MS regulating developers choices on other platforms *spawn
- Thread starter Gubbi
- Start date
So punitive that JC would make it public to the whole world knowing the risks of the backlash from fanboys and microsoft themselves. I bet he got a good deal since he shut up about it.
Thanks. I'm glad they've gone for higher quality, I couldn't give a crap about changing disks every few hours (although I'd rather go 1 - 2 - 3 and not juggle them around like Mass Effect 2).
MS could have blocked a 3 disk version but they haven't (same as they didn't for Final Fantasy XIII). Hopefully every publisher that wants can use 3 disks.
Carmack never once mentions they'd be punished for having less content on XBOX than on the PS3. In fact, he did mention in a few interviews how the PS3 were going to have better texture because of BR. Again contradicting you that Microsoft is threatening developers. But again, Carmack reference to per-disc instead of per-title royalty contradicts Sony's claim that Microsoft has a 1 disc policy (which we all know it's bogus since there have been multi-disc games).
The point which I'm trying to get across is that there's no evidence to support those accusations. Neither in the OP, nor in Carmack's keynote. They might be true but gut feeling isn't enough.
WRT disc costs, again there's nothing that we know of that prevents a game from shipping on 1 DVD for xbox and a DL BR for PS3. There's only a policy that says Microsoft reserves the right to say who can and cannot release a XBOX game which has only been a policy for console manufacturers since the first console was released and which Sony also follows.
-tfk-: IIRC Carmack later admitted he was hoping to stir up something to make Microsoft cave.
Of course it can with good compression and it seems to be the case.
http://www.vg247.com/2011/08/08/carmack-rage-360-install-to-be-22gb/
So last year someone said 2 discs, and this year they said 22GB and you are trying to align the 2 as both being true? Expect to be disappointed.
You do realize it does have to run without an install on xbox right? That hasn't changed.
Tim Willits said:
From this summer.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Yep
I suppose John woke up one day and thought, "you know, it's such a great deal Microsoft is offering me, I'll take it"
Or maybe Microsoft woke up one day and thought "you know, John is so right and so awesome, let's cut him an exception. We don't need the money anyhow".
Or maybe Ballmer called up Carmak and said "Listen you pencil neck f#$% geek, bend you mo$%# fo$#$$# a$$ over and take it like a f$$#@ man. F#$$#@@ whiney beotch, don't ever f%$##% with me!!".
Hhhmmm makes you wonder......................
upnorthsox
Veteran
And neither did I, i was talking about the cost charged for the extra discs being punitive which any reasonable reading of Carmak's remarks could interput.
Never said there was, and in fact I quoted from the Xbox 360 Publishers Licencing Agreement to support the contrary.
Or perhaps Willits already addressed the issue truthfully. Or I guess he's lying because it certainly doesn't fit.
It's pretty easy to sit here and make up scenarios without any facts, but it really doesn't get us anywhere.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Who said Willits is lying? And what does that have to do with the cost of discs for Rage?
Let's rewind a second, I said:
"As to Carmak, as Willits said, Carmak mispoke as to the actual fees"
I guess I'm calling him a liar here?
Must be here:
"These per disc costs then become the "cost of goods" that Willits eluded to."
No, if I'm calling him a liar I'm not seeing it. And for good reason, he didn't.
He also didn't contradict Carmak either. Both weren't wrong in their conclusions, John just wasn't right in his terminology.
Here's one likely fact, it costs more to publish Rage on 3 xbox360 discs than it does on one ps3 blu-ray disc or we'd be hearing Carmak squawking about that too.
Carmack recommend that you dont do that.
And the qute is from his summer, but Carmack may have been refering to the single campaign only.
But why do you have to install the multiplayer anyway if it is just one disc?
So rather than look at the evidence and find a scenario that fits, you'd rather invent some unprovable scenarios and go with them? Sound a bit Castle to me (the TV programme).
NavNucST3 made a very sensible suggestion - go looking for information. I guess we all assume it's NDA'd, but you can Google it. There are some lengthy documents that I can't honestly be bothered to read properly as I'm not trying to get my products licensed on 360 (
), but a skim shows tier tables for costs of licensing depending on game price, discounts, and most importantly that licensing is per 'FPU' or 'Finished Product Unit', defined as finished object code on DVD. I see nothing to suggest that licensing is per disk and not per title.upnorthsox
Veteran
So rather than look at the evidence and find a scenario that fits, you'd rather invent some unprovable scenarios and go with them? Sound a bit Castle to me (the TV programme).
NavNucST3 made a very sensible suggestion - go looking for information. I guess we all assume it's NDA'd, but you can Google it. There are some lengthy documents that I can't honestly be bothered to read properly as I'm not trying to get my products licensed on 360 (
Well Shifty, even though I had been reading along with this thread my first post was #278 and in that I do quote from the xbox360 Publisher Licensing Agreement (the first to do it) and I gave what I felt was a reasoned response.
Post 278? I think that's a catchall safety clause, and not really one that suggests there are added fees for multidisk titles when the licensing deal doesn't suggest anything of the sort. That "protecting our interests" clause is for things like games that include Sony propaganda or where the villain is the evil MegaSoft and his XBots.
I see your reasoning places the added cost on fees for replication. I'm as much in the dark as ever!
I see your reasoning places the added cost on fees for replication. I'm as much in the dark as ever!
Maybe rather this being about MS 'forcing' devs to stick to one disk this is more about MS 'forcing' people to now release on more disks (where they need to) and pay this tax that no-one can prove but some believe exist?
BTW that comment isn't meant by way to upset anyone, it's just a thought.
And going a bit OT by way and example of not being able to prove things that *we* know happens...in football (or soccer if you're from the US) it is illegal for a team to 'tap up' a player who is under contract with another team. This practice does exist yet (so far) it's never been proven.
Oh, and regarding the costs of developing games on BR (vs multi DVD) I don't ever recall anyone complaining about Sony. The odd thing is I (thought I) knew this 'tax' existed and all JC did was confirm it...odd that JC is the only quote that is out in the web...maybe MS own a google hoover
Could be.
Occasionally some are caught, there was an issue with Mourinho meeting a man-city player for lunch while he was still in Chelsea.
My point is, without any proof, this discussion is speculation on top of speculation. I have little doubt that Microsoft does pressure devs wrt disc content. I also don't believe they do this through the infamous dupe costs. But it doesn't matter what I think.
Oh, and regarding the costs of developing games on BR (vs multi DVD) I don't ever recall anyone complaining about Sony. The odd thing is I (thought I) knew this 'tax' existed and all JC did was confirm it...odd that JC is the only quote that is out in the web...maybe MS own a google hoover
Again, I think people are mixing two different unrelated issues. I don't think this "regulating other platforms" has anything to do with disc costs because if that were so MS would be shooting themselves on the foot by having XBOX games with less content than PS3 games.
