AFAIK it's only been that Carmack quote, and that's been effectively debunked. Without a second voice saying there's an extra licensing fee, there's no reason to believe in that any more.
MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn
- Thread starter Gubbi
- Start date
This thread is growing so fast. Let me add something else to Shifty's point: Carmack mentioned that in August 2008 and over time I've seen different articles and people remember it in a slightly different way. Here it is: http://youtu.be/MJCUqxH8GQA?t=4m50s
Carmack specifically mentions that there's both a dupe cost and royalty fee on top of the cost of goods. He specifically calls out how the (total) cost between 2 and 3 DVDs to be huge (in the millions). He says Microsoft could replace the per disc royalty for a per title royalty, lower the dupe cost while still having to pay the cost of goods.
He could have been wrong. Personally I feel the entire rant to be too specific and too personal. JC isn't afraid to say he doesn't know something. The way he approached the topic and the depth he went for would be out of character for him if he wasn't sure that was the case.
Carmack specifically mentions that there's both a dupe cost and royalty fee on top of the cost of goods. He specifically calls out how the (total) cost between 2 and 3 DVDs to be huge (in the millions). He says Microsoft could replace the per disc royalty for a per title royalty, lower the dupe cost while still having to pay the cost of goods.
He could have been wrong. Personally I feel the entire rant to be too specific and too personal. JC isn't afraid to say he doesn't know something. The way he approached the topic and the depth he went for would be out of character for him if he wasn't sure that was the case.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I think you are confusing the cost to buy a manufactured DVD with the cost of using a DVD on a platform holder's console per disc. Those are completely different things, but compounding costs none the less.
I can't give you a current cost, but I can tell you what Blu-ray was in Feb. 2007. $1.30 SL and $1.45 DL
http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again/113/
The following Aug. 2007 report said the cost fell as low as $1 for Blu-ray.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom080507/
Edit: I don't know how current their pricing is, but here is a link that has both Blu-ray and DVD pricing from the same company. $.55/DVD and $1.10/BD
http://www.newcyberian.com/dvd9rom.html
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree. There is a reason(s) we don´t know how much Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft charges for stuff like that. I bet there is wiggle room for some developers on the price they pay for their copies. I bet there are some that have no choice but just to pay the asking price. I bet that everyone signs an contract that tells them shut up about prices
And i bet John Carmack is one of the few that is so "powerful" that he doesn´t give a damn.
Maybe there isn´t a license fee, maybe there is. But i am pretty confident that there is a price to pay for using more DVD´s than 1 or 2 that does not equal the manufacturing cost but most likely have a substantial profit/license/tax/yadayda added.
Maybe, maybe not. Graham sadly furnished us with the original source so we can't keep going around making up our own memories any more.
And that's how I recall it - at the time I understood MS to charge a fee per disk rather than per title, discouraging devs from going dual disk,However, without a second voice we are operating in the dark and it all comes down to how one takes Carmack's position, which makes the matter undebateable.
The funny thing is this Carmack blip isn't even the same issue this thread raised from. It started from this quote by MS:
MS said:
I removed the XBLA part because it doesn't apply to the issue at hand. So nowhere does it limit the number of discs, it just says the physical media content must have parity so that you don't have a game that requires people to download more content after the fact - leaving out HDD/Internet -less consoles.
From this, Sony said:
Sony said:
Sony is the one claiming MS has a 1-disc-or-bust policy, which is demonstrably false since there have been multi-disc games already.
Fair enough, but I wasn't so much thinking about the streaming part; it was increasing the capacity available at once (without media swapping) and allowing parity with increased features and content on the PS3 that was the key idea. Ideally for games that don't break up easily into disk sized bits (like GTA, or Forza).
Except this thread is about regulations rather than technical limits.
I don't follow this thread but I think Carmack's DVD story has a different angle.
I skimmed through the article quickly, Rob Dyer's key claim is this:
That's the only issue that matters to me. It may cause Sony to retaliate, which will stifle the industry.
Yes, exactly, it's a claim by Sony which is not an independent party in this discussion.
Even then, that Rob's quote is an admission Sony is already "retaliating": "negotiated exclusive content" tells me it's probably stuff like Joker being a playable character on PS3's Batman rather than double the texture resolution or extra chapters that don't fit on one DVD. Regardless of who initiated the negotiation, if they have to negotiate content then it's probably something the developer never considered it a core part of the game.
So here's how it "looks" right now: Microsoft wants content parity while Sony wants content differentiation. There isn't an independent party confirming Microsoft prevents developers from using more than 1 disc as per Sony's claims.
Is this proof of "MS regulating developers choices on other platforms"? Yes. Is it bad for consumers? Not for xbox players, yes for ps players. If Sony has a similar policy to prevent CoD/Skyrim DLC from being delayed on the PS3 isn't that exactly the same reversed situation?
Like Shifty said, there's not a whole lot to debate here. Us PC gamers are much, much worse as we have to deal with both MS/Sony regulating _our_ choices without having someone that stands up for us. :|
I doubt it. MS has been negotiating for timed exclusivity and content exclusivity since day one. They won't give up right now. ^_^
They are both after exclusivity, which is business as usual. These don't necessarily touch on technical differentiators and innovations.
e.g., Konami has Transfarring to resume PS3 games on Vita. Technically, the same thing should be doable on 360 (Resume 360 game on Vita). Does Konami need to get MS's approval to do it ?
Maybe, maybe not. Graham sadly furnished us with the original source so we can't keep going around making up our own memories any more.
However, without a second voice we are operating in the dark and it all comes down to how one takes Carmack's position, which makes the matter undebateable.
NDA´s will make that hard, but imho there is no doubt that there is something true about it. There is substantiel data to back it up.
Except this thread is about regulations rather than technical limits.
Fair point!
This actually makes it sound like it's not so much a technical issue related to storage (at least not in all cases) and actually one of exclusivity deals being being blocked on a strategic grounds with no specific issue of storage limitations. That said, if a game was filling up a DVD and Sony wanted additional content creating and adding it would require more space.
Yes, that's why I put "looks" between quotes and why I mentioned the CoD DLC deals. Both of them are doing the exact same thing. The only new thing is Sony's claim that MS doesn't want multi-disc games which can't be independently verified. Even the sole independent evidence we have (Carmack's keynote) about per-disc royalties contradicts Sony's claim of 1 disc policy.
I don't know if it's worth the airtime if it's just specific storage issue.
Sony's 1 disc claim is irrelevant since everyone knows developers can ship on multiple discs (See MSG4). I remember the real issue for Carmack's story was that (he mentioned) they had to cut out something from the game.
EDIT: I suspect the difference is...
Instead of working to achieve exclusive features on said title on each platform, developers are pressured/"encouraged" to drop exclusive features on competing platforms. Some developers may/will choose platform parity, but not all.
Sony's 1 disc claim is irrelevant since everyone knows developers can ship on multiple discs (See MSG4). I remember the real issue for Carmack's story was that (he mentioned) they had to cut out something from the game.
EDIT: I suspect the difference is...
Instead of working to achieve exclusive features on said title on each platform, developers are pressured/"encouraged" to drop exclusive features on competing platforms. Some developers may/will choose platform parity, but not all.
Maybe a quick scan throgh the thread would be usefull.
There is more to it. ID changed the game because of the DVD limit, they then claimed "it didn´t change a thing". ID told us they would scrap content/texture or atleast "something" because the cost for an extra DVD was to high and "blamed" Microsoft for the high cost. Then they backtracked on that as well.
We have a list of XBOX games that takes 1-2GB and a really long list of 360 games that take up more or less the exact limit. Even though the 360 is a magnitude more powerfull has more ram etc etc the games didn´t grow that much.
On the PS3 you have 3rd party games that hold the exact same amount of data (who wants to spend time and money on texture work just for the PS3), while exclusives usually are bigger and fit more into the next gen space requirment when compared to last gen. It´s all circumstantial but it hints at a Microsoft unwritten or written policy.
Want to make a game that takes more space than a DVD? Ok, you can´t install it though so the game has to be written so that it works with disc swaps eventhough it isn´t required on the PS3. And the extra disc will be expensive so might want to think again about that... Got more content than fits on the disc? Cool, just don´t put the content on other platforms discs if you launch the game at the same time.
upnorthsox
Veteran
No, while exclusive deals are by themselves on shakey legal grounds, that was not what the OP was suggesting. What was being said is that MS thru threats, intimidations, and punitive actions dictating the business activities of publishers with other platform holders. That's restraint of trade (upon the publishers), which is illegal in the US and I'm pretty damn sure in the EU also.
This is being done thru the cert process where MS states they can withhold "Release from Certification for a Software Title (and for Online Content as applicable) is based on (1) passing the Certification Testing; (2) conformance with the approved Concept and any required submission materials as stated in the Xbox 360 Publisher Guide; (3) Packaging Materials approval; (4) consistency with the goals and objectives of the Xbox 360 console platform and Xbox Live; and (5) continuing and ongoing compliance with all Certification requirements and other requirements as set forth in the Xbox 360 Publisher Guide and this Agreement".
Now Sony as a 3rd party to this can't do much without an actual publisher bringing suit. However, should a publisher go into receivership, all kinds of actions can be taken on the creditors behalf which could really bring the shit near the fan.
Frankly though, since we are talking about a company on "Antitrust Probation", even the rumor of this kind of activity should have the feds circling.
As to Carmak, as Willits said, Carmak mispoke as to the actual fees. MS charges a single licensing fee per FPU (Finished Product Unit) per sales territory. Per disc costs are with the "Microsoft Authorized Replicator" who have a licensing agreement with MS where "Microsoft may charge the Authorized Replicator fees for rights, services or products associated with the manufacture of FPUs and that the agreement with the Authorized Replicator grants Microsoft the right to instruct the Authorized Replicator to cease the manufacture of FPU and/or prohibit the release of FPU to Publisher or its agents in the event Publisher is in breach of this Agreement or any credit arrangement entered into byMicrosoft and Publisher or Publisher affiliates. ". These per disc costs then become the "cost of goods" that Willits eluded to.
Without knowing exact numbers, Carmak sees a scenerio like this:
MS Licensing fee for FPU - $3.00
AR per disc cost(with $3.50 AR license fee to MS) disc 1 - $5.00
AR per disc cost(with $3.50 AR license fee to MS) disc 2 - $4.50
etc per addition discs
Total for 1 disc FPU = $8.00
Total for 2 disc FPU = $12.50 (3 disc $17.00 etc....)
Diff for multi disc FPU = +$4.50 x 1 mil FPU release = $$$ mils
or it could be $1 for 2 extra discs which for a game which sells 2 million copies is still millions of $
Again there is a cost for printing and certifying multiple discs. The suggestion is that this number is arbitrary and or punitive without any real information to back that up.
Again there is a cost for printing and certifying multiple discs. The suggestion is that this number is arbitrary and or punitive without any real information to back that up.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Just Carmak's word that its punative and that it is up to Microsoft to rectify it.
