls it party chat, whatever.
Then there is the other feature. game invite? I think PSN also has it now.
In the end, for me XBL is a very expensive (if PSN cost 1 cent a year, XBL would be 6.000 times more expensive) alternative to PSN, but you can talk with eachother while playing different games.
If that feature was worth 60 euros to me (90-100 dollars!), then I would clean the dust off my 360 and connect it to my hdtv.

 

[Arwin]

Well I really don't expect guys like you or patsu to ever suggest that the 360 is better at anything.

As far as I know, patsu doesn't play 360, so you can't really blame him. As for me, I kinda resent that comment. I do have a 360, and I've suggested often enough that the 360 is better at something. I just find that the PS3 side of the argument is often underrepresented. Maybe you feel the same.

If the PS3 caused cancer I'm sure you'd find a positive way to spin it, and if the 360 created world peace you'd find a way to downplay it I get it, so there really is no point arguing that path.

But the PS3 helps cure cancer! Or at least Alzheimer or CF/J ... Seriously though, I try to joke about this but my mom got breast cancer when I was 15, so I don't like this kind of argument.

I want to set something straight here though. I've expressed my love for Microsoft's XNA initiative often enough, and I still really like it. The only time I bitch about it now is because Microsoft basically cuts me off from it because I live in the Netherlands so I can't use it (though apparently it's not impossible, by creating a UK spoof account or something). I also stated before that I think their strategy with the 360's launch, feature set and so on was probably the only right one and that so far it payed off, no matter what I think about how that has affected me as an early adaptor. I've complimented Microsoft plenty of times for upping the game in the developer tools department. Even more so for their online services department - if it wasn't for them, it's clear that Sony's (and Nintendo's) online services would have been less interesting (though I also blame Microsoft and U.S. residents in general for too much budget going to FPS games ). I've praised Microsoft and ATI for producing a very forward looking GPU for the 360. I can go on. In any discussion, I take the side that I feel is underrepresented (or misrepresented). I still feel and have always felt that the more competition the better, and each platform has its strengths and weaknesses.

Likewise, I know we are in different worlds when it comes to games. I am certainly no where near as enamored at PS3 exclusives as you guys are, and games like Motorstorm 2 that look very average to me will visually trump all 360 games to you. I get it, so there really is no point arguing that path.

Agreed, there is no accounting for taste. In these matters, the only sort of objective discussion we can have is in terms of technical proficiency.

But generally speaking on costs, for the masses, all they have to do is buy MS points when they are on sale and they will always get content cheaper on 360. It really is that simple.

The masses still have trouble with the value of the euro versus what they had previously. The points system hasn't helped in that respect, and then factoring that in and having to shop around for them to get the best deals, well sorry, but that's a backward world I don't like to live in. I'm sure there are deals on PSN cards too occasionally, but fair enough - I'll concede that if you really want to, you can get multi-platform stuff cheaper on the 360 most of the time.

However, if you really want to go and have that kind of discussion, don't you then also have to bring in game-sharing on the PSN. Sure, there are caveats, but it's a widely used practice (at least as widely used as shopping around for MS points). Do this with four friends and for most games you'll get 4 out of 5 games for free (!). I don't use it (I'm a programmer, I like paying money), but there's a specific thread just for this purpose on Neogaf. You can even use the system in lieu of getting a demo - try the full game through a friend's account before you buy your own copy.

These kinds of arguments in discusing the value of live vs psn are moot though, especially when the op specifically specified that he wanted to know whether or not the two services actually differed that much when it comes to the bare bones data communication in an online game, after matchmaking.

 

[DJ12]

It's often the case that people throwing around accusations are the ones that they actually apply to.

I respect Jokers opinion as a dev and a knowledgable guy, but he is no better than what he's accused others of.

 

[tha_con]

No clue, I can't answer for every studio on the planet. But I'm sure they had some reason for not doing a demo. It's definitely not cost though, demos are cheap.

It's most certainly a time vs money thing. Most studios and teams working on XBLA / PSN games aren't huge, and neither are the sales. Why waste money creating a demo if studies show (and they do) that Demos, more often than not, negatively impact sales?

You have to pull people away from your team. Demo's are not a 1 man job. When you're talking smaller studios like That Game Company, then it makes it a bit difficult to go out of your way to create this demo, when you've already been working on your project for an extended period of time and need some money.

I think you're really really making assumptions that every development environment is exactly identical to your own...

In reference to all the other absolutely ridiculous and hair brained comments you've made in regards to "PS3 fans" (really? Are we 12 years old?)... Grow the hell up man.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Demos with every game would be a nice feature for sure, and better for the consumer in general.

I dont think a demo is always a good idea from the developers point of view though, im not entirely sure that having demos for some games improves thier sales. In fact for me personally i cant remember the last demo that i played that encouraged me to buy a game that i wasnt planning on buying already, on the other hand plenty of times i have decided not to buy after playing a demo, wich i probably would have bought if i didnt.

I think the fact that many games dont have demos is quite telling. If it was a certainty that producing a demo would result in a significant increase in sales, that would more than offset the costs of producing one, then pretty much every game would have one.

As a consumer demos are great. As a publisher demos can be hit or miss and often do more damage than good.

 

[JPT]

I dont think a demo is always a good idea from the developers point of view though, im not entirely sure that having demos for some games improves thier sales. In fact for me personally i cant remember the last demo that i played that encouraged me to buy a game that i wasnt planning on buying already, on the other hand plenty of times i have decided not to buy after playing a demo, wich i probably would have bought if i didnt.

Same experience as I have actually. So that is a + for MS that they allow "us" to try out first and not waste our money, on a more regular basis.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Same experience as I have actually. So that is a + for MS that they allow "us" to try out first and not waste our money, on a more regular basis.

Yep it definatly a plus for XBL. The plus is not worth the subscription fee for many though, which is my point. I dont think there is much dissagreement that XBL has several advantages over PSN, where the dissagreement is is the value people place on these advantages. For many the advantages are good value to them, to many they are simply not.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

For finland live gold seems to be between 49-80e for 12months of subscription. http://hintaseuranta.fi/tuote.aspx/29773

http://www.huuto.net/fi/showitem.php3?itemid=114538754

31.9e there, 2.66e/month, I pay about that, I think I payed 35-36e for 13 months last time purchased Live. Buying from the sellers at huuto.net is as easy as it can be. You just send the seller the money, he emails the Live code for you and you type it in. Last time the whole process took me about 10 minutes.

As far as demos go, I don't download them a lot. I think it's hard for a demo to really sell the game. usually I find the full game much better than what the demo would have led me believe. Demos are imo good for, sports games or fighting games, but that's about it. If a demo includes only the beginning of a game, then usually it doesn't portray the full game experience very well, but if it contains parts from later on, then you easily feel little bit out of place with the controls and other things also, because you haven't properly progressed to that point. Demo doesn't let the game spread its wings properly and I think demos somehow raise the expectations bar and makes the player more critical and that easily leads in to a disappointment. I think some publishers don't make demos, because they feel like there is more to lose than to gain even if the full game is great.

 

[manux]

http://www.huuto.net/fi/showitem.php3?itemid=114538754

31.9e there, 2.66e/month, I pay about that, I think I payed 35-36e for 13 months last time purchased Live. Buying from the sellers at huuto.net is as easy as it can be. You just send the seller the money, he emails the Live code for you and you type it in. Last time the whole process took me about 10 minutes.

I wouldn't buy from seller with only that few sales, but hey... if it rocks your boat I consider huuto.net as fairly unreliable place to buy stuff and if you get cheated there is almost no way to get money back.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I wouldn't buy from seller with only that few sales, but hey... if it rocks your boat I consider huuto.net as fairly unreliable place to buy stuff and if you get cheated there is almost no way to get money back.

You don't trust a seller that has 43 feedbacks and all positive?!
There are more sellers though like this one.

http://www.huuto.net/fi/showitem.php3?itemid=114336971

The feedback system is there for a reason, you can really easily sort out the suspects. If a guy has 43 feedbacks and they are all positive, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Some of those sellers like the dude in the latter link sells stuff in other places too. I bought stuff from him at konsolifin.net also.

 

[patsu]

Well I really don't expect guys like you or patsu to ever suggest that the 360 is better at anything.

As far as I know, patsu doesn't play 360, so you can't really blame him.

Actually, over the years, I have already learned how to read people's posts here. I mostly skipped their tangential responses and only responded to what they really wanted to communicate. But thanks for clarifying for me.

EDIT:

If you keep reading you can see that my issue is mainly in reference to XBLA/PSN games. I don't want to blind buy games that I'll end up being stuck with forever.

Would it be great to have a demo/beta for all retail games? However, ask Joker pointed out, if the pedigree is there, the dev and publisher might not feel the need for one. They are going to spend 8 figures in marketing anyway, so I'm sure they'll get their game across to the intended audience.

Again, the PSN/XBLA games don't have these luxuries thus you're left with finding a way to promote your game. A demo goes a long way in this instance. Every single XBLA game has managed to do a demo and these games have been greatly varied in their gameplay so I'll certainly not buy the "complexity" talk.

Going back to my first point, if a retail game has no demo, I have the option to go rent it from a store and try it out first. I have no such option for a downloadable game. I have to spend the money to find to get a taste. That doesn't sit well with me.

Every single XBLA game I have purchased, no matter the hype and buzz, I have demo'd first. I've been burned on many retail games in prior generations but atleast I was able to quickly turn around and sell them and recoup a lot of my losses. No such thing if I buy a dud off XBLA/PSN.

As mentioned above, I prefer developers to spend their time and money on the real game. There are more than one ways to market their final game, especially when PSN doesn't train consumers to try-before-you-buy. At the end of the day, if they feel that a demo is effective to market their game, they can certainly do one.

For the price sensitive consumers, I have seen people pooling together to share PSN purchases. For them, the experimental game purchases will be a fraction of the retail price.

 

[manux]

You don't trust a seller that has 43 feedbacks and all positive?!
There are more sellers though like this one.

http://www.huuto.net/fi/showitem.php3?itemid=114336971

The feedback system is there for a reason, you can really easily sort out the suspects. If a guy has 43 feedbacks and they are all positive, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Some of those sellers like the dude in the latter link sells stuff in other places too. I bought stuff from him at konsolifin.net also.

I'm in general fairly sceptical when it comes to these things. If it looks to be too good to be true it usually is. How do you make profit in finland selling these 12month coupons under the official price? Or is it just some guy getting small amount coupons for free for some reason and then dealing them around? I assume there cannot be too many of these floating around if they are for real(too many as in available for thousands of people)

On the topic, I have to say as previously living in finland I cannot see the value for live gold. Now that I'm residing in USA I can see a lot more value(and even the official price is lot lower). There just isn't microsoft service in finland that would justify me paying extra for the gold subscription in comparison to free PSN network.

In my opinion online gaming should come included with the game package or if not the game should then be free and only a monthly charge for the online. Paying both, no way.

Btw, even some really expensive psn games have been possible to share. One such game is gt5 prologue. Sharing that with couple of friends made the game real cheap. I see PSN games as something similar to drinking couple of beers. Shareable fun for short time but without the hangover