MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn

[Gubbi]

Well Well.. looks like there is more meat to this than i even imagined:

http://brutalgamer.com/2011/09/05/s...policies-are-dumbing-down-video-game-content/

Parity doesn't mean that content has to be exactly the same. It's just that the quality has to be on par. It's a provision to ensure XBox owners won't be short changed with cut down / crappy ports.

There are examples where the PS3 version has more/better quality content than the 360 counterpart (FF XIII springs to mind).

Also, this made me laugh:

and it’s well known that the Xbox 360 doesn’t have the horse power of the PS3.

Ouch.

Cheers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As any car nut will tell you though, it's how it's applied that works. Many US musclecars with insane horsepower get beaten in every way on the track by less powerful motors...

Anyway, that's dumb PR, not worthy of discussion here beyond the suggestion of disc-size being a cap actually being a mandate.

 

[-tkf-]

As any car nut will tell you though, it's how it's applied that works. Many US musclecars with insane horsepower get beaten in every way on the track by less powerful motors...

Anyway, that's dumb PR, not worthy of discussion here beyond the suggestion of disc-size being a cap actually being a mandate.

Car analogy Shifty.. not enough sleep?

EDIT: Fixed the original post with a "better" link.

 

[Gubbi]

The car analogy is fitting.

Replace horse power by mega flops.

Cheers

 

[-tkf-]

The car analogy is fitting.

Replace horse power by mega flops.

Cheers

Then the subject should be Fuel Tank and the size of it..

 

[boommoob1]

Well Well.. looks like there is more meat to this than i even imagined:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-24-why-microsoft-wont-publish-psn-firsts

Sony have raised the issue so i'd imagine MS should be wary of this anti-competitive business practice getting the attention of regulators. MS being naughty again.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I've moved this thread out of another. Not sure the titles valid. Not sure there's any real discussion here other than various partisan contributions saying how one company is Lovely and the other Evil. The original statement is just PR mudslinging.

The only sane discussion to be had from this I think is how much impact it's having on what games appear on what platforms. The article appeared on GI.biz with some industry responses amoung the tattle, and a post caught my eye suggesting Sony offer a very good deal for indies versus MS:

Microsoft will not allow a title to ship on PSN and then come to the XBLA platform, it doesn’t happen. For those on this board that think my comments were “Fanboyish” why don’t you go ask publishers and developers how difficult it is to take your title to XBLA compared to PSN? Microsoft makes the process almost impossible if you are not a holder of a Microsoft PLA, and add MS’s unwillingness to license new publishers and developers for PLA’s, have you ever been through the process of having to fly to Seattle and sit down to present to the team? You would think you were adopting a baby, your company is put through the ringer, questioned, dissected, insulted (yes your 3 game designs will be ridiculed to no end) and then put through the ringer again, all in an effort to bring content to the XBOX platform – and make Microsoft money!. SCEA on the other hand will provide a license to pretty much any publisher or developer that can demonstrate a sustainable business model.

Call me a fan-boy, that’s fine, I’m a huge fan-boy for independent developers and publishers that are looking to breakout and build successful games. I agree that both companies have regulations, but at least in SCEA’s case you can have an opportunity to self-publish on the platform, with Microsoft *if* you can get to the platform you have to go through one of the select PLA holders, (pay them a fee 10%-20%) put the game on XBLA (pay MS a fee 30%, and that’s provided your PLA partner has shipped enough retail content to allow an XBLA game to ship) and let the money trickle down through a bunch of hands (MS, PLA holder) until it reaches the developers, who put forth the creativity and work = the developers once again get paid last.

In SCEA case, the game gets placed on PSN and the developer gets paid directly by SCEA.

So, trying to recover something from this other than saving that other thread, how much are publishers strong-armed away from publishing on a platform versus enticed onto it? how many titles have become platform exclusive because of these background business tactics?

 

[boommoob1]

The car analogy is fitting.

Replace horse power by mega flops.

Cheers

It's a silly analogy. MS are trying to affect the quality of content on a competing platform by threatening independent companies. That's anti-competitive whichever way you dice it.

 

[dobwal]

It's a silly analogy. MS are trying to affect the quality of content on a competing platform by threatening independent companies. That's anti-competitive whichever way you dice it.

Its not anti competitive in nature. Its a move to the other side of the competition/anti-competitive spectrum, by artificially creating a more competitive product.

Business by nature is anti-competitive. To gain marketshare you have to make your product more compelling to consumers, thereby reducing their attraction to your competitors products. MS methods do seem underhanded but since MS isn't the market leader in any major markets its probably isn't going to catch the wrath of any regulator.

 

[dobwal]

I've moved this thread out of another. Not sure the titles valid. Not sure there's any real discussion here other than various partisan contributions saying how one company is Lovely and the other Evil. The original statement is just PR mudslinging.

The only sane discussion to be had from this I think is how much impact it's having on what games appear on what platforms. The article appeared on GI.biz with some industry responses amoung the tattle, and a post caught my eye suggesting Sony offer a very good deal for indies versus MS:


So, trying to recover something from this other than saving that other thread, how much are publishers strong-armed away from publishing on a platform versus enticed onto it? how many titles have become platform exclusive because of these background business tactics?

I believe some pubs may be annoyed by this tactic. But I doubt many were disgruntled to the point of abandoning the 360 platform. The reality is that a 360 is the lead platform of choice due to its ability to sell titles and porting to the 360 to the PS3 is easier than porting from the ps3 to the 360. These policies reinforce that choice, but what you end up with is developers choosing not to spend more money creating an advantage for the PS3 platform.

Lets not forget that the PS3 is more powerful console, but that advantage is not easily produced. So unless the PS3 is your lead platform, parity is more easily reached versus producing an advantage in quality on the PS3.

 

[Richard]

Apart from the disc-cap, isn't this policy similar to Sony's? IIRC that's why Oblivion PS3 had to come with extras.

Anyway, this is a great policy if you only have one console (not getting stuck with a port) and bad if you have both (can't reach its true potential). PC gamers regularly suffer both so I wonder if this policy applies to the PC version.

 

[-tkf-]

So, trying to recover something from this other than saving that other thread, how much are publishers strong-armed away from publishing on a platform versus enticed onto it? how many titles have become platform exclusive because of these background business tactics?

The reason why i posted the link (which i should have taken from Eurogamer to begin with) in the other thread was that we had a discussion going about the "sizes of games" which "proved" that there was "nothing" to gain from having more space.

We had some good examples for both cases, for example that more space on the PS3 didn´t necessarily yield better looking games vs having less space.

Apart from already being forced to adopt the lowest common denominator, the 360 the link showed that developers also was forced not to include more content on competing platforms even if the space were there vs the 360.

The developers can´t take advantage of more space because Microsoft have a clear policy that aims to make it expensive (the more than one DVD tax) and simply hinders those that might want to use more space on competing platforms.

Which imho is another good reasoning why the sizes on 3rd party games usually is so close to each other.

 

[Tea2]

The developers can´t take advantage of more space because Microsoft have a clear policy that aims to make it expensive (the more than DVD tax) and simply hinders those that might want to use more space on competing platforms.

They can. There are multiple examples of games spanning more than 1 disc on the 360. In addition, two games that make the most interesting (imo) use of additional space are multiplatform third party titles (facial tech in L.A. Noire and megatextures in Rage).
Besides, I seriously doubt that in this day and age multiple publishers/developers are sitting on bags of money ready to create multiple gigabytes of bonus content to include in their games, cursing the fact that they are forced to release the rest of the game as paid DLC.

 

[-tkf-]

They can. There are multiple examples of games spanning more than 1 disc on the 360. In addition, two games that make the most interesting (imo) use of additional space are multiplatform third party titles (facial tech in L.A. Noire and megatextures in Rage).
Besides, I seriously doubt that in this day and age multiple publishers/developers are sitting on bags of money ready to create multiple gigabytes of bonus content to include in their games, cursing the fact that they have to release the rest of the game as paid DLC.

There is a price to pay for using more than one disc.

According to Carmack, the royalty fees to include a third disc in the Xbox 360 version would be so high that it simply isn't a feasible solution, with the programmer hoping for Microsoft to make a concession. He stressed that the issue is merely a storage problem and has nothing to do with the power of the Xbox 360 hardware, while adding that the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray format is Sony's one leg up on the competition.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/53976/rage-will-look-worse-on

John Carmack on the reasons:

Carmack speculates quite logically that this is probably due to Microsoft not wanting to look bad next to the significant storage capabilities of the PS3's Blu-ray disc technology.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

 

[Tea2]

There is a price to pay for using more than one disc.

So the games I mentioned don't exist?

Tim Willits:

"Microsoft is not being dickheads," he said. "It was a simple kind of miscommunication. Microsoft does not charge a royalty per disc, but there is a cost of goods that goes along with manufacturing. "

http://www.shacknews.com/article/54795/ids-tim-willits-on-rage

 

[function]

In the last two generations Sony were insanely powerful. It was only last year they were bragging about "put[ing] Sega out of the hardware business". Now this. It's all just part of the console business. Everyone infront tries to keep the other guy back while the guy behind complains. If you're infront then brag. If you're behind then still brag but also complain.

Also, the most powerful graphics chip wins the tech battle every time. If your console is superior except for the graphics chip(s), your console is not superior.

Winning the tech battle in no way guarantees winning the sales or profit battles.

 

[-tkf-]

So the games I mentioned don't exist?

Tim Willits:

http://www.shacknews.com/article/54795/ids-tim-willits-on-rage

Is doing major damage control. And he was busy

"I wouldn't say the overall story was changed in any way in order to fit on the Xbox 360 version," Willits said, "but how the player experiences Rage's story has been altered." Unfortunately, that means the experience has been altered across all platforms. This is one of the first signs we've received of the 360's older DVD media showing its age, but we expect some fans won't be terribly pleased that it's affecting other versions of the game as well.

http://www.1up.com/news/rage-held-xbox-360-limits

But whoops!

However, following all the online reaction to the story Tim released a statement to Shacknews in which he clarified his statements, saying, "There was NO CONTENT removed from RAGE because of the 360--NONE AT ALL," before adding, "We feel the 360 is a great platform and will provide a fantastic Rage experience."

http://www.1up.com/news/content-removed-rage-xbox-360

There is no way that John Carmack would bring up the issue unless it was a real problem. I am sure John got what he wanted and the rest was Tim doing damage control.

Rage is a perfect example of how much the tiny DVD can be a problem for developers, and the "price" other platforms have to pay.

 

[function]

Rage is a perfect example of how much the tiny DVD can be a problem for developers, and the "price" other platforms have to pay.

Tons of PC and PS3 games get subsidised by the huge profits* made on the 360 version of the game. I do not feel sorry for the PS3 and PC owners that get to enjoy the assets and games that this revenue makes possible.

*Edit: "profits" was the wrong word. I meant revenue, as most games don't make a profit. What I meant was that game budgets would have to be seriously cut back without the 360 being in the mix.

 

[Tea2]

Is doing major damage control. And he was busy.

Well he specifically mentioned that "Microsoft does not charge a royalty per disc". So either they don't or he is lying.

Rage is a perfect example of how much the tiny DVD can be a problem for developers, and the "price" other platforms have to pay.

Rage is a peculiar example of a game with very specific, unique technology, developed for many years (too many according to Carmack), with the development studio aquired by a publisher along the way. I would say it's hardly a perfect, universal example of the struggles your average "1 game every two years" developer has with disc space.

And if the dev/pub actually HAS the resources they can release their game on multiple discs. Rockstar did that with L.A. Noire, Konami did with Castlevania, EA did With Dead Space 2 and Mass Effect 2, Square Enix did with Final Fantasy XIII and Star Ocean 4. It's not like 360's DVD is a stone wall that makes it absolutely impossible to relase a game bigger than 7.5GB and we are all playing 3.5 hour long demos because of that

 

[mrcorbo]

The reason why i posted the link (which i should have taken from Eurogamer to begin with) in the other thread was that we had a discussion going about the "sizes of games" which "proved" that there was "nothing" to gain from having more space.

We had some good examples for both cases, for example that more space on the PS3 didn´t necessarily yield better looking games vs having less space.

Apart from already being forced to adopt the lowest common denominator, the 360 the link showed that developers also was forced not to include more content on competing platforms even if the space were there vs the 360.

The developers can´t take advantage of more space because Microsoft have a clear policy that aims to make it expensive (the more than one DVD tax) and simply hinders those that might want to use more space on competing platforms.

Which imho is another good reasoning why the sizes on 3rd party games usually is so close to each other.

Also brought up in that original disc-size discussion was the fact that even Sony exclusives don't make significant use of the additional space available on Blu-Ray with most titles using it for additional languages, uncompressed audio, pre-rendered video, etc. To me, this calls into question the extent that game devs are really being held back by the DVD medium.